> > We might also bear in mind that nowhere in the OT does itRichard Abott's linguistic approach, which describes (amongst other
> > actually say that Moses parted the Red Sea,...
> Glad you brought that up.
> Yes, something I noticed some time back, there seems to be two
> contrasting versions on how the sea was dealt with.
things) how the kernel of a story is added to in later times, raises
some interesting questions about the Red Sea crossing in general and
the use of the term ym cwp in particular.
Why is it that at Exodus 14 the Bible only asserts that the
Israelites crossed 'the Sea', hym? Why does the immediately following
Song of Miriam, which claims crossing of the ym cwp, also claim a
victory over Pharaoh which the original crossing does not claim? It
reads like an addition from a later time, in which the ym cwp, or
perhaps even the Red Sea itself, has been claimed as the site of the
original crossing. Yet the text suggests that the original site was
neither the Red Sea, nor the ym cwp.
The rather late Artapanus also locates the crossing at the Red Sea,
which is perhaps not surprising given the fact that he lived in the
shadow of the Septuagint. However he also mentions what is presumably
another body of water, certainly a river, supposedly named after his
deceased wife, Meroe. Might this also be remniscient of an earlier
Meroe is doubtless that body of water known to the Greeks as Lake
Moeris, which formed the original reservoir which became the
Fayyum ... which name literally means 'the Sea', pA-ym.
It's been mentioned on this list before that if the Israelites were
given the best land in Egypt, it can only have been around the
Fayyum. It's perhaps not surprising, then, that those versus' which
mention Pihahiroth and Baalzephon, both located in the vicinity
of 'the Sea', are only mentioned at Exodus 14, where also 'the Sea'
is only mentioned. Is it then a surprise that the el-Arisch stele
mentions a pA-hArtj in conjunction with Memphis?, which does not lie
an altogether great distance from the Fayyum.
Is this our original point of crossing? If the later additions to the
story are NK-in-origin, as Richard argues, then naturally this
original kernel can only be older, and it surprises even me to
consider that it may date to that dynasty which built not only the
Fayyum but also their grave sites in that area, the 12th.
- Reaching back in to the past..
The relief which I tried to recall was mentioned in Breasted's
Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. III, page 5, footnote c.
This relief is from the time of Haremhab, though at this point he
is not yet Pharaoh. The Pharaoh presiding over the scene is lost.
Horemheb is receiving accolades from the king, behind Horemheb
are two lines of captive Asiatics led by two Egyptians. Above this
procession is the lower remains of a procession of horses, only
their feet being visible, no chariot wheels.
The suggestion offered is that here we may have the remains of a
unique scene, not Egyptian horsemen, but Asiatic horsemen (Cavalry?).
--- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Smyth" <jon442@...> wrote:
> Ok, what I'm talking about is Egyptian Cavalry, or the possibility of
> such. There is a relief, it might be 18th or 19th dynasty, where only
> the lower section of the relief, a battle scene, is preserved.
> This lower limit of the relief shows a succession of horses legs, but
> no portion of chariot wheels!
> The scene is of Egyptian forces, very organized, as is done with "our
> guys", as opposed to Asiatics or Hittites, where enemy forces are
> shown disorganized.
> Tentatively, some scholars have mused that this may be the nearest
> bit of archaeological evidence to allow us to entertain the notion
> that the Egyptians may have indeed used mounted warriors - cavalry!
> I'll likely spend this coming weekend trying to find this reference...
> Regards, Jon