Brian
Yes, the Tell el-Amarna letters are a very important part of the origins debate. Unfortunately, when they were found bible archaeologists were far too keen to make parallels with Habiru = Hebrew.
And they rejected (although noting that it seemed as if this was a historical pre-cursor of David and his men) it becasue of the old chronology.
When the tablets were found, the original assertion was that the word Habiru simply equalled Hebrew. However, a big problem arose for this hypothesis with the mention of the ‘ha-bi-ru’ in the letters of king IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna archives. The publication of the clay tablets from the Hittite capital Hattusa produced proof that the Sumeriogram ‘sa.gaz’ that means ‘robbers’ (habbatu) , is to be read in the Akkadian and Hittite texts as ‘hab/piru’ (Weippert, M. (1971) The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: a critical survey of the recent scholarly debate, SCM Press, London.: p. 64).
In 1939 it became obvious that the consonantal element of the word ‘ha-bi-ru’, ‘had to be recognised as '-p-r, which meant that all etymologies dependent on the root HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with ‘BR and the ‘ibrim became uncertain (Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London. P. 401)
The word ‘Apiru itself is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word itself is not known for certain as there is no certainty as to the language (NW Semitic, Hurrian, etc.) or the verbal root from which the sociopolitical technical term (‘Apiru) was originally drawn (ibid: 401)
That's all well and good but I know enough archeology that all of these arguements or only 'plausability arguments. Rohl uses the same types of arguments and its only when one looks at the big picture that one can decide whether it's improving the chronoogical analysis or degrading it.
Although the term ‘outlaw’ seems to be the most apt term to define the ‘Apiru, it does tend to miss out many of the categories of society in which the ‘Apiru are said to have existed. While the ‘Apiru were distinctly recognisable from the population of the existing society that they happened to be involved with, they normally relied on that society for their livelihood. They were often employed by members of a society either as individual contract labourers or as hired groups of soldiers, agricultural labourers, or construction gangs (Ibid: 402).
I agree with you that Habiru had a wider context at other times. But in the context of the Amarna letters they are referring to a particular group.
It is quite understandable that 'Habiru' would be applied to all or part of Israelites who had been wanderers.
The general characteristic of the ‘Apiru turns out to be sociopolitical rather than ethnic or economic. They cannot be characterised as ethnically homogeneous in any one location, nor are they tied to any single economic activity throughout the Near East.
It's easy to say that, and it may be true at other times, but it is clearly inconsistent with teh useage in the Amarna tablets whihc are fefferring time and time again to interactions with the same group over a short period of time.
Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to refer to a social stratum, the equation of the term with the Hebrews is untenable as the Hebrews are said to be an ethnic group.
It's quite misleading and inaccurate to much such black-and-white statements! We're talking about the useage at a particular tiem in a partilucalr set of letters.
More problematic for the equation is the fact that the Bible suggests that the whole of ‘Israel’ came out of Egypt, however, the ‘Apiru are now attested to in a large variety of sources from different times and places. For example, (I have posted this elsewhere, but for ease of reading I thought it best to include here)
1. In Mesopotamia, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III, 1 Babylon, and after; in the Nuzi texts (fifteenth century) they play an especially prominent role.
2. Documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age.
3. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century).
4. They are also mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century).
5. Egyptian documents of the Empire period (fifteenth to twelfth century) refer to them, both as foes and rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt.
6. The Amarna letters (fourteenth century), where they appear in Palestine and adjoining areas as disturbers of the peace, are the best witness to them of all.
(Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London. P. 92)
John Bright goes on to conclude that obviously, a people found all over western Asia from the end of the third millennium to about the eleventh century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel! (Ibid: 92).
The connection between the Israelites has not been completely broken. Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to be a social stratum rather than an ethnic group, it has been proposed that since the Israelites were employed as slaves in Egypt, and as ‘slave’ is a social rather than an ethnic term, then the term ‘Apiru could indeed be applied to the Israelites. In effect, the claim is that not all ‘Apiru were Israelites, but where there were mentions of ‘Apiru, it is possible that an Israelite component may have been present. Although the connection is plausible, it has never been convincingly argued, and remains extremely questionable.
I stand by statement that we're interested with Habiru of the AMarna letteres and hereby concede tha tit was a name borrowed from earlier useage. Furthermore, it is quite obvious how that useage may have arisen and why the Bible itself uses the term Hebrew only in the words of foreigners (9 times out of 10).
So, what is this evidence that Rohl has that ‘undoubtedly’ links the Amarna period to Saul, David and Solomon?
I am a lot less enthusiastic about Rohl 'undoubtedly' tying the late 18th dynasty to the 10th century BCE. I would also recommend avoiding using absolutes when conducting historical research, it is not something that historians do as they know that their theories are always open to being proven false by some new find/research.
Agreed, except I pointed out where you seem to take 'indications' as 'determinations'.
TB: Rohl independenlty uses non-Levantine egyptological evidence to tie the late 18th dynasty to 1000BC.
Brian: I look forward to seeing how he is able to do this.
See my post to Jar above, and I'll ultimately psot this stuff here too. It's Rohl's preferred evidence becasue he knows of the anti-Bible current view. But IMO, the biblical links are the best evidence of a 1000BC late 18th dynasty due to the nature of the biblical record.
So, you are saying that there is a letter from King David in the Amarna letters? If so, do you have a tablet number?
I said and/or. David is listed in name in a letter between Mutbaal andpharoah (EA256) concerning the weherabouts of Daivd's milatary chief, Joab.
Saul = Labayu? Labayu was a Palesinian king, so how does Rohl turn Saul into Labayu?
Why does the Bible never call Saul by the name Labayu?
I think you're read up on that yourself since. The Bible strongly suggests Saul was not the original name and Saul's bodygaurds were called the 'Great Lions' = lebiam.
Okay, there is a lot going on in there, and none of which is supported at this time. The biggest problem with this claim is that the Amarna Letters do not mention Philistines.
Someone else made this statement too. If not, certainly many of the city-states are correctly named however.
Now, since the Philistines did not enter into the history of the ancient near east until around 1200 BCE, and this is about 150 years after the end of the Amarna period we don’t expect to see any references to the Philistines.
For all we know maybe the Bible is referring to these city states by a later blanket name (as well as individually).
However, this absence of any reference to the Philistines is puzzling if we move the Amarna period forward about 300 years. Moving the Amarna period forward 300 years or so puts it during the time of a great deal of Philistine activity in the region, so why is it that the Amarna letters do not mention Philistines? (especially if David was in league with them and David is supposed to be mentioned in the Amarna Letters.)
Maybe it was to honor each city state?
I think you need to be a little bit careful with the words that you use because the word ‘Israel’ does not appear in the Amarna tablets.
Agreed. But I meant in the region that became Israel (either then or later).
The first mention of an Israel as an ethnic group appears in Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory stele, which is dated to around 1205, and the stele suggests that ‘Israel’ had not yet settled in Palestine.
I'd be interested in hearing more on that.
Are you using the name ‘Israel’ here to refer to the area as it later became known?
Yes, as I mentioned above. I'll use Palestine from now one. Why is that better? When was the term Palestine introduced?
This is actually incorrect. The date of the Amarna Letters in the traditional chronology is 1400-1350 BCE. The Bible chronology places the Exodus at c.1446,
Yes, but I think you'll agree you're mixing apples and organges here. The conventional chronology although loosely *based* on the Bible's gap between the Exodus and some time near Saul of 480 years, compresses the 480 years to 300 years (via a dubious arguement) and therfore does have the Armana letters conincident with the pre-Exodus bondage.
Mainstream this is explained as a small escaped band. . .
Really? Could you tell us the evidence that Rohl uses to make this absolute identification?
Rohl is quoting mainstream biblical arcehologists from 1960s/1970s here.
So surely in fact that Rohl is the only Egyptologist who believes it.
I rarely take anything that anyone says as being convincing on its own, I always triple check their claims, I even do this with people I have great respect for, even my ex-lecturers.
Well, I'm reading quite a mix from both sides now. Rohl's work does cover a hige independentt array of evidecne as seen in my post above to Jar.
I have read it, I have also critiqued it a while ago in a presentation at Stirling University, this is one reason why I know Rohl’s chronology has a few terminal flaws. But these will unfold as we go along. Trust me, Rohl’s chronology isn’t at all convincing when you are familiar with the subject, but I will leave you to make up your own mind as the discussion unfurls.
We'll see. I've yet to even talk abot the retro-astronmics or the Royal Architect's geneology.
There's one thing you're forgetting in all of this and that's the nature of (i) the Biblical record with it's careful genealogies and description of numerous Levantine events/places and (ii) how the egptian chronology was locked in. By any objective standard it should be the most treasured document for the region. The only reason it has been discarded is that clearly incorrect coincidences were drawn between it and egyptology in Victorian times.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2005 09:12 PM
™ Version 4.2
