Yeah - notice how in the first part Merneptah is the strong hand of Ra smiting Libyans left and right...amusing because he was about 65 when he came to the throne and at that time probably had trouble taking a good dump every morning.
The the last ten lines make no sense in a historical sense. Canaan WAS Egyptian. There was no need to conquer it and there is nothing to suggest that he was quashing a rebellion. Why would the Egyptians attack their own vassals? Further, all this strong hand of Ra shit is missing.
It almost reads like an after action report. "Yes, his majesty defeated the Libyans but losses were taken in Canaan where vassal towns were defeated" (by the Sea People? Attacking from the Mediterranean on the Egyptian flank?). It is not so glorious a victory in Canaan but the Egyptians are left holding the field...burned though it was.
It is very important for bible-thumpers to get their precious "israelites" into the story but it seems like a stretch.
The the last ten lines make no sense in a historical sense. Canaan WAS Egyptian. There was no need to conquer it and there is nothing to suggest that he was quashing a rebellion. Why would the Egyptians attack their own vassals? Further, all this strong hand of Ra shit is missing.
It almost reads like an after action report. "Yes, his majesty defeated the Libyans but losses were taken in Canaan where vassal towns were defeated" (by the Sea People? Attacking from the Mediterranean on the Egyptian flank?). It is not so glorious a victory in Canaan but the Egyptians are left holding the field...burned though it was.
It is very important for bible-thumpers to get their precious "israelites" into the story but it seems like a stretch.
