Passover Mystery

[He knows of "Goshen" of the Qedarite Arabs, and a legendary "Land of Ramessses." <<< these were the esses to which I referred. No big deal really ... just got tired of seeing them redundantly pasted.]C.A. (that does sound so much more grown-up): I will read Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times by Dr. Redford before making any more comments on the migrations of Semite people into Canaan during the Late Bronze and Early Iron.Happy Trails.

I hope we can now put aside personal comments and focus on the topic.This is a very interesting and enjoyable thread, I thnk we should all work together to come up with information that is beneficial to everyone.AdminBrian.

I just wanted to add to the earlier observation I made concerning YHWH and BA'AL,( I realize that none of this info. is new to the experts on the board however.)While I am awaiting Brian's post on his beliefs regarding the history of Biblical texts.Even Hebrew divine attributes were borrowed from neighboring mythologies. Like Baal, God is said to ride in a chariot of clouds (Ps 68: 4), to speak with a voice of thunder (2 Sam. 22:14), and to appear in a storm (Exod. 19:16-18; Judg. 5: 4-5). Like El, the chief Canaanite god, Yahweh is represented as the creator of children (Deut. 32: 6), lawgiver (Exod. 33: 7-11), judge (Ps. 82), and compassionate deity (Exod. 34: 6). Like the Egyptian sun god of Akhenaton's even more ancient hymn, the God of the Bible is frequently described as the creator and sustainer of life.The Jewish scriptures having first been oral transmission and eventual scribal, over the centuries, myths, legends, hymns and other literary forms were passed down orally from generation to generation.I can see how the Baal may have morphed into YHWH.CA,
Thanks for the tips on the books, by observing some of you earlier post I didn't think you cared for, Finkelstein.

Following much of modern scholarship, Dever questions any historical reliability to the accounts of Joseph in Egypt, the Israelite exodus, and the Wilderness Wanderings. He does, however, recognize the presence of West Semitic peoples in Egypt throughout these periods and observes that some of those employed in the construction projects of Ramses II (13th century B.C.) could have been ancestors of the Israelites who preserved such a tradition of building Egyptian cities (p. 15; cf. Exod. 1:11). Nevertheless, Dever (pp. 15-21) makes an important distinction between matters of faith such as the ten plagues and other miracles, and matters of history that are subject to archaeological investigation.Dever devotes a chapter to the conquest of Transjordan in which he summarizes the archeological data. Even so it is mystifying how, on the one hand, he can recognize that Egyptian scribes of the thirteenth century B.C. and earlier could identify sites such as Dibon in Transjordan (p. 28). Yet, on the other hand, the author spends the remainder of the chapter (pp. 28-35) arguing that because there is no archaeological evidence for thirteenth century B.C. occupation of Tell Dhiban, it could not have existed. If both the biblical writers and the Egyptian scribes of the thirteenth century knew of a site called Dibon, is it not reasonable to suppose that the archaeologists either have the wrong site for ancient Dibon or have somehow missed the settlement at that site? That archaeological evidence should be used to overturn two independent textual witnesses seems unlikely.The chapter on the conquest of the land west of the Jordan outlines the three older models (regarding Israel's appearance in Canaan) of conquest, peaceful infiltration, and peasant revolt; discusses the archaeological evidence from a variety of sites; and dismisses each of the models. However, a careful weighing of the evidence from various sites with a close reading of the text of Joshua does not support these conclusions. For one thing, the fact that Hazor is the only site with a clear burn layer that might coincide with the Israelite appearance in the thirteenth century B.C. must take into consideration Josh. 11:13 which states clearly that Hazor was the only site burned. There are no burn layers at the other sites of Joshua 10 and 11 because, whatever the "conquest" of these sites meant to the biblical writers, it did not mean that they were destroyed by burning. While many of Dever's criticisms of the various models have value, it is better to see here some truth in each one, rather than to dismiss them wholesale. One final note on this section: Ibni is not an "exact linguistic equivalent" of Jabin/Yabin (p. 68).Not FoundNot FoundAbraham Malamat's essay, "The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies," presents a useful collection of primarily New Kingdom texts that provide examples of the sorts of things that Moses and the Israelites are described as doing at the time of the Exodus. For example, there are papyri that record movements of peoples (one being a whole tribe of Edomites) across the tightly controlled Egyptian border, there is a description of two slaves escaping Egypt, wandering into the desert, and being pursued on a similar itinerary as that found in the book of Exodus, and there are workers who are released to celebrate religious festivals and to worship their god.Frank Yurco's "Merenptah's Canaanite Campaign and Israeli's Origins," presents a lucid discussion of the implications of mention of the name, Israel, on the famous Merneptah stele, dating from the end of the 13th century B.C. He argues that the figures portrayed on the fourth relief at the Karnak temple must be Israelites and that these Israelites were indigenous to Canaan. Yurco suggests that the original constituents of Israel could have been a mixture of Sea Peoples, Canaanites, and Shasu Bedouin. He also upholds the idea that only a few hundred or thousand Israelites participated in the exodus from Egypt and therefore it was not particularly noticeable in Egyptian history and archaeology. However, Yurco also concludes that there are bits and pieces of evidence (e.g., the capital at Ramesses, the names of Moses and others, the early death of Ramesses II's son) that could not be explained otherwise than as reflecting an authentic tradition of emigration from Egypt in the 13th century B.C.Donald Redford's brief "Observations on the Sojourn of the Bene-Israel," argues that there is no evidene for a substantial presence of West Semites in the area that Israel inhabited during the 18th through 20 Dynasties. He implies that the eastern defenses were so strong that an Israel never could have gotten through. Thus Redford concludes that the entire story is fiction.William Dever, "Is There Any Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus?" concurs with Redford by arguing a "No" to his question. However, the archaeological evidence of cities such as Ramesses leads Dever to speculate that perhaps the tribe of Joseph did leave Egypt in the 13th century B.C. and journey to Canaan. Nevertheless the absence of occupation in Transjordan and of destruction levels at relevant sites in Cisjordan leads Dever to conclude that there never was an exodus or a conquest.James Weinstein's "Exodus and Archaeological Reality," argues that there is no significant evidence of Egyptian artifacts in the hill country where Israel settled. Therefore, there is no evidence that Israel was a substantial tribal entity by the time of the Merneptah stele. Therefore, there was no exodus as described in the Bible, i.e., a "major outflow of Asiatics from Egypt to Canaan at any point in the XIXth or even early XXth Dynasty."William Ward's "Summary and Conclusions" reiterates the conclusions of Redford, Dever, and Weinstein. He argues that perhaps a single family migrated from Egypt and this formed the basis for the exodus tradition.

Page not found - aish.comMore evidence comes from an ancient victory monument called the "Elephantine Stele." Here is recorded a rebellion in which a renegade Egyptian faction bribed Asiatics living in Egypt to assist them. Although the rebellion ultimately failed, it does confirm that in the same time period when the Israelites were in Egypt, the Egyptians would very likely say, "Come let us deal wisely with them, for if war befalls us, they may join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land" (Exodus 1:10). "That is precisely what happened in the episode recorded in the Elephantine Stele," Malamat asserts.Biblical criticism comes from the late archaeologist Gosta Ahlstrom. He declares: "It is quite clear that the biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the 10th century BCE, and they certainly didn't know anything of the geography of Palestine in the Late Bronze age," the time of the desert wandering and subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan. Ahlstrom's proof? He cites the biblical listing of cities along the alleged route that the Israelites traveled immediately before reaching the Jordan River -- Iyyim, Divon, Almon-divlatayim, Nevo, and Avel Shittim (Numbers 33:45-50), and reports that most of these locations have not been located, and those that were excavated did not exist at the time the Bible reports.In the meantime, writings from the walls of Egyptian Temples say differently. It is well known that Egypt had much reason to travel to Canaan in those days; trade, exploitation, military conquest. These routes are recorded in three different Egyptian Temples -- listed in the same order as provided in the Bible, and dated to the exact period of the IsraeliteAnother piece of outside verification is an ancient inscription housed in the Amman Museum. Dating to the 8th century BCE (at least), it was found in the Jordanian village of Deir Alla, which was Moabite territory in biblical times. This inscription tells of a person by the name of Bilaam ben Beor, known to the locals as a prophet who would receive his prophecies at night. These features match precisely the Bilaam described in the Bible (Numbers 21) -- his full name, occupation, nighttime prophecies. And of course, Bilaam was a Moabite.How do revisionists react to this inscription? Dismissively. Says Dever: "They denigrate it as our only known reference. But one unimpeachable witness in the court of history is sufficient. There does exist in Canaan a people calling themselves Israel, who are thus called Israel by the Egyptians -- who after all are hardly biblically biased, and who cannot have invented such a specific and unique people for their own propaganda purposes."Rarely can an archaeologist claim that "this is the very item the Bible spoke about." Yet Dr. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, may have done it. Joshua 8:30-35 tells of the fulfillment of Moses' command to build an altar on Mount Eval (Deut. 27). Zartal reports that his excavation team found this very altar. The place is right, the time is right, and the animal bones are consistent with the biblical offerings. Even the style of the altar is right, in such detail, says Zartal, that it looks nearly identical to the description of the Temple's altar as described in the Talmud -- a uniquely Israelite design that no Canaanite temples used then or later.Dever sums up the attitude of objective scholars:
"In my view, most of the revisionists are no longer honest scholars, weighing all the evidence, attempting to be objective and fair-minded historians, seeking the truth. Determined to unmask the ideology of others, they have become ideologues themselves. The revisionist and the postmoderns are dangerous because they have created a kind of relativism -- an anything goes attitude -- that makes serious, critical inquiry difficult if not impossible."Prof. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Dept. of Archaeology at the University of Haifa has this to say about archaeology and the Bible:After years of research, however, I believe it is impossible to explore Israel's origins without the Bible. At the same time, the research should be as objective as possible. The Bible should be used cautiously and critically. But again and again we have seen the historical value of the BIble. Again and again we have seen that an accurate memory has been preserved in its transmuted narratives, waiting to be unearthed and exposed by archaeological fieldwork and critical mind work.Joshua's Altar ?http://www.shechem.org/machon/engevala.htmlhttp://www.shechem.org/machon/sites/eval/jarmp.jpgEvidence for Dating the Mt. Ebal AltarIn the fill of the Mt. Ebal altar, along with bones and pottery sherds, we found an Egyptian-style scarab. Within an oval frame, the scarab displays a geometrical pattern consisting of a four-petal rosette and, between the petals, four branches. From each branch comes a uraeus (an Egyptian cobra).This scarab is very rare; only five known parallels existone from Egypt, three from Israel and one from Cyprus. AD these parallels date this special find to the period between the reigns of Ramses II (19th dynasty; 13th century B.C.) and RamsesIII (20th dynasty; beginning of 12th century B.C.)This scarab fixes the earliest date for the construction of the Mt. Ebal altar; it could not have been built before the 13th century B.C. Moreover, because this scarab comes from a stratigraphically sealed locus, together with a well-dated pottery sequence, it has even greater chronological significance-it gives us an approximate date for the original erection of the altar and cultic center.Other distinctive pottery forms buttress the argument for a 13th-12th century B.C. date for the Ebal altar. Collar-rim jars were commonly used storage vessels during the settlement period and are dated by archaeologists to the 13th through the llth centuries B.C.Excavators discovered a collar-rim jar in a circular stone installation in the altar's courtyard. Since they found no ashes in the vessel, they assume that it once contained a non-burnt offering.Pottery handles decorated with designs of reed-holes (top left) and a "man's face" (center left) were discovered during the survey of the territory of Manasseh. The dearly recognizable handles are now used as indicators that the strata in which they appear date from the Israelite settlement period.[This message has been edited by Stormdancer, 01-13-2004]

Hi Amlodhi, hope you are well.I have a few comments about the Merneptah Stele that I would like to share. Strictly speaking, the Merneptah Stele tells us absolutely nothing at all about the Exodus, it is actually unrelated to the Exodus event and is not an independent witness for the Exodus. It is unreasonable to assume that because an ‘Israel’ is mentioned on the Stele that the Exodus account is reliable.I am not trying to be deliberately obstructive here, I am just pointing out one of the limitations of archaeology, and one of the most common errors made in relation to archaeology and biblical studies. This is the first mention of Israel as an ethnic group in a non-biblical source, but the Israel mentioned in the stele should really be identified as ‘Israel’ as there is no clear indication that the ‘Israel’ referred to in the Stele is in fact the biblical Israel.The German Egyptologist Wilhelm Speileberg first published the text of the Merneptah Stele in 1896. The inscription refers mainly to a victorious battle against the Libyans, however, the last few lines of the inscription mention a campaign by Merneptah in western Asia, and this is where the ‘Israel’ reference can be found.Up until the arrival of the ‘New Archaeology’ of the 1970’s, this text was taken as important evidence that supported the immigration of the Israelites into Palestine around the end of the 13th century BCE. The date of the Libyan campaign is claimed in the text to have been in Merneptah’s fifth year, which places it in 1208 BCE, this would mean that the Israelites would have to have left Egypt no later than 1248. Further evidence that the Israelites had not settled in Palestine before this date is that the Amarna letters, dated to the mid 14th century BCE, never mention the Israelites even although many letters mention the places that the Israelites were said to have taken over in the Bible text.In regard to the military conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, the Mereptah Stele can tell us nothing about this, it only bears witness to the fact that an ethnic group called ‘Israel’ was present in western Asia at the end of the 13th century BCE. What precisely this entity was is not known for certain, whether it is the same entity that is mentioned in the Bible is unknown, there are also no clues as to the religious beliefs of Merneptah’s ‘Israel.’Frank Yurco is in no doubts that this really was a military campaign, as he believes that he has found pictorial evidence on the walls of a temple in Thebes. One of the four different illustrations shows what are interpreted by Yurco as Canaanites, they are wearing the same garments and using the same equipment as the other conquered peoples in the other three illustrations. This again may simply be circumstantial evidence, although it is a contemporary source, it does not prove beyond doubt that the group in the illustration was the ‘Israel’ from the Merneptah Stele. ‘Israel’ in the Merneptah Stele does indeed stand out from the rest of the names there because it is prefixed by the hieroglyphic symbol that denotes a ‘foreign people’. Canaan is prefixed by the hieroglyphic that denotes a foreign land, Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yano’am are all prefixed with a hieroglyph that identifies them as cities (Shanks, Rise of Ancient Israel, page 19).This then suggests that the ‘Israel’ of the Stele was not a settled ethnic group inside Palestine, which could mean that the ‘Israel’ referred to, was in fact, the biblical Israelites before they conquered Canaan.But, yes there is always a ‘but’, there is an alternative explanation given by Gosta Ahlstrom who demonstrates that the use of these prefixes, or determinatives, in Egyptian inscriptions was inconsistent and that this would mean that Israel was indeed already settled in Canaan.Ahlstrom maintains that we should understand the term ‘Israel’ in a territorial context. He goes on to assert that the part of the inscription that mentions ‘Israel’ is a ‘ring composition’ where Israel parallels Canaan and should be understood as being a land, the determinative for ‘foreign people’ should then be taken as a scribal error when prefixed to Merneptah’s ‘Israel.’ Ahlstrom makes a very convincing argument when we consider that the text opens and ends with a broad statement that does not include any reference to a geographical name. The next part of the text is concerned with the key geographical entities, Nine Bows, Hatti, and Kharu are use by Ahlstrom to form an ‘outer ring’. He then forms an ‘inner ring’ that begins with Canaan and ends with Israel, in then centre can be found the three Palestinian locales, Ashkelon, Gezer and Yano’am. In this scheme, Canaan and Israel are identified as territories, which would support the biblical assertion that Canaan and Israel were separate entities. As with most schemes there are some problems, the most striking is the belief that Canaan may only refer to Gaza, which was the centre of the province of Canaan during the reign of Egypt’s Nineteenth Dynasty.If the reference to Canaan is nothing more than the mention of a town, then there is a good geographical progression line into Palestine that was taken by the Egyptians. Thus the inscription descriptions progresses from Canaan (Gaza), which was the standard departure point for an Egyptian army entering into Palestine, on to Ashkelon then on to Gezer, then finally on to Yano’am. Although Yano’am’s location is not certain, it was probably within a few miles of Gezer, the end of this line is, of course, the reference to Israel. It should be stressed though that the Stele does not explicitly identify the ‘Israel’ mentioned as a specific population, or as a tribe, or just a territory named ‘Israel.’In an attempt at objectivity regarding the inscription, and how it can aid any investigation into the origins of Ancient Israel, we have to be honest and admit that there is nothing at all in the inscription that suggests that Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ was ever in Egypt, the only way we can link the two is by employing the biblical text. Without the biblical text however, all that can realistically be taken from the inscription is that at the end of the 13th century BCE there was a group of people in Canaan who were collectively known as ‘Israel’. The stele tells us nothing more, it does not inform us which God or gods they worshipped, it gives no indication of how the people were organised, and in relation to the Exodus from Egypt the information contained in the Merneptah Stele is utterly irrelevant.Brian.

Hi Brian,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian

​

In an attempt at objectivity regarding the inscription, and how it can aid any investigation into the origins of Ancient Israel, we have to be honest and admit that there is nothing at all in the inscription that suggests that Merneptah’s ‘Israel’ was ever in Egypt, the only way we can link the two is by employing the biblical text. Without the biblical text however, all that can realistically be taken from the inscription is that at the end of the 13th century BCE there was a group of people in Canaan who were collectively known as ‘Israel’.

---

I don't disagree with anything you said in your post; but I think you may have read too much into my post. Note the parenthetical phrase in my original statement:

quote:

---

The "Mer-ne-ptah" . . . stela does provide important information concerning the dating (or the veracity) of the exodus.

---

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the determinative for Israel. It can be argued that the poetic construct discounts or modifies the determinative. It can also be argued that because there are several literary scribal blunders apparent in this stela, the determinative might be just another of these errors. Regardless of these arguments, however, the fact is that the determinative is not only there, but it is there in direct contrast to the other determinatives in the same context. Thus, it cannot be lightly dismissed that the determinative may mean exactly what it purports to mean.If then the stela is taken as it is written, this places an unsettled people known as Israel in or around Palestine c. 1230 b.c. Also, given the location, it seems not unreasonable to suspect that the biblical Israel is intended here unless some other people are eventually discovered to have been in the same area and calling themselves by the same name.Whether these people, Israel, were ever in Egypt or whether or not there ever was an "exodus", has no bearing on the statement made in my post. The very fact that a straightforward reading of this stela places these people in this area at this time is important to any consideration of the date (or the veracity ) of any proposed exodus event. IOW, any proposed chronology for an exodus event must either prove that this stela doesn't mean what it says or, conversely, it must fit with the chronology indicated in this stela.Namaste'Amlodhi

While awaiting the arrival of a copy of Dr. Redford's book, I have been searching for online quotes therefrom, and found this one that reflected the topic:The following is [represented by the link given below as] a direct quote from "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" by Donald Redford.(13) "Shasu [literally meaning "a people who move on foot"](14) are found in Egyptian texts from the 18th Dynasty through the Third Intermediate Period. They most frequently occur in generalizing toponym lists where the context helps little in pinpointing their location. But lists from Soleb and Amarah [in Nubia], ultimately of fifteenth century [B.C.] origin [circa 17th/18th Dynasty] suggest that an original concentration of Shasu settlements lay in southern Transjordan in the plains of Moab and northern Edom. Here a group of six names is identified as in 'the land of the Shasu' and these include Se'ir (i.e., Edom), Laban (probably Libona, south of Amman), Sam'ath (cf. the Shim'ethites, a clan of the Kenites: 1 Chron. 2:55), Wrbr (probably the Wady Hasa) [, Yhw, and Pysps].(15) Elsewhere in texts of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, the consistent linking of Shasu with Edom and the Arabah (Timna) places the identifications on the earlier lists beyond doubt.""The localization of the 'Land of the Shasu' in the mountainous districts of Se'ir ... has an interesting consequence for one name in the mentioned lists from Soleb and Amarah - 'Yhw (in) the land of the Shasu.' For half a century it has been generally admitted that we have here the tetragrammaton, the name of the Israelite god, 'Yahweh'; and if this be the case, as it undoubtedly is, the passage constitutes a most precious indication of the whereabouts during the late fifteenth century B.C. of an enclave revering this god. ... Numerous passages in later Biblical tradition ... depict Yahweh 'coming forth from Se'ir' and originating in Edom."Donald Redford goes on to state that the Shasu "burst with especially grievous force just before the beginning of the 19th Dynasty across ... northern Sinai, cutting off Egypt's coastal route ... though Sety I had little trouble in beating them back ..." But why had these descendents of Laban (uncle/father-in-law of Jacob and great-great-great-grandfather of the Biblical Moses, Genesis 28:2) and adherents of Yahweh (i.e., Jehovah), whose homeland was in and around Mount Se'ir in Edom, suddenly appeared along the Via Maris (Mediterranean coastal route and main artery between Egypt and Canaan) at the same time that Moses and the Israelites are said (according to Manetho) to have been driven from Egypt by "Rampses?".[The Exodus - The Gospel According to Egypt]As I have not yet received the copy I ordered of "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" I have not checked this alleged quote to see if it has been reproduced exactly per Dr. Redford's original text. Nonetheless, I found it interesting and pertinent to our topic.A'shalom A'lecheim[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-13-2004]

The quote appears fine. Enjoy the book.

CA: Thanks for the recommendation of what appears to be a great book. I look forward to reading it and subsequent discussions.Peace.

Perhaps you'll forgive a blatant tease aimed at tempting you to order the Dever book as well ...

quote:

---

For these reasons, even some raher radical scholars would take seriously the notion that some of these "Shasu of Yhw" were among the tribal peoples who became early Israel, and that they may indeed have been guided through the desert by a charismatic, shiekh-like leader with the Egyptian name of "Moses". In folk religion these pre-Israelite traditions, partly mythological, may have survived well into the late Monarchy. They could then have been incorporated into a national epic that crystallized as the old agrarian ideal was giving way to urbanization, national security, and religious conformity. As Baruch Halpern has so elequently put it, this reform "successfully defined traditional as un-Israelite, as pagan, as inferior, a position that Western literary religions have continued to maintain ever since" (1991:91).

​

- see Dever (pg 237)

---

As always, happy reading!

Please tell me, dear CA, that you are not now trying to lead me back into my former faulty ways of grasping at vague theories via other folks' suppositions? Does this Dever back up his folk-Moses theory with any archaeological discoveries of ancient hard-copy?BTW, while following your previous advice, I ran across the following review of "The Bible Unearthed" (Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyers:IBSS - The Bible - The Bible Unearthededit [For anyone who prints-out the link, highlight page by page only what your printer will select and print on a single page; because if you print the entire document at once, this link prints-out a severely indented, central column of text that cuts the tops and bottoms of sentences and headers in half at the bottom and tops of pages apparently due to the graphic photo of the book cover at the top of the document ??? so that you'll end up with 14 pages of a lot of negative wasted space with those irritating cut-up sentences.]My only criticisms of the review is that Meyers:1) Frequently interjects his own suppositions into the review (self-serving); and2) Frequently uses the singular first person pronoun "I" in a formal reporting of other people's material, demonstrating a obnoxious shortcoming all too common with today's "scholarly" post graduates. And this from a Ph.D.! (I mean a book report isn't a "what I did on my summer vacation" presentation.)Anyway, thanks again for the tips.Peace.

Stormdancer,I will post my opinions about the bible as history tomorrow. My partner had impotant work to do on the computer.Sorry about the wait.Brian

Do I detect facetiousness? What 'folk-Moses theory' are you attributing to Dever? Thanks. I enjoyed the book.By the way, why not start a thread on the Shasu?

Good morning, CA.Re: Message 59; this topic:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: "Please tell me, dear CA, ..."You: "Do I detect facetiousness?"Me: "Nope, tongue-in-cheek maybe; negative facetiousness not intended."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Me: "Does this Dever back up his folk-Moses theory with any archaeological discoveries of ancient hard-copy?"You: "What 'folk-Moses theory' are you attributing to Dever?"Me: "I was responding to your statement that "... even some rather radical scholars would take seriously the notion that some of these 'Shasu of Yhw' were among the tribal peoples who became early Israel, and that they may indeed have been guided through the desert by a charismatic, shiekh-like leader with the Egyptian name of 'Moses'. In folk religion these pre-Israelite traditions, partly mythological, may have survived well into the late Monarchy.""I then took 'Moses' and 'folk religion' and manufactured the 'folk-Moses' entity. As I don't have Dever's book, and cannot refer to page 237, I apparently wrongly assumed your reference to the shiek-like leader came from that source. Obviously, I am going to have to either reactivate my public library card or open an account at Barnes and Knoble to keep up on this subject!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------You: "By the way, why not start a thread on the Shasu?"Me: "Good idea, good subject, but I think I better study-up a little more first. If someone else were to start a thread on Shashu, I will try to stay abreast. Meanwhile, I have a more wacky idea for a thread that may appear shortly."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Peace in Canaan.