The Mystery of the Copper Scroll of Qumran

by Robert Feather

If anyone learns this spell**21 he will complete one hundred and ten years of life, of which the last ten will be without weakness and impurity, without transgression or lies, and he will finally consume meals beside that helpful god [Osiris], every day.19

  The lifespan of Moses is recorded as 120 years. Again, this is another precise mathematical figure, but, because of his importance, the number is assigned with two rather unique properties:

  Moses: 120 = 5!

  where 5! = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 or

  120 = 22 + 42 + 102

  Any doubts about the ability of the ancient Egyptians to cope with squared numbers is quickly dispelled by an examination of the accuracies of measurement achieved in the building of the pyramids over 5,000 years ago, or of the Egyptians’ understanding of pi, which they calculated to a greater degree of accuracy than any other contemporary civilization.20

  The inevitable conclusion is that the ages of the early Biblical characters, and timespans quoted in years (at least up to Joshua), are artificially large and cannot be used as an accurate basis for chronological extrapolations.

  BACK ON COURSE

  After my slight digression, I can now return to the problem of when Abraham might have visited Egypt and will approach it from the other end, in a ‘pincer’ movement!

  Assuming, that the Hebrews arrived in Canaan in about 1180 BCE, they would have been led out of Egypt around 1220 BCE. The Bible gives the time of the stay of the Hebrews in Egypt as 440 years, which would mean Jacob and the twelve tribes came down to Egypt in 1660 BCE. However, this was the time of the Hyksos, of chaos and turmoil, which is inconsistent with the settled conditions described for Joseph’s lifetime and an unlikely time for the Hebrew tribes to come seeking food, sustenance and shelter. Also, as we have already seen, in the earlier Bible tracts there was a tendency for the authors to grossly exaggerate the numbers of elapsed years.

  Some authorities give the period of the stay of the Hebrews, from Jacob to the Exodus, as around 300 years, but there is no historical evidence for this. There is indeed a remarkable lack of any reference to Hebrew tribes or slaves as being a significant factor in Egyptian consciousness in this period, especially in view of the Biblical claim that their numbers amounted to a significantly huge number of 600,000 at the time of the Exodus. The longer the period of stay is assumed to be, the more strange it becomes that there were no Egyptian records on the existence or activities of the Hebrews.

  It is not unreasonable, therefore, to assume, as a number of authorities do, that the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt could have been a relatively short period – perhaps 130 to 160 years from the time of Jacob’s move into Egypt and the Exodus.

  This would date Jacob’s arrival in Egypt to 1350–1380 BCE.

  This date is also the preferred date for Jacob’s ‘Descent into Egypt’ given by Professor G. W. Anderson. He produces a strong case for the move into Egypt being in the first half of the fourteenth century, i.e., 1350 BCE, ‘possibly in the reign of the heretic king Ikhanaton’.21 He discounts references to Hammurabi*22 as equating to the Biblical Amraphel as being generally rejected and also works back from the Exodus to confirm his date. The Hebrews’ ‘Sojourn in Egypt’, was, he maintains, not the 400 years of Genesis 15:13, or the 430 years of Exodus 12:40, but more like 140–150 years. For Professor Anderson, the Mari and Nuzi texts of Mesopotamia (see above) give a background to the early wanderings of the Hebrews 300 years before the descent, and this accounts for the vagueness of their descriptiveness – bearing in mind that the texts were not written until perhaps 200 or 300 years further on past the events of the descent.

  If we now extrapolate back from Jacob to Abraham, to complete our ‘pincer movement’, we find that in real and Biblical terms a period of 150 years is not unreasonable for the span of three long-lived successive generations. However, as we have seen, Biblical ages in this part of the Bible are problematic; it is likely that the period of real elapsed time is approximately correct, but that the ages of individual Patriarchs listed is not, as they have been extended back to encompass the ancestral remembrances of Abraham’s forebears in Ur, perhaps some 200 years before his arrival in Egypt.

  All this puts the date of Abraham’s arrival in Egypt at around 1500 BCE.

  I consider that I have now established a Scheme of Probable Dates, consistent to within ± 30 years of those given by many modern, authoritative Egyptologists and writers on the subject. (See Table 3 in Chapter 5 – Egyptian Pharaoh-Ruler Chronology and Scheme of Probable Dates for the Hebrew Patriarchs.)

  I had now also established the name of the Pharaoh that Abraham met. No doubt you have already worked it out.

  CHAPTER EIGHT

  ABRAHAM AT PHARAOH’S PALACE

  So who was reigning in Egypt when Abraham arrived with Sarah? The first confrontational ‘taste’ that Abraham had of the most highly developed culture in his contemporary world probably came around 1520–1510 BCE, and the Pharaoh he encountered was, I believe, Amenhotep I.

  The year is 1520 BCE and times are hard. Drought has devastated the traditional pasturelands, food supplies are running low and Abraham’s family seek fresh pastures to the south. The Bible records that Abraham and his followers enter Egypt and, because he feared that the astounding beauty of his wife Sarai*23 could be a threat to his life, Abraham passes her off as his sister. Her beauty does, nevertheless, bring her to the attention of Pharaoh and he takes her into his palace.

  On the face of it, the Biblical story in Genesis 12 and 13 is curious, and appears to cast Abraham as, at the very least, exploiting the loveliness of Sarai – especially as we are told Abraham leaves Egypt well rewarded for Pharaoh’s dalliance with Sarai: ‘rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold’, and with a handmaiden named Hagar. One might give Abraham the benefit of the doubt, were this the only occasion where he apparently ‘exploits’ Sarah – but it isn’t. In Genesis 20 Abraham again passes Sarah off as his sister and appears to sell her to King Abimelech.1

  However, when I establish my version of the outcome of the meeting between Abraham and Pharaoh, another, more plausible, reason for Abraham coming away from Egypt laden with wealth becomes apparent – a reason that completely exonerates Abraham and gives to Sarah a vital role as a catalyst in bringing together two mighty figures of history.

  ABRAHAM MEETS PHARAOH

  Sarai is brought to the royal palace at Thebes at the request of Amenhotep I. This pharaoh is a member of a family of pharaohs of the New Kingdom period that, as I have shown, held rather different views from the mainstream multi-deity cults that generally prevailed. We already have an insight into the distinct monotheism that Amenhotep I might have espoused and have looked forward through his familial successors to see how each of them edged ever-closer to the new religion, which came to final fruition in the reign of Amenhotep IV.

  The encounter between Pharaoh and Sarai recorded by the Bible raises an interesting possibility. It is not inconceivable, to excuse the pun, that Sarai produced a child for Amenhotep I and that Semitic genes entered the Amenhotep family line. There are certainly records of Amenhotep’s descendant, Amenhotep IV, being ridiculed for his ‘foreign look’, thick lips and Semitic features (see Plate 6).

  Through Sarai, Abraham meets Amenhotep. One can only imagine at the outcome of the coming-together of the two critical masses of intellect represented by Amenhotep I and Abraham. What nuclear explosion of ideas must have resulted! On the one hand, Amenhotep I: an intellectual by-product of 3,000 years of prolific human endeavour distilled into one lifetime. A law unto himself, unchallenged by other mortals, surrounded by luxury and with all the trappings of power. On the other, a sharp-witted merchant adventurer, whose heritage of ancestral travellers had given him an insight into something more than a one-dimensional view of worship. A tribal chief of wealth, and yet still living close to the forces of nature.

  Perhaps Abraham’s first impression was one of awe and trepidation. Here was a ruler whose power over his subjects was, in contemporary t
erms, almost unimaginable. The mere flick of his regal flail could mean the summary death of thousands of people. And yet, and yet…with the passage of time a tentative familiarity, bred of arrogant curiosity on the part of Amenhotep, and fearful wondering on the part of Abraham, developed. So too came a slow mutual respect and recognition that each, though on different paths, was groping towards a new religious realization.

  Each had much to give to the other. The youthful Abraham brought stories of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia, of King Uruk’s search for eternal life, of ancient floods and naked priests bringing offerings to Inanna – goddess of fertility, a magical ram. For him, God was a reality of simple uncluttered nature, who was always with him in the desert when he looked to the stars or towards the sun. For Amenhotep there was a dream of sweeping away the ever-advancing throng of complex gods and ritual rigmarole in a new morality, which this wandering Semite could crystallize for him with his simple, straightforward way of talking and thinking.2

  Thus Abraham, his family and his retainers departed from Egypt laden down with precious gifts and cattle showered upon them by Amenhotep I because he and Pharaoh had become friends and not necessarily because Sarai had slept with Amenhotep. Abraham also took with him something much more valuable than material things – a new depth of understanding in God, supplicative prayer, and a pattern of ritual behaviour towards the Almighty. He left behind him an inspired Pharaoh, keener than ever to pursue the goal of purifying his country’s beliefs – if not in his own lifetime, in the lifetime of his children.

  THE AFTERGLOW OF EGYPT

  Traditional religious commentators, as has been indicated before, are reticent to the point of negativity when admitting anything of theological value came out of Egypt – let alone an original conceptualization and belief in one God. When it came to the writing of the Old Testament the association was downgraded – conforming to the initial axiom in Chapter 4: that innovations came largely as a result of original developments from within the faith.

  There are many writers, such as Ernst Sellin3 and Sigmund Freud4 – all of German extraction, and all writing in the first half of the twentieth century – who have noted the many parallels between Judaism and Egyptian ideologies. These authors tend to the view (as I do) that previous historical encounters are much more significant for the development of Judaism than is generally recognized.

  For my money the balance is quite convincingly tipped against the conventional view. If the weight of evidence is placed on the ‘scales of truth’, it is clear that when the ‘pan’ containing 1,500 years of leading-edge knowledge from the world’s most advanced civilization, concentrated into the intelligentsia surrounding Amenhotep I, is balanced against the ‘pan’ of a wandering merchant adventurer, there could be only one result. As Dr Bronowski reminds us: ‘Everything in nomad life is immemorial…There is no capacity for innovation, to develop a new device, a new idea – not even a new tune.’5 That Abraham took away from Egypt a defined monotheism is, indeed, indicated by the order of Abraham’s story in the Old Testament. Significantly Abraham’s stay in Egypt is recounted as taking place at the beginning of the very first chapter (in Genesis 12) that describes his life – when he was relatively young and therefore most impressionable. The only previous encounter he has had with God is an instruction to leave his homeland. It is only after Abraham’s departure from Egypt and his encounter with Amenhotep I that there are more detailed accounts of bipartisan involvement with God, the promise of a homeland, a defined covenant with God and the foretelling of a future return of his descendants to Egypt. The first time Abraham encounters God (Genesis 18:2, 6), God appears in the form of three men – the typical triad formulation of God current in Egypt at that time (see Glossary – Triad ).

  Also of considerable relevance in these post-Pharaoh encounters is the story of Abraham and Melchizedek, the King of Salem. In Genesis 14, we find Abraham demonstrating his mettle as a warrior chief and his loyalty to his family. His nephew, Lot, has been captured by a group of five warring kings led by Chedorlaomer, who overthrew four kings led by the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham recruits help from friendly tribes of Mamre the Amorite, and his brothers Eshkol and Aner. Together with 318 of his own followers they pursue the enemy to Hobah, near to Damascus, kill Chedorlaomer and manage to rescue Lot, his family, their chattels and the other captives.

  So pleased is the King of Sodom that he comes out to welcome the returning warriors and, together with Melchizedek, he fêtes Abraham. This latter passage is particularly intriguing. At this time much of Canaan was under the control of Egypt. Salem, which is identified with Jerusalem, would have been an important administrative centre and its ruler, ‘Melchizedek’ (whose name indicates he was a combination of King and High Priest), would not have been appointed had he not had an adherence to Amenhotep I’s beliefs. This conclusion is further confirmed by the greeting that Melchizedek gives to Abraham:

  And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of the Most High God. He blessed him, saying, ‘Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered your foes into your hand.’ And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything.

  Then the King of Sodom said to Abram, ‘Give me the persons, and take the possessions for yourself.’ But Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I swear to the Lord, the God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth: I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap of what is yours, you shall not say, “It is I who made Abram rich.” For me, nothing but what my servants have used up; as for the share of the men with me – Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre – let them take their share.’

  Genesis 14:18–24 (my italics)

  However the Hebrew words El Elyon (‘God Most High’) are translated, both Abram and Melchizedek use exactly the same phrase when referring to God. For religious scholars the duality of expression used by such an important ‘Biblical Hebrew’ and an apparently pagan king has been hard to digest. Numerous explanations have been devised, but they all leave an undercurrent of implausibility. If the religious basis of the two key players in this scenario is, as I have postulated, the same, then the question is readily resolved.

  Abram and Melchizedek’s phraseology is, in fact, typical of that used in Egypt for the Supreme Deity. In addition, Abram readily gives up a tenth of his spoils (a tithe) – a usual custom in Egypt – acknowledging his duty to the King-Priest.*24 The only logical conclusion is that, as they both referred to the same God, they both believed in the same God. Clearly Melchizedek, a vassal king appointed by Egypt, must have been aware of Abram’s relationship with Pharaoh and counted him as being loyal to Egypt.

  Analysis of the Old Testament confirms that the Patriarchs did not know God by the name or characteristics that were later revealed to Moses.6

  So Abraham, or Abram as he is at this stage referred to in the Old Testament (like Sarah, Abraham is referred to in the Old Testament as Abram, prior to God making a Covenant with him and his descendants7), journeyed forth from Egypt with his family, servants, attendants and livestock heading back to the land of Canaan – the land designated for him in a vision from God. He entered Egypt with a flickering candle of monotheism and now headed off into the bleak desert night with a brightly burning torch, lit by a Pharaoh of inspiration.

  After the story of Abraham’s audience with Amenhotep I, it subsequently transpires that he leaves Egypt with much gold and silver, but where that treasure disappeared to cannot be discerned. It certainly didn’t accrue to his grandson Jacob because he was virtually penniless and had to work like a slave for his uncle for fourteen years to make his way in life.

  There is no feasible link to the treasures of the Copper Scroll. The trail, as far as Abraham is concerned, has gone cold.

  However, there are still two more Biblical candidates, who had vastly more wealth at their disposal than Abraham – Joseph and Moses – and both of their lives were intimately involved with Egypt. Joseph is next
on my list for investigation, although first I will introduce the Pharaoh whom, I believe, had such an important influence on all subsequent links between the Hebrews and the Egyptians.

  CHAPTER NINE

  PHARAOH AKHENATEN – THE KING WHO DISCOVERED GOD

  As the power, wealth and land of the priests of Amun waxed during the Eighteenth Dynasty, so their challenge to pharaonic authority increased. Amenhotep III’s choice of a foreigner as his second wife, Princess Gilukhepa of Mitanni, did little to endear him to the people. When Amenhotep IV came to power in 1349 BCE, his response to the threat was both dramatic and drastic. While still in control of the army and the civil service, the Amenhotep inheritance of ‘secret monotheism’ was now to be his tool to neutralize the power of the cult priests. The torch that Amenhotep I had set smouldering 175 years earlier now burst forth in a blaze of light, which would shine down through history.

  The new Pharaoh began systematically to destroy the cults and replace the gods of Thebes with one God known as ‘Aten’, symbolized by a solar disc. It was Amenhotep IV who was the iconoclast, the destroyer of idols.1 (See Figure 5.)

  Whether he conceived of replacing all the other gods with one sole God, without any associated imagery, is difficult to determine. Perhaps he did but realized that the minds of his subjects would not be capable of adjusting to the complete loss of their indigenous idols, as well as accepting a single, spiritual God who needed no mental crutches of visual representation.

  What is clear, from the inscriptions we have from El-Amarna, is that Amenhotep IV conceived of God as ‘un-imaginable’. In the representation of God as the sun, he did not envisage the solar disc of ‘Aten’ as an image or an idol to worship in itself. The depiction of outstretched fingers as the rays of the sun were indicative that it was merely a guide to a greater Supreme Being that must be sought elsewhere.