Povijesti Podcasti

Amarna Pismo od Labayua

Amarna Pismo od Labayua


Amarnino pismo od Labayua - Historija

© Povjerenici Britanskog muzeja

“Uistinu dok je kralj, moj gospodine, živ, kad povjerenici izađu reći ću, ‘ Izgubljene su kraljeve zemlje! Zar me ne slušaš? Svi guverneri su izgubljeni, kralj, moj gospodaru, nema [nijednog] guvernera [lijevo]! ’ Neka kralj skrene pažnju na strijelce, i neka kralj, moj lorde, pošalje trupe strelaca, [jer] kralj nema zemlje [lijevo]! Habiru pljačkaju sve kraljeve zemlje. Ako u ovoj godini bude strijelaca [ovdje], zemlje kralja, moj gospodaru, ostat će [netaknute], ali ako nema strijelaca [ovdje] zemlje kralja, moj gospodaru, bit će izgubljene! &# 8221 — Abdi-Heba iz Jerusalima, piše egipatskom faraonu (pismo Amarne EA 286, od Pregled Uvoda Starog zavjeta, Gleason Archer, izdanje 1985., stranica 275).

Došlo je do prevrata u Kanaanu, jer je narod poznat kao “Habiru ” napao velike sile. Abdi-Heba je očajnički tražio pomoć od faraona, poslao je više pisama moleći za “strelce ” (redovne egipatske vojnike) —, ali nikakva pomoć nije stigla.


David Rohl, slova Amarne i nova hronologija

Egipatolog i arheolog David Rohl upravo je objavio novu knjigu: "IZLAZAK, MIT ILI POVIJEST?" Možemo se samo nadati da ćemo ga što prije vidjeti na talijanskom.

Slika naslovnice knjige ovdje s lijeve strane preuzeta je sa web stranice https://shop.patternsofevidence.com/ na kojoj je moguće kupiti knjigu i naučiti o filmu na istu temu, „Uzorci dokaza ”, Nedavno objavljen u Sjedinjenim Državama.

Rhol je prilično uvjerljiv. Njegove teorije uvijek osvajaju sve više pristalica - ja sam jedna od njih. O ovoj knjizi ćemo više govoriti kada izađe talijanska verzija. Trenutno, za one koji žele saznati više o novoj hronologiji, još uvijek mogu pročitati “Il Testamento Perduto”, talijansku verziju “izgubljenog zavjeta”, koja je dostupna u knjižarama svuda u Italiji.

To je bila moja prva knjiga Davida Rohla. Posebno sam uživao u raspravi o slovima Amarna, koja podržavaju ponovno datiranje egipatske hronologije od oko 250 godina.

Paradoks je da se Ehnaton u istoriji sjeća kao jeretički faraon, zbog svojih monoteističkih uvjerenja. Dobro je poznato: svaki drastičan pokušaj promjene dugih tradicija sam je po sebi heretički, pa čak i iz najplemenitijih uzroka ili najviših ideala, ne mora se lako ili brzo prihvatiti. Štoviše, ako takve promjene predstavljaju prijetnju onima koji imaju poziciju moći i prestiža, političku, vjersku ili oboje. Filozofska borba faraona za njegovu novu religiju postala je značajnija zbog političkih posljedica i štete nanesene tradicionalnom kleru nego zbog njegove unutarnje duhovne vrijednosti.

Ehnaton je ime koje je odabrao Amenhotep IV, sin Amenhotepa III. Vladao je, prema tradicionalnom sistemu datiranja, od 1350. do 1334. godine prije nove ere. Njegovo novo ime usvojeno je u čast njegovog boga, Atona, Sunčevog diska, koji je bio predmet njegovog monoteističkog kulta. Takođe je postao poznat po svom najvećem dostignuću, izgradnji grada Akhetaton. Kao što je vidljivo po imenu, to je bila još jedna počast njegovom bogu.

Na području gdje je bio ovaj grad, koji se danas zove El Amarna, 3000 godina kasnije, 1887. godine, iskopavanja su iznijela na vidjelo prepisku Amenhotepa III i njegovog sina.

400 ploča pronađenih u El Amarni dragocjen je svjedok vremena tih egipatskih kraljeva, kao i njihovih mezopotamskih i sirijskih vazalnih kraljeva. Podijeljeni su između Berlina, Londona i Oxforda. S ponosom mogu reći da sam u svojim istraživanjima na internetu otkrio da su neki prijevodi ovih tekstova na engleski s talijanskog. Jer, obično je obrnuto! Pisma Amarna na talijanskom uređuje Mario Liverani, Padeia, 2 sveska, pod naslovom: "Le lettere di El-Amarna".

Jezik koji se koristi u ovim pismima je akadijski, vavilonski dijalekt, koji je bio diplomatski jezik tog vremena. Moglo bi se lako uporediti sa današnjim engleskim ili francuskim. Ovaj članak preveden na engleski, iako ga je napisao Talijan, dokaz je prednosti i potrebe pisanja na međunarodno razumljivom jeziku.

Klinopis se jasno vidi na ploči, EA161, ovdje predstavljenoj. Ova slika je preuzeta sa: http://www.en.wikipedia.org

Radi znatiželje i istovremeno uvođenje naše teme, bilo bi isplativo razmotriti sadržaj nekih od ovih pisama. Tekst pisama dostupan je na internetu na sljedećoj web stranici: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/index.html Uzeo sam citate pisama sa ove web stranice.

Kadashman Enlil I bio je kralj Vavilona. On piše Amenhotepu III: „Kadashman Enlil iz Vavilona Amenhotepu Egipatskom […] Kako je moguće da sam vam, pisavši kako bih zatražio ruku vaše kćeri, o moj brate, trebao pisati tako jeziku, govoreći mi da mi je nećete dati jer od najstarijih vremena nijedna kćer egipatskog kralja nije bila udana? ” - EA3.

Vavilonski kralj naziva faraona svojim bratom. Prilično je uznemiren opravdanjima za odbijanje udavanja kćeri. Činjenica je vrlo jednostavno objašnjena: egipatski kraljevi bili su vrlo svjesni starine i ugleda svoje krune i vrlo su nevoljko priznavali strane vladare kao sebi ravne. Sasvim je razumljivo ako pomislimo da je u to vrijeme egipatsko kraljevstvo već postojalo više od 1500 godina! Bez obzira na to, asirski kralj Ašur-uballit s lakoćom piše: „Veliki kralj, kralj Egipta, moj brate“-EA16.

U danima Ehnatona došlo je do porasta turbulencija na siro-palestinskom području. Egipatski kralj bio je previše uhvaćen u svojim vjerskim spekulacijama i zauzet izgradnjom svog grada da bi mogao riješiti takvu krizu. Vapaji u pomoć vazalnih kraljeva ubrzo su postali pritužbe na kraljevo ponašanje.

Razlog zašto su slova Amarna toliko važna studentu Biblije poput mene je taj što su nedavno postala polje vrlo važne kontroverze. U stvari, ako prihvatimo tradicionalno datiranje za kraljevstvo Ehnaton, pristupit ćemo prepisci Amarna imajući na umu neke pretpostavke i tumačiti je u skladu s našim već postignutim znanjem iz tih dana. U ovoj perspektivi, pisma kralja po imenu Labaya ili Labayu, a koja se tiču ​​kralja, neće privući našu pažnju, budući da nije moguća bolja identifikacija ovog kralja, pa čak ni tačna lokacija njegovog kraljevstva. Njegov jezik, kada se obraća faraonu, jasno je formalan i odaje veliko poštovanje: „Kralju [gospodaru,] mom [suncu]: poruka od Lab’aye, vašeg sluge, tla po kojem hodate. Pred noge kralja, mog gospodara i mog sunca, sedam i sedam puta bacam se. ” EA 253.

Labaya je bila bol u vratu. Kraljevi su pisali tražeći pomoć od faraona, žaleći se zbog njega.

Iako su egipatski kraljevi odavno otišli, Labaya je i dalje bol u vratu, u vratu tradicionalnih pristaša. Jer ako možemo razumjeti da se njegovo ime tumači kao „Jahvin lav“, kako je moguće da je Jahve poznat u kraljevstvu Ehnaton?

Jahve se smatra najvjerovatnijim izgovorom Tetragrammaton YHWH, ličnog imena koje je Bog otkrio Mojsiju. Prema tradicionalnom datiranju, to se moralo dogoditi oko trinaestog vijeka prije nove ere. Izlazak, uvijek prema tradicionalnom datiranju, dogodio se pod kraljevstvom Ramzesa II, koji je vladao između 1279. i 1212. pne. Skoro 100 godina nakon prepiske s Amarnom. Kako to može biti u skladu s činjenicom da je Jahve već bio poznat u Palestini 150 godina prije nego što se izraelski narod tamo nastanio?

Nova hronologija Davida Rohla daje vrlo zadovoljavajuće objašnjenje za gore spomenutu nedosljednost jednostavnim potvrđivanjem kronologije u Bibliji.

Problem je u tome što Nova hronologija objašnjava događaje - da - u skladu je s arheološkim nalazima, ali je u suprotnosti s tradicionalnim, sa svim negativnim implikacijama koje bi takva promjena trenda donijela karijeri mnogih cijenjenih učenjaka i loše svjetlosti o dosadašnjim studijama na tu temu.

Poput faraona, Rohl je današnji heretički revolucionarni mislilac, jer njegove ideje otvoreno preispituju ono što je (slijepo) prihvaćeno godinama. Ali možda je samo pitanje vremena! Kao što je svijet pretvoren u monoteizam, a jeretički faraon postao Ehnaton heroj monoteizma, možda će se jednog dana David Rohl smatrati čovjekom koji je uspio vidjeti ono što njegova generacija, zbog nedostatka avanturističkog duha ili lijenosti, nije uspjela posmatrajte.

Mora se primijetiti da revizija koju je predložila Rohlova nova kronologija nije potpuno revolucionarna. On samo pregledava tradicionalne datume i misli ih pomiče za nekih 250-300 godina. Da biste vidjeli što to zapravo znači, uzmite u obzir da ako je prema općeprihvaćenom gledištu Ramzes II živio između 1279.-1212.

Rohl odbija općeprihvaćenu identifikaciju jedinog faraona zvanog imenom u Bibliji, Sisac ili Shishak, s povijesnim Sheshonqom. Ova identifikacija je glavni kamen temeljac tradicionalnog sistema datiranja.

Biblijski tekst I. Kraljeva 14.25-26 glasi: „I dogodilo se pete godine kralja Roboama da je egipatski kralj Shishak došao na Jeruzalem: I oduzeo je blago Gospodnjem domu i blago kraljevske kuće čak je sve oduzeo i oduzeo je sve zlatne štitove koje je napravio Solomon. "

Rohl pruža dobro dokumentirane i iznenađujuće prikladne arheološke i povijesne biblijske dokaze. U svojoj posljednjoj knjizi radi bolje nego što je to činio i prije - iako sam mislio da to nije moguće. On pokazuje kako je biblijski Shishak niko drugi do Ramsess II. Želite li znati kako? Čitajte njegove knjige!

Takva drugačija identifikacija promijenit će sve ostale datume kraljeva i događaje. Znam da više neće biti isto gledati "Princa Egipta" sa svojom djecom! I sam se osjećam tako neugodno pri pomisli da pokušavam objasniti grešku svojim sinovima. No, nova kronologija potvrđuje i arheološke podatke i pouzdanost povijesnosti Izlaska u Bibliji. Datum nove hronologije za kraljevstvo Ehnaton pomiče se na 1023-1007. To bi ga učinilo savremenikom kralja Saula, prvog kralja Izraela. A ako pretpostavimo da se Labaya o kojoj se govori u tekstovima iz Amarne može poistovjetiti s biblijskim Saulom, ne bi li to riješilo u potpunosti sve probleme koji se tiču ​​štovanja Jahve u Palestini u vrijeme Ehnatona?

Saul znači "traženo". Zamislimo kako je Petar, zvan i Kefa, zaista bio čovjek po imenu Simon. Pavlovo pravo ime bilo je Saul. Marko se zvao John. Matej se zvao Levi. Možda je taj „traženi“ izraelski kralj postao poznat u Bibliji s tim nadimkom, a njegovo pravo ime je bilo Labaya ili Labayu? Činjenica koja ide u prilog ovoj identifikaciji jaka je, jer će i mnogi drugi detalji slike biti uspješno objašnjeni. U prepisci Amarna, ako se prihvati Nova kronologija, David, Mutbaal, sin Saula i Joaba, Davidov general i događaji koji se s njima odnose tako se lako objašnjavaju u svjetlu izvještaja datih u Bibliji.

Kao što je inteligentni čitalac već pogodio, Novu hronologiju je vrlo lako prihvatiti oni koji podržavaju istorijsku tačnost Biblije, a potpuno je odbijaju oni koji su godinama učili i učili tradicionalne datume. Možemo se samo nadati da će vrijeme i daljnje iskreno istraživanje baciti više svjetla na ovu stvar.

Osobno sam uvjeren da će se jednog dana heretik David Rohl smatrati čovjekom ispred svog vremena, a njegove teorije, poput Ehnatonovog monoteizma, dio su nove ortodoksije.


David Rohl, pisma Amarne i nova hronologija

Egipatolog i arheolog David Rohl upravo je objavio novu knjigu: "IZLAZAK, MIT ILI POVIJEST?" Možemo se samo nadati da ćemo ga što prije vidjeti na talijanskom.

Slika naslovnice knjige ovdje s lijeve strane preuzeta je sa web stranice https://shop.patternsofevidence.com/ na kojoj možete kupiti knjigu i naučiti o filmu na istu temu, „Uzorci dokaza“, nedavno objavljeno u Sjedinjenim Državama.

Rhol je prilično uvjerljiv. Njegove teorije uvijek osvajaju sve više pristalica - ja sam jedna od njih. O ovoj knjizi ćemo više govoriti kada izađe talijanska verzija. Trenutno, za one koji žele saznati više o novoj hronologiji, još uvijek mogu pročitati “Il Testamento Perduto”, talijansku verziju “izgubljenog zavjeta”, koja je dostupna u knjižarama svuda u Italiji.

To je bila moja prva knjiga Davida Rohla. Posebno sam uživao u raspravi o slovima Amarna, koja podržavaju ponovno datiranje egipatske hronologije od oko 250 godina.

Paradoks je da se Ehnaton u istoriji sjeća kao jeretički faraon, zbog svojih monoteističkih uvjerenja. Dobro je poznato: svaki drastičan pokušaj promjene dugih tradicija sam je po sebi heretički, pa čak i iz najplemenitijih uzroka ili najviših ideala, ne mora se lako ili brzo prihvatiti. Štoviše, ako takve promjene predstavljaju prijetnju onima koji imaju poziciju moći i prestiža, političku, vjersku ili oboje. Filozofska borba faraona za njegovu novu religiju postala je značajnija zbog političkih posljedica i štete nanesene tradicionalnom kleru nego zbog njegove unutarnje duhovne vrijednosti.

Ehnaton je ime koje je odabrao Amenhotep IV, sin Amenhotepa III. Vladao je, prema tradicionalnom sistemu datiranja, od 1350. do 1334. godine prije nove ere. Njegovo novo ime usvojeno je u čast njegovog boga Atona, Sunčevog diska, koji je bio predmet njegovog monoteističkog kulta. Takođe je postao poznat po svom najvećem dostignuću, izgradnji grada Akhetaton. Kao što je vidljivo po imenu, to je bila još jedna počast njegovom bogu.

Sa web stranice www.amarna3d.com

Na području gdje je bio ovaj grad, koji se danas zove El Amarna, 3000 godina kasnije, 1887. godine, iskopavanja su iznijela na vidjelo prepisku Amenhotepa III i njegovog sina.

400 ploča pronađenih u El Amarni dragocjen je svjedok vremena tih egipatskih kraljeva, kao i njihovih mezopotamskih i sirijskih vazalnih kraljeva. Podijeljeni su između Berlina, Londona i Oxforda. S ponosom mogu reći da sam u svojim istraživanjima na internetu otkrio da su neki prijevodi ovih tekstova na engleski s talijanskog. Jer, obično je obrnuto! Pisma Amarna na talijanskom uređuje Mario Liverani, Padeia, 2 sveska, pod naslovom: "Le lettere di El-Amarna".

Jezik koji se koristi u ovim pismima je akadijski, vavilonski dijalekt, koji je bio diplomatski jezik tog vremena. Moglo bi se lako uporediti sa današnjim engleskim ili francuskim. Ovaj članak preveden na engleski, iako ga je napisao Talijan, dokaz je prednosti i potrebe pisanja na međunarodno razumljivom jeziku.

Klinopis se jasno vidi na ploči, EA161, ovdje predstavljenoj. Ova slika je preuzeta sa: www.en.wikipedia.org

Radi znatiželje i istodobno uvođenja naše teme, bilo bi isplativo razmotriti sadržaj nekih od ovih pisama. Tekst pisama dostupan je na internetu na sljedećoj web stranici: www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/index.html

Uzeo sam citate pisama sa ove web stranice.

Kadashman Enlil I bio je kralj Vavilona. On piše Amenhotepu III: „Kadashman Enlil iz Vavilona Amenhotepu Egipatskom [...] Kako je moguće da sam ti, nakon što sam ti zatražio ruku svoje kćeri - o moj brate, trebao napisati takvu poruku jeziku, govoreći mi da mi je nećete dati jer od najstarijih vremena nijedna kćer egipatskog kralja nije bila udana? ” - EA3.

Vavilonski kralj naziva faraona svojim bratom. Prilično je uznemiren opravdanjima za odbijanje udavanja kćeri. Činjenica je vrlo jednostavno objašnjena: egipatski kraljevi bili su vrlo svjesni starine i ugleda svoje krune i vrlo su nevoljko priznavali strane vladare kao sebi ravne. Sasvim je razumljivo ako pomislimo da je u to vrijeme egipatsko kraljevstvo već postojalo više od 1500 godina! Bez obzira na to, asirski kralj Ašur-uballit s lakoćom piše: "Veliki kralj, kralj Egipta, moj brate"-EA16.

U danima Ehnatona došlo je do porasta turbulencija na siro-palestinskom području. Egipatski kralj bio je previše uhvaćen u svojim vjerskim spekulacijama i zauzet izgradnjom svog grada da bi mogao riješiti takvu krizu. Vapaji u pomoć vazalnih kraljeva ubrzo su postali pritužbe na kraljevo ponašanje.

Razlog zašto su slova Amarna toliko važna studentu Biblije poput mene je taj što su nedavno postala polje vrlo važne kontroverze. U stvari, ako prihvatimo tradicionalno datiranje za kraljevstvo Ehnaton, pristupit ćemo prepisci Amarna imajući na umu neke pretpostavke i tumačiti je u skladu s našim već postignutim znanjem iz tih dana. U ovoj perspektivi, pisma kralja po imenu Labaya ili Labayu, a koja se tiču ​​kralja, neće privući našu pažnju, budući da nije moguća bolja identifikacija ovog kralja, pa čak ni tačna lokacija njegovog kraljevstva. Njegov jezik, kada se obraća faraonu, jasno je formalan i odaje veliko poštovanje: „Kralju [gospodaru,] mom [suncu]: poruka od Lab’aye, vašeg sluge, tla po kojem hodate. Pred noge kralja, mog gospodara i mog sunca, sedam i sedam puta bacam se. ” EA 253.

Labaya je bila bol u vratu. Kraljevi su pisali tražeći pomoć od faraona, žaleći se zbog njega.

Iako su egipatski kraljevi odavno otišli, Labaya je i dalje bol u vratu, u vratu tradicionalnih pristaša. Jer ako možemo razumjeti da se njegovo ime tumači kao „Jahvin lav“, kako je moguće da je Jahve poznat u kraljevstvu Ehnaton?

Jahve se smatra najvjerovatnijim izgovorom Tetragrammaton YHWH, ličnog imena koje je Bog otkrio Mojsiju. Prema tradicionalnom datiranju, to se moralo dogoditi oko trinaestog vijeka prije nove ere. Izlazak, uvijek prema tradicionalnom datiranju, dogodio se pod kraljevstvom Ramzesa II, koji je vladao između 1279. i 1212. pne. Skoro 100 godina nakon prepiske s Amarnom. Kako to može biti u skladu s činjenicom da je Jahve već bio poznat u Palestini 150 godina prije nego što se izraelski narod tamo nastanio?

Nova hronologija Davida Rohla daje vrlo zadovoljavajuće objašnjenje za gore spomenutu nedosljednost jednostavnim potvrđivanjem kronologije u Bibliji.

Problem je u tome što Nova hronologija objašnjava događaje - da - u skladu je s arheološkim nalazima, ali je u suprotnosti s tradicionalnim, sa svim negativnim implikacijama koje bi takva promjena trenda donijela karijeri mnogih cijenjenih učenjaka i loše svjetlosti o dosad objavljenim studijama na tu temu.

Poput faraona, Rohl je današnji heretički revolucionarni mislilac, jer njegove ideje otvoreno preispituju ono što je (slijepo) godinama prihvaćeno. Ali možda je samo pitanje vremena! Kao što je svijet pretvoren u monoteizam, a jeretički faraon postao Ehnaton herojem monoteizma, možda će se jednog dana David Rohl smatrati čovjekom koji je uspio vidjeti ono što njegova generacija, zbog nedostatka avanturističkog duha ili lijenosti, nije uspjela posmatrajte.

Mora se primijetiti da revizija koju je predložila Rohlova nova kronologija nije potpuno revolucionarna. On samo pregledava tradicionalne datume i misli ih pomiče za nekih 250-300 godina. Da biste vidjeli što to zapravo znači, uzmite u obzir da ako je prema općeprihvaćenom gledištu Ramzes II živio između 1279.-1212.

Rohl odbija općeprihvaćenu identifikaciju jedinog faraona zvanog imenom u Bibliji, Sisac ili Shishak, s povijesnim Sheshonqom. Ova identifikacija je glavni kamen temeljac tradicionalnog sistema datiranja.

Biblijski tekst I. Kraljeva 14.25-26 glasi: „I dogodilo se pete godine kralja Roboama, da je egipatski kralj Shishak došao na Jeruzalem: I oduzeo je blago Gospodnjem domu i blago kraljevske kuće čak je sve odnio: i oduzeo je sve zlatne štitove koje je napravio Solomon. "

Rohl pruža dobro dokumentirane i iznenađujuće prikladne arheološke i povijesne biblijske dokaze. U svojoj posljednjoj knjizi radi bolje nego što je to činio i ranije - iako sam mislio da to nije moguće. On pokazuje kako je biblijski Shishak niko drugi do Ramsess II. Želite li znati kako? Čitajte njegove knjige!

Takva drugačija identifikacija promijenit će sve ostale datume kraljeva i događaje. Znam da više neće biti isto gledati "Princa Egipta" sa svojom djecom! I sam se osjećam tako neugodno pri pomisli da pokušavam objasniti grešku svojim sinovima. No Nova kronologija potvrđuje i arheološke podatke i pouzdanost povijesnosti Izlaska u Bibliji. Datum nove hronologije za kraljevstvo Ehnaton pomiče se na 1023-1007. To bi ga učinilo savremenikom kralja Saula, prvog kralja Izraela. A ako pretpostavimo da bi se Labaya o kojoj se govori u tekstovima iz Amarne mogla poistovjetiti s biblijskim Saulom, ne bi li to riješilo u potpunosti sve probleme koji se tiču ​​štovanja Jahve u Palestini u vrijeme Ehnatona?

Saul znači "traženo". Zamislimo kako je Petar, zvan i Kefa, zaista bio čovjek po imenu Simon. Pavlovo pravo ime bilo je Saul. Marko se zvao John. Matej se zvao Levi. Možda je taj „traženi“ izraelski kralj postao poznat u Bibliji s tim nadimkom, a njegovo pravo ime je bilo Labaya ili Labayu? Činjenica koja ide u prilog ovoj identifikaciji jaka je, jer će i mnogi drugi detalji slike biti uspješno objašnjeni. U prepisci Amarna, ako se prihvati nova kronologija, David, Mutbaal, sin Saula i Joaba, Davidov general i događaji koji se na njih odnose tako se lako objašnjavaju u svjetlu izvještaja navedenih u Bibliji.

Kao što je inteligentni čitalac već pogodio, Novu hronologiju je vrlo lako prihvatiti oni koji podržavaju istorijsku tačnost Biblije, a potpuno je odbijaju oni koji su godinama poučavani i poučavali tradicionalne datume. Možemo se samo nadati da će vrijeme i daljnje iskreno istraživanje baciti više svjetla na ovu stvar.

Osobno sam uvjeren da će se jednog dana heretik David Rohl smatrati čovjekom ispred svog vremena, a njegove teorije, poput Ehnatonovog monoteizma, dio su nove ortodoksije.


Amarna

Izbjeglički karavan (Slika: Pueblo Sin Fronteras)

PREKIDNE VESTI PREKIDNE VESTI

Brojni hananski kraljevi okupili su se danas kako bi objavili svoju namjeru da sagrade zid kako bi spriječili Mojsijevu rulju bliskoistočnjaka da uđe u zemlju. Kanaanci su vidjeli pustoš koju su ove izbjeglice nanijele u egipatskoj zemlji i odlučne su da ne dozvole ponavljanje u Hananu. Glasnogovornica Rahab Huckabee Sanders

rekao je ljudima: “Strah od vas je pao na nas i da se svi stanovnici zemlje tope pred vama. Jer čuli smo šta ste prije vas činili kad ste izlazili iz Egipta i šta ste radili s dva kralja Amorejaca s onu stranu Jordana. I čim smo to čuli, naša su se srca rastopila, i ni u jednom čovjeku nije ostalo hrabrosti, zbog tebe ” (uglavnom Jošua 2: 9-11).

Kanaanski špijuni poslani da prate kretanje rulje izvijestili su da nije sve onako kako izgleda. Ovi ljudi ne hodaju samo korak po korak na dugom putovanju kroz divljinu. Poput Froda, i oni su putovali pustinjom na krilima orlova (Izl 19: 4).

Nadalje, kanaanski špijuni su promatrali bespilotne letjelice koje su izbjeglicama opskrbljivale manu s neba. Očigledno je da je ovaj pokret dobio organiziranu pomoć od vanjske agencije.

Kao odgovor, Kanaanci su odlučili da neće izgraditi niti jedan zid na cijelom zemljištu. Egipat je to pokušao stoljećima ranije i nije uspjelo. Umjesto toga, Kanaanci će izgraditi zid oko svakog kanaanskog grada kako bi spriječili Izraelce da zadru na njihovu zemlju. Prvi grad odabran za zid bio je Jerihon.

Ostavljajući po strani hiperboličnu retoriku koja prikazuje izbjegličku karavanu kao apokaliptičnu pošast od kraja dana, ovaj događaj pruža priliku za razmišljanje o tome kako je kanaanski narod zapravo reagirao na pojavu izraelskog naroda u povijesti Hanana.

Tipično, Merneptah (1212-1202. P. N. E.) Privlači pažnju na ovom prijelazu iz kasnog brončanog u gvozdeno doba I zbog stene Merneptah. 1 Njegovo spominjanje Izraela kao naroda, a ne nastanjenih stanovnika gradova dovelo je do stalnih rasprava o tome ko je ili šta je Izrael i gdje su živjeli. Nema naznaka bilo kakvog saveza ili odnosa između četiri entiteta imenovana u Merleptah Stela. Nema ni razloga vjerovati da je naveo sve Kanaance koji su se protivili egipatskoj vlasti. S tim u vezi možda nikada nećemo saznati pravi opseg kanaanskog proljeća i koliko su antiegipatski osjećaji i postupci bili rasprostranjeni u zemlji Hananskoj čak i bez potencijalnog izraelskog katalizatora. 2

Kakav je bio geopolitički krajolik u zemlji Hananu u to vrijeme i kako se Izrael uklopio?

Pojava Izraela u istoriji dogodila se tokom otprilike 350-godišnjeg perioda egipatske hegemonije u zemlji Kanaan. 3 Povremeno su se različiti Kanaanci, neki poznati, neki nepoznati, pobunili protiv egipatske vladavine. Kao što egiptologinja Ellen Morris ističe, Gezer i Yenoam na steni Merneptah pojavili su se ranije u egipatskim zapisima kao periodični iritanti koji datiraju iz 15. stoljeća prije nove ere. Došljak na kanaanskom popisu gradova bio je Aškelon, dan marša od egipatskog uporišta u Gazi, na granici između Egipta i Kanaana. Ona sugerira da bi se grad u tako neposrednoj blizini velike egipatske vojne baze pobunio samo da je "nešto u osnovi pošlo po zlu u održavanju egipatskog sjevernog carstva"#8230. Aškelon nikada ne bi pokušao pobunu da je Egipat bio u punoj borbenoj formi. ” Ona tvrdi da je zajednički napad [nearapskih] Libijaca i naroda mora na Egipat stvorio priliku za Aškelon s obzirom na veličinu egipatskih snaga posvećenih odupiranju tim upadima. Morris se pita je li Aškelon očekivao pomoć od Gezera i napominje da su ova dva grada ratovala protiv Jeruzalema u doba Amarne. 4 Može se dodati da bi Izrael bio očevidac ovih mahinacija među kanaanskim gradovima, Egiptu i morskim narodima. Ove radnje koje su uključivale Hamove sinove, Jafetove sinove i Šemove sinove bile su dio kolektivnog sjećanja Izraela. Izoliranje Izraela od okolnih političkih zbivanja stvara iskrivljeno razumijevanje rane istorije Izraela. Izrael nije bio sam u svom protivljenju Egiptu i nema suštinskog razloga da ti različiti entiteti nisu bili svjesni jedni drugih, baš kao što su njihovi kolege bili svjesni tokom Amarna doba stoljeće ranije.

Prema arheološkim istraživanjima, otprilike u to vrijeme stotine malih naselja pojavilo se kao nova nalazišta u zemlji Rachel/Zapadnoj obali/brdovitom području. Ova naselja se rutinski identifikuju kao izraelska. 5 Na temelju tog očitog zaključka moglo bi se dalje zaključiti da ti Izraelci nisu bili izravna prijetnja Kanaancima duž obale, u Jezraelu ili u Galileji. Ta područja neće biti dio izraelske države sve do Davidovog kraljevstva stoljećima kasnije.

Unutar područja izraelskog naselja, koji su bili primarni kanaanski gradovi s kojima bi Izrael bio u interakciji? Odgovor je opet jasan. U srednjem bronzanom dobu, kasnom bronzanom dobu i željeznom dobu I, dva kanaanska grada iznad svih drugih istakla su se na području izraelskih naselja - Sihem i Jeruzalem. 6 Kako se ispostavilo, oba grada ulaze u arheološke i biblijske zapise. Zajedno, oni pomažu u stvaranju povijesne rekonstrukcije u doba Merneptaha i nakon toga.

Shechem, poslovični pupak univerzuma, bio je bol u kraljevskom dupetu prema Amarna Letters -u. Prema ovoj diplomatskoj prepisci iz 14. veka pre nove ere, Šehem, predvođen svojim kraljem Labajuom, uvek je izazivao probleme sa susedima. 7 Labayuove radnje dovele su do toga da se susjedni kraljevi obrate faraonu za pomoć. Ova prepiska koristi se za prikazivanje Egipta kao podrške pristupu podijeli i osvoji svojim vazalima. Sve dok su plaćali danak, držali garnizovane egipatske trupe i nisu imali nikakvih stranih saveza, kome je stalo do njihovih unutrašnjih sitnih prepirki?

Faraonovo fizičko prisustvo nije bilo potrebno za rješavanje takvih unutrašnjih sukoba. Njegov prikaz na reljefu nije bio fotografija mjesta bitke. Nije morao biti prisutan. Snage garnizona i/ili vazali koji su se borili u njegovo ime označavali su njegovo simbolično prisustvo, čak i ako nije fizičko. Zaista, kolektivna akcija kanaanskih kraljeva bez faraonskog vodstva ili blagoslova nije vjerojatna. 8 Sami Kanaanci trebali bi se pobrinuti za ova pitanja koja se tiču ​​Sihema i habirua. Ove radnje i prepiska bili su presedan kako bi reagirali na pojavu Izraela.

Za Izrael, jedino područje dobrodošlice za njih u cijeloj zemlji Hananskoj vjerovatno je bio Sihem i njegova okolina. Kako se pokazalo nimalo slučajno, upravo u ovom tradicionalnom antiegipatskom gradu biblijska priča pripovijeda kako je Mojsije rekao ljudima da odu:

Ponovljeni zakon 11:29 A kad vas Gospod, vaš Bog, dovede u zemlju u koju ulazite da je zauzmete, postavićete blagoslov na planini Gerizim i prokletstvo na planini Ebal.

Ponovljeni zakon 27:12 “Kad prijeđete Jordan, oni će stati na planinu Gerizim da blagoslove narod. "

Joshua je ispunio obećanje u kampanji:

Jošua 8:30 Tada je Jošua podigao oltar na brdu Ebal Gospodu, Bogu Izraelovu.

Ovaj oltar otkriven je zajedno sa faraonskim skarabejima koji bi se mogli koristiti u ritualnim proslavama oslobođenja od egipatske hegemonije. 9 Nadalje, Merneptahov prikaz Izraelaca u Cour de la Cachetteu vjerovatno se oslanja na percipiranu vezu Izraelci-Šekemite kao Kanaanci. 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., Zadržavanje nad riječima: Studije o antičkoj bliskoistočnoj književnosti u čast Williama L. Morana (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 je 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):

Da rezimiramo: 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 i 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.’


Pogledajte video: The Mystery Of Akhenatens Revolution. Egypt Detectives. Timeline (Decembar 2021).