David A. Falk – Egyptologist, Bible Scholar, Author
I am happy to announce that I have signed a book contract with Hendrickson Publishers. The book will be on the Egyptian context of the Ark of the Covenant. This will be a context study that will show where the Ark fits in the narrative of the ancient Near East. I will be writing the book for the non-expert. Yet, I will include lots of detail for those who want to see the trees as well as the forest.
I expect the book to be about 300 pages with lots of illustrations and photographs.
About 15 years ago I led a small Bible study group. We would take a book of the Bible and study it one chapter at a time. When I came to the end of the book, I would ask the group, “Which book do we study next?” And of course, nobody wanted to decide what the next book would be.
So, I would say “If nobody can decide what book we are going to study next, I get to pick. And my choice would be the book of Numbers with all those lovely genealogies.” No sooner would I say that, and someone would propose a book (a different book) to study.
The typical Bible reader has an aversion to genealogies. Modern readers often see genealogies as the “boring bits” that one needs to buzz past to get to the interesting stuff. I think that this outlook is unfortunate because genealogies were the literary device of choice that ancient writers used to give us the really juicy info.
In the ancient Hebrew, genealogical lists are called toledot. An important consideration is that toledot are not quite the same as what we call a “genealogy” in the West today. Knowing the technical difference between a toledot and a genealogy can help us navigate the Hebrew Scriptures.
In the West, genealogies normally trace the ancestors of a person going as far back as possible. Hebrew toledot sort of do the opposite. Toledot start with a well-known person and attempt to trace that person’s descendants. The purpose of a toledot is not to establish pedigree as much as it is to show the person’s posterity. So, in effect, the ancient Israelites believed that the actions of a person would have outcomes that would manifest generations down the line.
Ancient writers used these toledot for didactic purposes. Often the toledot sets up the historical context, but the writer could also use it to convey a moral lesson. Most western genealogies lack this didactic component.
One example of a toledot comes from Genesis 5 where we find the posterity of Adam (of the Garden of Eden infamy). We see in Genesis 5 the following structure:
And <Person 1> lived <Number A> years and became father of <Person 2>, And <Person 1> lived <Number B> years after he was father to <Person 2>, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of <Person 1> were <Number A+B> years and he died.
The writer repeats this structure from Adam to Jared six times. Then on the seventh generation, Enoch doesn’t die but it taken away instead [Gen 5:24]. This disruption of the normal (intentionally monotonous) pattern using antithesis shows what this toledot is really about. The subject is that mankind is now beset with death without relief.
Adam sinned and fell from grace largely causing the mess on what we call planet Earth. God created Adam in a perfect world that had no death. The toledot in Genesis 5 is to show the reader Adam’s posterity–his actions which caused death to rule unchecked.
The other thing that genealogies can do is establish why something happened. In 2 Samuel 6, Uzzah was struck dead by God after touching the Ark of the Covenant [2 Sam 6:7]. The difficulty here is that touching the Ark was not in and of itself an offense. Priests had handled the Ark several times in its history with impunity. So what gives?
The first thing is that the reader may notice is that the Ark was placed on an ox-cart [2 Sam 6:3], which was forbidden since it was to be carried only by its poles [Exod 25:14]. But this alone probably would not have resulted in condign action.
The other thing we are told is the genealogy of Uzzah in verse 4. He was the son of Abinadab. Abinadab was the son of Jesse and brother of King David [1 Sam 17:13, 1 Chr 2:13], which makes Uzzah the nephew of the king. Moreover, this makes Uzzah from the tribe of Judah. Only Israelites from the tribe of Levi and of those only descendants of Kohath were permitted to carry the Ark [Num 4:15]. Although one offense may have been overlooked, two impious actions were seen as irreverence [2 Sam 6:7].
Toledot can give the modern Bible reader fascinating information if we take the time to try to understand them.
Egyptian society generally had no laws. Instead, the Egyptians governed their society by an ethical concept called Maat, “order.” This concept led to a pretty permissive society. If an act did not disrupt the community and was not an act against the king, it was generally permitted.
We have to remember that Egyptian ruled by a brutal military dictatorship. So magistrates maintained order by force and corporal punishment. Acts against the king were usually met with the death penalty. But for lesser offenses beatings were commonplace.
However, magistrates did not only use beatings to punish crime but also as an interrogation method. The way the Egyptians used beatings was that they would beat you first before asking any questions, ask their questions, then beat you again if they felt like you needed it. Interrogators only believed that they got honest answers when an interrogation first started with a beating.
If the magistrate or king could not decide what to do with you, they would send you to jail. In Genesis 39, we read about Potipher’s wife falsely accusing Joseph of rape. As a slave, this crime would earn more than a beating. But if the accuser was less than reputable, it would not necessarily warrant the death penalty. Perhaps, Potipher understood the character of his wife. So Joseph was sent to Egyptian jail [Gen 39:20].
Now, the Egyptian concept of jail might not be what you expect. The Egyptians used their rock quarries as jails. Quarries existed that were the operated by skilled professional stone cutters [see featured image]. However, quarries were also used as prisons.
Egyptian jails had no doors, bars, or walls. Succinctly put, these jails needed no restraints. Quarries typically were found in remote locations with very little water. If anyone tried to escape, they would be subject to the heat of the desert and die of dehydration in short order. This was strong incentive to stay and do one’s time.
The Egyptians believed that dreams could foretell the future. And as such the interpretation of dreams played an important part of ancient Egyptian culture. In fact, the interpretation of dream persists among modern Egyptians today.
Two so-called “dream books” have survived from ancient Egypt. Perhaps the most interesting is Papyrus Chester Beatty III, a fragmentary papyrus written in hieratic. This papyrus is a catalog of dreams and their interpretations.
The format of the interpretations is quite formulaic. All the dreams are predicated upon you appearing your dream. The dream is then summarized. The book then gives a one-word appraisal of the dream, either “good” or “bad.” And then the book predicts what’s going to happen to you.
A couple of examples from the dream book are as follows: “[if a man sees himself in a dream] seeing the god who is above–good; it means much food.” Or, “[…] seeing himself [in] mourning–good; the increase of his possessions.” Or, “[…] looking in a deep well–bad; his being put into prison.” Or, “[…] seeing an ostrich–bad; harm befalling him.”
The content of these dreams were not limited by propriety or societal mores. Dream books provided interpretations for dreams involving drinking wine, engorged genitals, and copulating with one’s mother. Also, some of these dreams could be quite cringe worthy, such as, drinking one’s own urine or blood, or copulating with a pig. Counter-intuitively, the dream books considered some of these noxious dreams to have good outcomes.
One cannot refer to dream books without being reminded of the dream interpretations found in the Bible, most notably those interpretations done by Joseph. Joseph was sent to prison where he interpreted the dreams of his fellow prisoners. Joseph interpreted the dream of a cupbearer:
So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, “In my dream, behold, there was a vine in front of me; and on the vine were three branches. And as it was budding, its blossoms came out, and its clusters produced ripe grapes. Now Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; so I took the grapes and squeezed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and I put the cup into Pharaoh’s hand.” Then Joseph said to him, “This is the interpretation of it: the three branches are three days; within three more days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office; and you will put Pharaoh’s cup into his hand according to your former custom when you were his cupbearer. [Gen 40:9-13]
The Chester Beatty papyrus has a similar dream. “[…] seeing himself with one greater than he–good; it means his promotion by his (own) agency.” The cupbearer saw himself serving the king, so a promotion or restoration of position was the expected interpretation.
The cupbearer remembered Joseph as an interpreter of dreams and suggested to the king that Joseph could interpret his dream. Joseph interpreted the king’s dream as foretelling seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. The king described his dream as follows:
Now it happened at the end of two full years that Pharaoh had a dream, and behold, he was standing by the Nile. And lo, from the Nile there came up seven cows, sleek and fat; and they grazed in the marsh grass. Then behold, seven other cows came up after them from the Nile, ugly and gaunt, and they stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. The ugly and gaunt cows ate up the seven sleek and fat cows. Then Pharaoh awoke. He fell asleep and dreamed a second time; and behold, seven ears of grain came up on a single stalk, plump and good. Then behold, seven ears, thin and scorched by the east wind, sprouted up after them. The thin ears swallowed up the seven plump and full ears. Then Pharaoh awoke, and behold, it was a dream. [Gen 41:1-8]
The Chester Beatty papyrus has some favorable interpretations that reference bovines. “[…] seeing a dead ox–good; it means seeing [the demise?] of his enemies.” “[…] killing an ox–good; killing his enemies.” “[…] carving up an ox with his (own) hand–good; killing his (own) adversary.” And, “[…] bringing in the cattle–good; the assembling of people for him by his god.”
But there are also some unfavorable interpretations. “[…] feeding cattle–bad; it means roaming the earth.”
Grain is also referenced. “[…] seeing barley and spelt [given?] to those yonder–good; it means the protection of him by his god.” “[…] measuring barley–bad; it means the arising of words with him.”
Likewise, dreams provided predictions for harvests. “[…] seeing a large cat–good; it means a large harvest will come to him.”
Although the Chester Beatty papyrus is far from complete, we can see that the interpretation of dreams was codified knowledge. A lot of questions remain regarding how the ancient Egyptians interpreted dreams. How did the Egyptians interpret more complex dreams? How extensive were these dream books? Did the Egyptians standardize dream books? How many editions were in circulation? Fortunately, the Chester Beatty papyrus gives us a tantalizing start to this fascinating subject.