Geskiedenis Podcasts

Amarna Brief van Labayu

Amarna Brief van Labayu


Amarna Brief van Labayu - Geskiedenis

© Trustees van die British Museum

So waar as die koning, my heer, lewe, as die kommissarisse uitgaan, sal ek sê: Die lande van die koning is verlore! Luister julle nie na my nie? Al die goewerneurs is verlore, die koning, my heer, het nie 'n enkele goewerneur nie; laat die koning sy aandag op die boogskutters rig, en laat die koning, my heer, troepe van boogskutters stuur, [want] die koning het geen lande nie! Die Habiru plunder al die lande van die koning. As daar boogskutters [hier] in hierdie jaar is, sal die lande van die koning, my heer, [ongeskonde] bly, maar as daar geen boogskutters [hier] is nie, sal die lande van die koning, my heer, verlore gaan! &# 8221 — Abdi-Heba van Jerusalem, skryf aan die Egiptiese Farao (Amarna-brief EA 286, van 'N Oorsig van die inleiding van die Ou Testament, Gleason Archer, 1985 -uitgawe, bladsy 275).

Daar was omwenteling in Kanaän, aangesien 'n volk bekend as “Habiru ” met groot geweld binnegeval het. Abdi-Heba was desperaat vir hulp van Farao, en het verskeie briewe gestuur om smeekboodskappers ” (gewone Egiptiese soldate) —, maar geen hulp het gekom nie.


David Rohl, die Amarna -briewe en die nuwe chronologie

Die egiptoloog en argeoloog David Rohl het pas 'n nuwe boek gepubliseer: "UITVOER, MITE OF GESKIEDENIS?" Ons kan net hoop dat dit so gou as moontlik in Italiaans vertaal word.

Die foto van die omslag van die boek hier links, is geneem van die webwerf http://shop.patternsofevidence.com/ waar dit moontlik is om die boek te koop en meer te wete te kom oor die film oor dieselfde onderwerp, "Patrone van bewyse ”, Wat onlangs in die Verenigde State vrygestel is.

Rhol is nogal oortuigend. Sy teorieë wen altyd meer en meer ondersteuners - ek is een daarvan. Ons sal meer oor hierdie boek praat wanneer die Italiaanse weergawe uitgereik word. Vir diegene wat meer wil weet oor die New Chronology, kan hulle steeds "Il Testamento Perduto", die Italiaanse weergawe van die "Lost Testament", wat oral in Italië in boekwinkels beskikbaar is, lees.

Dit was my eerste David Rohl se boek. Ek geniet veral die bespreking oor die Amarna-briewe, wat die herdatering van die Egiptiese chronologie van ongeveer 250 jaar ondersteun.

Dit is 'n paradoks dat Akhenaton in die geskiedenis as die ketterske farao onthou word vanweë sy monoteïstiese oortuigings. Dit is alombekend: elke drastiese poging om lang tradisies te verander, is op sigself ketter, en al is dit nie maklik of vinnig aanvaarbaar vir die edelste oorsake of die hoogste ideale nie. Meer nog, as sulke veranderinge 'n bedreiging is vir diegene wat 'n posisie van mag en aansien, polities, godsdienstig of albei beklee. Die filosofiese stryd van Farao om sy nuwe godsdiens het meer betekenis gekry vir die politieke gevolge en die skade wat die tradisionele geestelikes aangerig het as vir die intrinsieke geestelike waarde daarvan.

Akhenaton was die naam wat gekies is deur Amenhotep IV, seun van Amenhotep III. Hy regeer, volgens die tradisionele dateringstelsel, van 1350 tot 1334 vC. Sy nuwe naam is aangeneem ter ere van sy god, Aton, die sonskyf, wat die voorwerp van sy monoteïstiese kultus was. Hy het ook beroemd geword vir sy grootste prestasie, die bou van die stad Akhetaton. Soos dit duidelik uit die naam blyk, was dit nog 'n huldeblyk aan sy god.

In die gebied waar hierdie stad, vandag El Amarna genoem word, 3000 jaar later, in 1887 nC, het opgrawings die korrespondensie van Amenhotep III en sy seun aan die lig gebring.

Die 400 tablette wat in El Amarna gevind word, is 'n kosbare getuie van die tye van die Egiptiese konings sowel as van hul Mesopotamiese en Siriese vasale konings. Hulle word verdeel tussen Berlyn, Londen en Oxford. Ek kan met trots sê dat ek in my ondersoeke aanlyn uitgevind het dat sommige Engelse vertalings van hierdie tekste uit die Italiaans is. Want gewoonlik is die omgekeerde die geval! Die Amarna Letters word in Italiaans geredigeer deur Mario Liverani, Padeia, 2 vols., Met die titel: "Le lettere di El-Amarna".

Die taal wat in hierdie briewe gebruik word, is Accadic, 'n Babiloniese dialek, wat die diplomatieke taal van die tyd was. Dit kan maklik vergelyk word met vandag se Engels of Frans. Hierdie artikel wat in Engels vertaal word, hoewel dit deur 'n Italianer geskryf is, is 'n bewys van die voordeel en moet in 'n internasionaal verstaanbare taal geskryf word.

Die spykerskrif word duidelik gesien in die tablet, EA161, wat hier aangebied word. Hierdie beeld is geneem uit: http://www.en.wikipedia.org

Ter wille van nuuskierigheid en terselfdertyd om ons onderwerp voor te stel, sou dit winsgewend wees om na die inhoud van sommige van hierdie briewe te kyk. Die teks van die briewe is op die internet beskikbaar op die volgende webwerf: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/index.html Ek het die aanhalings van die briewe van hierdie webwerf geneem.

Kadashman Enlil I was koning van Babilon. Hy skryf aan Amenhotep III: “Kadashman Enlil van Babilon na Amenhotep van Egipte [...] Hoe is dit moontlik dat, nadat ek aan u geskryf het om die hand van u dogter te vra - o my broer, u my so moes skryf taal, en sê vir my dat u haar nie aan my sal gee nie, aangesien daar sedert die vroegste tye nog nooit 'n dogter van die koning van Egipte in die huwelik gekry is nie? " - EA3.

Die Babiloniese koning noem Farao sy broer. Hy is baie ontsteld oor die verskonings vir die weiering om sy dogter te trou. Die feit word baie eenvoudig verduidelik: die Egiptiese konings was baie goed bewus van die oudheid en aansien van hul kroon en baie huiwerig om buitelandse heersers as hul gelykes te erken. Dit is heel begryplik as ons dink dat die Egiptiese koninkryk op daardie tydstip al meer as 1500 jaar lank bestaan ​​het! Desondanks skryf die Assiriese koning Ashur-uballit op sy gemak: "Groot Koning, koning van Egipte, my broer"-EA16.

In die dae van Akhenaton het die turbulensie in die Siro-Palestynse gebied toegeneem. Die Egiptiese koning was te vasgevang in sy godsdienstige bespiegelinge en besig met die bou van sy stad om so 'n krisis op te los. Die hulpgeroepe van die vasaalkonings het gou klagtes geword oor die gedrag van die koning.

Die rede waarom die Amarna -briewe so belangrik is vir 'n Bybelstudent soos ek, is dat dit onlangs 'n baie belangrike geskil geword het. Trouens, as ons die tradisionele datering vir die koninkryk Akhenaton aanvaar, sal ons die korrespondensie van Amarna benader met 'n paar veronderstellings in gedagte en dit dienooreenkomstig interpreteer om te pas by ons reeds bereikte kennis van daardie dae. In hierdie perspektief sal die briewe van en met betrekking tot 'n koning met die naam Labaya of Labayu nie veel aandag trek nie, aangesien geen beter identifikasie van hierdie koning moontlik is nie en selfs nie van die presiese ligging van sy koninkryk nie. Sy taal, as hy Farao toespreek, is duidelik formeel en toon baie eerbied: 'Aan die koning [my heer,] my [son]: boodskap van Lab'aya, u dienaar, die grond waarop u loop. Aan die voete van die koning, my heer en my son, gooi ek my sewe en sewe keer. ” EA 253.

Labaya was 'n pyn in die nek. Konings het geskryf om die Farao se hulp te vra, en om hom gekla.

Alhoewel die Egiptiese konings al lankal verby is, is Labaya nog steeds 'n pyn in die nek van die tradisionele ondersteuners. Want as ons kan verstaan ​​hoe sy naam “leeu van Yahweh” geïnterpreteer word, hoe is dit dan moontlik dat Yahweh bekend is tydens die koninkryk van Akhenaton?

Jahwe word beskou as die mees waarskynlike uitspraak van die Tetragrammaton YHWH, die persoonlike naam wat God aan Moses geopenbaar het. Volgens die tradisionele datering moes dit ongeveer in die dertiende eeu vC plaasgevind het. Die uittog, altyd volgens die tradisionele datering, het plaasgevind onder die koninkryk van Ramses II, wat tussen 1279 en 1212 vC regeer het. Byna 100 jaar na die Amarna -korrespondensie. Hoe moet dit in ooreenstemming wees met die feit dat Yahweh al 150 jaar in Palestina bekend was voordat die volk Israel hulle daar gevestig het?

David Rohl se New Chronology bied 'n baie bevredigende verklaring vir bogenoemde inkonsekwentheid deur eenvoudig die chronologie in die Bybel te bevestig.

Die probleem is dat die New Chronology die gebeurtenisse verduidelik - ja - in ooreenstemming is met argeologiese bevindings, maar in stryd is met die tradisionele, met al die negatiewe implikasies wat so 'n verandering in die loopbaan van baie gewaardeerde geleerdes en die slegte lig kan bring oor die studies wat tot dusver oor die onderwerp gepubliseer is.

Net soos Farao, is Rohl vandag se ketters -revolusionêre denker, aangesien sy idees openlik bevraagteken wat algemeen al jare lank (blindelings) aanvaar word. Maar miskien is dit net 'n kwessie van tyd! Net soos die wêreld tot monoteïsme verander het en die ketterske farao Akhenaton die held van monoteïsme geword het, sal David Rohl miskien eendag beskou word as 'n man wat kon sien wat sy generasie, weens gebrek aan gees van avontuur of luiheid, versuim het waarneem.

Daar moet op gelet word dat die hersiening wat deur Rohl's New Chronology voorgestel word, nie heeltemal revolusionêr is nie. Dit is 'n oorsig van die tradisionele datums, maar die gedagte laat hulle 250-300 jaar terugkeer. Om te sien wat dit eintlik beteken, dink aan dat as die Ramson II volgens die algemeen aanvaarde opvatting tussen 1279-1212 vC geleef het, die New Chronology hom na 943-877 vC verplaas het.

Rohl weier die algemeen aanvaarde identifikasie van die enigste farao in die Bybel, Sisac of Shishak, met die historiese Sheshonq. Hierdie identifikasie is die belangrikste hoeksteen van die tradisionele dateringstelsel.

Die Bybelse teks van I Konings 14.25-26 lui: “En in die vyfde jaar van koning Rehábeam het Sisak, die koning van Egipte, teen Jerusalem opgetrek; en hy het die skatte van die huis van die HERE en die die skatte van die koning se huis het hy selfs weggeneem; en hy het al die goue skilde wat Salomo gemaak het, weggeneem. ”

Rohl lewer goed gedokumenteerde en verbasend gepaste argeologiese en historiese Bybelse bewyse. Hy vaar beter in sy laaste boek as wat hy nog ooit gedoen het - alhoewel ek gedink het dit was nie moontlik nie. Hy wys hoe die Bybelse Shishak niemand anders as Ramsess II is nie. Wil jy weet hoe? Lees sy boeke!

So 'n ander identifikasie sal al die ander datums van konings en gebeure verander. Ek weet dat dit nie meer dieselfde sal wees om saam met u kinders na "The Prince of Egypt" te kyk nie! Ek voel self so skaam oor die gedagte om die fout aan my seuns te verduidelik. Maar die New Chronology bevestig beide argeologiese gegewens en die betroubaarheid van die historisiteit van die uittog in die Bybel. Die datum van die nuwe chronologie vir die koninkryk Akhenaton beweeg na 1023-1007 vC. Dit sou hom 'n tydgenoot maak van koning Saul, die eerste koning van Israel. En as ons veronderstel dat die Labaya waarvan in die Amarna -tekste gepraat word, geïdentifiseer kan word met die Bybelse Saul, sou dit nie al die probleme rakende die aanbidding van Yahweh in Palestina ten tyde van Akhenaton heeltemal opgelos het nie?

Saul beteken "versoek". Kom ons dink hoe Petrus, ook Chephas genoem, inderdaad 'n man was met die naam Simon. Paulus se regte naam was Saul. Mark se naam was Johannes. Matteus se naam was Levi. Miskien het die 'aangevraagde' koning van Israel in die Bybel bekend geword met hierdie bynaam en sy werklike naam was Labaya of Labayu? Die feit ten gunste van hierdie identifikasie is sterk, aangesien ook baie ander besonderhede van die prent suksesvol verduidelik sal word. In die Amarna -korrespondensie, as die New Chronology aanvaar word, word David, Mutbaal, seun van Saul en Joab, generaal van David en die gebeure wat daarmee verband hou, so maklik verduidelik in die lig van die verslae in die Bybel.

Soos die intelligente leser reeds geraai het, is dit maklik om die New Chronology te aanvaar deur diegene wat die historiese akkuraatheid van die Bybel ondersteun en heeltemal geweier word deur diegene wat jare lank geleer is en die tradisionele datums geleer het. Ons kan net hoop dat tyd en verdere eerlike navorsing meer lig op hierdie saak sal werp.

Persoonlik is ek daarvan oortuig dat die ketter David Rohl eendag as 'n man voor sy tyd beskou sal word, en sy teorieë, soos die monoteïsme van Akhenaton, deel uitmaak van die nuwe ortodoksie.


David Rohl, die Amarna -briewe en die New Chronology

Die egiptoloog en argeoloog David Rohl het pas 'n nuwe boek gepubliseer: "UITVOER, MITE OF GESKIEDENIS?" Ons kan net hoop dat dit so gou as moontlik in Italiaans vertaal word.

Die foto van die omslag van die boek hier links, is geneem van die webwerf http://shop.patternsofevidence.com/ waar u die boek kan koop en meer te wete kan kom oor die film oor dieselfde onderwerp, "Patrone van bewyse", onlangs in die Verenigde State vrygestel.

Rhol is nogal oortuigend. Sy teorieë wen altyd meer en meer ondersteuners - ek is een daarvan. Ons sal meer oor hierdie boek praat wanneer die Italiaanse weergawe uitgereik word. Vir diegene wat meer wil weet oor die New Chronology, kan hulle steeds "Il Testamento Perduto", die Italiaanse weergawe van die "Lost Testament", wat oral in Italië in boekwinkels beskikbaar is, lees.

Dit was my eerste David Rohl se boek. Ek geniet veral die bespreking oor die Amarna-briewe, wat die herdatering van die Egiptiese chronologie van ongeveer 250 jaar ondersteun.

Dit is 'n paradoks dat Akhenaton in die geskiedenis as die ketterske farao onthou word vanweë sy monoteïstiese oortuigings. Dit is algemeen bekend: elke drastiese poging om lang tradisies te verander, is op sigself ketter, en selfs al is dit nie vir die edelste oorsake of die hoogste ideale nie, dit moet nie maklik of vinnig aanvaar word nie. Meer nog, as sulke veranderinge 'n bedreiging is vir diegene wat 'n posisie van mag en aansien, polities, godsdienstig of albei beklee. Die filosofiese stryd van Farao vir sy nuwe godsdiens het meer betekenis gekry vir die politieke gevolge en die skade wat die tradisionele geestelikes aangerig het as vir die intrinsieke geestelike waarde daarvan.

Akhenaton was die naam wat gekies is deur Amenhotep IV, seun van Amenhotep III. Hy regeer, volgens die tradisionele dateringstelsel, van 1350 tot 1334 vC. Sy nuwe naam is aangeneem ter ere van sy god, Aton, die sonskyf, wat die voorwerp van sy monoteïstiese kultus was. Hy het ook beroemd geword vir sy grootste prestasie, die bou van die stad Akhetaton. Soos dit duidelik uit die naam blyk, was dit nog 'n huldeblyk aan sy god.

Vanaf die webwerf www.amarna3d.com

In die gebied waar hierdie stad, vandag El Amarna genoem word, 3000 jaar later, in 1887 nC, het opgrawings die korrespondensie van Amenhotep III en sy seun aan die lig gebring.

Die 400 tablette wat in El Amarna gevind word, is 'n kosbare getuie van die tye van die Egiptiese konings sowel as van hul Mesopotamiese en Siriese vasale konings. Hulle word verdeel tussen Berlyn, Londen en Oxford. Ek kan met trots sê dat ek in my aanlyn -navorsing uitgevind het dat sommige Engelse vertalings van hierdie tekste uit die Italiaans is. Want gewoonlik is die omgekeerde die geval! Die Amarna Letters word in Italiaans geredigeer deur Mario Liverani, Padeia, 2 vols., Met die titel: "Le lettere di El-Amarna".

Die taal wat in hierdie briewe gebruik word, is Accadic, 'n Babiloniese dialek, wat die diplomatieke taal van die tyd was. Dit kan maklik vergelyk word met vandag se Engels of Frans. Hierdie artikel wat in Engels vertaal word, hoewel dit deur 'n Italiaans geskryf is, is 'n bewys van die voordeel en moet in 'n internasionaal verstaanbare taal geskryf word.

Die spykerskrif word duidelik gesien in die tablet, EA161, wat hier aangebied word. Hierdie beeld is geneem van: www.en.wikipedia.org

Ter wille van nuuskierigheid en terselfdertyd om ons onderwerp voor te stel, sal dit winsgewend wees om na die inhoud van sommige van hierdie briewe te kyk. Die teks van die briewe is op die internet beskikbaar op die volgende webwerf: www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/index.html

Ek het die aanhalings van die briewe van hierdie webwerf geneem.

Kadashman Enlil I was koning van Babilon. Hy skryf aan Amenhotep III: “Kadashman Enlil van Babilon na Amenhotep van Egipte [...] Hoe is dit moontlik dat, nadat ek aan u geskryf het om die hand van u dogter te vra - o my broer, u my so moes skryf taal, en sê vir my dat u haar nie aan my sal gee nie, aangesien daar sedert die vroegste tye nog nooit 'n dogter van die koning van Egipte in die huwelik gekry is nie? " - EA3.

Die Babiloniese koning noem Farao sy broer. Hy is baie ontsteld oor die verskonings vir die weiering om sy dogter te trou. Die feit word baie eenvoudig verduidelik: die Egiptiese konings was baie goed bewus van die oudheid en aansien van hul kroon en baie huiwerig om buitelandse heersers as hul gelykes te erken. Dit is heel begryplik as ons dink dat die Egiptiese koninkryk op daardie tydstip al meer as 1500 jaar lank bestaan ​​het! Desondanks skryf die Assiriese koning Ashur-uballit op sy gemak: "Groot Koning, koning van Egipte, my broer"-EA16.

In die dae van Akhenaton het die turbulensie in die Siro-Palestynse gebied toegeneem. Die Egiptiese koning was te vasgevang in sy godsdienstige bespiegelinge en besig met die bou van sy stad om so 'n krisis op te los. Die hulpgeroepe van die vasaalkonings het gou klagtes geword oor die gedrag van die koning.

Die rede waarom die Amarna -briewe so belangrik is vir 'n Bybelstudent soos ek, is dat dit onlangs 'n baie belangrike geskil geword het. Trouens, as ons die tradisionele datering vir die koninkryk Akhenaton aanvaar, sal ons die korrespondensie van Amarna benader met 'n paar veronderstellings in gedagte en dit dienooreenkomstig interpreteer om te pas by ons reeds bereikte kennis van daardie dae. In hierdie perspektief sal die briewe van en met betrekking tot 'n koning met die naam Labaya of Labayu nie veel aandag trek nie, aangesien geen beter identifikasie van hierdie koning moontlik is nie en selfs nie van die presiese ligging van sy koninkryk nie. Sy taal, wanneer hy Farao toespreek, is duidelik formeel en toon baie eerbied: 'Aan die koning [my heer,] my [son]: boodskap van Lab'aya, u dienaar, die grond waarop u loop. Aan die voete van die koning, my heer en my son, gooi ek my sewe en sewe keer. ” EA 253.

Labaya was 'n pyn in die nek. Konings het geskryf om die farao se hulp te vra en om hom te kla.

Alhoewel die Egiptiese konings al lankal verby is, is Labaya nog steeds 'n pyn in die nek van die tradisionele ondersteuners. Want as ons kan verstaan ​​hoe sy naam “leeu van Yahweh” geïnterpreteer word, hoe is dit dan moontlik dat Yahweh bekend is tydens die koninkryk van Akhenaton?

Jahwe word beskou as die mees waarskynlike uitspraak van die Tetragrammaton YHWH, die persoonlike naam wat God aan Moses geopenbaar het. Volgens die tradisionele datering moes dit ongeveer in die dertiende eeu vC plaasgevind het. Die uittog, altyd volgens die tradisionele datering, het plaasgevind onder die koninkryk van Ramses II, wat tussen 1279 en 1212 vC regeer het. Byna 100 jaar na die Amarna -korrespondensie. Hoe moet dit in ooreenstemming wees met die feit dat Yahweh al 150 jaar in Palestina bekend was voordat die volk Israel hulle daar gevestig het?

David Rohl se New Chronology bied 'n baie bevredigende verklaring vir bogenoemde inkonsekwentheid deur eenvoudig die chronologie in die Bybel te bevestig.

Die probleem is dat die New Chronology die gebeurtenisse verduidelik - ja - in ooreenstemming is met argeologiese bevindings, maar in stryd is met die tradisionele, met al die negatiewe implikasies wat so 'n verandering in die loopbaan van baie gewaardeerde geleerdes en die slegte lig kan bring oor die studies wat tot dusver oor die onderwerp gepubliseer is.

Net soos Farao, is Rohl vandag se ketters -revolusionêre denker, aangesien sy idees openlik bevraagteken wat algemeen al jare lank (blindelings) aanvaar word. Maar miskien is dit net 'n kwessie van tyd! Net soos die wêreld tot monoteïsme verander het en die ketterske farao Akhenaton die held van monoteïsme geword het, sal David Rohl miskien eendag beskou word as 'n man wat kon sien wat sy generasie, weens gebrek aan gees van avontuur of luiheid, versuim het waarneem.

Daar moet op gelet word dat die hersiening wat deur Rohl's New Chronology voorgestel word, nie heeltemal revolusionêr is nie. Dit is net 'n oorsig van die tradisionele datums, die gedagte laat hulle terugkeer na ongeveer 250-300 jaar. Om te sien wat dit eintlik beteken, dink dat as Ramsses II volgens die algemeen aanvaarde opvatting tussen 1279-1212 vC geleef het, die New Chronology hom na 943-877 vC verplaas het.

Rohl weier die algemeen aanvaarde identifikasie van die enigste farao in die Bybel, Sisac of Shishak, met die historiese Sheshonq. Hierdie identifikasie is die belangrikste hoeksteen van die tradisionele dateringstelsel.

Die Bybelse teks van I Konings 14.25-26 lui: “En in die vyfde jaar van koning Rehábeam het Sisak, die koning van Egipte, teen Jerusalem opgetrek; en hy het die skatte van die huis van die HERE en die die skatte van die koning se huis het hy selfs weggeneem; en hy het al die goue skilde wat Salomo gemaak het, weggeneem. ”

Rohl lewer goed gedokumenteerde en verbasend gepaste argeologiese en historiese Bybelse bewyse. Hy vaar beter in sy laaste boek as wat hy nog ooit gedoen het - alhoewel ek gedink het dit was nie moontlik nie. Hy wys hoe die Bybelse Shishak niemand anders as Ramsess II is nie. Wil jy weet hoe? Lees sy boeke!

So 'n ander identifikasie sal al die ander datums van konings en gebeure verander. Ek weet dat dit nie meer dieselfde sal wees om saam met u kinders na "The Prince of Egypt" te kyk nie! Ek voel self so skaam oor die gedagte om die fout aan my seuns te probeer verduidelik. Maar die New Chronology bevestig beide argeologiese gegewens en die betroubaarheid van die historisiteit van die uittog in die Bybel. Die datum van die nuwe chronologie vir die koninkryk Akhenaton beweeg na 1023-1007 vC. Dit sou hom 'n tydgenoot maak van koning Saul, die eerste koning van Israel. En as ons veronderstel dat die Labaya waarvan in die Amarna -tekste gepraat word, geïdentifiseer kan word met die Bybelse Saul, sou dit nie al die probleme rakende die aanbidding van Yahweh in Palestina ten tyde van Akhenaton heeltemal opgelos het nie?

Saul beteken "versoek". Kom ons dink hoe Petrus, ook Chephas genoem, inderdaad 'n man met die naam Simon was. Paulus se regte naam was Saul. Mark se naam was John. Matteus se naam was Levi. Miskien het die 'aangevraagde' koning van Israel in die Bybel bekend geword met hierdie bynaam en sy werklike naam was Labaya of Labayu? Die feit ten gunste van hierdie identifikasie is sterk, aangesien ook baie ander besonderhede van die prent suksesvol verduidelik sal word. In die Amarna -korrespondensie, as die New Chronology aanvaar word, word David, Mutbaal, seun van Saul en Joab, generaal van David en die gebeure wat daarmee verband hou, so maklik verduidelik in die lig van die verslae in die Bybel.

Soos die intelligente leser al geraai het, is die New Chronology baie maklik om aanvaar te word deur diegene wat die historiese akkuraatheid van die Bybel ondersteun en word dit heeltemal geweier deur diegene wat jare lank geleer is en die tradisionele datums geleer het. Ons kan net hoop dat tyd en verdere eerlike navorsing meer lig op hierdie saak sal werp.

Persoonlik is ek daarvan oortuig dat die ketter David Rohl eendag as 'n man voor sy tyd beskou sal word, en sy teorieë, soos die monoteïsme van Akhenaton, deel van die nuwe ortodoksie is.


Amarna

Vlugtelingkaravaan (Beeld: Pueblo Sin Fronteras)

BREEKNUUS BREEKNUUS

Die talle Kanaänitiese konings het vandag saamgespan om hul voorneme aan te kondig om 'n muur te bou om te verhoed dat die leiding van die Midde-Oosters deur Moses gelei word. Die Kanaäniete het die verwoesting van hierdie vlugtelinge in Egipteland gesien en is vasbeslote om nie 'n herhaling in Kanaän toe te laat nie. Woordvoerder Rahab Huckabee Sanders

sê vir die manne: “ Die vrees vir julle het oor ons geval en dat al die inwoners van die land voor julle wegsmelt. Want ons het gehoor wat u voor u gedoen het toe u uit Egipte gekom het, en wat u gedoen het met die twee konings van die Amoriete wat oorkant die Jordaan was. En sodra ons dit hoor, het ons harte gesmelt, en daar was geen moed meer by u as gevolg van u nie ” (meestal Josua 2: 9-11).

Kanaänitiese spioene wat gestuur is om die bewegings van die skare te monitor, het berig dat dit nie alles is soos dit lyk nie. Hierdie mense stap nie net stap vir stap op 'n lang reis deur die wildernis nie. Net soos Frodo, het hulle die wildernis deur die vlerke van arende getrek (Eks. 19: 4).

Verder het die Kanaänitiese spioene drone waargeneem wat die vlugtelinge manna uit die hemel voorsien. Hierdie beweging het duidelik georganiseerde hulp van 'n eksterne agentskap ontvang.

In reaksie hierop het die Kanaäniete besluit om nie 'n enkele muur oor die land te bou nie. Egipte het dit eeue vroeër probeer, en dit het nie gewerk nie. In plaas daarvan sal die Kanaäniete 'n muur rondom elke Kanaänitiese stad bou om te verhoed dat die Israeliete hul land binnedring. Die eerste stad wat vir die muur gekies is, was Jerigo.

Afgesien van die hiperboliese retoriek wat die vlugtelingkaravaan van die einde van die dae af as 'n apokaliptiese plaag voorstel, bied die geleentheid wel 'n geleentheid om na te dink oor hoe die Kanaänitiese mense werklik gereageer het op die voorkoms in die geskiedenis van die Israelitiese volk in die land Kanaän.

Gewoonlik trek Merneptah (1212-1202 BCE) die aandag by hierdie oorgang van die Laat Bronstydperk na Ystertydperk I as gevolg van die Merneptah Stela. 1 Sy verwysing na Israel as 'n volk en nie vaste stedelinge nie, het tot voortdurende bespreking gelei oor presies wie of wat Israel was en waar hulle woon. Daar is geen aanduiding van 'n alliansie of verhouding tussen die vier entiteite wat in die Merneptah Stela genoem word nie. Daar is ook geen rede om te glo dat hy al die Kanaäniete genoem het wat die Egiptiese heerskappy gekant het nie. In hierdie verband sal ons nooit die ware omvang van die Kanaänitiese lente weet nie en hoe wydverspreid die anti-Egiptiese gevoelens en optrede in die land Kanaän was, selfs sonder die potensiële Israelitiese katalisator. 2

Wat was die geopolitieke landskap in die land Kanaän op hierdie tydstip en hoe het Israel ingepas?

Israel se verskyning in die geskiedenis het plaasgevind tydens 'n tydperk van ongeveer 350 jaar van Egiptiese hegemonie in die land Kanaän. 3 Soms het verskeie Kanaäniete, sommige bekend, sommige nie bekend nie, in opstand gekom teen die Egiptiese heerskappy. Soos Egiptoloog Ellen Morris uitwys, het Gezer en Yenoam op die Merneptah Stela al voorheen in die Egiptiese verslae verskyn as periodieke irritante wat dateer uit die 15de eeu vC. Die nuweling op die Kanaänitiese stadlys was Ashkelon, 'n dag se optog vanaf die Egiptiese vesting in Gaza, die grens tussen Egipte en Kanaän. Sy stel voor dat 'n stad in die nabyheid van 'n groot Egiptiese militêre basis slegs in opstand sou gekom het as 'iets fundamenteel skeefgeloop het in die handhawing van die noordelike ryk van Egipte.' ” Sy voer aan dat die gesamentlike aanval deur die [nie-Arabiese] Libiërs en die seevolke op Egipte 'n geleentheid gebied het vir Ashkelon, gegewe die omvang van die Egiptiese magte wat daartoe verbind was om hierdie indringings te weerstaan. Morris wonder of Ashkelon hulp van Gezer verwag het en merk op dat hierdie twee stede in die Amarna -tydperk teen Jerusalem geveg het. 4 'n Mens kan byvoeg dat Israel 'n ooggetuie van hierdie verwikkelinge onder die Kanaänitiese stede, Egipte en die Seevolke sou gewees het. Hierdie optrede met betrekking tot die seuns van Gam, die seuns van Jafet en die seuns van Sem was deel van Israel se gesamentlike geheue. Om Israel te isoleer van die omliggende politieke ontwikkelings, skep 'n skewe begrip van Israel se vroeë geskiedenis. Israel was nie alleen in sy opposisie teen Egipte nie en daar is geen inherente rede dat hierdie verskillende entiteite nie so bewus was van mekaar nie, net soos hul eweknieë 'n eeu tevore tydens die Amarna -tydperk bewus was.

Volgens die argeologiese opnames het honderde klein nedersettings rondom hierdie tyd verskyn as nuwe plekke in die Rachel -lande/Wesbank/heuwel. Hierdie nedersettings word gereeld as Israeliete geïdentifiseer. 5 Op grond van die ooglopende gevolgtrekking sou 'n mens verder aflei dat hierdie Israeliete geen direkte bedreiging vir die Kanaäniete langs die kus, in die Jisreël of in die Galilea was nie. Hierdie gebiede sou eers in die koninkryk van Dawid eeue later deel uitmaak van 'n Israelitiese staat.

Wat was die belangrikste Kanaänitiese stede waarmee Israel sou kommunikeer binne die gebied van Israelitiese nedersetting? Weereens is die antwoord eenvoudig. In die Middel -Bronstydperk, Laat Bronstydperk en Ystertydperk I het twee Kanaänitiese stede bo alle ander gebiede in die gebied van Israelitiese nedersettings - Sigem en Jerusalem - opgemerk. 6 Dit blyk dat beide stede in die argeologiese en Bybelse verslag verskyn. Saam help dit om 'n historiese rekonstruksie te skep rondom die tyd van Merneptah en daarna.

Sigem, die spreekwoordelike naeltjie van die heelal, was 'n pyn in die koninklike esel volgens die Amarna Letters. Volgens hierdie diplomatieke korrespondensie uit die 14de eeu vC het Sigem, onder leiding van sy koning Labayu, altyd probleme ondervind met sy bure. 7 Labayu se optrede lei daartoe dat naburige konings Farao kontak vir hulp. Hierdie korrespondensie word gebruik om Egipte voor te stel as 'n verdeling en 'n oorwinning van sy vasale. Solank as wat hulle hulde gebring het, die troepe van Egipte versorg het en geen buitelandse bondgenootskappe gehad het nie, wie het omgee vir hul interne klein twis?

Farao se fisiese teenwoordigheid was nie nodig om sulke interne konflikte op te los nie. Sy uitbeelding van 'n reliëf was nie 'n foto van 'n gevegstoneel nie. Hy hoef nie teenwoordig te wees nie. Die garnisoenmagte en/of vasale wat namens hom geveg het, dui op sy simboliese teenwoordigheid, selfs al was dit nie fisies nie. Dit is inderdaad onwaarskynlik dat kollektiewe optrede van die Kanaänitiese konings sonder faraoniese leiding of seën moontlik is. 8 Die Kanaäniete moet self sorg vir hierdie aangeleenthede rakende Sigem en die habiru wat hulle gedoen het. Hierdie optrede en korrespondensie was 'n presedent vir hoe hulle sou reageer op die voorkoms van Israel.

Vir Israel sou Sigem en sy omgewing waarskynlik die mees verwelkomende gebied vir hulle in die hele Kanaän wees. Soos dit toevallig blyk, is dit presies in hierdie tradisionele anti-Egiptiese stad waar die Bybelse verhaal vertel dat Moses vir die mense gesê het:

Deuteronomium 11:29 En as die HERE jou God jou bring in die land wat jy binnekom om dit in besit te neem, moet jy die seën op die berg Gerisim en die vloek op die berg Ebal plaas.

Deuteronomium 27:12 “ As u deur die Jordaan gegaan het, sal dit op die berg Gerizim staan ​​om die volk te seën. ”

Die veldtogbelofte is deur Joshua vervul:

Josua 8:30 Toe bou Josua 'n altaar op die berg Ebal vir die HERE, die God van Israel.

Hierdie altaar is ontdek, kompleet met faraoniese skarabes wat gebruik kan word in rituele vieringe van die bevryding van die Egiptiese hegemonie. 9 Verder berus Merneptah se uitbeelding van die Israeliete by die Cour de la Cachette waarskynlik op die vermeende Israeliet-Sigemitiese skakel as Kanaäniete. 10 In other words, there is a convergence of material archaeology, inscriptions, and biblical narrative on the peaceful settlement of Israel in the area of Shechem.

With Jerusalem, the story is different. According to the Amarna Letters, Jerusalem was a good vassal of Pharaoh. Its ruling dynasty even had been installed by the strong arm of Pharaoh. Jerusalem was used to contacting Egypt for assistance against potential threats and to allying with other Canaanite cities against upstarts like Labayu. Again there is a precedent for how it would respond to Israel. 11

Within the hill country where Israel settled, the most prominent area where it would be least welcome is Jerusalem. As it turns out by no coincidence whatsoever, it is exactly this pro-Egyptian city with which Israel has the most difficulty.

According to Joshua 10, Jerusalem initiates an alliance against a Canaanite city that had dared to ally with Israel.

Joshua 10:3 So Adonizedek king of Jerusalem sent to Hoham king of Hebron, to Piram king of Jarmuth, to Japhia king of Lachish, and to Debir king of Eglon, saying, 4 “Come up to me, and help me, and let us smite Gibeon for it has made peace with Joshua and with the people of Israel.” 5 Then the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon, gathered their forces, and went up with all their armies and encamped against Gibeon, and made war against it.

In the subsequent battle in the land of Benjamin, Israel prevails over Jerusalem.

According to Judges 1, Benjamin fails in its efforts to conquer Jerusalem.

Judges 1:21 But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem so the Jebusites have dwelt with the people of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.

One may see in this version, that although Benjamin defeated the Jebusites in open-field battle, it did not succeed in capturing the city. It did however continue building settlements that increasing encroached on the city without conquering it. 12

The situation grew even more precarious for Jerusalem when it lost its protector. The strong Egyptian presence which had been maintained through the reign of Ramses III in the 12th century BCE abruptly ended during the reign of Ramses VI by 1139 BCE. Morris characterizes the end of Egyptian rule as “a short and bloody affair.” Her survey of Egyptian military bases in Canaan indicates that virtually every one was torched.

[T]he local populations must have seized the opportunity of Egypt’s internal weakness to rid themselves of their overlords. Without Egyptian taxation, corvée labor demands, co-option of local industries and resources, and interference in local politics, the inhabitants of Canaan must surely have believed that their lots would improve significantly. 13

So what did Jerusalem do now? Given the failure of Merneptah to destroy the seed of Israel, given the failure of the Jerusalem initiated alliance with its defeat in the land of Benjamin, given the withdrawal of Egypt from the land, given presence of ever-closer Benjaminite settlements including with a fort, then what was Jerusalem to do? How could Jerusalem protect itself from Israel in general and Benjamin in particular? Answer – IT COULD BUILD A WALL!

As it turns out, that is exactly what Jerusalem did. The appearance of Jerusalem changed after the withdrawal of Egyptian forces from the land of Canaan. Two monumental structures in the city from this time period have been discovered by archaeologists. The first is the Stepped Stone Structure. This terraced construction on the eastern slope of the city was built possibly as an integral part of the city’s fortification system. It is dated to the Iron I period meaning the 12th or 11th centuries BCE prior to the creation of the Israelite kingdom. The structure consists of two parts: a stone mantle and rampart built on a terracing system. Theoretically the two components could have been built separately. Such a construction project demonstrates the capabilities of the city government to initiate an organized effort on a massive scale just as it had done centuries earlier when it build the walls and gates which protected the perennial water source at Gihon. 14

The second building is the more recently discovered Large Stone Structure. The two structures generally are perceived to be one entity with the more extensively-preserved Stepped Stone Structure serving as a support for the mostly-vanished Large Stone Structure on the summit. 15 This view is consistent with the biblical text referring the fortress of Zion:

II Samuel 5:9 And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the city of David. And David built the city round about from the Millo inward.

A natural question to ask is “Why did the Jebusites build it?” Amihai Mazar decisively declares its magnitude and uniqueness had no parallel from the 12th to early 9th centuries BCE in the Levant. 16 Its construction was an impressive and monumental achievement. The Jebusites faced with the realization that they were on their own decided to act to protect themselves by constructing the Stepped Stone Structure and the Large Stone Structure.

The geopolitical situation following Merneptah is crucial to understanding the formation of the monarchy centuries later. Based on these events at the beginning of Iron Age I (1200 BCE), one needs to resolve the following issues at the conclusion of the period (c. 1000 BCE).

1. Why did David select Jerusalem to be his capital city? – One needs to keep in mind not just the traditional north-south conundrum routine in biblical scholarship but the inclusion into the Israelite polity of non-Israelite Canaanites. How many were Rahab Canaanites who did not fear but welcomed Israel and how many had been supporters of Pharaoh against Israel and suffered the same fate as the killed kings of Canaan?

Joshua 12:9 the king of Jericho, one the king of Ai, which is beside Bethel, one 10 the king of Jerusalem, one the king of Hebron, one 11 the king of Jarmuth, one the king of Lachish, one 12 the king of Eglon, one the king of Gezer, one 13 the king of Debir, one the king of Geder, one 14 the king of Hormah, one the king of Arad, one 15 the king of Libnah, one the king of Adullam, one 16 the king of Makkedah, one the king of Bethel, one 17 the king of Tappuah, one the king of Hepher, one 18 the king of Aphek, one the king of Lasharon, one 19 the king of Madon, one the king of Hazor, one 20 the king of Shimronmeron, one the king of Achshaph, one 21 the king of Taanach, one the king of Megiddo, one 22 the king of Kedesh, one the king of Jokneam in Carmel, one 23 the king of Dor in Naphathdor, one the king of Goiim in Galilee, one 24 the king of Tirzah, one: in all, thirty-one kings.

2. Why did Benjamin choose to ally with its longtime enemy Jerusalem during the reign of Solomon prior to the division of the kingdom? – I suspect that with the deaths of probable Jebusites Zadok and Bathsheba and the exile of Abiathar, Benjamin thought it would dominate the Jerusalem-based kingdom by operating behind the king through Pharaoh’s Daughter. Solomon legitimated his temple through “I had dream” in Benjamin

1 Kings 3:5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.”

but the king did not relocate the temple to Bethel as Benjamin undoubtedly would have preferred. Still for the moment the Aaronids had triumphed over the Zadokite priests.

The memories of the geopolitical context when Israel first appeared in history in the land of Canaan carried forward to when Israel became a political entity with a king. Ironically, the very wall the Jebusites had built to defend the city against Israel and Benjamin became the foundation of David’s military power when he chose to make Jerusalem his capital.

1. The discovery of the Merneptah Stele in 1896 with its mention of Israel was big news. For reports from that time, see James Henry Breasted, “The Latest from Petrie,” Biblical World 7/2 1896: 139–140 James Henry Breasted, “The Israel Tablet,” Biblical World 9 1897: 62–68 Expository Times 7 1896: 387–388, 445–447, 548–549 8 1896: 76 W. M. Flinders Petrie, “Egypt and Israel,” Contemporary Review 69 1896/Jan.–June: 617–627 W. M. Flinders Petrie, Six Temples at Thebes (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1897), 26–30.

2. For the political situation at the time Merneptah claimed to have destroyed the seed of Israel, see Dan’el Kahn, “A Geo-political and Historical perspective of Merneptah’s Policy in Canaan’, in Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren M. Maeir and Dan’el Kahn, ed., The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th centuries BCE: Culture and History: Proceedings of the International Conference, held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010 (AOAT 392 Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 255–268 Colleen Manassa, The Great Karnak Inscriptions of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century BC (YES 5 New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003) Nadav Na’aman, “The Egyptian-Canaanite Correspondence’, in Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, ed., Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 125–138, here 137 Nadav Na’aman, “‘Praises to the Pharaoh in Response to His Plans for a Campaign to Canaan,” in Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard and Piotor Steinkeller, ed., Langdurig oor woorde: Studies in antieke Nabye Oosterse literatuur ter ere van William L. Moran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 397–405.

3. For this 350-year period and its relation to the Exodus, see Nadav Na’aman, “The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition,” JANER 11 2011: 39–69, here 44–55.

4. Ellen Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 379–381, quotations from 379.

5. William Dever asks “If this is not Merneptha’sIsrael, where is it at? And if the settlers were not his Israelite people, who were they? Skeptics have no answer to these questions” (William G. Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 218).

6. Israel Finkelstein, “The Territorial-political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.” UF 28 1996: 221–255 Israel Finklestein, and Nadav Naaman, “Shechem of the Amarna Period and the Rise of the Northern Kingdom of Israel,” IEJ 55 2005: 172–193 Nadav Na’aman, “Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second Millennium BCE,” UF 24 1992: 175–291.

7. Labayu’s actions have been seen as a forerunner of the actions of by Saul and/or by David see Erhard Blum, “Solomon and the United Monarchy: Some Textual Evidence’, in Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann, ed., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 59–78, here 73 Daniel Bodi, “Outraging the Resident-Alien: King David, Uriah the Hittite, and an El-Amarna parallel,” UF 35 2003: 29–56 Israel Finkelstein, ‘The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity’, in Yairah Amit and Nadav Na’aman, ed., Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 171–187 Amihai Mazar, ‘The Spade and the Text: the Interaction between Archaeology and Israelite History Relating to the Tenth–Ninth Centuries BCE’, in H. G. M. Williamson, ed., Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 143–171, here 165 Nadav Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE’, BASOR 304 1996: 17–27.

8. See Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism, 351, 696.

9, The structure at Mount Ebal is a scary discovery in biblical archaeology. The existence of an altar from the time of Ramses II to Ramses III consistent with the story of Joshua is too frightening to be taken seriously. Not taking the biblical account seriously historically is one of the bedrock axioms of modern biblical scholarship. On the other hand, there is no reasonable explanation why an obscure short-lived site from early Israel, like Ebal, would even be remembered yet alone included in the biblical narrative unless something of importance had happened there. Typically isolated farmsteads and watchtowers are not the focus of biblical stories and Israelite memories. If it really was an altar, who knows what else in the Bible might be true as well? For the altar at Mount Ebal, see Ralph K. Hawkins, The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation (BBR Supplements 6 Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012) Aharon Kepmpinski, “Joshua’s Altar – an Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12/1 1986: 42–53 Pekka Matti Aukusti Pitkānen, Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel from Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple: A Historical and Theological Study of the Biblical Evidence in Its Archaeological and Ancient Near Eastern Context (Ph.D. dissertation, Cheltenham and Gloucester College, 2000), 148–164 (published Piscataway: Gorgias, 2003) Pekka Matti Aukusti Pitkānen, Joshua (AOTC 6 Nottingham: Apollos, 2010), 192–204 Adam Zertal, “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?” BAR 11/1 1985: 26–43 Adam Zertal, “An Early Iron Age Cultic Site on Mount Ebal: Excavation Seasons 1982–1987,” TA 13–14 1986–1987: 105–165: Adam Zertal, “A Cultic Center with a Burnt-Offering Altar from Early Iron Age I Period at Mt. Ebal’, in Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck, ed, Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986 (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1988), 137–147 Adam Zertal, “Ebal, Mount,” in ABD II: 255–258 Adam Zertal, “’To the land of the Perizzites and the Giants’: on the Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh,’ in Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman, ed., From Nomads to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 47–69 Ziony Zevit, The Religion of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 196–201.

10. In 1978, Egyptologist Frank J. Yurco began advocating that reliefs on a wall at Karnak that had been attributed to Ramses II really belonged to his son Merneptah. He then suggested that the pictures illustrated the very campaign in the Merneptah Stele mentioning Israel. If true, then Merneptah left not only the first mention of Israel in the archaeological record but the first images. There has been general agreement that Yurco is correct in his recognition of the true Pharaoh responsible for the images but debate over which images are of Israel and what the significance is. For the Cour de la Cachette, see Peter J. Brand, “Usurped Cartouches of Merenpah at Karnak and Luxor,” in Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper, ed., Causing His Name To Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane (CHANE 37 Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2009), 30-48) Peter J. Brand, “The Date of the War Scenes on the South Wall of the Great Hypostyle Hall and the West Wall of the Cour de la Cachette at Karnak and the History of the Late Nineteenth Dynasty,” in Mark Collier and Steven Snape, ed., Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen (Bolton: Rutherford Press, 2011), 51-84 Anson F. Rainey, “Rainey’s Challenge,” BAR 17/6 199156-60, 93 Frank J. Yurco, “Merneptah’s Palestinian Campaign,” JSSEA 8 1978:70 Frank J. Yurco, “Merneptah’s Canaanite Campaign,” JARCE 23 1986:189-215 Frank J. Yurco, “3,200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt,” BAR 16 1990:20-38. Frank J. Yurco, “Yurco’s Response,” BAR 17/6 1991:61.

11. For Jerusalem in the Amarna Age, see Nadav Na’aman, ”Jerusalem in the Amara Period,” in Caroline Amould-Béhar and André Lemaire, ed., Jerusalem Antique et Medievale: Mélanges en l’honneur d’Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz (Paris: Peeters, 2011), 31–48.

12. With Khirbet ed-Dawwara, the 11th-10th century date is not in dispute as much as who built this unique walled-town fort site. Israel, Jerusalem, and the Philistines all have been suggested. See Dever, Beyond the Texts, 163,170,285,370n.40 Avraham Faust, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (London: Equinox Publishing, 2006), 129-130 Israel Finkelstein, “Excavations at Khirbet Ed-Dawwara: an Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem,” TA 17 1990: 163–208 Nadav Na’aman, “Ḫirbet ed-Dawwāra – a Philistine Stronghold on the Benjamin Desert Fringe,” ZDPV 128 2012: 1–9 Omer Sergi. “The Emergence of Judah as a Political Entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin,” ZDPV 133 2017:1-23. I lean towards a Benjaminite construction that was seen as threatening to Jerusalem. It also may have been a forerunner to the Khirbet Qeiyafa fort.

13. Morris, The Architecture of Imperialism, 546–586, 709, quotations from 709.

14. The dating of the Stepped Stone Structure is debated. See Jane Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence’, in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, ed., Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBLSymS 18 Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 34–53 Dever, Beyond the Texts, 277-279 Israel Finkelstein, The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link,” in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, ed., Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBLSymS 18 Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 81–101, here 84–87 Gunnar Lehmann, “The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah, and the Shephelah during the Tenth Century BCE,” in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, ed., Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBLSymS 18 Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 117–162, here 134–136 Amihai Mazar, “Jerusalem in the 10th Century BCE: The Glass Half Full,” in Yairah Amit and Nadav Na’aman, ed., Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 255–272, here 269–270 Mazar, “The Spade and the Text,” 152–153 Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy,” in Reinhard G. Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann, ed., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 29–58, here 34–40 Margaret Steiner, “The Evidence from Kenyon’s Excavations in Jerusalem: A Response Essay,” in Andrew G. Vaughn and Ann E. Killebrew, ed., Jerusalem in the Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (SBLSymS 18 Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 347–363 Sergi, “The Emergence of Judah,” 2-5.

15. For the Large Stone Structure, see Dever, Beyond the Texts, 280 Avraham Faust, “The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination,” ZDPV 126 2010: 116–130 Avraham Faust, “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace?’ BAR 38/5 2012: 47–52 Israel Finkelstein, “Has King David’s Palace Been Found?” TA 34: 142–164 Israel Finkelstein, “The ‘Large Stone Structure’ in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearning,” ZDPV 127 2011: 1–10 Mazar, “The Spade and the Text,” 152–153 Mazar, “Jerusalem in the 10th Century BCE,” 257–265 Mazar, Amihai, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative,” 40–46 Eilat Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” BAR 2006 32/1: 16–27, 70 Nadav Na’aman, “Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth–Fourth Centuries BCE,” Bib 93 2012:21–42, here 26–28.


What are the problems with identifying the Habiru/Hapiru with the Hebrews?

Discussed briefly here if you are looking for a high level reason.

Can someone elaborate on what he means by the root letters not matching? The word Habiru or Apiru would have been written in Akkadian in the Amarna letters, and Egyptian in Egyptian sources so we wouldn't expect it to be a match for the Hebrew, would we or am I missing something? Any linguist feel free to chime in on this.

There are too many congruencies between the information gleaned from the Amarna Letters about the Habiru and information from Joshua and Judges for there not to be a connection.

The most striking match is letter 289 in which Abdi-Heba , the then ruler of Jerusalem sees Labayu the ruler of Shechem as traitorous for giving the land to the Habiru. This helps shed light on what the biblical text tells us about the Israelites gathering at Shechem for a peaceful covenant renewal assembly after conquering Ai and Jericho during which central Canaan was otherwise unconquered enemy territory. [Josh 8:30-35 cf. Deut 11:29-30 27:4-13]. Another interesting congruency is the lack of letters from any of the states taken by Joshua which makes sense given well, those said conquests.

I wish RFB didn't dismiss the Habiru connection and the case for significant historicity there.


4. The History of the Queen of Sheba

While completing my book Thera and the Exodus, I stumbled upon a book by Sabine Baring-Gould called Legends of Old Testament Characters from the Talmud and Other Sources [1]. This book presents a legend called The History of the Queen of Sheba, listed in full in Thera and the Exodus (Appendix I), which presents very specific information about this fabled queen.

  1. Baring-Gould, Rev. S., Legends of Old Testament Characters from the Talmud and Other Sources, MacMillan and Co., 1871.

The Amarna Letters Abi Milku of Tyre

To the king, my lord, my god, my Sun: Message of Abi-Milku, your servant. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, 7 times and 7 times. I am the dirt under the sandals of the king, my lord. My lord is the Sun who comes forth over all lands day by day, according to the way (of being) the sun, his gracious father, who gives life by his sweet breath and returns with his north wind who establishes the entire land in peace, by the power of his arm, who gives forth his cry in the sky like Baal, and all the land is frightened at his cry.

The servant herewith writes to his lord that he heard the gracious messenger of the kind who came to his servant, and the sweet breath that came forth from the mouth of the king, my lord, to his servant – his breath came back! Before the arrival of the messenger of the king, my lord, breath had not come back my nose was blocked. Now the breath of the king has come forth to me, I am very happy and he is satisfied day by day. Because I am happy, does the earth not prosper? When I heard that the gracious messenger from my lord, all the land was in fear of my lord, when I heard the sweet breath and the gracious messenger who came to me. When the king, my lord, said “(Prepare) before the arrival of a large army,” then the servant said to his lord “Yes, yes, yes!”. On my front and on my back I carry the word of the king, my lord. Whoever gives heed to the king, his lord, and serves him in his place, the sun comes forth over him, and the sweet breath comes back from the mouth of his lord. If he does not heed the word of the king, his lord, his city is destroyed, never (again) does his name exist in all the land. (But) look at the servant who gives heed to his lord. His city prospers, his house prospers, his name exists forever.

You are the Sun who comes forth over me, and a brazen wall set up for him, and because of the powerful arm : I am at rest : I am confident. I indeed said to the Sun, the father of the king, my lord, “When shall I see the face of the king, my lord?” I am indeed guarding Tyre, the principal city, for the king, my lord, until the powerful arm of the king comes forth over me, to give me water to drink and wood to warm myself.

Moreover, Zimredda, the king of Sidon, writes daily to the rebel Arizu, the son of Abdi-Asratu, about every word he has heard from Egypt. I herewith write to my lord, and it is good that he knows.


The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem

In the el-Amarna letters No. 74 and 290 there is reference to a place read (by Knudtzon) Bet-NIN.IB. In Ages in Chaos, following Knudtzon, I understood that the reference was to Assyria (House of Nineveh). (1) I was unaware of an article by the eminent Assyriologist, Professor Jules Lewy, printed in the Journal of Biblical Literature under the title: “The Šulmán Temple in Jerusalem.” (2)

From a certain passage in letter No. 290, written by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, Lewy concluded that this city was known at that time also by the name “Temple of Šulmán.” Actually, Lewy read the ideogram that had much puzzled the researchers before him. (3) After complaining that the land was falling to the invading bands (habiru), the king of Jerusalem wrote: “. . . and now, in addition, the capital of the country of Jerusalem — its name is Bit Šulmáni —, the king’s city, has broken away . . . ” (4) Beth Šulmán in Hebrew, as Professor Lewy correctly translated, is Temple of Šulmán. But, of course, writing in 1940, Lewy could not surmise that the edifice was the Temple of Solomon and therefore made the supposition that it was a place of worship (in Canaanite times) of a god found in Akkadian sources as Shelmi, Shulmanu, or Salamu.

The correction of the reading of Knudtzon (who was uncertain of his reading) fits well with the chronological reconstruction of the period. In Ages in Chaos (chapters vi-viii) I deal with the el-Amarna letters there it is shown that the king of Jerusalem whose name is variously read Ebed-Tov, Abdi-Hiba, etc. was King Jehoshaphat (ninth century). It was only to be expected that there would be in some of his letters a reference to the Temple of Solomon.

Also, in el-Amarna letter No. 74, the king of Damascus, inciting his subordinate sheiks to attack the king of Jerusalem, commanded them to “assemble in the Temple of Šulmán.” (5)

It was surprising to find in the el-Amarna letters written in the fourteenth century that the capital of the land was already known then as Jerusalem (Urusalim) and not, as the Bible claimed for the pre-Conquest period, Jebus or Salem. (6) Now, in addition, it was found that the city had a temple of Šulmán in it and that the structure was of such importance that its name had been used occasionally for denoting the city itself. (Considering the eminence of the edifice, “the house which king Solomon built for the Lord”, (7) this was only natural.) Yet after the conquest by the Israelites under Joshua ben-Nun, the Temple of Šulmán was not heard of.

Lewy wrote: “Aside from proving the existence of a Šulmán temple in Jerusalem in the first part of the 14th century B.C., this statement of the ruler of the region leaves no doubt that the city was then known not only as Jerusalem, but also as Bet Šulmán.”—“It is significant that it is only this name [Jerusalem] that reappears after the end of the occupation of the city by the Jebusites, which the Šulmán temple, in all probability, did not survive.”

The late Professor W. F. Albright advised me that Lewy’s interpretation cannot be accepted because Šulmán has no sign of divinity accompanying it, as would be proper if it were the name of a god. But this only strengthens my interpretation that the temple of Šulmán means Temple of Solomon.

In the Hebrew Bible the king’s name has no terminal “n”. But in the Septuagint — the oldest translation of the Old Testament — the king’s name is written with a terminal “n” the Septuagint dates from the third century before the present era. Thus it antedates the extant texts of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls not excluded.

Solomon built his Temple in the tenth century. In a letter written from Jerusalem in the next (ninth) century, Solomon’s Temple stood a good chance of being mentioned and so it was. ….

Though I cannot locate the exact reference at present, I recall a brief article pointing out that, contrary to Velikovsky, Beth Šulmán could not properly refer to the actual Temple of Solomon, since this edifice was always referred to as the Temple of Yahweh. So, the better translation of the EA phrase is “House of Solomon”.

Now, that accords with contemporary usage, in that we have at least two documented references to the “House of David” (the Tell Dan and the Mesha Moabite Inscription, see André Lemaire at http://www.cojs.org/pdf/house_of_david.pdf).

For a time, this equation of Abdi-Hiba = Jehoshaphat held as the standard amongst revisionists. However, the Glasgow School, in 1978, seriously re-assessed Velikovsky’s entire EA revision – with, as I believe, some outstanding results. This included a reconsideration of Velikovsky’s corresponding opinion that king Jehoshaphat of Judah’s contemporaneous ruler of Samaria, king Ahab of Israel, was to be identified with the prolific EA correspondent Rib-Addi.

The Glasgow Conference of 1978 gave rise to important contributions by scholars such as Martin Sieff Geoffrey Gammon John Bimson and Peter James. These were able at the time, with a slight modification of Velikovsky’s dates, to re-set the latter’s revised EA period so that it sat more comfortably within its new C9th BC allocation. Thus pharaoh Akhnaton (Naphuria) now became a contemporary of king Jehoram of Judah (c. 848-841 BC, conventional dating) – and, hence, of the latter’s older contemporary Jehoram of Israel (c. 853-841 BC, conventional dating) – rather than of Velikovsky’s choice of Jehoshaphat (c. 870-848 BC, conventional dating) and of king Ahab of Israel (c. 874-853 BC, conventional dating). James, faced with J. Day’s “Objections to the Revised Chronology” in 1975, in which he had raised this fundamental objection to Velikovsky’s identification of Abdi-Hiba with Jehoshaphat (ISG Newsletter 2, 9ff):

Velikovsky claims that Abdi-Hiba, king of Jerusalem, is to be equated with Jehoshaphat. Abdi-Hiba means ‘servant of Hiba’ – Hiba being the name of a Hittite goddess. Can one really believe that Jehoshaphat, whom the Old Testament praises for his loyalty to the Israelite god, could also have borne this name involving a Hittite goddess?

plus James’s own growing belief that the lowering of the date of the EA letters (within a revised model) was demanded by “several chronological and other considerations …”, arrived at his own excellent comparison of Abdi-Hiba with king Jehoram of Judah. I give only his conclusion here, with which I fully concur, whilst recommending that one reads James’s full comparisons (“The Dating of the El-Amarna Letters”, SIS Review, Vol. II, No. 3 (London, 1977/78), 84):

To sum up: the disasters that befell Jehoram of Judah and Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem were identical. Both suffered revolts of their subject territories from Philistia to Edom. During the reign of both the Philistines invaded and swept right across Judah, entering Jerusalem itself, in concert with the sack of the king’s palace by “men of the land of Kaši” or men “that were near the Cushites”. These peculiar circumstances could hardly be duplicated in such detail after a period of five hundred years. It is clear that Velikovsky’s general placement of the el-Amarna letters in the mid-ninth century must be correct, and that the modification of his original model suggested here, that Abdi-Hiba was Jehoram rather than Jehoshaphat, is preferable.

[End of quote]

Rib-Addi, for his part, could not have been king Ahab of Israel, Glasgow well determined. Velikovsky had been wrong in his proposing that the Sumur mentioned in relation to Rib-Addi (though not necessarily even his city, it has since been suggested) was Samaria, when Sumur is generally regarded as referring to Simyra, north of Byblos on the Syrian coast.

David Rohl’s Intriguing Angle on EA

Whilst I fully accept the Glasgow School’s basic conclusions about Abdi-Hiba en Rib-Addi, those, generally, who had worked these out went on later to disown them completely. James would team up with David Rohl to devise a so-called New Chronology, that I find to be a kind of ‘No-Man’s-Land revision’ hovering awkwardly mid-way between convention land and real base. Rohl, in The Lost Testament, would re-locate EA back from Velikovsky’s Divided Monarchy, where (when modified) I think that it properly belongs, to the time of the Unified Monarchy of kings Saul and David. Rohl will, like Velikovsky, propose an EA identification for a king of Israel, but it will be for Saul rather than for the later king Ahab. According to Rohl, king Saul is to be identified with EA’s Labayu, generally considered to have been a local ruler in Canaan. And Rohl identifies David with the Dadua (“Tadua”) who is referred to in EA 256.

For Rohl, Abdi-Hiba is a Jebusite ruler of Jebus/Jerusalem.

Rohl is extremely competent and his reconstructions are generally most interesting to read. However his EA revision, locating Abdi-Hiba as it does as an early contemporary of David’s, who is defeated by the latter, cannot therefore discern in EA’s Beth Shulman any sort of reference to David’s son, Solomon. Moreover, Rohl’s revision may have difficulty accounting for the fact that the name Urusalim (Jerusalem) occurs in the letters of Abdi-Hiba, supposedly a Jebusite king ruling over Jebus, but apparently known to David as Jerusalem (I Chronicles 11:4).

Whilst the New Chronology is superficially impressive, it, based as it is upon rocky ground, fails to yield the abundant fruit that arises from the fertile soil of a modified Velikovskian EA. James’s erstwhile identification of EA’s Abdi-Hiba as king Jehoram of Jerusalem not only yields some impressively exact comparisons between these two, supposedly separate, historical characters, but it is also able to accommodate most comfortably (chronologically) those two EA evidences of Shulman (Solomon) and Urusalim (Jerusalem). Hence

EA’s Abdi-Hiba= King Jehoram of Judah

is worthy to be regarded now as a firm pillar of the revised chronology, from which fixed standpoint one is able to generate a very convincing series of further correlations between EA and the particular biblical era. James has thereby provided the definitive answer to the questions that I posed earlier: Who was this Abdi-Hiba of Jerusalem, and when did he live?


Ep. 014 – The Amarna Letters and Some Lukkan Pirates

This time around we take a look at a few select cuneiform tablets from a collection known as the Amarna Letters. Discovered in Amarna, Egypt, these letters are a rare insight into the communication between the pharaoh and the rulers of many cities around the Bronze Age world. First, the king of Alasiya is forced to defend himself against accusations of piracy. This letter mentions the Lukkan pirates, perhaps the oldest reference to a pirate group in history. Our second letters come from Rib-Addi, the ruler of Byblos, a man under siege from both land and sea. Ultimately, the Amarna Letters help us better understand the Bronze Age Mediterranean around 1350 BCE.

This map shows the major groups mentioned throughout the Amarna Letters the kingdom of Alasiya and Retenu (Canaan) are the major players from the letters we discussed. This gives us a better idea of the locations of Byblos (Gubla), the kingdom of Alasiya (Cyprus) and the Lukka in southern Anatolia. Amarna Tablet EA 35, a letter from the king of Alasiya to pharaoh. This tablet has been called ‘The Hand of Nergal.’
Lettre de Rib Addi, roi de Byblos, au pharaon d’Egypte. (Louvre) Clay cuneiform tablet letter from Rib-Hadda to an unknown source 26 lines fragment of object only. Clay cuneiform tablet letter from Rib-Adda to the king (of Egypt) 63 lines.
Amarna Letter EA 86, written by Rib-Addi and addressed to an official in Egypt. This letter has been called ‘Complaint to an Official.’ Amarna Letter EA 362, again written by Rib-Addi to the pharaoh. This letter has been called ‘A Commissioner Murdered.’


Kyk die video: The Amarna Tablets of the HabiruPleiadian Conquest (Januarie 2022).