John Burnett wrote:
> I've been lurking for a couple of days, monitoring.... to introduce
> myself, I have an MA in Old Testament, a BA in Classics, and
another
BA
> in Buddhist Studies; as to languages, I can read most of those of
> Western Europe maybe, Modern Greek, Hebrew, and have some passing
> familiarity with Slavonic, Russian, Ugaritic, and Sanskrit. Not
that
I
> know a lot about anything, and I would not call myself a linguist--
my
> interests have centered more around the history of religions and the
> philosophy of language-- but obviously, I have some interest in
> linguistics as well.
Don't worry John, my interests are in archaeology, anthropology and
genetics, I am no linguist either.
> Anyway, regarding the Hebrew and Arabic thread, I'm a little
surprised
> people are quoting
> > Kamal Salibi1985 "Het ware land van Abraham" Elsevier
> > Ahmed Osman ("The House of the Messiah", "Moses:Pharaoh of
Egypt").
> > David Rohl ("A Test of Time")
>
> etc without at least making some side references to more standard
works
> like F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth & Hebrew Epic (Harvard: 1973) (this
> book, recently repub'd. in paperback, has justly obtained legendary
> status in the world of Biblical Studies), and also his more recent
From
> Epic to Canon (Johns Hopkins, 1998) (a sort of sequel).
Can you give me the bibliographic details. The Biblical Scholars I
am
familiar with, Kenyon, Albright, Noth, de Vauz, Aharoni, Soggin,
Jagersma, Yadin, and Redford I know. Cross I have never heard of.
> The first book would probably be of interest to people on this list,
> esp. the article on "'El and the God of the Fathers", which
discusses
> certain significant relations between the Ugaritic 'El/Ba'l cycle
and
> the Bible-- but more to the point on the question of Israelite
origins
> would be some of the discussion in certain articles in the second,
> including "Reuben, the Firstborn of Jacob: Sacral Traditions and
Early
> Israelite History", where he writes, "Sinai-Horeb must be sought in
> southern Edom or northern Midian. This view, long held by German
> scholars but rejected by most American and Israeli scholars,
including
> the writer, now appears to be sound. The archaic hymns of Israel
are
of
> one voice....". (He also points out that "The theophanic language of
> Sinai is a concretized, literalized form of the poetic language of
> Canaanite storm theophany and has nothing to do with volcanoes"-- I
know
> this notion, which has always struck me as rather silly, has come up
> over the last couple of days in some connection.) I don't think
anyone
> is looking for Abraham in Arabia-- and Ebla seems to offer some
> suggestive support for the usual theories (too early to tell what
it
all
> means with Ebla, though). See also "The 'Olden Gods' in Ancient Near
> Eastern Creation Myths and in Israel" for some related discussion.
The equation between Mount Horeb and Sinai, I have seen is very
dubious and due to a very late interpretation. St Catherine's
Monastry on Mount Sinai claims it was Moses's mountain, but there is
no evidence of the case. It has been shown that it was probably not
far from the location of Kadesh Barnea, (Jebel Helel?) as pilgrimages
to Mt Horeb occurred during the early monarchial period, and it is
unlikely that they trapsed across the Negev to get there. The
Eblaite
material is intriguing, David, Abrahm and other Biblical names in
abundance, a shift from El to Yah in theophoric names (a shift from
the Canaanite El to the Babylonian Ea).
> While I'm at it, though, and just for information, I doubt that you
will
> find a scholar (well, an academically respectable one, anyway) who
has
> any idea that the idealized picture of the Exodus that you find in
the
> Pentateuch actually took place as the grand epic it is portrayed as
> having been. There isn't much doubt that there was a band that left
> Egypt-- the usual date is 1250 BC but there is also some uneasiness
> about this date; that it was joined in its journeys by other groups
(the
> Bible refers to them as "rabble");
You say that there isn't much doubt that a band left Egypt. Firstly
I
would argue that there is a great deal of doubt! Certainly there is
no independent evidence of such a thing. There is some evidence that
Egyptians undertook significant effort to recover runaway slaves
during the New Kingdom period usually associated with the Exodus.
There was no reference to Israel or Hebrews in Egypt at any time.
Reconstructing a date at 1250 has been done in contravention to the
dates in the Bible. Solomon was supposed to start building his
temple
(962 BCE) 480 years after the exodus, giving a date of 1438 BCE.
This
is embarrassing as it was during the reign of Amenhotep II, son of
the
warrior pharaoh Thutmose III, who carried the Egyptian Empire to the
Euphrates! The period in Egypt was variously stated to be 430 years
(Exodus 12:40-41), 400 years (Genesis 15:13), 4 generations (4
Generations), or one generation (Machir, Joseph's grandson was born
in
his lifetime, participated in the exodus and even the settlement).
400 years before 1438 would be in the reign of Senusret III, at the
height of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, before the coming of the
Asiatic Hyksos. As Redford states, "This dearth of citations (to
Israel prior to the Merenptah stelae) is also paralleled on the
Biblical side by an absence of any specific references betraying a
knowledge of Egypt or the Levant during the second millennium BC.
There is no mention of an Egyptian Empire encompasing the Eastern
Mediterranean, no marching Egyptian armies bent on punitive
campaigns,
no countermarching Hittite forces, no resident governors, no
Egyptianised kinglets ruling Canaanite cities, no burdensome tribute
or cultural exchange. Of the latest and most disasterous migration
of
the second millennium, that of the Sea Peoples, the Hexateuch knows
next to nothing: Genesis and Exodus find the Philistines already
settled at the time of Abraham. The great Egyptian kings of the
empire, the Amenophids, the Thutmosids, the Ramesides, are absent
from
the hundreds of pages of holy writ." The first pharaoh mentioned by
name, Shishak, is presumed to be the Lybian Sheshonk, who is known to
have raided into Palestine. David Rohl suggests the name comes from
the hypocoristicon name of Rameses II, Ssy-r. It would appear rather
his name is remembered as the Canaanite giant, Sheshy (Num 13:22) or
general (Jud 5). But errors continue. "The Egyptian king who was
expected to help Hosea in his rebellion has suffered the confusion of
his city as his name. And if we remind ourselves that even Pharaoh
Shabtaka turns up in the Table of Nations (Gen 10:7) as a Nubian
tribe." Redford p258).
Secondly, the Biblical account pulls no punches regarding the Exodus.
It speaks of a mass exodus of a whole ethnic group, who had been
living in Egypt for a length of time, not the expulsion of a few
wandering shepherds. As far as the Egyptian records show, this only
occurred twice.
1. The expulsion of the Hyksos
1. The resettlement of the Peoples of the Sea in the Promised Land.
These two events bracket the Egyptian New Kingdom period and may have
become conflated and confused in the oral traditions from which the
biblical tales were assembled. Putting the two together, within a
folk tale motif of a legendary leader makes a story which had
parallels with the Babylonian captivity situation especially
poignant.
The story of Prince Moses and the Bullrushes seems to be a direct
lift of the Babylonian story of Sargon of Akkad, copied by Cyrus the
Archaemenid at about the same time. Moses growing up in association
with the Egyptian royal household parallels the Judaic royal family
in
exile, associating closely with Baalchazzer (of the feast fame). The
only piece of evidence which suggests any historicity to Moses's
association with the Exodus, is the story of Moxus of Colophon (a
minor Greek hero, also called Mopsus). He seems to have been one of
the chief leaders of the Peoples of the Sea, as he led people out of
Anatolia to the gates of Egypt. Like Moses he fed and watered his
people in the desert. In Cilicia in classical times, Mopsukrene (the
fountain of Moxus) and Mopsuhestia (the hearth of Moxus) were common
sites. A number of Syrian and Cilician Neo-Hittite and Phoenician
dynasties all derive their geneologies from Moxus. Even the seven
lean years and the descent into Egypt of both Abraham and Jacob seem
to both be referring to the same events, the climatic collapse at the
end of the Bronze Age and the movement of the Sea Peoples that
resulted.
You continue
> and that common cause was made
> between these and some already existing populations of peasants in
the
> Northern Israelite highlands during what is called the "Conquest"
(which
> was, consequently, part invasion and part peasant revolt-- but
rather
> limited in scope).
You seem to be accepting the 1960s theory of G.E.Mendenhall, as
elaborated during the 1970s by N.K.Gottwald regarding the "peasant
revolt theory" which was based on three theses
1. Israel did not begin ethnically distinct from Canaan but was from
the same cultural and language stock as the Canaanites.
2. The Israelites were not infiltrating pastoralists but were
sedentary farmers.
3. The entity of Israel resulted from violent rejection of the
Canaanite city state system of taxation and the corvee.
But Gottwald's thesis has been rejected on three counts.
1. No-one can prove or disprove the tribal confederation of Israel
started (or did not start) on Palestinian soil. Only after the time
of Merenptah did an entity of Israel exist in Canaan.
2. The separation of cultivation from pastoralism by Gottwald is a
false division. The people of the area were both cultivators and
pastoralists, with the mix shifting according to season, climatic
shift or political factors.
3. There is no evidence of any peasant revolt. Within the Egyptian
zone of Palestine the middle bronze age Canaanite city states had all
but ceased to exist by the 14th century, with a few towns left,
governed by headmen wholly subservient to Egypt. Headmen were not
kings, but almost destitute and in constant danger of property
confiscations by Egyptian forces. The Apiru were not revolting
peasants, but rather dissolute elements who always had the upper hand
forcing local communities to pay protection money.
John continues
> You can't altogether dismiss the Bible, as I think
> some might have suggested here; even if it's a pack of lies, the
lies
> were written in the first millennium BC on the basis of lies told
in
the
> second; so you'd have to pick you way v-e-r-y carefully, but they
would
> still be interesting lies. (Well, I don't think it's exactly that,
> either-- just tendentious.)
> Anyway, this is just a footnote regarding some sociological and
> geographical parameters; best regards and don't let me interrupt!
How does this all relate to Indo-European studies? Late Bronze Age
Middle Eastern cultures were characterised by maryannu elites of
horse
drawn chariot warriors, supported by peasant infantry. The cost of
such chariots, and of the bronze armour that went with it was such
that only an elite could afford it. Whether that elite ruled over a
bureaucratic state (like Egypt); were Indo-Aryan aristocrats, as with
the Mitanni; or were a coalition of ruling elements, as with the
Hittites and Mycenaeans, the form was the same. It gave advantage to
semi-nomadic people where the nomadic activity of pastoralism
required
strategic planning of almost military precision, and where the
possibilities of raid, blood-feud, and counter raid were ever
present.
This was the world that allowed Indo-Europeans to spread, and for
bilingual communities to exist. It was also the late Bronze Age whose
scattered memories are recorded in Greek myth and Jewish Bible.
Hope this helps
John