history and myth of Exodus

[MG1962]

Tim do you think it may be possible proto-hebrews worked in the effects of the Thea eruption into their narrative. As the current dating of the eruption seem marginally too old for the early dating of Exodus.

But is it possible those living in what would become Judea heard stories from around the region affected and incorporated them into their text?

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim do you think it may be possible proto-hebrews worked in the effects of the Thea eruption into their narrative. As the current dating of the eruption seem marginally too old for the early dating of Exodus.

But is it possible those living in what would become Judea heard stories from around the region affected and incorporated them into their text?

I doubt it. I also doubt that effects of the Thera eruption reached Egypt. I believe, as noted in my previous post, that natural phenomena common in Egypt were elaborated upon and ritualized to fit a seven-day cycle of ritualized plagues. Again, it's important to remember that there are no plagues in the J Document.

 

[MG1962]

I doubt it. I also doubt that effects of the Thera eruption reached Egypt. I believe, as noted in my previous post, that natural phenomena common in Egypt were elaborated upon and ritualized to fit a seven-day cycle of ritualized plagues. Again, it's important to remember that there are no plagues in the J Document.

I was thinking one or two of the specific plagues' The eruption would have reached Egypt. Pumice from the eruption has found as far away as Turkey, which seems to agree with the current thinking that majority of the plume went eastward or north east.

 

[TimCallahan]

I was thinking one or two of the specific plagues' The eruption would have reached Egypt. Pumice from the eruption has found as far away as Turkey, which seems to agree with the current thinking that majority of the plume went eastward or north east.

But not south, at least not further than Crete.

 

[TimCallahan]

If the only Israelites who could have come from Egypt constituted a core of the Levites, where did all the others come from?

Most seem to have come from Canaan. Their exodus, according to archaeologist William Dever, in his 2003 book Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, was from the plains, controlled by the Canaanite city states, to the hill country, which, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, had been left uncultivated. In other words, they deliberately left the more fertile country to do small scale farming and animal husbandry in the less desirable land. Why would they do this? Dever suspects that their exodus was away from the control - and tyranny - of the Egyptian sponsored Canaanite petty kings. I can add an anecdote to this. One of my ancestors was a Prussian immigrant who owned a farm in a less than desirable area in Nebraska. One of his great joys was sitting on his porch an looking over what was his land. As a peasant in Prussia, he had no hope of owning his own land.

Another group that went into making up the tribal confederation that called itself Israel were likely pastoralists originally from Padam Aram. They would have brought with them covenants styled after those in the Hurrian city of Nuzi, the patriarchal tales and the tradition of being a separate people. Those Canaanites who seceded from the city states could have seen themselves likewise, as a separate people by their act of secession

Finally, there is some evidence that the Danites might originally have been related to the Philistines, but joined the tribal confederation an worshipped Yahweh. Certainly, they and the tribe of Asher were somewhat culturally different from the majority of secessionist Canaanites as coastal, fishing tribes.

So, a possible scenario for the formation of the amphictyonic league that called itself "Israel" would have been this. The core of the Levites bring the worship of Yahweh with them from Edom and form the nucleus of a new people, uniting a mix of mainly Canaanite hill tribes, refugees from the plains, and pastoralists originally from Padam Aram. Some coastal tribes eventually join the mix. All this begins to take place as the Late Bronze Age starts to unravel during the reign of Merneptah, ca. 1200 BCE. What Dever sees as "Proto-Israelite" villages date to the 11th. and 12th. centuries BCE. It would be reasonable to assume the Israelite confederation became a predominant power in the central hill country of Canaan after the death of Ramesses III, and the probable withdrawal of Egyptian garrisons from Canaan ca. 1150 BCE.

At this time the Levant would have been a patchwork of independent Canaanite cities in the plains, the five Philistine cities in the south coastal plain - Ashdod, Ekron, Askelon, Gaza and Gath, and the loose and chaotic tribal confederation of Israel. To his mix we should add frequent incursions from the Midianites from the south, who seem to have controlled the city of Timnah for some time, Ishmaelites (Arabs), and the kingdoms of Moab and Ammon. In other words the Levant as portrayed in the stories of the Book of Judges.

 

[Piggy]

Tim, it seems to me that there's a certain cart-before-the-horse element in this whole string of thought.

The first thing to consider is, what the heck are we reading? Who wrote this story and why?

Once you do that, then a lot of the sleuthing simply becomes irrelevant.

The first 4 books of the Hebrew Bible are, after all, a history of the Levites by the Levites.

And what do we know about them?

• Their earliest recorded leaders have Egyptian names like Phineas, Aaron, and Moses.

• Their own origin story traces them back to Egypt. (Yes, they claim they led all of Israel out of Egypt, but that tale is not credible.)

• They are considered to be ethnically Hebrew. No one ever suggests that they are not. And although they trace themselves back to Egypt, they do not introduce Egyptian writing or religion to Hebrew culture (although their religion is certainly influenced by Egyptian as well as Canaanite religion).

• They held no tribal lands in Israel or Judea.

• They claimed the priesthood -- of one God -- for themselves alone.

• They claim to have introduced the first code of law to the Hebrews, and nobody disputes this. Even the Aaronites who came to oppose the Mushites do not dispute that Moses introduced the law code.

• They sent representatives into all the tribal territories where they were supported by tribute.

• They record a justification story for a war in which they ally with Judah and Ephraim (the strongest of the northern and southern tribes) to depose the Benjaminites.

The most logical explanation for the rise of the Levites is that they were Hebrews living in Egypt, perhaps descended from elites taken captives during one of the long string of clashes between Egypt and Hebrew tribes.

At some point, they return to the Levant, bringing with them some very powerful ideas from Egypt -- monotheism, a central priesthood, and a written code of law supposedly given to their leader by the one true God himself.

They ally with the Ephraimites and Judeans and depose the then-leading tribe of Benjamin.

Moses introduces a written law code which, as was done in other areas of the Ancient Near East, is said to have been revealed to him directly by God.

They promulgate that law, which is interpreted by judges of the various tribes under the watchful eye of the unlanded priestly class.

The stories of the exodus from Egypt are promulgated -- along with other stories and genealogies -- as propaganda to cement their position as warrior priest-kings.

This, it seems to me, is the simplest and most mundane explanation for the rise of the Levites (who held power for a millennium) and the existence of the exodus tales.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, I don't see why that is the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation for any propaganda text is that whoever had the power, made up a story to justify it.

I'd also point out that being enslaved by some other nation has been used metaphorically all the way to this day by various people, to describe being conquered or ruled by some other nation. It makes a pretty emotional metaphor and stirs a certain knee-jerk response. Heck, the revolutionary Americans used slavery as a metaphor for Great Britain's power over them.

Plus, generally, the master-slave relationship as a metaphor for who's in charge and who isn't, is so ingrained, that we even talk of master-slave modules in computers.

So we don't really have to look further back than, say, the Amarna letters to see the Canaanites being metaphorically "slaves" to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians building great monuments on the labour of those Canaanites, albeit via taxes. And not only that, but we see it being a lopsided relationship in which, at least under Akhenaten, those vassals actually aren't getting much in return and aren't very happy about it. It's the ideal situation to describe as slavery in emotional propaganda, if you wanted to instigate a revolt.

So it seems to me like an even more Occam conform explanation -- as in, literally involving less entities -- doesn't need anyone coming from Egypt at all. It's that it's really just a metaphor for that crap occupation by Egypt, and getting out of it, e.g., by the people who moved into the hills. Though a lot of people just revolted against Egypt and "got out of Egypt" by getting their lands out of Egyptian suzerainty. If you look at the Hittite takeover, actually there were local revolts and people actually wanting to switch to the Hittites.

And sure enough, some of those would be the rich and powerful (it wouldn't be the slaves and peasants negotiating with the Hittite king), and a lot of those would be descendants of Egyptian families or of governors and representatives of the Pharaoh.

It seems to me like we don't need anyone literally fleeing Egypt there.

 

[Piggy]

It seems to me like we don't need anyone literally fleeing Egypt there.

I am not proposing that anyone "fled" Egypt.

But given the fact that the Levitic propaganda identifies the Levites as coming from Egypt, having Egyptian names, and introducing Egyptian tactics of power, then yes, the simplest explanation is that the Levites did indeed come from Egypt (most likely as descendants of elite captives, as in the later repatriation from Babylon) and used what they had learned to become the power elite among their own people to the north.

This scenario makes sense of the propaganda, including the exodus stories, the stories of the giving of the Law, and the story of the war on Benjamin.

It is a very simple, uncomplicated theory which fits the evidence we have about the Ancient Near East and causes everything to fit together quite nicely.

ETA: If we assert that the Levites did not come from Egypt, then we are left to wonder why they would generate propaganda to explain their Egyptian origins, and why they applied Egyptian power tactics among their own people.

 

[davefoc]

Tim, it seems to me that there's a certain cart-before-the-horse element in this whole string of thought.

The first thing to consider is, what the heck are we reading? Who wrote this story and why?

Once you do that, then a lot of the sleuthing simply becomes irrelevant.

The first 4 books of the Hebrew Bible are, after all, a history of the Levites by the Levites.

And what do we know about them?

• Their earliest recorded leaders have Egyptian names like Phineas, Aaron, and Moses.

• Their own origin story traces them back to Egypt. (Yes, they claim they led all of Israel out of Egypt, but that tale is not credible.)

• They are considered to be ethnically Hebrew. No one ever suggests that they are not. And although they trace themselves back to Egypt, they do not introduce Egyptian writing or religion to Hebrew culture (although their religion is certainly influenced by Egyptian as well as Canaanite religion).

• They held no tribal lands in Israel or Judea.

• They claimed the priesthood -- of one God -- for themselves alone.

• They claim to have introduced the first code of law to the Hebrews, and nobody disputes this. Even the Aaronites who came to oppose the Mushites do not dispute that Moses introduced the law code.

• They sent representatives into all the tribal territories where they were supported by tribute.

• They record a justification story for a war in which they ally with Judah and Ephraim (the strongest of the northern and southern tribes) to depose the Benjaminites.

The most logical explanation for the rise of the Levites is that they were Hebrews living in Egypt, perhaps descended from elites taken captives during one of the long string of clashes between Egypt and Hebrew tribes.

At some point, they return to the Levant, bringing with them some very powerful ideas from Egypt -- monotheism, a central priesthood, and a written code of law supposedly given to their leader by the one true God himself.

They ally with the Ephraimites and Judeans and depose the then-leading tribe of Benjamin.

Moses introduces a written law code which, as was done in other areas of the Ancient Near East, is said to have been revealed to him directly by God.

They promulgate that law, which is interpreted by judges of the various tribes under the watchful eye of the unlanded priestly class.

The stories of the exodus from Egypt are promulgated -- along with other stories and genealogies -- as propaganda to cement their position as warrior priest-kings.

This, it seems to me, is the simplest and most mundane explanation for the rise of the Levites (who held power for a millennium) and the existence of the exodus tales.

My understanding of the idea:
A group of people that were at least partially ethnically Jewish were either captured and brought forcibly into Egypt or migrated voluntarily into Egypt, they migrated out of Egypt into the Judeah/Israel lands, asserted themselves as a priestly class, made some alliances with the locals, the alliance crushed the then ruling tribe of Benjamites and the group that migrated out of Egypt then becomes established as a priestly class throughout Israel and Judea and their religious ideas which were influenced by their time in Egypt becomes the basis of modern Judaism. One of their leaders was Moses during the migration out of Egypt.

When did this happen?

As an aside this is somewhat similar to what I took away from The Bible Unearthed except that movement in and out of Egypt may have been entirely voluntary and it occurred many times driven perhaps by periodic famine in the Judea/Israel area. This idea makes the inspiration of the Exodus a lot less specific than your idea. i.e. people were moving back and forth between Egypt and the Judea/Israel area and these people brought Egyptian cultural/religious ideas with them on their return.

At some time much later long after the specifics of the Egyptian migrations had been lost somebody made up the Moses narrative almost completely with only the barest factual inspiration based on a cultural memory that people from the Israel/Judea area had migrated to and from Egypt.

Tim Callahan suggested that the story may have been created as early as the 850 BCE time frame above. I notice the Wikipedia article puts the creation of the book of Exodus it in the 600 BCE time frame which was consistent with Redford's theory. Exodus is not the only book that contains part of the Exodus story. Is Tim Callahan claiming that the Moses narrative itself might have been included in the Pentateuch at the earlier time but the book Exodus only dates from 600 BCE or that the 600 BCE date for the Exodus book is wrong.

 

[Piggy]

My understanding of the idea:
A group of people that were at least partially ethnically Jewish were either captured and brought forcibly into Egypt or migrated voluntarily into Egypt, they migrated out of Egypt into the Judeah/Israel lands, asserted themselves as a priestly class, made some alliances with the locals, the alliance crushed the then ruling tribe of Benjamites and the group that migrated out of Egypt then becomes established as a priestly class throughout Israel and Judea and their religious ideas which were influenced by their time in Egypt becomes the basis of modern Judaism. One of their leaders was Moses during the migration out of Egypt.

When did this happen?

IIRC, best estimate is sometime in the 1200s BCE.

Although I'll note that it's not entirely their religion that becomes the basis of Judaism. Rather, it's their version of the religion overlaid on the existing Hebraic beliefs. They changed the religion, but did not invent it.

 

[Piggy]

As an aside this is somewhat similar to what I took away from The Bible Unearthed except that movement in and out of Egypt may have been entirely voluntary and it occurred many times driven perhaps by periodic famine in the Judea/Israel area. This idea makes the inspiration of the Exodus a lot less specific than your idea. i.e. people were moving back and forth between Egypt and the Judea/Israel area and these people brought Egyptian cultural/religious ideas with them on their return.

At some time much later long after the specifics of the Egyptian migrations had been lost somebody made up the Moses narrative almost completely with only the barest factual inspiration based on a cultural memory that people from the Israel/Judea area had migrated to and from Egypt.

Well, yes, this certainly was not the only migration of Hebrews in and out of Egypt. But it was a particularly important one.

However, the notion that Moses was invented simply isn't likely.

Rulers in the Ancient Near East always glorified themselves. We have no record of any leader in that time and place claiming that God gave the Law to anyone but himself.

The God-gave-me-the-law trope was intended to solidify the ruler's power.

ETA: However, keep in mind that much of the Moses lore, like our Washington lore, was written later.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . .(major snip) . . . Tim Callahan suggested that the story may have been created as early as the 850 BCE time frame above. I notice the Wikipedia article puts the creation of the book of Exodus it in the 600 BCE time frame which was consistent with Redford's theory. Exodus is not the only book that contains part of the Exodus story. Is Tim Callahan claiming that the Moses narrative itself might have been included in the Pentateuch at the earlier time but the book Exodus only dates from 600 BCE or that the 600 BCE date for the Exodus book is wrong.

A slight correction: I said that, according to Richard Elliott Friedman J was written ca. 850 BCE. It contains a truncated Exodus story, minus the plagues. He also sees P as written during the reign of Hezekiah (reigned 715 - 687 BCE), while most other scholars see it as written during the exile (587 - 538 BCE). P contains all the stuff in Exodus on just how everything it to be made, etc. along with some of the plagues. E, also containing a version ofthe Exodus, including plagues that overlap those of P, would have been written sometime between when J and P were written.

The Torah, blending J,E,P and D, seems to have been complete by ca. 400 BCE.

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim, it seems to me that there's a certain cart-before-the-horse element in this whole string of thought.

The first thing to consider is, what the heck are we reading? Who wrote this story and why?

Once you do that, then a lot of the sleuthing simply becomes irrelevant.

The first 4 books of the Hebrew Bible are, after all, a history of the Levites by the Levites.

And what do we know about them?

• Their earliest recorded leaders have Egyptian names like Phineas, Aaron, and Moses.

• Their own origin story traces them back to Egypt. (Yes, they claim they led all of Israel out of Egypt, but that tale is not credible.)

• They are considered to be ethnically Hebrew. No one ever suggests that they are not. And although they trace themselves back to Egypt, they do not introduce Egyptian writing or religion to Hebrew culture (although their religion is certainly influenced by Egyptian as well as Canaanite religion).

• They held no tribal lands in Israel or Judea.

• They claimed the priesthood -- of one God -- for themselves alone.

• They claim to have introduced the first code of law to the Hebrews, and nobody disputes this. Even the Aaronites who came to oppose the Mushites do not dispute that Moses introduced the law code.

• They sent representatives into all the tribal territories where they were supported by tribute.

• They record a justification story for a war in which they ally with Judah and Ephraim (the strongest of the northern and southern tribes) to depose the Benjaminites.

The most logical explanation for the rise of the Levites is that they were Hebrews living in Egypt, perhaps descended from elites taken captives during one of the long string of clashes between Egypt and Hebrew tribes.

At some point, they return to the Levant, bringing with them some very powerful ideas from Egypt -- monotheism, a central priesthood, and a written code of law supposedly given to their leader by the one true God himself.
They ally with the Ephraimites and Judeans and depose the then-leading tribe of Benjamin.

Moses introduces a written law code which, as was done in other areas of the Ancient Near East, is said to have been revealed to him directly by God.

They promulgate that law, which is interpreted by judges of the various tribes under the watchful eye of the unlanded priestly class.

The stories of the exodus from Egypt are promulgated -- along with other stories and genealogies -- as propaganda to cement their position as warrior priest-kings.

This, it seems to me, is the simplest and most mundane explanation for the rise of the Levites (who held power for a millennium) and the existence of the exodus tales.

Concerning the hilited area. I really doubt that the worship of Yahweh before the exile was monotheistic. Rather, Yahweh had a wife, Asherah, whom his seems to have commandeered from the Canaanite patriarchal deity, El, with whom Yahweh became identified. Along with having a wife, he probably ruled a small pantheon. Even to the degree that certain Deuteronomist reformers wanted Asherah out of the Temple and sought to worship Yahweh only, their faith, for the most part was henotheistic, seeing Yahweh as only ruling a small turf. It's the Exile that seems to have created universal monotheism.

As to the Levites inciting the Ephraimites and Judahites to knock off Benjamin, I thin you're reading stuff into the text. Otherwise I generally agree with you.

 

[davefoc]

delete duplicate post

 

[davefoc]

Well, yes, this certainly was not the only migration of Hebrews in and out of Egypt. But it was a particularly important one.

However, the notion that Moses was invented simply isn't likely.

Hmm, Even the story you tell bears very little resemblance to the standard Moses narrative. It seems like we might be getting into King Arthur territory here. There may have been a man named Moses who was a leader and who lived in Egypt for awhile. Just about the level of detail and knowledge available for the hypothetical historical King Arthur.

The problem, is of course, that Moses, if he existed is only one of 1000's of ancient leaders for which the details of have long since faded into time. The only difference here is that the particular leader got elevated into the heroic figure of religions that most of us have at least a cultural connection to and thus some interest in. That doesn't mean there are any facts available to satisfy our curiosity.

Rulers in the Ancient Near East always glorified themselves. We have no record of any leader in that time and place claiming that God gave the Law to anyone but himself.

The God-gave-me-the-law trope was intended to solidify the ruler's power.

That seems like a good point and I hadn't thought about the idea that the Moses story of divine support wasn't unique.

ETA: However, keep in mind that much of the Moses lore, like our Washington lore, was written later.

Much later it seems. If Tim Callan is right about 850 BCE something like 350 years later. If the Wikipedia article is right perhaps more like 600 years later. Either way, I think we're moving into territory where nothing is knowable and where the probability of the truth of even reasonable guesses is difficult to assess.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'd like to talk a bit about why the Israelites were divided into 12 tribes, or, more correctly 13 tribes, one of which, the Levites, was a priestly tribe - i.e. a 12 tribe system with an extra priestly tribe, supported by the others. The sons of Jacob / Israel do not constitute the only 12 to 13 tribe group in Grenesis. For example the southern Arabian tribes, identifiable from such names as Ophir and Sheba, constitute another such system(Gen. 11:26 - 29):

Joktan became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerash, Hadoram, Uzual, Diklah Obal, Abimael,, Sheba Ophir, Havilah and Jobab.all these were the sons of Joktan.

Yet another such 12 to 13 tribe system is found among Abraham's eastern relatives (Gen. 22:20 - 24):

Now after these things it was told Abraham, "Behold, Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor: Uz the first-born, Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph and Bethuel. Bethuel became the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham's brother. Moreover, his concubine, whose name was Reumah, bore Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Macah.

In fact, amphictyonic leagues were all either 12 or six member confederations. For example, consider the Greek Delphic League. It consisted of the Oetaeans, the Boeotians of Thebes, Dolopes, the Dorians of Sparta, the Ionians of Athens, the Phthian Achaeans, Locrians, Magnesians, Malians, Perrhaebians, Phocians of Delphi and the Thessalians. Members of the league could go to war with each other, but no member could be wiped out in such a war, and no tribe's or city's water supply could be cut in such a war. The provision that no member could be allowed to be wiped out in wars between league members calls to mind the aftermath of the Benjamite war at the end of Judges, when the surviving Benjamite men are allowed to capture wives from among the virgins of Shiloh dancing in the vineyards in a harvest festival (Jud. 21:19 - 23).

It's significant that the virgins captured to help (along with those captured from Jabesh-Gilead) save the tribe of Benjamin from extinction come from Shiloh. Amphictyonic leagues were loose defensive confederations centered on religious shrines. Thus, the Delphic league was centered on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. The Israelite league was centered on Shiloh, where the ark of the covenant resided. In 1 Samuel, a crisis is precipitated when the ark of the covenant, taken from Shiloh into battle, is captured by the Philistines.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

About the 'historical Moses'... right. It's downright amazing how much one can confabulate out of how little actual data

Let's look at the proposed elements there:

- that somehow it needed to justify just the Levites as coming from Egypt: actually, everyone came from Egypt in that story. Every single jew. Narrowing it down to just justifying the Levites' claim to power is not just needing to ignore the fact that there is no corroboration for that, but even go against the document being taken as evidence.

- that those brought monotheism out of Egypt: that's plain old superfluous. There was no need for anyone to bring monotheism circa 1200 BCE, as the whole zone had been ruled by, you know, Akhenaten before that. Plus it's right across the border from the monolatry of Marduk in Mesopotamia, which also already existed and was expanding fast in the same time period.

Plus, there is no evidence that the Jews actually were strict monotheists until much later. What they had was proclaiming the primacy or even supremacy of their own God... same as everyone else was doing all over the darned place. We have prayers on tablets proclaiming the supreme power of one Mesopotamian god, and stopping just one step short of flat out denying all others, for literally every single one of those gods, centuries before the supposed date of Moses.

Ditto for the Egyptians. Every god did effectively everything for its followers, and if you look at that negative confession one is supposed to do before Ossiris, one is only required to not have denied the patron god of that city.

Indeed, according to some, following just one god, or one god-and-goddess family, is the natural thing to do for humans, because gods are effectively surrogates for one's parents. And nobody wants to be the son of two dozen fathers

So really, there was nothing for those to bring over.

- Egyptian names: actually there is a rather strange lack of those.

Eleazar is a Jewish name meaning "God has helped" or "God's assistance." It was also a very common Jewish name, anyway, in the period when that fiction was written and ever since.

Aaron is hypothesized to possibly come from an Egyptian name, but it also has at least three possible purely Jewish origins. And again, it was and still is a very common Jewish name regardless of what origin it may have been. (Sorta like if I were to write today about some guy called Matthew, it would be silly to proclaim that he must be a Hebrew just because the name has that origin.)

Phinehas... ah, Phinehas. Now we're getting somewhere more interesting. Phinehas is POSSIBLY a corruption of an Egyptian name, but actually we can't be too sure of that, not the least because we don't know the vowels used in the Egyptian name. And it would still be a corruption either way. But again, even here there are equally possible Hebrew roots, and the traditional explanation of his name is based on one such root.

It also doesn't help that the supposed Egyptian name isn't a name that any Egyptian is ever recorded as having, nor one which any Egyptian would actually give his kid. It's just a combination of two words that may (or may not) have had the right vowels in Egyptian to sound that way when combined. Why? Because "Pa-nehasi" actually means "the southerner", i.e., as Egyptians used that term, "the Nubian". It's not clear at all why would someone give his kid such a name, not the least because we have a supposed name that includes the definite article. "Pa" (well, "p", since we don't know the vowel) was literally "the". Would you NAME your kid something like "the Mexican"? Well, neither did the Egyptians. We don't really know any other name that was built that way..

But the bigger problem with Phinehas is that he's the son of Eleazar, who has a purely Hebrew name. So it's like, you know, he suddenly just becomes Egyptian for no explained reason, if you want to make him Egyptian. It's like saying that if an American guy called Mike has a son and names him Ivan, then that shows that the son is a Russian. It just doesn't work that way.

And so on.

- 'but whoever made that up would want the power and glory for himself'... No, not really. Hyping a mythical or legendary ancestor was just as common, if not more, and you can see even the Jews doing it in Abraham and a few others. And especially for establishing a claim on behalf of a whole group, going back to an ancestor was really the only way to do it. And again, it was a popular explanation both for groups' claims to glory (think, the Greeks hyping the supposed ancestor Hercules, or Romans hyping Romulus out of proportion) and even for explaining traits of animal species. E.g., inventing some memorable incident in which an ancestor of the zebras gets his stripes, as an explanation for why the Zebras have stripes.

- 'there is no record of anyone in the area at the time doing that'... actually, there pretty much is no record of anyone in the area around 1200 BCE claiming anything. The Archaeological record is rather opaque at the end of the Bronze Age, and written records even more so, not just there, but pretty much everywhere around the Mediterranean except Egypt and Mesopotamia, because, you know, there was a bit of a population migration and collapse of civilization going on at the time.

But then assuming something just because there's a lack of evidence for the opposite is kinda silly anyway. I mean, nobody else claimed to have slain the dragons in Skyrim for me, but that doesn't make it a real event

What we do know however is that the people that came on top in those migrations, routinely DID invent claims in the name of an ancestor.

E.g., the Dorian Greeks also appear out of nowhere after the collapse at the end of the bronze age, as having displaced the old Mycenaean civilization, and sure enough they invent a mythical ancestor (Hercules) that did wonders of might all over the places they had conquered, and has an impossible history that can't possibly have happened that way.

E.g., the Romans may have come from somewhere else (they don't quite fit in with the Etruscans around) or maybe not, but they invent a convoluted historical claim that doesn't just make them come from Troy, but be specifically descendants of Aeneas. (Or at least Romulus and Remus were, plus the whole gens of the Julii, at the very least.) Not only they claim a historical ancestor that's actually a fiction character in a novel, but it's a physical impossibility because it needs 3 generations to span 5 centuries. So, yeah, there you go, that's an invented glorious ancestor, even if they just hijacked a novel character rather than invent it from scratch.

Rejecting something as common just because there is a general lack of evidence of anything whatsoever in a particular time and place, is exactly an argument from ignorance.

 

[TimCallahan]

I wanted to mention one last thing about amphictyonic leagues.Their need to have 12 members (or 12plus a priestly 13th. tribe) meant that artifice had to be used if there were more or less tribes than 12 handy. Simeon, for example, seems to have been more of a region in Judah, rather than an actual tribe. Since amphictyonic tribes or cities were close neighbors, such a league is most likely to have formed in Canaan, after a fair amount of mixing between disparate tribes. That is, the league was configured on the spot.

As to Hans' dispute with the idea that the Levites actually came from Egypt, while I suspect they, or a core group within them, did, It's equally possible that the Levites made it up. Its really rather a minor concern: Dever's Proto-Israelites seem to have been homegrown.

it's interesting to note that the Romans weren't the only ones claim Trojan ancestry. So, also did the Britons, Danes, and Franks, among others.

 

[Piggy]

Concerning the hilited area. I really doubt that the worship of Yahweh before the exile was monotheistic. Rather, Yahweh had a wife, Asherah, whom his seems to have commandeered from the Canaanite patriarchal deity, El, with whom Yahweh became identified. Along with having a wife, he probably ruled a small pantheon. Even to the degree that certain Deuteronomist reformers wanted Asherah out of the Temple and sought to worship Yahweh only, their faith, for the most part was henotheistic, seeing Yahweh as only ruling a small turf. It's the Exile that seems to have created universal monotheism.

As to the Levites inciting the Ephraimites and Judahites to knock off Benjamin, I thin you're reading stuff into the text. Otherwise I generally agree with you.

Sounds like you're collapsing popular religion and state religion here.

The Levites, as far as we know, were monotheistic, or henotheistic in the sense that they believed that other tribes were protected by lesser gods, but that didn't mean that the general population shared their views. In some form, the consort and the heavenly council lived on for centuries, even after they had been purged from state religion. In fact, we know that such "heresies" existed at the time of the Hezekian reforms.

So I agree that universal monotheism is a post-exilic phenomenon, but that's actually irrelevant to the scenario I'm describing.

The purpose of state monotheism (or henotheism which was effective monotheism within the tribal confederacy) was not to win the hearts and minds of the peasantry, but rather to consolidate power, as was done by Akhenaten in order to ensure that he continued to hold power after his father's death and that the empire wouldn't break apart as it did later in Israel/Judah under Solomon.

As for the justification story about the war against Benjamin, tell me, why does this exist if there was no coup to justify? Rulers seldom bother to create propaganda to justify events which did not occur.

 

[Piggy]

- that somehow it needed to justify just the Levites as coming from Egypt: actually, everyone came from Egypt in that story. Every single jew. Narrowing it down to just justifying the Levites' claim to power is not just needing to ignore the fact that there is no corroboration for that, but even go against the document being taken as evidence.

Hans, if you want me to engage in a conversation with you, you're going to have to read what I actually post.

I know what the story says.

But there's simply no evidence that this story is accurate, even in places where we would expect to find such evidence if it were true.

There is evidence, however, that the Levites were Egyptian Hebrews. And it makes perfect sense that such a group would be able to supplant the Benjaminites and take control of the tribal confederation.

And given the situation, it makes perfect sense that they would disseminate propaganda in which they claim to have been the deliverers of all of Israel.

In short, your objection here is not an actual problem.

I'm happy to have discussions with you, Hans, but only if you take the time to read and comprehend what I'm obviously saying. Otherwise, I'm just not going to respond going forward.