nk this is apparent. Psalm 104:5 speaks of establishing the foundations of the earth. Establishing these foundations involved calling the earth into b

are referred to), they are always spoken of as “the flood,” “the water,” or “the waters of the flood,” never as “the deep.” This complete covering of the planet by “the deep” extended even to covering the mountains (6b), a poetic word picture emphasizing that the entire land surface of the world was covered by “the deep” at this point. This is entirely consistent with our observation that Psalm 104 is mirroring Genesis 1, and has nothing to do with the Flood.In Ps. 104:7 the Psalmist moves on to the next stage, mirroring Genesis 1:9–10—the exposing of the dry land. “At thy rebuke they fled” is a poetic way of restating Genesis 1:9, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear.” God commands the primeval waters covering the planet to move so the dry earth can be exposed. To do so, He deepens a hollow on the surface of Planet Earth so the waters have a place to “gather” to. “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down” (8a) is thus best understood as a poetic way of expressing these geophysical changes, with no reference to the judging Flood of Genesis 6–8 intended. The use of the word “establish” in 8b hearkens back to Job 38, where the Lord was portrayed as a master builder doing planning, surveying and foundation-laying for the grand project of constructing the Earth.In addition, as seen in the various English translations above, there are solid contextual reasons to view the mention of mountains and valleys as parenthetical details to a primary emphasis in Psalm 104:6–9 on the moving of the primeval waters. The understanding that the antecedent of the clause in 104:8b, “unto the place which thou hast founded for them,” is not the valleys of 8a, but the fleeing waters of 7a. Verses 7a and 8b together constitute a completed thought—“at Your rebuke, the waters fled...to the place You established for them”—with 7b and 8a serving as minor clauses. Thus, the main focus if verses 6–9 is all about elaborating on Genesis 1:9.Finally, 104:9 has an even closer connection to Job. When the Psalmist wrote, “Thou didst set a boundary that they [the waters] may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth,” he parallels God’s words in Job 38:10:And I placed boundaries on it [“it” being the sea, referred to in verse 8],And I set a bolt and doors,And I said, “Thus far you shall come, but no farther;And here shall your proud waves stop.”Altogether, I think we can see that the primarily poetic nature of Psalm 104, its praise theme, plus the clear echoes of Genesis 1 and Job 38, points to Psalm 104 having no reference to the Flood, no mid-course change of context at verse 6. It is entirely a work of praise to God for His provision in Creation, including setting the bounds that kept the sea in its place. The mentions of mountains and valleys are poetic equivalents for the raising of the primordial continent out of the world sea as its waters were “gathered together” into the hollows He established for them.Proverbs 8:29, which speaks of the setting of the boundary of the sea, also sheds tremendous light on the meaning of Psalm 104:9, “Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over.” “They” in this verse must refer to the primeval waters of the Creation. The antecedent of “they” in 104:9 is found in 104:6, where the two parts of the verse are an example of Hebrew poetic parallelism. In 6a, the primeval sea is first called “the deep” that covered the earth; in 6b, the same primeval sea is called “the waters [which] were standing above the mountains.” Both parts of verse 6 are saying the same thing, just in different ways. It is because these boundaries are set on the primeval waters of the world sea, that “they may not return to cover the earth.” Verse 9b, although it easily brings to mind God’s promise to never again send a worldwide Flood, IN CONTEXT does not refer to the Flood, but only to the setting of bounds on the sea. So once again, applying the principles of systematic theology and allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture indicates that the poetic language of Psalm 104 is not to be understood as referring to the Flood.Tying it All TogetherIn this study we have observed that the passages in Job 38 and Proverbs 8, as in Jeremiah 5, all speak of “boundaries on the sea” in remarkably similar terms, strengthening the case that they all have the Creation in view. Let’s see all of these verses together:Job 38:10And I placed boundaries [choq] on it [antecedent yam, v. 8],And I set a bolt and doors,And I said, “Thus far you shall come, but no farther;And here shall your proud waves stop.”Prov. 8:29When He set for the sea [yam] its boundary [choq]So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth...Jeremiah 5:22For I have placed the sand as a boundary [g?buwl] for the sea [yam],



Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh
Tags: amenhotep, exodus, hatshepsut, moses, thutmosis, rameses, 1 kings 6, plagues, amarna, memphis stela, karnak stela, apiru, hazor--> I. INTRODUCTIONFew disciplines related to Biblical inerrancy are scrutinized more intensely than historicity. Accordingly, questioning the Bible’s historicity is nothing new to Biblical studies, as evidenced by Ladd’s remark, “It is the author’s hope that the reader may be helped to understand that the authority of the Word of God is not dependent upon infallible certainty in all matters of history and criticism.”1 A more extreme recent trend, popular in the study of ancient Israel’s storied past, is a revisionistic version of Biblical history.2 A prime example is seen in the words of Finkelstein, who speaks of “the rise of the true national state in Judah [in the eighth century BC]. . . . That national state produced a historical saga so powerful that it led Biblical historians and archaeologists alike to recreate its mythical past—from stones and potsherds.”3 Such attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible’s historicity necessitate a reasoned defense of its historical accuracy. As Lindsell writes, “When inerrancy is lost, it is palpably easy to drift into a mood in which the historicity of Scripture along with inerrancy is lost.”4 The danger of compromising the inerrancy of Biblical historicity became vivid to the present writer when he learned that a transfer student who entered the seminary where he teaches was taught in another theological institution that Biblical inerrancy does not even extend into the realm of history. Such a position is unacceptable, and it must be opposed rigorously. The present work examines the trustworthiness of Biblical history by using the Hebrew exodus from Egypt (hereinafter, simply “exodus”) as a test case. More specifically, an examination of the exodus-pharaoh’s life will reveal whether Biblical history can be harmonized and synchronized with Egyptian hilearn french

Before discussing the theme of primeval protohistory,

I should like to turn our attention to the other literary aspect, namely the structure of Genesis 1–11 as a whole.Literary Structure. Not only does comparative evidence point to the adequacy of treating both the Creation and the Flood together as a unified literary work, but the recent emphasis on the holistic approach8 to “the text in its final form”9 or “the text as it stands” (Oden 1981: 211) leads us to investigate the literary theme and structure of Genesis 1–11 as a whole. Before one seeks the theme of Genesis 1–11, one must decide its structure. For this, the toledot*-formula of Genesis is indicative of the narrative structure in the mind of the author/editor. Thompson’s recent study of the toledot-structure of Genesis is in this regard very important, though his view of a sharp break between Genesis 1–4 and Genesis 5ff. (“The Book of the Toledoth of Adam”) is rather overemphasized (1987: chap. 3). Thompson’s view was most recently challenged by Hess, who argued that “the literary form of Genesis 1–2 is intended to parallel the genealogical doublets of chaps. 4–5 and 10–11” (1990: 150, n. 23).The major problem in deciding the theme and structure of Genesis 1–11 is determining the precise terminus of the “primeval history.” The following suggestions have been made.Creation ­> Flood (1:1–9:29). In the light of the literary structure of “Creation-Rebellion-Flood” in the “Atra-Hasis Epic,” some scholars have suggested that the primeval history in Genesis stretches from the creation story through the end of the Flood story, namely Genesis 1–9, rather than Genesis 1–11.10 Since the end of chap. 9 follows up the description of Noah in 5:31 and completes the full description of him in the same manner that the other nine patriarchs are described in chap. 5, it is likely that the Flood story in chaps. 6–9 is meant to be a part of a larger literary unit that begins at 5:1, that is, “The Book of the Toledot of Adam.” The Flood story is, so to speak, a detailed description of Noah and his life inserted into the framework of the genealogy of Genesis 5.11Creation ­> Babel (1:1–11:9). J.M. Sasson recently explained the Tower of Babel story as “a clue to the redactional structuring” of Genesis 1–11. According to him, Genesis 1:1–11:9 is divided into two parts, “from Creation to Noah (10 generations)” and “from the Flood to Abram (10 generations)”; just as the Nephilim story (6:1–8) serves as a concluding remark for the first part, the Babel story (11:1–9) comes at the end of the second part (1994: 456). This division at the end of 6:8 accords with the Biblical toledot-structure; up to that verse the section is “The Book of the Toledot of Adam,” while the section after 6:9 is “The Toledot of Noah.” Coats also thinks that the primeval saga ends with the tale about the tower, since the tale “binds off the series of narratives about the people of the world” (1983: 36). For a different reason, Oden also considers the conclusion of the primeval history to be Genesis 11:1–9, where “human aspirations to divine status are so transparent” (1981: 211).However, the end of the second part, 11:9, does not accord with the end of “The Toledot of Noah” (9:29), though 6:8 does accord with the end of “The Toledot of Adam.” Also, in Sasson’s scheme, the reason for placing Abram in the tenth generation is not clearly demonstrated, since his structure lacks both the genealogical list (11:10–26) and the toledot of Terah (11:27ff.), which refer to Abram himself. Before these sections Abram’s name does not even appear.Creation ­> Terah (1:1–11:26).12 Some recognize the “Creation-list Flood-list” pattern in Genesis 1–11 and note that just as Noah is the tenth generation from Adam in the first list, the genealogy in Genesis 5:1–32, so Abram is the tenth generation from Noah in the second list (11:10–26). According to Malamat, the ante-and postdiluvian lines (i.e., of Adam and of Shem, respectively), symmetrically arranged to a ten-generation depth, are undoubtedly the product of intentional harmonization and in imitation of the concrete genealogical model (1994:188). Thus the ten-generation scheme of the ancient Near Eastern genealogies might be taken as a formulaic pattern for the Genesis account of the primeval history.Nevertheless, in the toledot of Shem, 11:10–26, there are only nine patriarchs listed with a full description, though Abram, the tenth one, is referred to as one of the Terah’s sons. Also, strictly speaking, the genealogy in Genesis 11:10–26 does not follow the same pattern as that in Genesis 5. In fact, in the second list there is no description of the death of the patriarchs, while all ten individuals of the first list have after the life span the final comment, “and he died” (cf. 9:29 for Noah) or “and he was not” (v. 24 for Enoch).Creation ­> Abram (1:1–11:32). The phrase and he died appears together with the life-span for the description of Terah in 11:32 for the first time since it appeared with Noah in 9:29. This might well suggest that 11:32 is the terminus of the primeval history. This position seems to be supported by Y.T. Radday’s analysis of Genesis based on the computerized statistics, according to which Genesis 5:1–32 and 11:10–32 stand out as “very distinct” within Genesis.13 Thompson notes that 11:27–32 is a genealogical entry that is expanded with an extended narrative and serves with 11:10–26 as a “link” between the tradition of Genesis 1:1–11:9 and the traditions about Abra(ha)m (Thompson 1987: 83).Creation ­> Abraham’s Call (1:1–12:3). According to von Rad, The story of the Tower of Babel ends without grace, and therefore ...the main question which the primeval history raises for the reader is that of the further relationship of God to the nations (1962:1.163). Therefore, the end of the Biblical primeval history is ... not the story of the Tower of Babel; it is the call of Abraham in Genesis. XII. 1–3: indeed, because of this welding of primeval history and saving history, the whole of Israel’s saving history is properly to be understood with reference to the unsolved problem of Jahweh’s relationship to the nations (1962: 164).14 Thus, von Rad set the terminus of the primeval history at Genesis 12:3 for theological reasons.However, from the literary point of view, Genesis 12:1–3 is better taken as a “link” between Genesis 1–11 and the following story of the patriarchs. This is what Parunak calls a “transitional technique” A/aB, which is used to link the Patriarchal story (B) with the primeval history (A), by recapitulating the universal relationship of God with the nations at the beginning (a) of the new section, in this case, 12:1ff. (B)(1983).Thus, Genesis 1–11 seems to have been written with the historical purpose of introducing Abram on the stage, and hence its narrative continues "from the stories of origins on down into later times, that is, to the present, the time when the narrative came into being."Hence Miller concludes: "The sense of a single story from the creation to the present may have existed in Mesopotamia as well as Israel" (1994:151).Kitchen, who believes that "each component in the population of early second millennium Mesopotamia (Sumerians, Babylonians, Western Semites) contributed its formulation of inherited traditions", namely a common literary heritage, concludes that "whenever it reached its present form within the entire book of Genesis, that unit Genesis 1–11 best finds its literary origins in the early second millennium BC" (1977: 35). Recommended Resources for Further StudyThe Myth of Natural Origins1996 Issues ofBible and Spade Genesis Record ReferencesAnderson,



Rosetta Stone Chinese