Surveying the Kadesh
Poem with an eye toward the types of inconsistencies biblical source-critics
see as tell-tale signs of textual growth, we discover a long list of such
details:
1) Shift in
narrational voice: Most egregious of all the inconsistencies in this composition
is the shift from third-person narration to first-person narration in line 88
of the poem:
(83) So His Majesty
went to look around him; (84) he found 2,500 chariot-spans hemming him in, all
around him, (85) even all the champion (“runners”) of the Hittite foe, along
with the numerous foreign countries who were with them – (86) from Arzawa, Masa
and Pidassa; {from Gasgas, Arwanna and Qizzuwanta; from Aleppo, Ugarit Qadesh
and Lukka;} (87) they were 3 men to a chariot-span, acting as a unit. (88) But
there was no high officer with me, no charioteer (89) no army-soldier, no
shield bearer. (90) But my army and my chariotry melted away before them, (91)
none could withstand them, to fight with them.
2) Inconsistency
concerning the pharaoh’s isolation: In line 89, the pharaoh laments his abandonment
by his troops: “There was no high officer with me, no charioteer, no
army-soldier, no shield-bearer.” Yet, in II.205-219, as Ramesses prepares to
charge into the assembled enemy forces he admonishes a figure named Menna,
identified as his shield-bearer. And in lines 273-274, Ramesses praises his
shield-bearer and household butlers, who remained at his side throughout the
ordeal.
3) Inconsistent
lists of the enemy nations: The beginning of the Poem features a list of
the nations that comprised the Hittite confederacy, totaling thirteen groups in
all (II.2-6). Yet, when Ramesses engages these groups in battle, we discover seventeen
enemy nations in that coalition (II.41-47).
4) Inconsistent accounts
of Ramesses’s divine paternity: Ramesses’s divine father is identified as
Montu at one point (I.37), but as Amun in two others (II.92 and 188).
5) Inconsistent
references to the Pharaoh’s steed: Ramesses makes reference to his trusted
steed, Victory and Thebes in I.78 yet in line 267, the king gives praise to his
two mounts. Victory in Thebes and Mut is Content, vowing to assume upon himself
ever after their daily feeding responsibilities.
6) Doubled
reproach of the Pharaoh’s troops: Ramesses offers two separate
admonishments to his troops for their cowardice (II.168-203 and II.251-276),
with repetitions of many of the themes and tropes.
Were biblicists to
analyze the Kadesh Poem with the same methodology they use to parse the
biblical text, it is inconceivable that they would conclude that the Kadesh
Poem was written under the authority of a single agent. And yet, the evidence
suggests that this is precisely the case. The fact that a unitary composition
can contain so many inconsistencies and doublets suggest a fundamental flaw in
source-critical methodology. TO be sure, none of this proves that the prose
account of the Exodus sea event is a unitary composition. The evidence from the
Kadesh Poem, however, strongly illustrates the need for scholars to attain
competence in the conventions and poetics of ancient Near Eastern literature
before adducing a methodology, if they are to responsibly retrace the growth of
the biblical text. (Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary
Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism [New York: Oxford University
Press, 2017], 54-55)
