William H. Sheaa
Introduction
A pivotal event in Bible history is the death and burial of Jacob as described in Genesis 50:1–14. This marks the end of the Patriarchal age. The purpose of the present study is to suggest that there may be a record outside the Bible which bears on this event. We will first look at a general overview of the story and then concentrate on some important details in historical geography. With the Biblical data in mind, we will then examine an Egyptian text which seems to relate to the burial of Jacob in Canaan.
Jacob in Egypt
According to Genesis 47:9, Jacob was 130 years old when he appeared before Pharaoh at the time of his arrival in Egypt. Because of Joseph’s service to the crown, Jacob was given the prosperous and fertile land of Goshen in which to settle. This was located in the region of the eastern Delta of Egypt. We are told in Genesis 47:28 that Jacob lived in Egypt for another 17 years, dying at the age of 147.
Shortly before his death, Jacob became ill. Joseph, realizing that the end was near, took his sons Ephraim and Manasseh to his aged father in order to have him bless them (Gn 48). At that time, Jacob recounted to Joseph the family history, including the burial place of Joseph’s mother Rachel (vs 7; see Gn 35:16–20). After the blessing was pronounced on Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob willed to Joseph the plot of land which he had purchased in Shechem (vs 22; see Gn 33:18–20).
As the time of his death approached, Jacob gathered his sons about him to make his last will and testament and to pronounce a blessing upon his children (Gn 49). As a part of his charge to his sons he requested that they, and especially Joseph, bury him in the land of Canaan, in the Cave of Machpelah in the vicinity of Hebron, where his ancestors were buried (Gn 49:30–33). After he died, the appropriate ceremonies and procedures of embalming were carried out (Gn 50:1–3), and the sons of Jacob and their families mourned their loss (vs
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 34
4). But their task was not complete, for they had yet to comply with their father’s request to bury him in Canaan. So Joseph requested permission from Pharaoh to take Jacob’s body to Canaan for burial (vss 4–5). Pharaoh agreed (vs 6), and even made provision for the journey by sending along some of his own servants and troops:
So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his household, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father’s household; only their children and their herds and their flocks were left in the land of Goshen. And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen, it was a very great company (Gn 50:7–9).
Among the party were soldiers, charioteers, and government officials, both from the land of Egypt in general and also specifically from the palace of Pharaoh. This point will become particularly important later.
Jacob’s Funeral Procession
Next, we turn to matters of historical geography. We know that the aim of the procession was to bury Jacob at Hebron. But what route was taken to get to Hebron? According to the place names listed in Genesis 50, the journey was somewhat circuitous. There were two main routes available from Egypt to Canaan. They could have gone by way of the coastal road, called “The Way of the Philistines” in Exodus 13:17 and known to the Egyptians as “The Way of Horus.”1 There are two reasons that make this route unlikely.
First of all, this was not the route normally used by the Patriarchs. The standard route was from the vicinity of modern Ismaliya, on the eastern Egyptian frontier, to Kadesh-Barnea in northern Sinai. This is what one might call the mid-Sinai highway. It ran parallel to the coastal road, but was located a considerable distance south of it. In the Patriarchal stories there is but one exception to this route. When the traders brought Joseph from Dothan to Egypt, they followed the coastal road. That was a special case, however, having to do with their starting point. Normally, the point of departure for the Patriarchs was the southern hill country, or the Negev, so the route that ran through Kadesh-Barnea was preferable. On general considerations, then, we may expect that the procession bearing the body of Jacob took the mid-Sinai route.
There is another more specific reason for advocating the mid-Sinai route, and that has to do with the first stopping place, the threshing floor of Atad (Gn 50:10). Because of the ceremony of mourning held there, it also came to be called Abel-Mizraim, which means, “meadow of (the mourning of) Egypt.” Not only is the name of the place given, but also its general location. It was “beyond the Jordan,” or on the eastern side of the Jordan River. Thus it is clear that the funeral party did not go directly to Hebron. Instead, they first travelled to the area of Transjordan. Why would they do this?
As one looks over the career of Jacob, there was one momentous event which took place in this region. That was the episode of his wrestling with the angel on the banks of the Jabbok River before he met his brother Esau (Gn 32–33). Perhaps in commemoration of that event the procession stopped in this region and held one of the services of mourning that was a part of the overall services that culminated in the final burial at Hebron.
The commemoration of this event in
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 35
Route of the funeral procession that took Jacob’s body to Canaan for burial.
Transjordan also says something about the possible participants. If the party took the mid-Sinai highway, then in all likelihood they passed the southern end of the Dead Sea and travelled north on the King’s Highway to get to the Jabbok River. That would have taken them through Edom, the territory of Esau’s descendants. The route appears to have been designed to pass through Edom in order to inform this branch of the family of the death of Jacob. Perhaps some of them joined the cortege to take part in the ceremony held at the threshing floor of Atad.
From there, it would have been necessary to cross the Jordan river in order to reach Hebron. The fords at Adam, modern Damiyeh, would have been the logical place, since the threshing floor of Atad probably was located in the general vicinity of the Jabbok River. Crossing the Jordan at this point would have taken them to Shechem and the central ridge route that ran south to Jerusalem and on to Hebron.
There would have been symbolic significance in travelling this road as well. This was the route Jacob followed when he came back from Haran with his family. He stopped first at Shechem (Gn 33:18), and then, after his sons got in trouble with the local inhabitants (Gn 34), he travelled south to Bethel (Gn 35:1), Bethlehem (Gn 35:19), and finally to Hebron (Gn 35:27).
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 36
Not only was this the route that Jacob himself traveled, it was also the route that his grandfather Abraham followed when he first came to the land of promise. Besides following the traditional route of his ancestors, Joseph would have had personal reasons for going this way. It would have given him a chance to lay claim to the plot of land at Shechem willed to him by Jacob, the place where Joseph ultimately was buried (Jos 24:32). In addition, since this was Joseph’s only opportunity to be in Canaan, he no doubt would have wanted to visit the grave of his mother Rachel at Bethlehem.
We have now reconstructed the route from Egypt to the burial site based on the clues given in the Bible. It seems that the Israelite procession crossed the Isthmus of Suez in the vicinity of Ismaliya, leaving from the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat. From there they went to Kadesh-Barnea, following the usual route of the Patriarchs. Instead of going directly north to Hebron, however, the party travelled eastward, south of the Dead Sea, and then north through the territory of the Edomites.
The procession continued north along the King’s Highway to the threshing floor of Atad, or Abel-Mizraim, which was undoubtedly located in the vicinity of the Jabbok River. After the services of mourning, they journeyed westward across the Jordan River, and ascended into the hill country of Canaan picking up the main north-south road at Shechem. They then went south to the burial site at Hebron, possibly stopping at Rachel’s tomb on the way. After the
Ancient Shechem, where Khu-Sebek encountered Asiatics. It was surrounded by a strong fortification wall in Jacob’s day.
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 37
Traditional tomb of Joseph on the slopes of Mt. Ebal above ancient Shechem.
burial ceremony, the cortege most likely travelled directly to Kadesh-Barnea and then back to Egypt.
Chronological Considerations
If one is going to look into the records of ancient history for a possible correlation, one must deal with the issue of chronology first. A rather traditional chronology for both the Biblical record and the ancient Near East is adopted in this study. The beginning of the Sojourn is marked by the entry of Jacob and his family into Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan. Exodus 12:40 states that the total length of the Israelite stay in Egypt was 430 years. If we can establish a date for the Exodus, then it is a simple matter to figure back to the migration of Jacob.
We read in 1 Kings 6:1 that Solomon began the construction of the Temple in his fourth regnal year, 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt. Figuring from his accession in 971 BC would date the commencement of this building project to 967 BC (Thiele 1983:217; 1Kgs 11:42). Going back 480 years from that takes us to 1447 or 1446 BC. From this we may figure back the full 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12:40 to the beginning of the Sojourn. I concur with those scholars who accept this full period of time as the length of the Sojourn in Egypt and reject the position of those who would include in this figure a 215 year sojourn in Canaan by the Patriarchs, leaving only 215 years for the Egyptian Sojourn.2 Utilizing the full 430 years takes us to 1877/1876 BC as the date of Jacob’s coming to Egypt. From this, his remaining years of life in Egypt can be figured.
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 38
Looking at Egyptian chronology indicates that this date puts one squarely in the middle of the 12th Dynasty according to the traditional dating employed by Egyptologists. More specifically, this puts us into the reign of Sesostris III. In the older Parker chronology this king was given dates of 1878–1840 BC (Parker 1950). Recent studies have shortened the length of his reign, but they have not moved his accession date by any significant amount. We may take, therefore, 1878 BC as the approximate date of Sesostris III’s accession. Although he may have had a shorter reign, probably it still was long enough to encompass the remaining years of Jacob’s life in Egypt. According to our chronological correlations, then, Sesostris III should be the ruler under whom Jacob came to Egypt, under whom he later died, and who provided for his burial by commissioning a cortege to accompany his body to Canaan for burial as described in Genesis 50.
An Egyptian Connection
In surveying the textual data from the Middle Kingdom, one record stands out as being unusual — the mortuary stela of Khu-Sebek, an official who served under Sesostris III. It was found by John Garstang at Abydos in 1901.3 The main face of the stela presents 12 vertical columns of text recording the early history of Khu-Sebek — his participation in a military campaign of Sesostris III to Nubia and his several promotions. Then, as an apparent afterthought, another five horizontal lines were added above the original vertical columns, probably taking the place of
Traditional burial place of Rachel near Bethlehem.
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 39
Mosque above the burial place of the Patriarchs, the Cave of Machpelah, in Hebron.
the pictorial design that was planned for that space. It is these five lines that are critical to our study. Here, Khu-Sebek tells of his participation in a campaign into Canaan, the only one known from the Middle Kingdom period.
Khu-Sebek begins his recitation by telling the reader that he was born under Amenemhet II. This gives us an approximate range for his age and it means that he participated in the Asiatic campaign at the end of his career, when he was about 70 years old. In his first post, in the reign of Sesostris III, “his majesty had me work as a fighter behind and beside his majesty, with seven men of the (royal) Residence” (Wilson 1955). This apparently means that he was a member of the king’s personal bodyguard.
Then came another promotion: “I showed keenness in his presence and his majesty had me made an Attendant of the Ruler and 60 persons were given to me” (Wilson 1955). Following this is the description of the Nubian campaign. As a result of his successful participation in this expedition, “he made me Deputy of Attendants, and 100 persons were given to me as a reward” (Wilson 1955). Here, the original inscription ends.
While neither of the military campaigns described in this stela are dated, they do have a chronological relationship. Since the Asiatic campaign text was a later addition, it surely must have followed the Nubian campaign recited in the main text. Sesostris III is known to have conducted three campaigns to Nubia. Two of them occurred in his 8th and 16th regnal years (Wilson 1956:136–37) and the third sometime before the campaign of year 16. It is clear, then, that early in his reign Sesostris III concentrated his military activities in Nubia. It was only after Nubia was pacified that he turned his attention to Asia.
Thus it is likely that the Asiatic campaign mentioned across the top of Khu-Sebek’s stela occurred after the Nubian campaign of year 16. This does not give us a precise date for the Asiatic campaign, but it does give us a general range within the term of office of
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 40
Sesostris III for its occurrence, sometime during his middle or later years, after year 16.
If we examine the potential correlation with the procession to bury Jacob, we see that these two events come together rather closely. Jacob came to Egypt in the second or third year of Sesostris III according to the correlations above. Living there for 17 years means that he died in approximately the 20th year of that king.
Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Kingdom
Next we turn to a consideration of the uniqueness of the Asiatic campaign of Sesostris III. It was exceptional not only for Sesostris III, but also for all of the kings of the 12th Dynasty. For some time it was thought that Egypt had an Asiatic Empire during the time of the 12th Dynasty.4 Now we know that Egypt did not have an Asiatic empire at that time, and that in the main most of the contacts were of the nature of trade and cultural, not conquest. As J. Weinstein has summarized in his survey of the inscriptional and archaeological evidence,
It is my conviction that no such empire existed, and the supposedly close political and economic relations have been much exaggerated (1975:1).
This new picture of the nature of the
Traditional tomb of Jacob in the mosque at Hebron.
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 41
contacts between Egypt and Canaan at this time make the stela of Khu-Sebek stand out all the more. If Egypt did not have an empire there, why conduct a campaign into Asia? There is no good answer to this question. Nubia, on the other hand, is another matter. The frequency of campaigns both by Sesostris III and other 12th Dynasty monarchs indicates the desire Egypt had to keep control of that region. The unusual nature of this campaign is emphasized all the more by the fact that it is the only campaign known to have been conducted in Canaan in the two centuries of the 12th Dynasty. As Weinstein put it,
The fact is that there is definite evidence for only one Egyptian military campaign into Palestine in the Middle Kingdom. This occurred in the reign of Senusert II (sic! III), and is recorded in summary fashion on the stela of the Inspectors of Retainers, Khusobk (1975:11).
Standing out as exceptional as it is, I suggest that it was not the overtly military campaign that it may at first appear to be. I believe that this is an Egyptian record of the expedition to Canaan to bury Jacob. We have already noted the close chronological correlation that fits such a connection. Now let us look at the geographical correlation.
Geographical Connections
The stela of Khu-Sebek says very little about the campaign to Asia in which he participated. It mentions only one place name, and that is skmm. This is now almost uniformly accepted as Shechem. The only difference in the spelling of this name and that of its Biblical form is that it carries a second mem or m in its Egyptian form. There is a possible explanation for that feature. The word Shechem means “shoulder” and it was probably taken to mean the shoulders of the two mountains bordering the pass in which it was located.5 The fact that there were two such mountains may be reflected in the dual ending.
Sesostrus III, the probable pharaoh when Jacob died and who consequently commissioned the funeral procession to Canaan.
Now we should ask the question, “What were the king’s troops doing there?” The text is somewhat curious for it never mentions an actual attack upon Shechem. On the contrary, the picture conveyed is that the Shechemites attacked the Egyptians in the open, probably while the Egyptians were travelling southwards away from Shechem on their way back to Egypt. Normal geography would suggest that the Egyptian troops in this case were on the ridge route headed south from Shechem, precisely where the cortege of Jacob would have been travelling after they crossed the Jordan River
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 42
from the threshing floor of Atad. Thus we have the Egyptian troops in the same place and at the same time as the cortege of Jacob.
Why would the Shechemites attack the Egyptians? Perhaps their primary target was not the Egyptians, but rather the Israelites. Genesis 34 provides a good reason for the Shechemites to attack the Israelites. The upshot of the sordid events described there was that two of Jacob’s sons slaughtered the population of Shechem and spoiled the city. Jacob’s move further south appears to have been prompted by fear of retaliation (Gn 34:30). Jacob’s fears may have been realized after all!
Khu-Sebek’s Unpleasant Assignment
We can also say something about Khu-Sebek and his position in relationship to the cortege. His stela tells us how he rose within the ranks of those in the palace. He advanced from bodyguard to Attendant of the Ruler to Deputy of Attendants, always within the framework of the official structure of the palace. The Biblical text states that Pharaoh sent the elders of his household, i.e., the palace, and the elders of Egypt. That group surely would have included Khu-Sebek if he was in court at the time. In fact, given his position in the palace, he would have been one of the prime candidates to have gone on such an expedition.
Stela of Khu-Sebek from the time of Joseph, found at Abydos, Egypt, in 1901 by John Garstang.
This campaign has been something of an enigma to scholars. Some consider it a raid (Weinstein 1975:11), while others simply hold that the reason for it is
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 43
not explained (Horn 1950:61). Since no actual raid or attack on towns or cities is mentioned, I would favor the view that the real reason for the campaign is not explained. I would go further and suggest that the correlations mentioned above supply the missing explanation.
If this was a procession taking the body of the father of a prominent Semite (a rival to Khu-Sebek?) back to Asia for burial, then Khu-Sebek could not have looked upon the assignment with relish. It might even have been considered something of a disgrace, or at least a distasteful chore. A way to redeem the incident, however, would be to memorialize a heroic deed done in the service of Pharaoh. The stela describes Khu-Sebek’s actions in Canaan as follows:
While I was acting as rear guard, then I rallied together the individuals of the army to fight with the Asiatics. Then I smote an Asiatic. Then I had his weapons taken by two individuals of the army, without deviating from the fight, for my face was forward and I did not turn my back to an Asiatic (Wilson 1955).
For this, he was rewarded with a throw stick made of gold, and a dagger and scabbard also made of gold. Recall that this was not part of the original inscription, but was added as an afterthought. It appears that a record of the unimportant Asiatic campaign was not originally intended to be part of the stela, but was later added, perhaps as the result of a flash of inspiration on the part of the preparers.
Pharaoh in Canaan?
One problem remains to be discussed before pulling all of these elements together, and that has to do with the part which Pharaoh played in these events. In the Biblical account, the Pharaoh did not go with Joseph and his brethren and his troops to bury Jacob’s body, he only commissioned and sent them. In the Egyptian text, however, it is briefly stated that Pharaoh was a participant in the campaign. In this case, if the Biblical correlations presented here have been elucidated correctly, this part of the Egyptian text appears to be inaccurate. Of course, the writers of the Khu-Sebek inscription would have had a vested interest in redeeming some honor from an otherwise dreary and unpleasant assignment. Some of that redemption could have been accomplished by the propagandistic claim that this campaign was carried out by Pharaoh, when in actuality all he did was commission it to go into the field.
Conclusion
We may now summarize what we have proposed. If the Egyptian chronology has been reconstructed correctly, Jacob died in Egypt during the reign of Sesostris III. Looking at the Biblical data on the age of Jacob we may date his death to the middle or latter half of that reign. Jacob requested that he be buried in Canaan with his ancestors, and Joseph complied with this request. In order to do so, he would have had to have had the cooperation of the Pharaoh. The account of Genesis 50 says that Pharaoh did cooperate, not only by sending troops to act as guards, but also in sending some of his officials. One of those officials appears to have been Khu-Sebek, who had risen steadily through the ranks during the reign of Sesostris III.
The mortuary stela of Khu-Sebek has an added afterthought, another campaign recorded in addition to that which is mentioned in the main body of the text. The earlier campaign went to Nubia, but this later campaign went to Asia. The latter can be dated after the former by their order on the stela and the former
BSP 5:2 (Spring 1992) p. 44
campaign could be dated as late as year 16. Thus, the Asiatic campaign should be dated in the latter half of the reign of Sesostris III, at the same time when one would expect the expedition of Genesis 50 to have taken place. This provides us with a chronological correlation.
A geographical correlation arises from the mention of the town of Shechem as the place from which those who attacked the expedition came. That fits in well with the leg of the Israelite-Egyptian journey from Shechem to Hebron, after they crossed the Jordan River following events at the Threshing Floor of Atad. This geographical correlation reinforces the potential link between the two texts.
All in all, there is a strong correlation between the Stela of Khu-Sebek and Genesis 50:4–14. Each records the burial of Jacob from a different perspective: Genesis 50:4–14 from the point-of-view of the sacred history of God’s chosen people; and the mortuary stela of one of the Egyptian officials involved, in which the most is made of an unpleasant assignment.
Bibliography
Albright, W.F.
1922 Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 2:110–38.
Horn, S.H.
1950 Egyptian Relations with Asia in the Time of the Middle Kingdom. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis (Chicago: University of Chicago).
Oren, E.D.
1987 The “Ways of Horus” in North Sinai. Pp. 69–120 in Egypt, Israel, and Sinai, ed. A.F. Rainey (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University).
Parker, R.A.
1950 Calendars of Ancient Egypt, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization No. 26 (Chicago: University of Chicago).
Ray, P.
1986 The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt. Andrews University Seminary Studies 24:231–48.
Thiele, E.R.
1983 Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans).
Weinstein, J.M.
1975 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 217:1–16.
Wilson, J.A.
1955 The Inscription of Khu-Sebek, Called Djaa. P. 230 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J.B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University).
1956 The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago).
(An earlier version of this article was published in Catastrophism and Ancient History 13 [1991].)