(July 30, 2011 at 1:34 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: I don’t know Min. It is possible that enough examples of an older style of language survive in the story to identify its early origins. Plus your possible 8th century BC date isn’t all that far off from my possibly as old as 900 years BC one. None of that means the story wasn’t embellished both before and after that date range.
In Greek or Latin, or Chinese or Sanskrit for that matter ? Sure. We have extensive writings over long spans of time. However, we do not have early Hebrew texts to compare to later Hebrew texts. And when you start going back and forth between two unrelated languages like Greek and Hebrew I'm hard pressed to buy that argument.
(July 30, 2011 at 1:34 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: You’re certainly more the historian than I am. As such I’d like your opinion on the following hypothesis. I consider it a left leaning blend of Biblical minimal and maximal isms on the origins of Yahweh, monotheism, Exodus and other parts of the Old Testament story. I find it to be compatible with the views of Finkelstein and Silberman.
Yahweh originated as a god of Bedouins from the hills in the Edom region. The concept of monotheism was introduced to the followers of Yahweh through contact with 18th dynasty Egypt. It was brought by refugees (or their descendants) from Amarna following the death of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) and is the much embellished basis for the Exodus story.
These beliefs were brought further north by the Edom Bedouins after the Bronze Age collapse which included many of the Canaanite city states. A blending of the beliefs of the remnants of the Canaanites and new comers from the surrounding area occurred in what would become ancient Israel as the void left by the Bronze Age collapse was slowly filled. The blending took centuries and included pieces of mythology from Canaan, Bedouins, Egypt and the Babylonian/Samarian cultures. During this time both poly and monotheistic factions coexisted.
Um.... no. Far more convincing is the Zoroastrian connection via Persia in the 6th century BC. Atenism in Egypt lasted barely 20 years and was quickly suppressed on the death of Akhenaten. It is speculated that the reason for the richness of Tutanhkamen's tomb was the gratitude of the priests for the restoration of the old gods but that is neither here nor there. Atenism applied, as did most of Egyptian religion, to the pharaoh and was personified in the sun. We see none of that in Judaism.
Yahweh was a minor member of the Canaanite pantheon. How or why he became centered in Jerusalem is something we are not likely to ever know. Archaeologist, William Dever in "Did God Have Wife" goes over the inscriptions of Yahweh and Asherah and the fertility cult figurines which were found all across the region. What is seen is the growing practice of Henotheism. Canaanite religion was henotheistic, i.e., the Moabites worshipped the god Chemosh, in Edom it was Qaus, both were part of the Canaanite pantheon, headed by El. El and Asherat were the main deities with 70 sons who ruled over the nations of the earth and were each worshiped in a given area.
Finkelstein's work in the West Bank in the 80's demonstrated that the groups which later became "Israel" and "Judah" arose at the beginning of the Iron Age in the eastern hill region of Palestine. They had nothing to do with Egypt which, by that time, had begun a long slide to oblivion which ended at Actium in 31 BC when it became a Roman province. Once one gets by the idea that there was some Davidic Empire centered on Jerusalem in the 10th century ( an empire which, like Camelot, only exists in fiction ) there is a decided dearth of occasions when Egypt and Judah would have been of any interest to each other. Egypt had two periods of military relevancy prior to Alexander the Great. Sheshonq I (which the bible garbles into Shishak) made a raid into Israel c 925. The OT claims that he attacked the great city of Jerusalem ( which did not exist at the time ) but Sheshonq's inscriptions on the campaign show that he moved up the coast towards the northern kingdom of Israel which was then starting to come together. Sheshonq does not seem to know that he conquered "Jerusalem" and carried off the temple "treasure."
Seems like an odd display of modesty for an Egyptian king! In any event, there are destruction layers at many of the towns which Sheshonq did say he took but his raid ultimately was little more than a parade militaire which had no lasting effect.
The second time Egypt arose was in the period at the end of the 7th century. Assyria ( allied with Egypt ) was at war with Babylon. Finkelstein's suggestion is that Judah at this time having grown into an actual nation and prospered as an Assyrian vassal began to have ideas about expansion into the northern areas which Assyria was abandoning as they were pressed by the Babylonians. The Egyptians under Necho also seem to have had ideas about recovering their former empire in Canaan and this put Judah into competition with Egypt. To make a long story short the tale of how the Egyptians had been overcome once before with god's help was circulated to show that even lowly slaves could prevail against a mighty army. The "hero" of this tale is "Josiah and he's doing great things until suddenly Necho calls him to a meeting and whacks him. The later author of Chronicles thought this was an inglorious way for a hero to die so he invented a battle for him to lose. As with Sheshonq, the Egyptians don't seem to know they won a victory that day. The Egyptians only say they replaced the king of Judah. The name "Josiah" does not appear in the archaeological record anywhere which is a weakness of Finkelstein's. In any event, a few short years later the Babylonians routed the Assyrians and Egyptian at Carchemesh and they ended up sacking and burning Jerusalem in the aftermath...which does suggest that a leader friendly to the Assyrians had been installed. The Babylonians famously deported the upper classes to Babylon setting the stage for the Exile.
When the Persians took Babylon they suddenly found themselves the inheritors of a whole western empire. The Persians brought with them Zoroastrianism which had an actual, single, male, creator god: Ahura Mazda. It also had a "devil" Angra Mainyu and a heaven and hell and all sorts of bullshit which has become commonplace.
Persia's problem was that they faced a serious revolt back in Iran and Cyrus the Great was killed putting down that revolt so it is clear where the Persian army was needed. The idea goes that a small group was sent back ( Finkelstein has estimated 400 people, total) to be the rulers of the peasants who stayed behind to work the land. They were sent back with a doctrine that they were the returning rulers who had been removed by the Babylonians and gloriously restored by the marvelous Cyrus and they would worship Yahweh who now was indistinct from Ahura Mazda. The "Jews" were not the only group which Cyrus restored. It was a Persian policy decision because they could not afford to send the army to occupy these new lands. BTW, it seems to have worked. The Persian empire controlled the region until Alexander the Great came sweeping though. There is room for a little compromise between the two ideas but overall the Persian connection seems to make the most sense.
