--- In
cybalist@egroups.com, "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@...>
wrote:
> Nothing of the Old Testament has to be dismissed, only
re-interpreted. You have to read Salibi I think. Rather convincing
IMO. --Marc
There are two extremist schools on this matter
1. Thomas Thompson and his co-workers dismiss just about everything
prior to the Omride Dynasty of Israel (during the divided monarchy
period, when independent Assyrian confirmation is available) as
legendary reconstruction. Thus the Davidic and Solomonic united
kingdom they believe was constructed by the post-exilic redactors who
aimed to create a theocratic state stretching from the Euphrates to
the Gates of Egypt (the exact size of the contemporary Persian
satrapy
of the period). The Egyptian exile and the story of Moses, they
argue, was constructed to give hope to the Babylonian exilees, of a
return to Zion in Glory, punishing the "Canaanites" (Those who
refused
to accept the theocratic priestly rule pioneered in Babylon).
2. Albright and his school, who claim a historic basis to everything
from Abraham onwards, claiming a historical authenticity not just to
the monarchic traditions, the stories of David and Saul, but also of
judges, exodus and the patriarchs, which they date variously from
1,900 BCE and the Amorite invasions of Southern Mesopotamia. Whilst
not finding any "direct" evidence of the existence of figures
mentioned in the bible, these people, largely drawn from
fundamentalist US theological colleges, (or more recently Israeli
archaeologists) find plenty of indirect evidence to support their
interpretations of the bible.
Between these groups are a large group of others. Some of whom are
prepared to accept parts, but not all of Albright's position.
Certainly, there is no evidence to suggest that Hebrew was only
merely
a "court" language. It seems to have been a natural development out
of the late Bronze Age Canaanite tongues (recorded at Ugarit, Byblos
and elsewhere), which probably developed on the area stretching up
from the Judean Hills, north to Galilee where a similar though
related
dialect seems to have existed. Cognate languages later developed in
Edom, Moab and Ammon. A west Arabian connection has been held by
those scholars who accept the Exodus tradition as based on a kernel
of
truth. They see the myth of Moses having one source in the Midianite
tradition associated around the figure of Jethro - Moses' reputed
father-in-law. The Midianites seem to have been West Arabian camel
nomads who survived into Monarchic times (after 1,000 BCE). It is
this Midianite connection which seems to have prompted the post
exilic
redactors of the exodus story to suggest an eastward route from Egypt
to the Promised land (as the Bible says "Not up the Philistine Road"
i.e. from Tinma to Ascalon).
More recent criticism demonstrates the archaeological impossibility
of
this route. Sites in Ammon and Moab, said to have been in existence,
are shown to have only been settled during the post Davidic
monarchial
period. "Not the Philistine Road" itself is anachronistic, as
according to the Exodus story itself, Moses made the trip before the
Philistine settlement. This is problematic for the literalists (of
the Albright school), as the Bible itself refers to Abraham dealing
with Philistines from Gerar. This too must have been anachronistic
if
Abraham is 1900 BCE and the Philistine settlement approximately 1100
BCE (unless of course, the myths about Abraham really are only put
together after the Philistines arrived).
If there is any truth to the Egyptian exodus tale, it cannot be
located as via the Eastern route at all (despite the faulty
association of Mt Sinai with Mt Horeb - where Moses consulted the
Burning Bush). It is instead via the Via Maris (The "Philistine
Road") that actual exiles actually did leave Egypt, after 40 years
capitivity building mud-brick cities for Rameses in the Nile Delta,
eventually being settled in a "promised land of milk and honey".
Unfortunately for Biblical scholars the people concerned who made
this
journey were not Israelites or Hebrews. They were Philistines!
The route by which this story of the Egytpian captivity and exodus
entered the Biblical Corpus, I believe, was through the influence of
Obed and his sons, who came as High Priests of the Ark of the
Covenant, from the Philistine City of Gath (from whence came the
Philistine Goliath), settled in Jerusalem when David received the Ark
back after it had been captured by the Philistines from Saul. The
fact that David was operating as a Philistine mercenary at this time
is usually overlooked.
On this basis, the influence of Aegean Sea Peoples into early
biblical
tradition occurred. Thus rather than a Semitic influence into the
Greek Corpus (as Dennis Poulter and Glen Gordon has been claiming), I
believe rather it was an Aegean influence into the Semitic that
Dennis
has been documenting.
Hope this helps
John