Joseph and Akhenaten

At https://popular-archaeology.com/article/joseph-and-the-age-of-akhenaten-rethinking-a-scriptural-narrative-through-ancient-egyptian-history/ … in the Biblical narrative the story of Joseph is chronologically  an aspect of the Patriarchal narrative – as it has become known. It is therefore embedded in a specific period of history when habiru groups were allowed to graze their animals on the high ground of city states [in Canaan] in return for their military assistance if that city state was attacked by a rival. Specifically, as archaeologist Steve Collins has noted, this appears to be a situation appropriate to the Middle Kingdom period of ancient Egyptian history. A long way prior to Akhenaten and the LB era. There are also certain things in the story that appear to be mythic in origin – such as the coat of many colours. It may be that people adopted coats made of scraps of material sown together that were in fact multiple colours, in order to adher to the myth. However, we also have certain features, such as the plenty and lean years and a drift in the seasons that may apply to the early Old Kingdom period. Around 3000BC. For the moment it is worth sticking to the Middle Kingdom period as this was targeted as the most appropriate location of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt – due to the number of Semitic household servants and agricultural labourers at this point in time. Noted first by John Bimson in early issues of SIS Review, and somewhat later taken up by David Rohl, who went on to produce a series of books on ancient history. The connections between the Levant and Egypt. A lot of that was speculative whereas Collins is based on a more critical appraisal of the Biblical narrative. It is not of course popular amongst mainstream commentators to involve  the Biblical text but  with a lack of other sources it is reasonable to do so. Basically, as I see it, the Old Testament is a collection of stories and events that are the equivalent of the Matter of Britain – as set out by the likes of Geoffrey of Monmouth. It seems that archaeologists, eager to distance themselves from an earlier brood who practised Levantine archaeology with a Bible at hand, which has become unpopular amongst the current generation, may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A compromise is necessary and I suppose in that spirit this particular article came into being. However, it is unable to shift from mainstream chronological thinking – and the idea the Israelites were newcomers at the end of the LB age. Whilst it is true that events in the Bible after the era of Solomon are firmly attached to the Iron Age, that doesn’t rule out the earlier stories belonging to much earlier in the chronological record. We do not have to suppose the Judges period, for instance, was short lived and ran concurrently with the dark age in Greece and Anatolia. It could reflect much earlier history – as some of the stories in the Matter of Britain certainly date prior to the medieval period. So too can the Bible preseerve stories consistent with the pre-Iron age period. Collins has almost certainly relocated the cities of the Plain, including what have become known as Sodom and Gomorrah, in the Middle Bronze/Middle Kingdom period. The evidence is overwhelming. There are definitely parallels between features of the Biblical storyline and the era of Akhenaten – but that would not be surprising if they had sojourned  in Egypt for a number of generations [which can be argued about]. Hence, I suggest reading the article with a critical eye. However, it is useful to remember this might represent one step in the process of rethinking the Biblical narrative as far as its historical background is concerned. At SIS we have a long history of authors who have attempted to foist the mainstream chronology on to a Biblical framework. What we need is a way to use both to arrive at a more likely meeting of the ways – and this article may be one of the first attempts to do that.