Egypt plays a central role throughout the Bible, and particularly in the foundational narratives of Joseph, the Israelite enslavement, and the Exodus of the Israelites. With the influence these narratives have on the shaping of not only of Judaism and the Jewish people, but on western culture and religion as a whole, one would expect to find ample evidence for the existence of Israel in Egypt during the Bronze Age. Yet, despite the centrality of these events, there is no direct evidence outside of the Bible to support the existence of Israel in Egypt.

However, as has often been noted, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. There is much that is absent from the historical record in Egypt. Furthermore, there is actually indirect support for the existence of Semitic peoples and influence in Egypt during the Bronze Age that may or may not corroborate the accounts recorded in the biblical text. This indirect support includes the Amarna letters, Tale of Two Brothers, Papyrus Harris, Beni Hassan tomb, Karnak reliefs, possibly the stele of Ramesses II, and various scarabs and inscriptions.

Although this evidence does not directly support the accounts recorded in the Biblical text, they do help establish credence for some historical details that may have been retained in the collective memory of Israel and later recorded in the Biblical accounts.[1]

EGYPTIAN EVIDENCE FOR ISRAEL

The issue of direct evidence all changes by Iron Age I, when the Israelites (or proto-Israelites)[2] are already settling in Canaan.

During this period we begin to find direct archaeological evidence for the existence of a particular people group, the early Israelites, in the central Judean hills, and the development of a uniquely ‘proto-Israelite’ material culture;[3] which includes enclosed settlements with ‘Four Roomed Houses,’ collared rimed pottery, hewn cisterns, terraced farming, and other material culture in addition to a unique ideology.

This is important because it establishes the reality of a people known as the Israelites in Canaan by the 1200’s BCE. Furthermore, cultures do not crop up overnight. So if one can find direct evidence for Israel in Iron I, it is quite plausible to assume the existence of the Israelites at least back into the Late Bronze Age.

MERNEPTAH STELE

The earliest and most direct reference we have to Israel outside the biblical narrative is the Victory Stele of the 19^th Dynasty Egyptian king Merneptah.[4] Also known as the “Israel Stele,” it was erected in Thebes around 1210 BCE and records the victorious exploits of an Egyptian military campaign in Canaan, and lists specific enemies that were defeated. The Merneptah Stele is a black granite slab over 7.5 feet high,[5] and was discovered in 1896 in an expedition led by early archaeologist, Sir William Flinders Petrie. The particularly relevant portion of the Stele reads:

Plundered is Canaan with every evil;

Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;

Yanoam is made as that which does not exist;

Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;

Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!

All lands together, they are pacified.[6]

Whether the events described are fictive or real, what is clear is that by the 13^th century BCE, a people called Israel existed, and that the king of Egypt not only knew about them, but felt it was worth boasting about their defeat.[7]

Additionally, the specific way Israel is mentioned is also significant. According to Hershel Shanks, “Unpronounced signs, called determinatives, attached to the place names in this section of the stele indicate that Ashkelon, Gezer and Yonoam were cities and that Canaan was a foreign land; the determinative for Israel, however, indicates that the term referred to a people rather than a place.”[8]

Archaeologist William Dever further explains[9] that the existence of the Merneptah Stele is of extreme importance and tells us four things:

1. By 1210 BCE there existed in Canaan a cultural and political entity called “Israel” that was known to the Egyptians by that name.
2. Israel was well enough established to be perceived as a threat.
3. This Israel did not comprise of an organized state like others in Canaan, but was considered a loosely affiliated people group.
4. Israel was not located in the lowlands, but in the more remote central hill region.

In summary, the Merneptah Stele contains a wealth of information, and is the earliest evidence we have outside the Bible for the existence of a people known as Israel in the 13^th century BCE.

Parashat T'ruma

What is the connection between the construction of the Tabernacle, its furnishings and the Presence of G-d among the people of Israel?

This week’s Torah portion, Parashat T'ruma, centers on the instructions concerning the building of the Mishkan (the Tabernacle) and its furnishings. This raises an interesting question. For if the Bible’s overall theme is about G-d’s relationship with humanity through the Jewish people, then why is so much attention given to the details of objects? The answer is deeply connected to the purpose of the Mishkan, its services, and the manifest presence of the Divine.

The Torah states, “They shall make for me a Sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them (25:8).” The Hebrew name for the Tabernacle is mishkan, which means “to dwell” or “dwelling.” As such, even the word mishkan denotes HaShem's presence that would dwell among the people of Israel.

The Jewish sage, Ibn Ezra, comments that “while Moses was still on Mt. Sinai, G-d commanded him concerning the tabernacle so that it would be a permanent place among the people for the glory that had rested on the mountain.” Further, Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch notes that the key to the Tabernacle is directly related to Israel’s calling in verse 8. The Sanctuary represents Israel’s obligation to sanctify itself in its personal life. When the nation carries out that primary responsibility, G-d responds by dwelling among them.

G-d has always desired to tabernacle among His people. And the purpose of the Mishkan was to be a constant reminder of G-d’s presence residing among the Jewish people. The mishkan represents G-d’s shechinah (from the same word as mishkan) – G-d’s manifest presence on earth.

The author of Revelation writes that this continued presence of G-d among the Jewish people will continue beyond the second coming of the Messiah and even into the “New Jerusalem.”

“And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of G-d is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. G-d Himself will be with them and be their G-d (Rev. 21:3).’”

This promise echoes passages from the Torah in which G-d promises that He will be Israel’s G-d, and that they shall be His people. This promise of Israel’s unique relationship will continue into the Olam HaBa – the World to Come. May we, as followers of Yeshua, our Righteous Messiah, continue to live personal lives aware of G-d’s manifest presence, and may we continue to work to bring that Presence to the rest of the world – thereby affirming our calling to be a Light to the Nations.

The Messiah is the fullness of the G-d of Israel manifested in a physical form. This concept is readily evident throughout the Biblical text and extra-biblical writings. In Hebrew, the word אחד echad helps to explain this oneness that exists between HaShem, the Messiah, and the Spirit as the word echad means one, but not always in the singular. Rather, it is better used to describe a “complex unity.”

There is a common misconception, particularly within the Messianic Jewish blogosphere, that conversion to Judaism is a post-biblical, and rather late "rabbinic invention."

However, very few people have really taken the time to trace the development of conversion (גיור‎, giyur), and particularly its widespread existence already by the time of the Second Temple period (i.e. before the development of what we commonly understand as 'Rabbinic Judaism').

This blog post is an expansion of my comment to a particular discussion on Rabbi Derek Leman's blog, Messianic Jewish Musings.

The Torah

It is true that the Torah and the earliest portions of the Tanakh do not mention conversion clearly. With that said, the question of how to include non-Jews into the community of Israel has always been an issue.

In the Torah, there is recognition of non-Jews participating within the community life of Israel. Additionally, the Torah even recognizes various types of "sojourners" (gerim), and specifies certain requirements for levels of participation for each of these different types of non-Jews. So although non-Jews were included in many respects, there were also noted differences.

For example, non-Jews may not have been allowed to offer certain sacrifices on the altar in the Mishkan. Another example is the laws of Kashrut. According to Deuteronomy 14:21:

We have always valued the participation of non-Jews. This has been true even to the point that there has also been an evolving understanding of how to fully include non-Jews, not only has fellow partakers (as gerim), but as full participants in the social and religious life of the Jewish people. As a result, we do get glimpses of the beginnings of some type of conversion in order to bring someone into full inclusion into the community, even in the Torah.

The first glimpse of this is with with gerim and Passover. Gerim were not allowed to participate in the eating of the Passover lamb, unless they underwent circumcision (which in later times, would be one of the prerequisites for conversion). This is an example where a religious practice was forbidden for non-Jews, unless they chose to conform to a specific religious rite:

In this way, the ger was brought into the peoplehood. Through circumcision one became "as native-born." Although not a fully developed idea of conversion, there was indeed a process for inclusion even if not yet fully developed. Another example that may be relevant to a process of conversion involves non-Jewish women captured in war who could be adopted forcibly as wives (see Deut. 21:10-14).

Tanakh

By the last centuries BCE, there was certainly some sort of recognized conversion process in place. This is supported most clearly in Esther 8:17:

The ter m מתיהדים means “to become Jewish/to make oneself Jewish.” The Septuagint (c. 2nd cent. BCE) interprets מתיהדים as "circumcised themselves." The Jewish historian Josephus (c. 1st cent. CE) recounts that "Many of other nations circumcised themselves for fear of the Jews" (Antiquities 11.6.13).

In both rabbinic and scholarly understanding of this period, circumcision is clearly a reference to some type of conversion.

The first century Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, also discusses proselytes in his work, Special Laws I. In speaking of proselytes, Philo enjoins his own people to treat them respectfully and to guard themselves from jealousy:

"After they have given the proselytes an equal share in their laws, and privileges, and immunities, on their forsaking the pride of their fathers and forefathers, they must not give a license to their jealous language and unbridled tongues ... lest the proselytes should be exasperated at such treatment and in return utter impious language against the true and holy G-d" (IX, 51-53).

Thus, it seems clear that conversion is not a “later rabbinic invention,” as we already see traces of it in the Hebrew Scriptures and contemporaneous sources. Additionally, there are even references to proselytes in some of the Apocryphal and pseudopygraphic literature of the Second Temple period.

But what about the B'rit Chadasha? What do the Apostolic Writings have to say about conversion to Judaism?

The New Testament

According to Strongs Concordance, the term proselyte(s) is mentioned FOUR TIMES in the New Testament alone.

Here are just two examples:

-"And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven … both Jews (by birth) and proselytes” (Acts 2:5,10).

-"Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of G-d” (Acts 13:43).

There is an additional reference in Acts 6:5 to Nicolas from Antioch, "a proselyte to Judaism," who was among a handful of others chosen by the Jerusalem Council to serve among the Greek speaking Jews.

By the Second Temple period, the concept of proselytes to Judaism was already well-established. These references demonstrate that there was a category beyond that of Godfearers, who were full converts – Jews in every sense of the word.

And the Apostle Luke does not make any judgement against these “Jews by choice.” Rather, he places them in high regard by not only mentioning them, but mentioning them in three places within the book of Acts.

The only seemingly negative use of the term proselyte in the entire NT is Yeshua’s reference to particular Pharisees and scribes who go to great lengths to bring proselytes into the faith, but lead them down the wrong path. In this context, it is not the proselytes who are the problem, but the specific group of scribes and Pharisees he is addressing:

There is even some interesting scholarship on Acts 16 that supports a theory that Paul had Timothy undergo a type of conversion “because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (16:3).”

Conclusion

So, after a little reflection, it seems that the assumption that conversion to Judaism is a "late rabbinic invention" is indeed false. The beginnings of a process to fully include non-Jews into the Jewish people began very early in Jewish history, maybe as early as the Torah.

However, the solid idea of a recognized conversion was already well established by the time of Yeshua, and the Second Temple period.

This is a continuation of my previous thoughts on Jewish law and the Halachic process.

As followers of a Jewish Messiah, we are obligated to engage in knowledgeable discussion with Jewish law. At times we may interpret it differently, especially in light of New Testament understandings. Yet, that does not mean we can just “do as we see fit.” We have a responsibility to ourselves and the larger Jewish world to engage in halachah through a knowledgeable and informed process.

As a part of this process it is paramount that we also recognize and incorporate the role of the Brit Chadasha (New Testament).

Mashiach as the Embodiment of Israel

Jewish tradition teaches that Mashiach must be the quintessential Jew. An embodiment of the experience, sufferings, and joys of the entire Jewish people. A number of scholars have recognized that within Yeshua, as the Mashiach, is the embodiment of all Israel. Rabbi Dr. Mark Kinzer often refers to Yeshua as "One Man Israel," as he is the perfect embodiment of Israel, and as such, Yeshua's life parallels Israel's experience.

The Sermon on the Mount as a Reflection of Sinai

Within this embodied pattern as mentioned above is a parallel (of what is often called) the "Sermon on the Mount" with the experience of Sinai. Since Yeshua embodies the existence of Israel, the Sermon on the Mount serves as almost a renewal, or sort of "re-giving," of the Torah on Mt. Sinai. As such, there is clear halachic imagery embedded within.

Halachic Formulas in the Sermon on the Mount

Judaism teaches that when the Mashiach comes, one of his roles will be to clarify ambiguities within halachic matters. Interestingly, this is exactly what Yeshua does within the Sermon on the Mount. Through halachic formulas known from the Second Temple period, Yeshua sets out to clarify and set straight popular misconceptions of specific mitzvot.

Before dealing with each specific mitzvah, Yeshua usually begins with the phrase “You have heard that our fathers were told…” This is actually a halachic formula known from the Second Temple period. It was a way that a Sage would state a particular halachic understanding, and then clarify its "proper" interpretation.

This phrase is actually paralelled in a halachic text discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Known as 4QMMT – "Miksat Ma’aseh Torah" (Some rulings pertaining to the Torah), the text introduces disagreements between the Qumran community and their opponents (namely the Sadducees) with a phrase: “You say … but we think/say.”

In the Sermon on the Mount, Yeshua was using a halachic formula known at the time to clarify and give proper understanding to certain interpretations of Torah commands.

Weightier Matters of Torah

There are also ethical matters to be explored within the halachic process. In Matthew 23:23, Yeshua addresses a specific group of Pharisees, and reprimands them for violating these ethical considerations:

You pay your tithes of mint, dill, and cumin; but you have neglected the weightier matters of the Torah - justice, mercy, and trust. These are the things you should have attended to - without neglecting the others! Blind guides! - straining out a gnat, meanwhile swallowing a camel.

Interestingly, Yeshua does not criticize them for adherence to halachic minutae, but for their hypocricy. For in their striving to be oh-so-extra-pious, they missed the mark. These additional tithes of "mint, dill, and cumin” are actually not even required by mitzvah de-oraisa (commanded in the Torah), but rather are supplimental/additional tithes known from the Talmud. Yeshua does not negate this understanding. His reprimand was an issue of weightier matters within Torah. Yeshua was setting up ethical considerations within the halachic process.

Conclusion

If our understanding of, or adherence to, a particular mitzvah violates one of these "weightier matters" of justice, mercy, and trust; then there is a problem and we must defer to the weightier matters. In Yeshua's understanding of Halacha, we must always put people first …"without neglecting the others [commands]!”

As we continue to grapple with halachah, we must take into consideration our Mashiach's teachings. As we develop interpretations of halachah that are guided by tradition, infused with Mashiach, and inspired by the Ruach; let us not forget that there are also "weightier matters" that must be considered.

Complex Unity

Biblical Support

The idea that the Messiah would be more than a human figure goes back to the last centuries B.C.E. when Biblical passages were interpreted and attributed with messianic significance. We see commentaries, like the Aramaic Targums, that include sections from Daniel, Zechariah, Isaiah, and others. These authors absolutely believed in, and ascribed, an exalted status to the Messiah.