The Journey through the Netherworld and the Death of the Sun God: A Novel Reading of Exodus 7–15 in Light of the Book of Gates

Abstract

Exodus 7:8–15:21 contains a sequence of conflicts between YHWH and Pharaoh that can be divided into three parts: the Snake Confrontation, the Ten Plagues of Egypt, and the Parting of the Reed Sea. A careful reading of the entire narrative in conjunction with a New Kingdom Egyptian funerary text—the Book of Gates (BG)—reveals that both works share a number of similarities in terms of themes, terminologies, and structure. However, significant differences also occur at some crucial junctures as the respective stories unfold. These findings suggest that the Israelite author (or group of authors) might have made use of the tradition related to BG—with polemical changes—as one of his sources in framing the Exodus 7–15 narrative, in order to juxtapose the sequence of YHWH’s miracles with the progression of Pharaoh’s impending death. In this regard, Exodus 7:8–15:21 can be read as a polemical parody of the already well-established myth concerning the sun god’s journey through the Netherworld. According to this parodic reading, YHWH is the deity par excellence who stands above the Egyptian pantheon and controls order in Egypt.

1. Introduction

Exodus 7:8–15:21 contains a series of conflicts between YHWH and Pharaoh that can be categorized into three narrative groups: (1) the Serpent Contest (i.e., Exod 7:8–13; Miracle 1 (M1)), (2) the Ten Plagues (i.e., Exod 7:14–13:16; Miracle 2 (M2)), and (3) the Parting of the Reed Sea1 (i.e., Exod 13:16–15:21; Miracle 3 (M3)). Concerning the literary relationship between these groups, John D. Currid (1997, p. 85) argues that M1 and M3 function as “the boundaries of the entire narrative, reinforcing its singular theme.” In support of this claim, he lays out several factors. First, the staff (מטה) motif appears in M1 and M3: in the former case, Aaron’s מטה overpowered those of the magicians, whereas in the latter case, Moses’ מטה caused the sea to engulf the antagonists. Second, the word בלע (“swallow”) also appears in both M1 (i.e., Aaron’s staff swallowed the magicians’ staffs) and M3 (i.e., the Reed Sea swallowed Pharaoh and the Egyptian army) (Fretheim 2005, p. 115; Greidanus 2018, p. 46; Morales 2020, p. 97). After taking these points into account, Currid remarks that M1 is “critical for our understanding of what follows” because it “foreshadowed Yahweh’s humiliation of Egypt through the plagues and at the Red Sea.” (Kass 2021, p. 135) In short, according to Currid, MM1–3 should be read as a unified literary unit.2

While I concur with Currid’s approach, I contend that his suggestion can be taken one step further. As will be shown in this article, a careful reading of MM1–3 in conjunction with an Egyptian funerary text—The Book of Gates (BG)—reveals that both works share a number of similarities in terms of themes, terminologies, and structure. However, significant differences also appear at certain critical moments as the respective stories unfold. Hence, a comparative analysis of these two tales could offer a valuable interpretive background for achieving a fuller understanding of the Exodus conflict narrative.

In this article, I propose that: (1) the Israelite author (or group of authors) made use of the tradition related to BG—with polemical modifications—as one of his sources when framing the entire Exodus 7–15 narrative, in order to juxtapose the sequence of YHWH’s miracles (i.e., MM1–3) with the progression of Pharaoh’s impending death3, and that (2) informed ancient Israelite listeners/readers (especially the educated audience) might have discerned the subversive reading of Exodus 7–15.4 This novel approach portrays Exodus 7:8–15:21 as a polemical parody of the already well-established myth about the sun god’s journey through the Egyptian Netherworld. In order to support this claim, I will first briefly introduce the methodology utilized in this article. Second, I will summarize BG, depicting several relevant points for our study. This task is necessary because Hebrew Bible (HB) scholars have not paid sufficient attention to BG. Thus, a succinct interpretation of BG will lay the groundwork for the following section. Third, based on the information gathered in the second section, I will interpret MM1–3 in light of BG, identifying key parallels and discrepancies between the two texts. This undertaking will enable us to identify several polemical points that the Israelite author attempted to make. Fourth, I will deal with two related issues regarding my novel approach that could possibly be raised by readers of this article (i.e., the historical point of contact between the Israelite author and BG, and the association of YHWH with the Egyptian forces of chaos). Finally, I will conclude with the hypothesis that the Israelite author of MM1–3 might have utilized the tradition related to BG—with some polemical subversions—as one of his sources, in order (1) to attack the Egyptian belief that Pharaoh is the sun god incarnate, who is capable of maintaining the order of Egypt, and (2) to promote the Israelite belief that YHWH is the deity par excellence who controls the order of Egypt, including its king and its pantheon.

2. A Theory of Parody

In this article, I argue that MM1–3 can be identified as a parody.5 Hence, it is necessary to briefly discuss the definition and function of parody. In what follows, drawing upon literary critics, I will lay out the essential criteria of parody that most literary critics agree upon: (1) imitation, (2) inversion, and (3) antithesis.

First, Linda Hutcheon (1985, p. 6) defines parody as “a form of imitation, but imitation characterized by ironic inversion” or, in another formulation, as “repetition with a difference.” According to this definition, a parody requires a precursor for it to be a parody (Hutcheon 1985, p. 58).6 This does not mean that the parody requires the precursor to be a single work (e.g., a motif, text, genre, ideology, or image). The parodist may draw from more than one historical work to serve his own purposes to create the parody. Saul Morson (1989, p. 69) notes, “Some literary parodies, for instance, are designed to discredit a writer’s total oeuvre, or a literary movement (e.g., romanticism), or a genre (e.g., romance, pastor[ale], epic, folktale, utopia—or, in principle, any other genre).” In this sense, parody is a “parasitic genre” that feeds on other material(s) (Dell 2017, p. 34).

Second, parody is not just a simple imitation of the precursor. Rather, parody seeks to do something more (e.g., shock the audience or ridicule the precursor) by intentionally creating ironic inversions of the precursor (Hutcheon 1985, p. 34). In doing so, parody twists the typical expectations of the precursor, “first imitating and then changing either, and sometimes both, the ‘form’ and ‘content’, or style and subject-matter, or syntax and meaning of another work, or, most simply, its vocabulary” (Rose 1993, p. 45). Unlike pure imitation, parody utilizes “repetition with critical distance, which marks difference rather than similarity” (Hutcheon 1985, pp. 6, 34). The difference between parody and pastiche is also helpful for our study. Unlike pastiche, which reproduces both the form and the content of the precursor, parody can manipulate and rework both of them (Rose 2011, pp. 43, 86–89, 127).

Third, parody is antithetical to the content of its precursor text. Simon Dentith (2000, p. 9; cf. Morson 1989, p. 67) highlights the nature of parody, as follows: “Parody includes any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice.” In this regard, parody both evokes a precursor with twists and exhibits an antithetical distance from it. With the purpose of signaling the presence of parody, the parodist deliberately leaves specific markers regarding the precursor within the discourse. This device allows readers to trace the new material back to the precursor.7

Taking these factors into account, then, I broadly define parody as a composition that antithetically imitates a precursor with ironic subversions. In what follows, I will demonstrate that MM1–3 functions as a parody of BG, implicitly imitating and polemically subverting the expectations of its precursor (i.e., BG). This approach will offer a satisfactory explanation of the unique contents within MM1–3 (i.e., the Snake Confrontation, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Reed Sea, the drowned soldiers, and the presence of the twelve miracles). In addition, this approach will provide a new interpretive tool for modern readers to better understand how the intended audience(s) would have perceived MM1–3 in their historical contexts.

3. The Sun God’s Nocturnal Journey through the Underworld

The New Kingdom of Egypt (ca. 1551–1070 BCE) exhibits an elaborative and systematized concept of the Netherworld embarked upon in Egyptian belief (Schweizer 2010, pp. 1–14). The so-called “Netherworld Books” (NB) are the corpora of six separate religious texts—(1) the Book of Adoring Ra in the West, (2) the Book of the Hidden Chamber, (3) the Book of Gates, (4) the Book of Caverns, (5) the Book of the Creation of the Solar Disk, and (6) the Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity—and provide an invaluable window into the Egyptians’ concept of the Netherworld (Darnell and Darnell 2018, pp. 2–3).8 Although each composition describes the otherworldly region in its own fashion, the NB represent a common template emphasizing the same features of the narrative: the nocturnal journey of the sun god into the perilous Netherworld (Pinch 2002, p. 24). In this regard, the sun god is the central figure of the NB. As John C. Darnell and Colleen M. Darnell (Darnell and Darnell 2018, p. 4) succinctly put it,

The New Kingdom Netherworld Books describe the solar progress through the twelve hours of the night: the sinking into the western horizon, the topography of the different areas, the deities that populate those dark and fitfully illumined regions, the solar combat with the chaos serpent Apep, the punishment of enemies and the damned, and finally, the triumphant appearance of the solar deity in the eastern horizon.

In this section, I will single out the Book of Gates and interact with it as the preparatory background for the next section. The reason for this singling out is that, as will be shown in the next section, several crucial tropes featured in BG appear in Exodus 7–15. In addition, BG is oriented more thoroughly to the person of Pharaoh than in any other of the NB, a characteristic that is in line with the Exodus narrative, which depicts Pharaoh as the central target of the divine plagues (Hornung 1999, p. 56).9 Hence, interacting with BG has something to offer in terms of achieving a fuller understanding of the Exodus narrative (i.e., MM1–3).

3.1. The Book of Gates

In a brief form, BG contains the following five themes as the backbone of its story: the sun god (1) descends into the Netherworld at nightfall by entering into the hill of the western mountain range, (2) goes through the twelve different regions of the Netherworld corresponding to the twelve nocturnal hours (Pinch 2002, p. 24; Darnell and Darnell 2018, p. 42), (3) unites with his Osirian corpse, (4) overcomes various dangers that try to prevent him from reaching his final destination, and (5) arrives at the eastern end of the Netherworld and recuperates.

One of the central themes within BG is the union of the sun god’s bꜢ (i.e., “soul”) with his Osirian corpse—an event that takes place in the middle of the night (i.e., the sixth nocturnal hour) (Darnell and Darnell 2018, p. 4). According to the accompanying text in the 38th Scene of the middle register in Hour 6, twelve gods with hidden arms bless this union, as follows:

bꜢ.k n pt ḫnty Ꜣḫt

šwt.k Ꜥpp(tj) štꜢyt

ḫꜢt.k n tꜢ jmj ḥrt

dj.n n.s rꜤw

jwd.tj r.s rꜤw

srq.k ḥtp.k ẖꜢt.k jmyt dwꜢt

Your soul belongs to heaven, Foremost of the horizon,

And it is your shadow which traverses the Shetit

while your corpse belongs to the Earth, you who are in heaven.

We restore Ra to it (the heaven),

since you are separated from it, Ra.

You breathe when you rest (in) your corpse, which is in the Underworld.10

This theme is absolutely critical in that the rejuvenation of the sun god becomes available only through this unification (Darnell and Darnell 2018, pp. 6–7). In addition, as a result of the union of the sun god with his corpse, time is renewed, the blessed dead can reawaken, and the cosmos can be reestablished (Darnell and Darnell 2018, pp. 42–43; Pinch 2002, p. 184; Schweizer 2010, p. 120). Hence, the sun god must reach the darkest and deepest hour of the Netherworld to be united with his Osirian corpse. In order for this critical event to not be obstructed, all threats must be kept at a distance (Hornung 1999, p. 62).

However, the path into and through the Netherworld is filled with dangers. Among them, ꜤꜢpp (“Apep”) is depicted as the most severe threat; he repeatedly attempts to thwart the solar journey. Hence, BG assigns negative designations to him, such as sby (“Rebel”) and ḫfty rꜤw (“Enemy of Ra”). In Egyptian myths, Apep symbolizes “the force of non-existence and a perpetual threat to the sun god, whom he attempts to swallow” (Hart 1990, p. 54). As Jan Assmann (2018, p. 34; cf. Te Velde 1970, p. 175; Töyräänvuori 2013, pp. 113–16) remarks, “Texts and images describe it as a huge water snake or dragon that swallows the heavenly ocean across which the sun god is sailing in a boat, which is thus in danger of running aground on a sand bank.” For example, the 13th Scene of the lower register in Hour 3 of BG portrays Apep as stationing himself directly beneath the solar barque, ready to sink the boat and devour the sun god (Hornung 1979–1980, p. 2:92). Hence, BG appropriately designates Apep as the Ꜥm (“Swallower”) (Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 1:227, 228; Darnell and Darnell 2018, p. 11).

In attempting to aid the sun god, various gods in the Netherworld stand against Apep. For example, the Ennead of the sun god, who represent “die Gesamtheit aller seligen Verstorbenen” (Hornung 1979–1980, p. 2:94), curse Apep after driving the enemy from the solar barque (lower register, 13th Scene, Hour 3):

Znjt(w) tp.k ꜤꜢpp znjt(w) qꜣbw

nn tknw.k m wjꜣ rꜥw

nn hꜣj.k r dpt-nṯr

Your head is cut off, Apep, the coils chopped up.

You [Apep] will not come near to the barque of Ra,

You will not come near to the god’s ship.

(Hornung and Abt 2014, p. 84; Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 1:76–77)

Atum also curses Apep (lower register, 13th Scene, Hour 3):

sḫdw.k jwty ꜤḥꜤ.k

ḥkꜣw.k jwty gmj.k.ṯ(w)

You are upside down, so that you cannot rise (again),

You are bewitched so that you cannot find yourself.

(Hornung and Abt 2014, p. 83; Hornung 1979–1980, p. 1:75)

In order to further secure his nocturnal journey, the sun god is accompanied by three protective deities—sjꜣ (“Sia”), ḥkꜣ (“Heka”), and mḥn (“Mehen”).11 The ultimate function of these gods is to ensure the safe procession of the solar barque by guarding the sun god against various threats, especially the menacing serpent, Apep (see Figure 1).

According to the accompanying text in the 34th Scene of the upper register in Hour 6, twelve gods carrying forked sticks describe the trio in the following manner:

nṯrw pw jmyw wjꜢ

ḫsfyw ꜤꜢpp m nwt

Ꜥpp.sn r dwꜢt

mtsn ḫsfw ꜤꜢpp ḥr rꜤw m jmntt

dwꜢtyw mꜢꜤ(w) nṯr pn

dwꜢtyw mꜢꜤ(w) nṯr pn

These are the gods who are in the barque,

Who ward off Apep in heaven,

When they proceed to the Netherworld.

They are those who ward off Apep from Ra in the West,

Those of the Underworld who guide this god.

(Hornung and Abt 2014, pp. 200–201; Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 1:207–208)

Throughout the whole nightly voyage, each protective deity stays close to the sun god and utilizes his unique power to neutralize the negative forces (Pinch 2002, p. 27). “More than ever before,” Andreas Schweizer (2010 p. 200) avers, “the Great God [i.e., the sun god] is now dependent on deities who seem better acquainted than he with the regenerative forces of the earth and the netherworld.” In sum, the union of the sun god with his Osirian corpse and the combat against Apep are the central themes within BG. I will now move on to discuss the central characters in BG.

3.2. Important Characters in the Book of Gates

3.2.1. The Sun God and Apep

The conflict between the sun god and Apep needs to be understood within the context of the Egyptians’ opposing conceptions of order and chaos. According to this concept, one of the most important tasks of the sun god is to maintain the divine order (i.e., maat) of Egypt, which is personified by a goddess, mꜢꜤt (“Maat”) (Hornung 1982, p. 74). Concerning the definition of maat, Glenn S. Holland (2009, p. 39) remarks, “Maat was the basis for all divine activity. It is the harmony and equilibrium necessary for the proper functioning of the entire cosmos, including both the divine and the human worlds. The concept of maat also implies decorum and justice as the motivating force in the king’s actions, as the king imitates the divine rule of Horus or Ra.” For this reason, BG clearly states that an eternal and blissful life will be granted to those who maintain maat on earth. A vignette in the 43rd Scene in the upper register in Hour 7 depicts twelve of the blessed dead, each one carrying a feather—the sign of maat—on his head. The accompanying text reads:

jryw mꜢꜤt jw.sn tp tꜢ

ꜤḥꜤw ḥr nṯr.sn

njstw.sn r sḫnt tꜢ

r ḥwt Ꜥnḫw m mꜢꜤt

Who have practiced maat when they were (still) on earth,

who have fought for their god –

they are summoned to the resting place of the Earth,

to the temple of Him who lives on maat.

(Hornung and Abt 2014, pp. 242–423; Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 1:255–56)

Since maat is an absolute necessity for Egypt to stand firm, it needs to be reestablished each and every day.13 As the maintainer of maat, the sun god is responsible for taking care of it.

However, the ancient Egyptians believed that maat is not only vulnerable to but also constantly threatened by chaotic forces (Hornung 1982, pp. 25, 88). Apep—the all-devouring monster—represents this destructive aspect of chaos. Each and every night, Apep challenges maat by attempting to swallow up the sun god as he passes through the underworld (Pinch 2002, pp. 106, 184; Rikala 2007, p. 223). The sun god must subdue Apep in order to unite with his corpse, reach the eastern horizon, and thus maintain maat—otherwise, Egypt will fall into chaos (Lowry 1982, p. 184). In order to ensure a safe trip, the sun god is accompanied by the three protective deities (i.e., Sia, Heka, and Mehen) on the solar barque. Each and every night, the trio guards the supreme deity of Egypt so that he is able to renew the world. It is only through this divine teamwork that maat is maintained (Pinch 2002, p. 183). Hence, Assmann (2014, p. 14) correctly states, “The leading model for expressing the maintenance of the world in terms of cooperation and partnership is the mythology of the Solar Course, which shows the sun god sailing in a boat through the sky and the underworld, an action in which virtually all of the gods take part.”

In sum, the epic journey of the sun god into and through the Netherworld can be understood as a battle between the forces of order and chaos. This battle features Apep as “the archenemy of creation, [with] demons as those who bring diseases and misfortune into the world” (Dieleman 2019, p. 96), and the sun god as the maintainer of maat. In addition, Sia, Heka, and Mehen function as the helpers of the supreme deity of Egypt.

3.2.2. Sia

Sia—the deity standing at the prow of the barque in Figure 1—is a personification of intelligence (i.e., sia). When sia is depicted as a god (or as a quality of the sun god), he represents the power of perception (e.g., thought, mind, reason, understanding, insight, knowledge, intellect, divine wisdom, and insightful planning) (Pinch 2002, pp. 62, 198; Allen 2014, p. 206; Boylan 1922, p. 103; Te Velde 1970, p. 184; Assem 2012, p. 27; Hornung 1982, p. 76). Hence, Sia is a god of divine perception.

Since perception is “the ability to see what needs to be done” (Allen 2014, p. 195), Sia is sometimes described as being in the eye of the sun god, empowering him to “see and understand everything that happens in the world” (Pinch 2002, p. 198). However, the Egyptians believed that perception is more closely connected to one’s heart: sia is “an action of the heart” (Richter 2016, p. 269; see also Assem 2012, p. 21). The resonance of such a connection is based on the Egyptians’ belief that the heart, not the brain, is the locus of thought (David 2008a, p. 15). For this reason, in antiquity, the brain was surgically removed from the body (i.e., excerebration) unceremoniously before the mummification process, whereas the heart was kept within the body (Adams and Alsop 2008, p. 61). This trope explains why various Egyptian texts identify the heart not only as the place of sia (Allen 2014, p. 195) but also as Sia the god (Pinch 2002, pp. 62, 73, 102; Boylan 1922, p. 113).

As “an incarnation of the god’s intuitive omniscience” (Assem 2012, p. 27) and a counselor of the sun god (Boylan 1922, p. 105), Sia, while on the solar barque, helps the sun god to render sound judgments as he encounters various dangers. In addition, he functions as a gate opener who commands the doorkeeper to grant them access to the next hour for Ra. Hence, Sia serves an absolutely critical role in BG, moving the barque forward to the next hour of the night. With Sia’s aid, the sun god moves a step closer to his Osirian corpse and then to the eastern horizon (cf. Assem 2012, p. 27).

3.2.3. Heka

Heka—the deity standing by the steering oars in Figure 1—is a personification of magical power (i.e., heka). Thus, when he appears as a god (or as a quality of the sun god), he represents supernatural forces (e.g., divine energy, mysterious energy, magic power, creative force, mysterious efficacy, or miracles) (Te Velde 1970, pp. 175, 184; Pinch 2002, p. 139; David 2008b, p. 182; Holland 2009, p. 32; Teeter 2011, p. 162; Dieleman 2019, pp. 88–89; Hornung 1982, p. 76). Importantly, his name can be understood in connection with maat. According to Jacco Dieleman (2019, pp. 88–89), “Heka is the Egyptian term for the creative force that makes the ordered world possible.” Thus, as the upholder of maat, in mythological contexts, Heka functions as “a weapon to guard and preserve the order of the universe” (Dieleman 2019, p. 89).

Because of his association with magic, Heka was believed to be the source that “imbued magicians with transformative power” (Teeter 2011, p. 162).14 The Book of the Heavenly Cow (ca. 13th century BCE) even depicts Heka as residing within the magicians.15 On the coffin of Iwesemhesetmut (ca. 11th c. BCE), Heka is portrayed as carrying two serpentine staffs (Graves-Brown 2018, p. 123), which were the most common tools carried by Egyptian magicians (Te Velde 1970, p. 181). Importantly, all magicians were supposed to use their magic in support of maat because magic in Egyptian belief is “the operation of cosmogonic energies for the purpose of maintaining or restoring order” (Assmann 2014, p. 8). Along with sia, heka serves an important role in protecting maat.

As a protector of maat and an “incarnation of magic” (Assem 2012, p. 27), Heka aids the sun god on the solar barque, not only protecting the sun god from various dangers but also attacking Apep with his supernatural forces. As Dieleman (2019, p. 91) remarks, “Heka paralyzes the enemy with his force and hence provides a safe passage for the sun god through the underworld.” Heka is an important ally of the sun god, who ensures that Ra unites with his corpse and arrives at the eastern end of the Netherworld by the end of the night.

3.2.4. Mehen

Mehen—the encircling serpent in the middle of the barque—is a personification of divine protection (Reemes 2015, pp. 65–68). Mehen (whose name means the “coiled one”), when appearing as a god16, represents a “protective barrier,” “protective encapsulation,” or “protective carapace” for vulnerable beings, such as the sun god in his perilous journey or the deceased Pharaohs as their souls travel through the dangerous Netherworld to reach the blissful eastern horizon (Reemes 2015, pp. 46, 47, 141).17 Because of his protective nature, Mehen appears as the Encircler on the sarcophagi of Pharaohs (e.g., Merenptah, Ramesses III, and Amenherkhepshef) or on the walls of the royal tombs (e.g., Thutmose III and Ramesses VI) (Reemes 2015, p. 68 n. 158).

In BG, Mehen appears as “a permanent escort” of the sun god and has “a constant living presence”, due to his important role on the solar barque (Schweizer 2010, p. 139). All throughout the nighttime journey, Mehen—the god of protection—coils his body securely around the sun god from all sides, thereby providing a high level of security.18 Twelve blessed spirits in the 23rd Scene in the upper register in Hour 5 speak to Ra thus:

jy.tj rꜤw jꜤr.k n dwꜢt

hmw n.k Ꜥq.k ḏsrw m mḥn

Welcome, Ra, when you approach the Netherworld,

Jubilation to you when you enter the protection of Mehen.

(Hornung and Abt 2014, pp. 149–50; Hornung 1979–1980, p. 1:149)

Hence, BG appropriately describes Mehen as a deity who cares for the sun god’s protection (wn mḥn n zꜣwt.f).19 In this respect, the serpent Mehen is a kind of counter-Apep (Pinch 2002, p. 200) who provides “[o]ne of the chief protections of the solar god against Apep” (Darnell and Darnell 2018, p. 13). Peter A. Piccione (1990, p. 43) adequately summarizes:

The primary function of the god Mehen in religious belief is depicted in the New Kingdom Netherworld literature. According to the Book of Amduat, the Book of Gates, and the Book of Night, Mehen ostensibly is an immense coiled serpent who stands on the night-bark of Ra, and he guides the passage of the sun-god in his Netherworld journey. Primarily, though, he encompasses Ra in his many coils, and protects him from all outside evil.

Mehen, along with Sia and Heka, supports the sun god so that he can unite with his Osirian corpse and reach the eastern horizon. For this reason, Mehen is also an upholder of maat, the divine order of Egypt.

3.3. Summary

BG focuses on the nocturnal journey of the sun god into and through the Netherworld. The path of the underworld is filled with various dangers that must be repelled for the safe passage of the sun god. The evil snake Apep—the nemesis of the sun god and the representative of chaotic forces—poses a potential threat to the sun god by attempting to sink the solar barque and devour him. In order to neutralize this maleficent action, three protective deities—Sia (“Divine Perception”), Heka (“Magical Force”), and Mehen (“Coiled One”)—accompany and carefully guard the sun god throughout his perilous voyage. Sia and Heka’s presence in front of and behind the sun god and Mehen’s encircling of the sun god clearly demonstrate that multiple protections are at work to ensure the safe passage of the solar barque. Through this divine teamwork, the chaotic force Apep can be vanquished, and the sun god is able to unite with his corpse and reach his final destination. In doing so, he is able to reestablish and maintain maat—the backbone of Egypt’s existence. In the next section, I will examine MM1–3 in light of the Egyptian background that I have established in this section.

4. Examining Exodus 7–15 in Light of the Book of Gates

A careful reading of the entire Exodus narrative reveals that MM1–3, not directly but recognizably, mirrors the story of BG, albeit with polemical subversions. As I will show below, the Israelite author likely made use of the tradition related to BG in framing MM1–3 in terms of motif, theme, pattern, and language.20 In doing so, he subtly subverts the precursor and promotes his ideology. Since M1 is paradigmatic of the subsequent narrative (i.e., MM2–3), which “foreshadowed Yahweh’s humiliation of Egypt through the plagues and at the Red Sea” (Currid 1997, p. 85), I will devote much of this section to deal with M1, and then I will briefly analyze MM2–3 in the context of BG.

4.1. The Serpent Contest

A careful reading of the Serpent Contest (M1; Exod 7:8–13) reveals that M1 evokes some of the crucial Egyptian tropes that appear in BG. These tropes can be paired as follows: (1) Pharaoh (M1)—the sun god (BG), (2) Aaron’s devouring staff/snake (M1)—Apep the devourer (BG), (3) the heart of Pharaoh (M1)—Sia (BG), (4) Egyptian magicians (M1)—Heka (BG), and (5) Egyptian staffs/snakes (M1)—Mehen (BG). However, significant differences (i.e., antithetical distance) also occur at some crucial junctures as the respective stories unfold. In what follows, I will expound upon these parallelisms and discrepancies in order to depict polemical points that the Israelite author made for his theological purposes.

4.1.1. Pharaoh and the Sun God

It is a well-known Egyptian conception that Pharaoh was divine, in that he was considered to be “the incarnation of Egypt’s chief god” (Luft 2001, pp. 143–45; cf. Dunand and Zivie 2004, p. 100; Batto 2015, p. 194).21 Thus, he was often equated with the sun god (i.e., rꜤ (Ra) and ḥr (Horus)) (Currid 1997, p. 102; Schweizer 2010, pp. 6–7). Such an equation affected the Egyptians’ beliefs about Pharaoh’s (1) afterlife and (2) terrestrial life. As for the former, a deceased Pharaoh’s soul was believed to “be received into the West, like the setting sun, by placement in a tomb which has become a veritable model of the underworld and, like the nocturnal sun, the royal mummy is conceived of as protected within the coils of Mehen, represented around the edges of sarcophagi as an ouroboros or ouroboroid serpent” (Reemes 2015, p. 68; cf. Assmann 2014, pp. 9, 20) As for the latter, a living Pharaoh was responsible for maintaining the maat of Egypt (Kemp 2018, p. 24; Teeter 2011, p. 4; Hornung 1982, p. 214). New Kingdom compositions clearly depict the latter concept in many ways. For example, Pharaoh is sometimes depicted as joining the nocturnal journey of the sun god and waging war against chaotic forces (Hornung 1999, p. 59; Pinch 2002, p. 116). Some existing temple rituals also demonstrate the role of Pharaoh as actively aiding the sun god when he encounters evil forces every night (Pinch 2002, p. 184). Furthermore, “each reign of Pharaoh was supposed to be a successful battle by the leader of the forces of order against the forces of chaos” (Pinch 2002, p. 87). In short, the Egyptians thought of Pharaoh as the sun god incarnate.

Therefore, informed readers of Exodus would have known that Pharaoh in M1 was responsible for maintaining the maat of Egypt. With this perspective in mind, it is significant that the Hebrew word פרעה appears six times in M1. Furthermore, the previous context (i.e., Exod 7:1–7) and M1 clearly show that Pharaoh is the main target of the snake assault: YHWH commanded Aaron to throw down his staff,22 which would turn into a snake, “before Pharaoh” (לפני פרעה). Such a literary device in M1 depicts YHWH as the initiator of a divine battle against Pharaoh.23 Thus, the audience of M1 would have expected that Pharaoh, as the sun god incarnate, should appropriately engage with the threat represented by YHWH.

4.1.2. Egyptian Magicians and Heka

In response to Aaron’s snake challenge, Pharaoh summoned חרטמי מצרים (i.e., the Egyptian magicians; Exod 7:11–12). Upon their arrival, the magicians turned their staffs into snakes by means of incantations (להטים; v. 11). There are several elements within the context that can be understood in relation to Heka—the god of magic.24

First, the Hebrew word for magicians is derived from the Egyptian word ḥry-tp, meaning “lector priest” (Noegel 1996, p. 45; Römer 2003, pp. 19–20; 2009, p. 166). The lector priest in Egypt was the archetypal magical practitioner whose primary role was to protect maat via magic (Baines 2007, p. 51).25 Bear in mind that the Egyptian magicians were linked with Heka—the god of magic—who was believed to be the source of their power. Second, the Egyptian magicians turned their wands into snakes. A wand was a common tool of magicians and was also associated with magical practices (Teeter 2011, p. 19; Pinch 1994, pp. 11, 40, 78; 2002, p. 19; Brier and Hobbs 2008, p. 227). Interestingly, some New Kingdom sources depict Heka as holding a snake in each hand, both of which are crossed over his chest.26 Some scholars suggest that these snakes are probably wands (Graves-Brown 2018, p. 123; Stannish 2007, p. 76). If so, then the image of the magicians turning their staffs into snakes can be understood in relation to Heka and his serpentine staffs (cf. Currid 2013, pp. 116–18). Third, the magicians used an incantation to perform their miracle (v. 11) (Rendsburg 2015, p. 254; see Exod 7:22; 8:3, 14). Such a means of magical execution is a well-known Egyptian trope since “[m]agical praxes in ancient Egypt were almost always accomplished through the recitation of magical spells” (Rendsburg 2015, p. 254; cf. Stannish 2007, p. 76). As explained earlier, several elements within M1 (i.e., magicians, wands, and incantations) can be understood in relation to Heka.

Taking these factors into account, one can interpret M1 in terms of a divine war between YHWH and Heka. As mentioned earlier, Aaron threw down his staff, which soon turned into a snake, before Pharaoh. The magicians might have perceived this miracle as an evil threat against Pharaoh. Hence, they likely turned their wands into snakes in order to neutralize the threat, offering magical protection for Pharaoh to ensure his safety. That the Egyptian magicians often utilized a magical wand to afford some kind of divine protection for people by turning away evil forces27 supports this view.

However, an event transpired that was strikingly different from what was expected: Aaron’s staff devoured his opponents’ staffs.28 This deviation from the coherency of the expected story demonstrates that: (1) Aaron possessed superior heka to that of the magicians,29 and that (2) the magicians failed to adequately protect Pharaoh—a subverted image of the role of Heka on the solar barque. Therefore, an informed audience may have observed this ironic reversal and interpreted it as a polemical attack against the Egyptians’ belief that Heka guards the sun god against chaotic forces. Since Pharaoh was considered to be the sun god incarnate by the Egyptians, the image of YHWH’s overpowering Heka would have also served as a clear warning against Pharaoh.

4.1.3. Aaron’s Devouring Snake and Apep the Devourer

As discussed earlier, Aaron’s staff turned into a “snake” (תנין). Some scholars point out that the term תנין is used here, rather than נחשׁ—a term that appears in Exodus 4:3, where Moses turned his staff into a snake. Although there has been debate concerning the identity of תנין in this verse, Gary A. Rendsburg (2006, pp. 201–2; 2015, p. 246; cf. Kass 2021, p. 134) identifies תנין with a crocodile on several grounds. First, the Papyrus Westcar (17th century BCE; the Wax Crocodile tale) contains a similar story that deals with a wonder wherein an inanimate object (i.e., a crocodile made of wax) is turned into a living animal (i.e., a real crocodile). Second, the serpent contest was held in Pharaoh’s court, where the habitat of crocodiles (i.e., the Nile) is in close proximity. Third, since Moses already turned his staff into a serpent in Exodus 4:3, the crocodile wonder is more impressive than the snake trick, when taking a holistic approach—in contrast to a source-critical approach—to the narrative. Based on these components, Rendsburg (2015, p. 245 n. 8) argues that identifying תנין with a crocodile “is the only possible option here.”

However, a different approach is possible for the following reasons. First, there is a crucial element within M1 that the Wax Crocodile tale cannot account for. That is, the Egyptian story does not mention a staff, which is an important element in M1.30 Second, it is hard to imagine that the Nile provides a habitat only for crocodiles. It is more reasonable to view that snakes also dwelt in close proximity to Pharaoh’s court.31 Third, while the use of crocodiles, instead of snakes, might have been a more impressive trick, תנין can also be translated as “the underworld snake” or “the sea dragon,” which is a much more impressive creature than a crocodile while still being serpentine (Dozeman 2006, p. 118, 211).

The following factors further support the possibility that תנין indicates a serpentine creature: (1) the parallel between M1 and Moses’ miracle in Exodus 4:3 is clear (Dozeman 2006, p. 118); (2) תנין and נחשׁ are used interchangeably in the early chapters of Exodus (Currid 1997, p. 86; cf. Noegel 1996, p. 48); (3) there are cases where Hebrew poetic literature juxtaposes תנין and פתן (i.e., a venomous serpent; Deut 32:33; Ps 91:13) (cf. Currid 1997, p. 86). Thus, it is more likely that תנין refers to a type of snake. To press this line of reasoning somewhat further, I believe it is possible that the author of M1 deliberately used תנין to mean more than a snake, namely, “the underworld snake” or “the sea dragon.” Thomas B. Dozeman (2009, p. 211; cf. Davies 2020, p. 480) points out that the P author who is responsible for M1 also used תנין in the creation mythology of Genesis 1. In the latter case, תנין appears for the creatures of the sea: התנינם הגדלים (v. 21). Dozeman (2009, p. 212) also points to several passages in the HB where תנין is juxtaposed with a sea-dragon figure (Job 7:12; Isa 27:1; 51:9). Based on these components, he identifies תנין as “the sea dragon” and then remarks, “Moses’ staff turns into a land snake, nāḥāš ([Exod] 4:3), while, as discussed, Aaron’s staff turns into the sea dragon.”

In his other work, Dozeman (2006, p. 118) identifies תנין as “the underworld snake” (Dozeman 2006, p. 118). This view seems to be supported by several points. First, Aaron’s תנין swallowed up the תנינם of the magicians (Exod 7:12)—an act that clearly invokes the devouring nature of Apep. As mentioned earlier, BG designates Apep as the Ꜥm (“Swallower”). Second, God commanded Aaron to cast down the staff before Pharaoh (v. 9). The Egyptian verb for “casting down” appears in the magical text at the point where the magicians subdue Apep by casting down a wax figurine of Apep (Noegel 1996, p. 48). Hence, תנין was likely chosen over נחשׁ because תנין bears “strong mythological import” (Noegel 1996, p. 47)32

According to this reading, the author of M1 intentionally used תנין with a polemical thrust to show his readers that YHWH can control and manipulate the chaotic force of the underworld (i.e., Apep), which the Egyptians feared profoundly. Suzanne Boorer (2016, pp. 253, 264–65) similarly notes, “[T]he association of תנין with chaos suggests that this sign of throwing down the staff to become a תנין has to do with having the power to control or direct chaos, including unleashing it.” Hence, the imagery of Aaron’s תנין swallowing the magicians’ תנינם would remind informed readers of Apep’s antithetical relationship with Mehen—another mythological snake (cf. Currid 2013, p. 135).

4.1.4. The Egyptian Snakes and Mehen

In response to Aaron’s turning his staff into תנין, the Egyptian magicians also produced תנינם. The use of the same Hebrew word presumably indicates that the magicians produced the same type of creature as Aaron. This potentiality raises a question as to why the magicians duplicated what Aaron had already created. Possibly, they merely wanted to show that they possessed the same magical capacity as that demonstrated by their opponent. This line of reasoning is supported by other instances where the magicians performed the same wonders as those achieved by Aaron and Moses (i.e., Exod 7:22; 8:7). However, another possible interpretation can be offered in light of BG. That is, the magicians deliberately produced תנינם so that their serpents could function as Mehen—another mythological snake related to the underworld, as in the case of Apep. In this reading, the word תנין functions as a generic term for mythological snakes, encompassing various kinds of underworld snakes (e.g., Apep and Mehen).33 This interpretation seems to be supported by the following elements: (1) Aaron directed his challenge—turning the staff into תנין —at Pharaoh (i.e., the sun god incarnate). (2) The Egyptian magicians summoned the mythological creatures (תנינם) in response to their opponent’s threat. The text in the 69th Scene in the upper register in Hour 11 of BG, where Apep has a rope wrapped around his neck, may be relevant here:

n (j)Ꜥr.k rꜤw r ḫfty.k

n (j)Ꜥr ḫfty.k rꜤw

ḫpr ḏsrw.k jmy mḥn

ꜤꜢpp ḥsbw m nsf.f

You do not approach, Ra, your enemy,

and your enemy does not approach (you), Ra.

Your safety is established, you who are in Mehen,

while Apep is smashed in his blood.

(Hornung and Abt 2014, p. 374; Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 1:357–58)

In this context, two mythological serpents (i.e., Apep and Mehen) appear in an antithetical way. This observation seems to support the notion that Aaron produced תנין (the mythological serpent, Apep) to threaten Pharaoh, and each Egyptian magician summoned תנין (another mythological serpent, Mehen) to protect Pharaoh.

As the narrative demonstrates, the Egyptians’ תנינם failed to offer Pharaoh protection because they were swallowed by Aaron’s תנין (Exod 7:12). The imagery of swallowing demonstrates that YHWH’s offensive power through Apep was much greater than Mehen’s defensive power. The act of swallowing plays a significant role in this narrative. According to Robert K. Ritner (1993, p. 103; cf. Rendsburg 2006, p. 209), in a magical context, such an act functions as an indication of the devourer’s acquiring the power of the devoured.34 Thus, when Aaron’s staff swallowed his opponents’ wands, “the Egyptian magicians would have perceived this as an absorption of their power and knowledge” (Noegel 1996, p. 49). Ritner (1993, p. 128 n. 583) further points out that when snakes are directed against other snakes, as is the case in M1, “opponents are made to function as allies and ‘assistant’ means only ‘subjected opponent.’” Commenting on these points, Scott B. Noegel (1996, p. 48) remarks, “Ritner’s observation bears significantly on Exod 7:8–13, for it explains why, despite the magicians’ ability to reproduce the first three plagues, they in effect exacerbate the situation. They conjure more bloody water and more frogs, and thus, assist Moses in his plight. In essence, they have become ‘subjected opponents.’” This ironic change in the coherency of the expected story can be read as a subversion of the protective role of Mehen in BG, as follows: As a protective deity, Mehen was supposed to guard Pharaoh—the sun god incarnate—from the chaotic attack of Apep that YHWH released; however, Mehen was not only swallowed by Apep but also became a poisonous force that assisted YHWH in further threatening Pharaoh via Apep. In this reading, M1 analogously juxtaposes the devoured Egyptian snakes with Mehen, who helplessly fails to protect Pharaoh (i.e., Ra or Horus) from Apep.

4.1.5. The Hard Heart of Pharaoh and Sia

Despite this terrifying demonstration of the superior power of YHWH, Pharaoh’s heart hardened, and, thus, the Egyptian ruler refused to listen to YHWH (Exod 7:13).35 As Currid (1997, p. 96) observes, “The concept of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is a principal motif not only of this narrative, but of the entire conflict between Pharaoh and Yahweh in Exodus 1–15.”36 Furthermore, Currid (1997, pp. 98, 102) suggests that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart can likely be understood in relation to his heart’s weight, based on the Egyptian concept of the final judgment in the afterlife. According to this reading, the heaviness of Pharaoh’s heart “is a polemical play on the Egyptian belief that Pharaoh’s heart would be weighed against the feather of truth before entering the afterlife” (Noegel 1996, p. 45).

However, Nili Shupak (1985, pp. 206–207; 2004, pp. 389–404) rejects this view, based on the observation that most expressions pertaining to the hardness of one’s heart in Egyptian sources (e.g., “heavy,” “strong,” and “hardening of the heart”) neither appear in the judgment of the dead nor represent a negative quality. Rather, Egyptian sources understand such expressions positively as representing one’s praiseworthy behavior (i.e., one’s self-control and courageous attitude).37 These observations seem to stand in stark contrast to the Israelite author’s negative use of the expressions in Exodus 4:1–15:21 (Shupak 2004, p. 402; Davies 2020, p. 485). Shupak (1985, p. 402) attempts to resolve this discrepancy by arguing that the Israelite author, who was familiar with the positive connotation of the expressions related to a hardness of heart, borrowed the language and imagery from the ancient Egyptians and intentionally subverted their meanings within the Exodus narrative for his theological purposes.

Building upon Shupak’s argument, Charlie Trimm (2014, p. 205) interprets YHWH’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart as follows: “[W]hen YHWH strengthened Pharaoh’s heart he encouraged him to proceed with the plan upon which he had previously decided.” In doing so, “[l]ike other ancient Near Eastern divine warriors who emphasized the strength of their enemies to glorify even more their own victory, YHWH sought to encourage Pharaoh to fight to the end to demonstrate the full extent of his power.”

While I find Trimm’s argument reasonable, I offer a different—but not mutually exclusive—interpretation in light of BG. That is, the hardening event was the Israelite author’s polemic against the ancient Egyptian belief that the heart is associated with Sia (i.e., the god of perception). According to this reading, the hardening motif in MM1–3 can be understood as YHWH’s encouraging Sia to fully aid the sun god so that the sun god could fully engage with YHWH.38 Such unexpected behavior from YHWH, which is a typical element of a parody, effectively ridicules the precursor.39 Moreover, the narrative’s depiction of Pharaoh’s heart as being hardened by both himself and YHWH might have caused the intended audience to expect to see positive outcomes from Pharaoh’s subsequent decisions in response to YHWH’s challenges. As will be seen in the next section, however, this typical expectation is subverted—Pharaoh’s virtue (i.e., his strong heart) reveals his inadequacy in terms of making sound decisions, which eventually destroys the maat of Egypt. In this sense, the Israelite author borrowed the common trope from Egyptian beliefs and then subverted the expected outcome. Robert B. Chisholm (1996, p. 418) comments, “When Aaron’s snake swallowed theirs [i.e., the Egyptian magicians’ snakes], Pharaoh should have detected some symbolism, but instead he was obstinate (lit., ‘his heart was hard’) and he refused to listen to Moses and Aaron.”

4.2. The Ten Plagues

As I have shown in the previous section, M1 clearly demonstrates the power difference between YHWH and Pharaoh from the outset (Dozeman 1996, p. 116). M2 (i.e., the Ten Plagues) further reveals such a power inequity through a series of contests between YHWH and Pharaoh. As I will demonstrate in this section, the parallels between BG and the Exodus narrative become even more striking, especially vis-à-vis the plagues (PP) 8–10.

In M2, Pharaoh’s sia kept failing to render adequate decisions.40 Consequently, the magicians, who presumably received their orders from Pharaoh, continually used their heka to increase the disorder of Egypt. Notice that in response to Aaron and Moses’ subsequent challenges, the magicians repeated some of the miracles that their opponents had previously executed. Ironically, instead of undoing their opponents’ actions against Egypt, the magicians used their heka to further destroy the maat of Egypt by creating more bloody water and more frogs (cf. Fretheim 2005, p. 116; Noegel 1996, pp. 48–49; Boorer 2016, p. 257). Chisholm (1996, p. 419) offers a fitting comment, as follows:

Pharaoh should have realized that he was on the path to destruction. If his own magicians started matching such destructive signs, the result would certainly be harmful for Egypt. But once more Pharaoh did not act with common sense or reason. Again he was obstinate and would not listen to Moses and Aaron (v. 22), and he did not take even this to heart (v. 23).41

Such a negative portrayal of Pharaoh shows that his sia was consistently malfunctioning throughout M2, causing his own magicians to use their heka to multiply the dysfunctions brought down upon Egypt. This ironic cycle was foreshadowed in M1, where Pharaoh’s protection, mehen, was absorbed by Aaron’s staff and, thus, became an offensive force used against Pharaoh.

The last three plagues (i.e., P8 (the locusts covering the eye of the land), P9 (the imposition of three days of darkness upon Egypt), and P10 (the death of the Egyptian firstborn)) deserve special attention for this study. A careful reading of M2 demonstrates that PP8–10, unlike PP1–7, feature darkness—a characteristic that is the opposite of the sun god (Grossman 2014, pp. 607–8).42 Hence, PP8–10 can be understood as YHWH’s controlling Apep in order to directly assault the sun god—the supreme deity of Egypt (Rendsburg 1988, pp. 3–15).

Concerning P8, as Rendsburg (1988, p. 7) correctly observes, the Israelite author “has specifically informed us it was morning, when Ra would normally shine forth brightly, but that the locusts had blotted out the sun. To the Egyptians, this would have been a bad omen, the eclipse of Ra.” Interestingly, עין כל הארץ (“the eye of the whole land”; Exod 10:15), which the many locusts covered, is a “rare phrase” in Hebrew (Davies 2020, p. 643). Commenting on עין כל הארץ, A. S. Yahuda (1933, pp. 62–63) rejects the idea that the phrase is a metaphor for the “face of the earth” because “no other example of such a metaphor is to be found.” He then argues,

From the Egyptian [language] we learn that “eye of the land” means nothing else but the sun, which was conceived by the Egyptians as the “eye of Re”. The Hebrews may have deemed it on religious grounds to be better, and probably also considered it on poetic grounds to be finer, to transfer the mythological conception of the eye from Re to the earth and designate the sun as עין הארץ “the eye of the land” which means the “eye of the world”, since ארץ signified for the Hebrews, as tꜣ = land did for the Egyptians, both “land” and “world”. That עין הארץ actually refers to the sun is best shown by Ex. 10, 15, where it is said that the locusts “cover עין הארץ את ‘the eye of the whole land’ so that the land was darkened”.

Rendsburg (1988, p. 7) defends this view, pointing out that the Hebrew verb חשׁך, which was used in P8, is collocated elsewhere in HB with שׁמשׁ. “Accordingly,” he notes, “this interpretation of the eighth plague, with the locusts darkening Ra, would not have been lost on the ancient Hebrew reader.”43 Rendsburg then points to a relevant Egyptian text (i.e., the Prophecy of Neferti (the 12th Dynasty)) that further sheds light on P8. According to the Egyptian text, as found in Rendsburg’s work (Rendsburg 2015, p. 254), the chief lector priest, Neferti, makes a dooming prophecy against Egypt, as follows: ỉtn ḥbs nn psd.f mꜢꜢ rḫyt nn Ꜥnḫ.tw ḥbsw šnꜤ (“the sun-disc is covered, it does not shine for people to see; no one can live, when the clouds cover”). Taking these factors into account, Rendsburg concludes that this rare phrase is “a metaphor for Ra, and by extension, the land of Egypt.” If so, then P8 is a direct attack on the supreme deity of Egypt. However, a different but non-mutually exclusive interpretation is also possible. As previously mentioned, Sia is sometimes described as being in the eye of the sun god, granting him an all-seeing ability. Hence, informed readers would have understood the covering motif as YHWH’s pulling double duty: assaulting both Ra and Sia. At this point, the audience would have also sensed that serious destruction would soon fall upon Egypt.

Concerning P9, Candida Moss and Jeffrey Stackert (Moss and Stackert 2012, p. 365) argue that when P9 (i.e., the three days of darkness) is compared with the other Exodus plague narratives, it seems to be out of place in terms of the pattern of intensifying severity. However, as Graham I. Davies (2020, p. 672) points out, many commentators consider that the significance of P9 may be of a different kind, such as a mythological significance, “whether Israelite readers or the presumed Egyptian victims are primarily in mind.” Concurring with this approach, I contend that P9 not only follows the intensification pattern of the plague narratives (either a 3-3-3-1 or 7-3 pattern)44 but also adequately sets up P10. As mentioned in the previous section, BG is divided into twelve sections, corresponding to the nocturnal hours through which the sun god must pass. Such a division was created by the natural phenomenon that the sun returns to the eastern horizon twelve hours after its setting. Stephen Quirke (1992, pp. 22–23) notes, “The sun embodies for the Egyptians more than power in heaven or power over earth; the daily guarantee of sunrise after the sunset of yesterday offered a bright and tangible promise of resurrection, and for this reason the sun-god was considered the central and original power of creation.” BG emphasizes such a crucial role of the sun in an unmistakable way: each text in the Second through to the Eleventh Gates depicts Ra as the one who illuminates kkw zmꜢw (“the primeval and disorderly darkness”). Hence, the Egyptian’s inability to see or rise from his place for three days can be understood as (1) the sun god’s struggling in the Netherworld for three days—a much longer period than expected—as he fails to drive out the darkness, and (2) the solar barque’s being immobilized for three days. That the barque is being detained in the Netherworld for three days and that the sun god continually fails to illuminate the darkness unmistakably foreshadow the impending and inevitable catastrophic event—the destruction of the maat of Egypt.45

P9 is also an attack upon Sia and Heka. The lack of mention of any attempt by the magicians to dispel the darkness suggests that Heka—the god of magic—was completely overpowered by YHWH and, thus, he also failed to assist the sun god. Furthermore, the three days of darkness suggests that Sia also failed to accomplish his role in commanding the gatekeepers to open the door at each hour for the sun god; consequently, the barque failed to proceed. In this manner, P9 is a subversion of the typical expectation of BG: the defined procession of the solar barque to the eastern horizon.

Another polemic lurks behind P10, which is the central event in M2. Exodus 12:29 reads, “In the middle of the night, the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on the throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the cattle” (JPS; the italics are mine). There are two items that are worthy of attention in this verse. First, the main target of P10 is the firstborn of Pharaoh—the next sun god incarnate. Second, the time of death of the Egyptian firstborn is precisely given: בחצי הלילה (“in the middle of the night”). Remember that according to both BC and BG, “the most significant single event within the nightly journey of the sun” (Darnell and Darnell 2018, p. 6) occurs in the middle of the night (i.e., the sixth nocturnal hour, at which point, the solar barque is in the darkest and deepest part of the underworld) (Schweizer 2010, p. 19). During that hour, the bꜢ (i.e., “soul”) of the sun god unites with his Osirian corpse (Schweizer 2010, p. 214; Darnell and Darnell 2018, pp. 251, 254). This event was absolutely critical because it “evokes the renewal of all life and the restoration of totality” (Schweizer 2010, p. 19). Hence, this union is the basis for maat, which is the backbone of Egypt (Darnell and Darnell 2018, pp. 6, 42–43). With this Egyptian belief in mind, it is striking that P10 is a negative reversal of the Solar-Osirian union, in that YHWH separated the “soul” of Pharaoh’s firstborn son from his body. In doing so, YHWH turned a living body into a corpse. In this instance, P10 serves as another critical subversion that twists the typical expectations of BG.46

Another critical theme within the NB is the sun god’s combat against his nemesis, Apep.47 The sun god must overpower the chaotic serpent in order to arrive at the eastern horizon so that he can reestablish the maat of Egypt. In this epic battle, the sun god needs the most aid from his helping deities (i.e., Sia, Heka, and Mehen). However, the fact that (1) these protective deities have been portrayed as severely malfunctioning and (2) the sun god failed to accomplish the Solar-Osirian union foreshadows Pharaoh’s inevitable defeat—his watery demise. In what follows, therefore, I will demonstrate that M3—the splitting of the Reed Sea and the subsequent drowning of Pharaoh—is another polemical subversion of a critical theme in BG.

4.3. The Parting of the Sea

After experiencing the death of his firstborn, Pharaoh finally decided to let the Israelites leave the land of Egypt (Exod 12:31–32). However, Pharaoh changed his mind and issued a command to his military forces: he and his army decided to pursue the Israelites (vv. 5–7). Meanwhile, Moses raised his staff, prompting YHWH to send an east wind to part the waters of the Reed Sea into two (v. 21). The sea dried up and yielded a passageway through which the Israelites could walk (vv. 16, 22). Pharaoh and his militant forces then followed the Israelites into the midst of the Reed Sea (v. 23).

According to the poetic account of Exodus 15:1–12,48 YHWH took action in response to Pharaoh’s militant pursuit: YHWH (1) ירה (“overthrew”) the driver of the horse, which represents “the total forces of Pharaoh against Yahweh” (Carpenter 2012, p. 541), into the sea; (2) caused תהמות (“the watery force of chaos”) to cover them; (3) caused ארץ (“the underworld”) to בלע (“swallow”) them (15:1, 5, 12). As I will show below, the imagery, language, and pattern of M3 also inversely mirror BG.

First, BG contains a vignette of “the walls of divided waters” (Sparks 2015, p. 271) (i.e., the 20th Scene in the middle register in Hour 4; see Figure 2 below) (Sparks 2015, p. 271; Hornung 1979–1980, p. 2:111). According to Brad C. Sparks (2015, p. 268), this vignette parallels a scene in the lower register in Hour 5 of BH (i.e., Amduat; see Figure 3, below). Whereas the scene in BH shows the walls of water from an overhead view, the corresponding image in BG exhibits the walls of water from a side view. What is interesting, for our study, is that the mentioned vignette in BH exhibits an image of “walls of water in a parted sea,” and the accompanying text states that water had once been present between the aquatic walls and will return in a destructive fashion (cf. Sparks 2015, pp. 268 n. 14, 271).

In addition, a multi-coiled and extremely long serpent appears between the aquatic walls, positioning itself on the middle ground. According to the accompanying text, the snake is called (s)ḥrrt (“the Removing One”) and exhibits a chaotic and destructive nature: it destroys and then swallows what it created. Although the text does not address the snake as Apep, Mehmet-Ali Ataç (2018, p. 114) identifies it as “Apophis [i.e., Apep],” as does Sparks (2015, p. 271; the “enemy entity Apophis”). Four observations seem to justify this identification: (1) as in the case of the Removing One, a vignette in the 67th Scene in the middle register in Hour 10 also portrays Apep as a multi-coiled and long snake;51 (2) Apep and the Removing One are depicted as employing the same gesture;52 (3) they both exhibit a destructive and chaotic nature; (4) BG often designates one entity by multiple titles, according to its character (i.e., Apep as “Rebel,” “Devourer,” and “Enemy of Ra”). Hence, such a striking parallel between the vignette and the parted Reed Sea would allow the informed audience to conceptually place Apep on the dry land, where the two walls of water in a parted Reed Sea sandwiched him in on both sides.

Second, there is some overlap in meaning between the Hebrew word ירה and the Egyptian word sḫr. This Egyptian word appears in the 69th Scene in the upper register in Hour 11, wherein the nemesis of Ra—Apep—was finally subdued: mk.n sḫr.n ꜤꜢpp dy m jnṯwt.f (“Behold, we have overthrown Apep, who is put into his fetters”) (Hornung 1979–1980, p. 1:357). The 13th Scene in the lower register in Hour 3 also uses sḫr in a similar manner (Hornung 1979–1980, p. 1:75). However, ironically enough, the Israelite author subverted this important trope, employing this overthrowing motif against Pharaoh (i.e., the sun god incarnate). It is not Apep who is being overthrown but instead Pharaoh and his troops.

Third, the Hebrew word תהמות is identical to the word used in the creation mythology of Genesis 1:2 (i.e., תהום) for the chaotic primeval ocean.53 As many scholars point out, the poetic account of M3 and the Ugaritic Baal cycle exhibit striking lexical and poetic parallels and poetic style (Cross 1973, pp. 112–44), which allows us to consider that the mentioned poem stands “in continuity with the mythopoetic patterns of Canaanite myth” (Berman 2016, p. 93). This connection might shed further light on M3. As observed in the previous section, Apep is the personification of chaotic forces and tries to swallow the sun god. In addition, BG consistently describes the Netherworld—the domain of Apep—as kkw zmꜢw (“the primeval and disorderly darkness”) (Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 1:90, 145). Hence, תהום in M3 could be understood as being analogous to Apep and his disorderly character (Gunkel 1964, pp. 29, 109–12; 2006, pp. 75–76; Anderson 1959, p. 457; 1994a; 1994b, pp. 3–15; Hooke 1963, p. 119; Gottwald 1959, p. 457; Napier 1962, pp. 48–49; Day 1985; Kloos 1986; Ortlund 2010; Wyatt 1996; 1998, pp. 833–82; Barton 1893, pp. 18–21; Averbeck 2004, pp. 328–56; Huehnergard 1987, pp. 184–85; Cho 2019, pp. 76–78). According to this reading, YHWH “uses the primordial waters as his weapons” when destroying the Egyptian troops (Russell 2007, p. 28).

Fourth, the use of ארץ is also significant. Although ארץ can mean “the mud at the bottom of the sea” (Davies 2020, p. 334), it can also be understood as the “underworld” in a mythological context, as it is used in M3.54 Commenting on ארץ in Exodus 15:12b, Brian D. Russell (2007, p. 16) notes, “In this context, ארץ takes on the connotation of ‘underworld’ (cf. Gen 2:6, 1 Sam 28:13, Isa 29:4, and Jon 2:6).”55 Nicholas Tromp (1969, pp. 25–26) thus notes, “[The Egyptians] were covered by the sea, the waters of chaos, i.e., they were swallowed by the nether world: they are in the land of no return.” Given that ארץ in this context could refer to the “underworld” located below the Reed Sea, it is telling that BG consistently uses dwꜢt (“underworld”) to refer to the domain of Apep.

Fifth, the fact that the underworld swallowed (בלע) the Egyptian forces mimics the devouring nature of Apep. As mentioned previously, BG designates Apep as the Ꜥm (“Swallower”) who continually attempts to devour the sun god. Hence, the Israelite author’s choice of such language and imagery would have allowed readers to view M3 as analogous to BG: the sun god (i.e., Pharaoh) is sunk into the Netherworld Ocean (i.e., the Reed Sea) and is, thus, swallowed by the underworld (i.e., the domain of Apep). Although the text does not mention the death of Pharaoh, the way in which the author has unfolded the Exodus narrative up to this point would have allowed the intended audience to assume Pharaoh’s death, especially when taking into account the sun god’s failure to unite with his Osirian corpse and his protective deities’ failure to safeguard him.

Finally, the means of death of Pharaoh and his forces—by drowning—bears another crucial polemical significance. The Egyptian NB contain sections depicting the drowned corpses of Egyptian soldiers as floating within the primeval waters (Hour 10 of BC and Hour 9 of BG; see Figure 4 below) (Sparks 2015, pp. 271–72).

According to those Books, the drowned dead will be renewed and enjoy their afterlife with the other blessed dead (Darnell and Darnell 2018, pp. 9, 44, 46, 224–5, 251; Schweizer 2010, p. 217; cf. Pinch 2002, p. 160). In other words, the drowned were not considered to have been damned; rather, NB “affirm that despite their unusual fate, these deceased individuals are among the blessed dead” (Schweizer 2010, p. 168). It should be noted, however, that they can be led to blessed existence by the assistance of the sun god (i.e., Horus and Ra). For example, the 58th Scene of the middle register in Hour 9 of BG (Hornung 1979–1980, p. 2:215) depicts Horus as keeping the drowned from decomposing (Hornung 2002, p. 45). In addition, the accompanying texts depict Ra as the life-giving force for the drowned (Hornung 1979–1980, pp. 2:215–16) in that he “must call out to them and set them upright” (Darnell 2004, pp. 278 n. 17, 442 n. 79). The texts read as follows:

j mḥyw jmyw mw

nbyw jmyw nwy

mꜢw rꜤw ntj Ꜥp.f

m wjꜢ.f ꜤꜢ štꜢw

jw.f wḏ.f sḫrw nṯrw

jw.f jrj.f mḫrw Ꜣḫw

jhy ꜤḥꜤw nnyw

m.ṯn rꜤw wḏ.f sḫrw.ṯn

Oh, you who float, who are in the water,

those who swim, who are in the flood,

look (on) Ra who passes by

in his barque, with great mysteries.

He cares for the gods

and he provides for the Akh-spirits.

Hail, stand up, you weary ones—

look, Ra, he cares for you.

Hence, the safety of the sun god (i.e., Horus and Ra) in the Netherworld is the basis for the drowned being reborn and blessed in the afterlife. If the sun god is defeated by the underworldly chaotic forces, then the drowned have no hope. With this information in mind, the death of Pharaoh, along with his army, by drowning would have sent the gruesome message that those who had drowned would not receive a renewal of life in the Netherworld. In this regard, the Israelite author once again polemically subverted the expected ending of BG.

4.4. Twelve Miracles and Twelve Hourly Divisions

It is telling that when viewing MM1–3 as a unified literary unit of YHWH’s miracles, one can identify twelve miracles (i.e., the Serpent Contest (1 miracle), the Ten Plagues (10 miracles), and the Parting of the Reed Sea (1 miracle)) corresponding to the twelve hourly divisions in BG. Duane A. Garrett (2014, pp. 262–407) argues in favor of the division of the story into twelve parts, noting, “[T]he twelve miracles of 7:8–15:21 display clear progression, both in the intensity of suffering brought on by the plagues and in the intensity of the folly or madness indicated by Pharaoh’s response. That is, things get worse and worse as the story moves forward” (cf. Currid 1997, p. 85).

Hence, in light of the twelve hourly divisions in BG, one can posit that the Israelite author intentionally employed the twelve miracles (i.e., MM1–3) in the Exodus narrative in order to subvert the positive procession and ending of the sun god’s nocturnal journey. According to this reading, Pharaoh’s journey toward his inevitable demise begins in M1 (i.e., Hour 1) and ends in M3 (i.e., Hour 12).57

4.5. Summary

In this section, I have demonstrated that, in many ways, the procession of Pharaoh’s demise and death inversely matches the procession of the sun god’s journey through the Netherworld in BG. As observed, some of the similarities and discrepancies between BG and the Exodus narrative highlight the Israelite author’s subversions of BG at some crucial junctures. This crucial distancing, often expressed subtly but recognizably, forms a plausible connection between MM1–3 and BG. Hence, the Exodus narrative fits the criteria for parody. The comparative analysis can be summarized as follows.

First, in M1, the Israelite author created an antithetical distance from BG by portraying YHWH as subduing the three protective deities of the sun god (i.e., Sia, Heka, and Mehen), whose main role was to guard the sun god against the chaotic forces, especially Apep, during the most perilous and, therefore, a critical point in the nocturnal journey. In this respect, the expected functions of the protective deities were subverted. Such a twist in the coherency of the expected story of BG must have signaled to the informed audience that Pharaoh’s continual rejection of obeying YHWH would inevitably bring about his ruin. In this reading, M1 serves as an introduction to the entire narrative, foreshadowing Pharaoh’s calamitous fate.

Second, in M2, the Israelite author further subverted the role of the three protective deities in a ridiculous way. Pharaoh’s sia continually failed to render adequate judgments; consequently, the Egyptian magicians used their heka to further destroy the maat of Egypt, and the devoured mehen yielded more magical power to YHWH, thereby assisting him in poisoning Pharaoh. Thus, the audience may have understood the three protective deities as having been stood on their heads. The last three plagues (i.e., PP8–10), which feature darkness (i.e., a characteristic that is the opposite of the sun god), further demonstrate the Israelite author’s critical distancing of MM1–3 from BG in an escalating way. YHWH first attacked the sun god by blinding Sia and excluding Heka from the conflict (P8). Then, YHWH further assaulted the sun god by imposing three days of abject darkness upon the land of Egypt (P9). Finally, YHWH separated the soul of Pharaoh’s firstborn from his body in the middle of the night, which is a gruesome subversion of the Solar-Osirian union (P10). The irony is that these descriptions of PP8–10 are subversions of what the informed audience would have expected to happen in BG. That the sun god failed to unite with his Osirian corpse and that his protective deities completely failed to safeguard him would have allowed the audience to anticipate that a catastrophic event would soon fall upon Pharaoh. In this regard, M2 functions as the preparatory stage for the final destructive fate of Pharaoh—the watery demise that likely killed Pharaoh and his forces.

Third, in M3 (i.e., the climax of the entire narrative), the Israelite author reversed the positive ending of BG, wherein the sun god vanquished his nemesis and triumphantly arrived at the eastern horizon. The parody’s antithetical distancing from the precursor can be observed in that, unlike BG, in M3, after the Israelites passed through the divided waters of the Reed Sea, Pharaoh and his militant forces were thrown into the chaotic ocean, swallowed by the underworld, and killed by drowning. Such a disastrous fate for Pharaoh, foreshowed by MM1–2, is a clear subversion of one of the significant themes in BG—the sun god’s triumphant victory over chaotic forces and his safe arrival at the eastern horizon.58

Taking these factors into account, one may suggest that it is possible that the Israelite author, who was acquainted with the myth related to BG, used such knowledge as one of his sources to repudiate the validity of the Egyptians’ religious belief that Pharaoh is the incarnation of the sun god, who has the ability to control the orderliness of Egypt. If so, then BG might have influenced the plot structure and conceptual framework of the Exodus narrative in a polemical way.

5. Two Related Issues

My approach to MM1–3 presumably raises at least two questions that deserve brief responses: (1) the Israelite author’s familiarity with BG59, and (2) his unexpected association of YHWH with Apep.

5.1. The Historical Point(s) of Contact between the Author of MM1–3 and BG

Although there is no consensus regarding how to accomplish a diachronic analysis of MM1–3,60 most scholars agree that the redactor combined non-P and P,61 which is often attributed to the Yahwist (J), at some point during the post-exilic period, making minor adjustments to create a more unified narrative from them (Davies 2020, p. 94). If so, then the original material of some of these sources could have originated during the Monarchic period or even earlier, although they were most likely compiled and revised in the Persian period.62 In this section, I will lay out several possible scenarios as to how the author of MM1–3 would have been familiar with the myth depicted in BG.

5.1.1. Proto-Israelite Period

During the New Kingdom, non-Egyptians could be appointed as high-ranking officials, such as the position of vizier (Hoffmeier 2005, pp. 93–95). For example, when Hatshepsut became queen-regent, a man with a Semitic name—Aametju—served her as a vizier (Hoffmeier 2005, p. 94).63 Another Semite vizier—Aper-El—oversaw the pharaoh’s affairs during the last decades of the 18th Dynasty, under the reigns of both Amenhotep III and Akhenaten (Zivie 1982, pp. 63–69; 2010, p. 349; 2018, pp. 22–31, 64–66). Most importantly, one of the responsibilities of a vizier was to construct the royal tomb for the pharaoh (Lesko 1994, p. 18). In doing so, the vizier “ordered and inspected the project and officially received the completed tomb from the necropolis community.” Hence, the viziers in the New Kingdom could have accessed the tombs of the pharaohs and would have observed the construction process of the royal tombs. With viziers having such a responsibility, it is plausible to posit that they could have been familiar with the vignettes and accompanying descriptions related to BG. If Semitic officials such as Aametju and Aper-El could occupy such a lofty position during the New Kingdom, then surely the same could have been the case for the Hebrews in Egypt.

If the scenario mentioned above is sound, then it is possible that those who were familiar with BG transmitted and circulated the story (i.e., the text and the accompanying imagery) orally from generation to generation,64 even as late as the 4th century BCE.65 It is true that BG went “out of fashion” following the end of the New Kingdom and, thus, only short portions of the myth were used sporadically in the burial chambers (Hornung 1999, p. 56). However, the fact that large portions from BG (i.e., vignettes and quotations) still appeared in the Saite Period (ca. 664–525 BCE) (Török 1997, pp. 358–59; Manassa 2007, pp. 21–29) suggests that “complete copies of the Book of Gates were available in the Late Period” (Manassa 2007, p. 21). Therefore, it was not impossible for the core story of BG to have been circulated, even in the Late Period.

The Egyptian board game zn.t (i.e., Senet) might also have aided the oral distribution of BG. Senet was a very well-known game during the New Kingdom period and probably survived until the 6th century BCE or even later (Crist et al. 2016, pp. 16, 63–64). What is significant for our study is that Mehen—the protective encircling serpent in BG—functioned as the patron deity of Senet (Rothöhler 1999, p. 10; Kendall 2007, p. 42; Crist et al. 2016, pp. 33, 41, 51–59, 170). According to the two examples provided by Benedikt Rothöhler (1999, p. 22), (1) a box of Senet from the 18th dynasty (c. 1539–1292 BCE) explicitly invokes Mehen as “the lord of the Senet,” and (2) a fragment in the British Museum states, “An offering given by the king to Horakhti and MEHEN in Senet.” Although it remains an open question as to how the game was played, scholars generally accept that the purpose of Senet is to win a place at the side of the sun god on his solar barque, in order to earn the status of a blessed soul (Rothöhler 1999, p. 19). In this game, Mehen’s function is to grant eternal life to the winner as the prize of the game. The connection between Mehen and eternal life is understandable because Mehen was considered to be the protective deity of the sun god.66 Based on these observations, we can reasonably assume that various people—both Egyptians and non-Egyptians (i.e., Semites) who resided in Egypt—would have played Senet or would at least have been familiar with it (cf. Crist et al. 2016, pp. 41, 51–59) and, consequently, that Senet could have been an instrument that distributed the story of BG to various strata of people, including the Hebrews, and reminded them of its significance.67

5.1.2. Monarchic Israelite Period

There were several Egyptian connections with Jerusalem during the Monarchic period: the marriage of Solomon to the daughter of Pharaoh, Solomon’s taxation system, which resembled that of Shoshenk I in Egypt, the importation of horses from Egypt, and the similarity between the administration of Israel and Egypt (Currid 1997, pp. 159–71). The period of Hezekiah’s reign (e.g., the military relationship between Taharqa–a pharaoh of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty of Egypt—and Hezekiah) is another example. Indeed, there are several examples of cases where cultural interaction, including close literary borrowings/parallels, have been made in this period. The most famous examples are the parallels between (1) the New Kingdom Instruction of Amenemope and Proverbs 22:17–24:22 (Shupak 2005, pp. 203–17; 2015, pp. 291–94) and (2) the Papyrus Amherst 63 and Psalm 20 (Smelik 1985, pp. 75–81; Zevit 1990, pp. 213–28; Delcor 1993, pp. 25–43; Kister 2019, pp. 426–57). As Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger (Keel and Uehlinger 1998, p. 272) assert, archaeological discoveries seem to point toward “a strong fascination with the symbolism of the Egyptian monarchy” within Israel during the Monarchic period. These points raise the possibility that the content of BG could have been introduced to Israelites, especially to those who were connected with government administration.

5.1.3. Exilic or Post-Exilic Period

If MM1–3 were compiled during the Persian period, then some of the priestly material in MM1–3 could have originated from the Jewish diaspora in Egypt.68 Concerning the motif of the competitive match between the Hebrew magicians (i.e., Moses and Aaron) and the Egyptian magicians in Exodus 7–9, Joseph Reindl (1977, pp. 49–60) has argued that the redactor likely took up a popular story from the Jewish diaspora in Egypt and inserted it into the account of the plagues. Thomas Römer (2008, p. 6; 2014, p. 144) supports this view, pointing out that the other occurrences of חרטמים outside of the Exodus narrative are the two diaspora accounts (i.e., the story of Joseph (Gen 41:8, 24) and the narrative part of Daniel (Dan 1:20, 22)). Citing Fritz Graf (1994, pp. 14–16), Römer (2008, p. 6) further notes that Exodus 7–9, which depicts Egyptian culture quite accurately, could possibly reflect the tradition that depicts Moses as a magician—a tradition that existed in the Jewish circles located in Alexandria.69 If fact, the originator of the P source (i.e., the Egyptianized Israelite) would have been able to access the story of BG without much difficulty. This view opens up the possibility that in addition to Exodus 7–9, other P material in MM1–3 could have drawn on traditions from the Jewish people abroad in Egypt.70 Thus, as Römer (2003, p. 22) correctly says, “In this way, Exodus 7–12 can be understood as a dialogue with Egyptian culture.”

5.1.4. Summary

As this article shows, there are various scenarios that can potentially explain how the contents of BG may have directly and/or indirectly reached the Israelite author of MM1–3. I have demonstrated that Semitic people could occupy the office of vizier (i.e., Aametju and Aper-El) during the New Kingdom and BG could be orally transmitted and circulated. If the author was a Monarchic Israelite scribe, then he could have been familiar with BG via the previous tradition, as mentioned above, and/or he could have been influenced by the Egyptian culture’s impact on Jerusalem during the Monarchic period. If the author was a post-exilic scribe, then he could have been influenced by the previous tradition, and/or he could have used P material that drew on traditions from the Jewish diaspora in Egypt.71 Hence, one can reasonably posit (1) that the author of MM1–3 knew of and polemically appropriated parts of BG, along with other NB, in composing MM1–3, and (2) that MM1–3 needs not to be contemporaneous with BG for my thesis to hold.

5.2. The Unexpected Association, Not Identification, of YHWH with Apep

The biblical authors usually associate YHWH with the protagonists of pagan myth (i.e., Baal or El), not with the antagonists (i.e., Yamm or Mot). Hence, the association of YHWH with the antagonist of the Egyptian religion (i.e., Apep) is unexpected—an association that the Israelite author might have wanted to avoid. However, a careful analysis of MM1–3, in combination with a comparison with a common Egyptian trope, provides a reasonable solution. In what follows, I will demonstrate that the Israelite author associated, not identified, YHWH with Apep in order to depict YHWH as a foreign God-King who stood above the Egyptian pantheon, manipulating Apep in order to defeat the sun god.

It has been attested that Egyptian documents often equate a foreign ruler with Apep. B. W. B. Garthoff (1988, p. 23; see also Manassa 2003, p. 1) provides a helpful remark worth quoting at length:

In ancient Egypt, politics and religion are indissolubly interwoven. In its textual and pictorial records, warfare, for instance, is mostly presented in terms of religious ideology: the king is always triumphant over his enemies on behalf of the gods; enemies are always in rebellion against the established order—both political and cosmic order (Ma-at)—maintained by the king with the help of the gods. An enemy of the king is automatically an enemy of the gods and can for that reason easily be seen as an exponent of the chaotic forces threatening, time and again, the nightly fare of the gods through the netherworld. The most dangerous chaotic power here is, since the Coffin Texts, personified as the serpentine figure of Apophis [i.e., Apep], blocking the course of Re’s Solar Bark and thus blocking, in fact, the regeneration of creation in general.

For this reason, an “Egyptian military text seeks not only to report the events of a particular battle but also to cast that battle in terms of the daily apocalyptic conflict between Re and Apep” (Manassa 2003, p. 1).

Based on this reasoning, scholars have identified the following examples as places where Egyptian texts allude to a foreign ruler as the cosmic enemy of the sun god:72 (1) the imagery utilized in the Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah was strategically designed to portray the invaders (i.e., the combined coalition of Libyan and Sea People forces) as “the minions of Apep” (Manassa 2003, p. 122), which, in turn, makes their leader (i.e., Merey) a virtual double of Apep. (2) The mentioned source also reports that Merey fled past an Egyptian fortress during the “deep of the night,” which is likely “an allusion to the time during which the sun god combats Apep in the Underworld” (Manassa 2010, p. 253), (3) Various expressions used in the Victory Stele of Merneptah to describe Merey also cast him in the role of the sun god’s cosmic enemy (Garthoff 1988, pp. 23–33; Manassa 2010, p. 253). (4) In a story written on papyrus during the reign of Merenptah (ca. 1213–1203 BCE), The Quarrel of Apepi and Seqenenre, the author equates Apep with the Hyksos king Apepi, who desires that the hippopotami representing the protective deities for the Thebans be eliminated (Manassa 2010, pp. 245–69).

With this perspective in mind, the Israelite author, who was familiar with this tradition, could have intentionally associated YHWH with Apep in order to depict YHWH’s “foreignness.” It may not be a coincidence that the Exodus narrative clearly describes YHWH as a foreign deity to the Egyptians (Exod 5:1; 14:4, 18).73 According to this reading, YHWH is a foreign god-king, whereas Pharaoh is the Egyptian god-king. However, it is significant that MM1–3 does not identify YHWH as Apep but as a foreign deity who stands above the Egyptian pantheon, employing Apep as a weapon to defeat the sun god.74 For example, P9 shows that while imposing darkness upon the Egyptians (which is a characteristic of Apep), YHWH repels the darkness from and directs light toward his people (which is a characteristic that is antithetical to Apep). Whereas the former depiction associates YHWH with Apep, the latter dissociates YHWH from the chaotic serpent. Hence, Apep is an instrument that YHWH uses to punish Pharaoh. In sum, by associating YHWH with Apep, the Israelite author identifies YHWH as a foreign God-King who usurps Apep from the Egyptian pantheon and then exploits him as a weapon against the Egyptians’ supreme deity.

6. Conclusions

I have demonstrated in this article that a reading of Exodus 7:8–15:21 in comparison with a New Kingdom Egyptian funerary text—the Book of Gates—reveals that both works share a number of similarities in terms of themes, terminology, and structure. However, significant differences also occur at some critical moments as the respective stories unfold (i.e., the protective function of the three deities, the Solar-Osiris union, the blissful resurrection of the drowned, the victory of the sun god over Apep, the sun god’s safe arrival at the eastern horizon). These findings suggest that the Israelite author (or group of authors) made use of the traditions related to BG—with polemical modifications—as one of his sources when framing the entire Exodus 7–15 narrative, in order to juxtapose the sequence of YHWH’s miracles with the progression of Pharaoh’s impending and inevitable death. Through this subtle imitation of BG along with striking inverted effects, the Israelite author assaulted the Egyptian belief that Pharaoh is the sun god incarnate, who is capable of maintaining the maat of Egypt. In doing so, the Israelite author promotes his belief that YHWH—not Pharaoh—is the deity par excellence who controls the maat of Egypt. In this regard, Exodus 7:8–15:21 can be read as a polemical parody of the already well-established myth about the sun god’s journey through the Netherworld—a myth that is inseparably connected to Pharaoh (i.e., the sun god incarnate).