Dear
Brother Patrick
The
article you so kindly sent me:
ABRAHAM
- THE FRIEND OF GOD.
- THE FRIEND OF GOD.
Old Testament Series Number 2.
By Father Felix, O.F.M. Cap., L.S.S.
CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY of Ireland No. Dd1111 (1946).
basically reproduces the biblical account of the great man, Abraham,
preceded by the story of Noah and his descendants down to Abraham. Nothing
remarkable about that in the sense that one can read all of this in many
commentaries. (That is to take nothing away from the very remarkable stories of
Noah and Abraham, of course).
Where Father Felix becomes more interesting to me is in his, albeit very
brief, attempt to align the story of Abraham with known secular (ancient)
history (“now it is opportune to attempt to give
these events their place in universal history”). In a
quick read I picked up, according to Fr. Felix:
-
Three Ur dynasties between
the Deluge and Abraham in the 3rd millennium;
-
Hammurabi of Babylon as the
biblical Amraphel; and
-
an Elamite invasion of Palestine
in c. 2300 BC.
Let us look at each of these in turn.
Ur of the
Chaldees
Re the city of Ur, Fr. Felix has written:
The site of Ur in southern Babylonia or Chaldea has
been identified as modern Mugheir, and thoroughly explored in recent times. And
few places have yielded better archaeological results. It was a famous
city-state widely known among the Babylonians themselves, and the seat of the
worship of Nannar — the moon-god. Three dynasties of kings had ruled in Ur
between the Deluge and the third millennium B.C. (Footnote: VERBUM DOMINI,
Volume 3, 1923 (Rome) page 218.)
It had reached a high peak of civilisation in
Abraham's time; it was a commercial and business centre; there was a developed
architecture; it housed refinement, wealth and luxury. (Footnote: ASSYRIA,
by W. H. Boulton, in The Ancient Lands and Bible Series, Number 4, pages
38-40. Also, THE NEW KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT, by Sir Charles Marston,
F.S.A. London, 1933, pages 49-50.)
(Ignoring
here the controversy about whether Abraham’s Ur was the site in southern
Babylonia). Mention is made here of Sir Charles Marston. Now, his promising
sounding book The Bible is True (1934)
was one of the first books that I read back in 1981 when I began my quest to
find Moses in history. I then naïvely thought that a book with a name such as
this, by an author of such repute, would immediately provide me with the answer
to my query. It didn’t. It was only after I had read Donovan Courville’s
two-volume set The Exodus Problem and its
Ramifications (1971) that I became aware of the fact that the conventional
Egyptian chronology (as largely followed by the likes of Marston and Werner
Keller) did not align at all with the history recorded in the Bible.
Fr.
Felix appears to have some awareness of the problem when he writes, regarding
Hammurabi of Babylon and the received Egyptian chronology:
…. the confidence with which authors spoke of the date
of Hammurabi's reign in Babylon has been shaken in recent years. (See: INSTITUTIONES
BIBLICAE, Volume 2; Book 1, Authored by Augustino Bea, S.J. Rome, 1928,
page 163.) Hence, the results sometimes claimed for this method are gravely
exaggerated. The same is true of that other method of correlating data from
Egyptian chronology with events recorded in the Book of Exodus.
But
Fr. Felix still basically proposes alignments of the Abrahamic era with
conventionally dated events. No one can blame him for this as early as 1946.
The
trouble is that Catholic scholars today, now more than 60 years later, have not
moved an inch away from this arid methodology.
With
good intentions, presumably, early archaeologists of a biblical persuasion
dated the “high peak of [Ur] civilization” (Fr. Felix), Ur III - as
excavated by the famous archaeologist, Sir Leonard Woolley - to the time of
Abram (Abraham), c. 2000 BC. And, the semi-nomadic Middle Bronze I [MBI] people
of archaeology, who entered Palestine, are considered by some to be the actual
nomadic people connected with Abraham’s family.
Ur III actually
dates many centuries later than 2000 BC. And the MBI people are not those of
Abraham’s era but are clearly the Israelite nomads of the Exodus and Conquest
era, c. 1400 BC.
Hammurabi
of Babylon
Father Felix tells of an old view associating the
biblical Amraphel of Shinar (southern Babylonia) with the great Hammurabi of
Babylon:
The mention above of Amraphel, ally of Chodorlahomor,
reminds us that now it is opportune to attempt to give these events their place
in universal history. Some authors (such as, for example, W. H. Boulton, in BABYLONIA,
The Ancient Lands and Bible Series, Number 3, pages 47-48, as also Sir
Charles Marston, F.S.A., in THE NEW KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT,
London. 1933, pages 76-77) have identified this Amraphel with the famous
Hammurabi (spelled also Hamnizirapi and Khammurabi) of the
Babylonian monuments, and then sought to establish a chronology from Babylonian
history. The identification of the names, however, is not universally accepted.
(See P. Hetzenauer, in his COMMENTARIUS, on page 240, or see Hasting’s DICTIONARY
OF THE BIBLE, under the word Amraphel.)
An
article that I used in
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA
A Revision of BC and AD Time
tells
the true story of the coalition of four kings as well pre-dating Hammurabi:
"....For many decades the critics of the Old Testament seemed to prevail; then, as the nineteenth century was drawing to a close, the scholarly and religious worlds were astounded by the discovery of Babylonian tablets naming Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal in a tale not unlike the biblical one.
"The discovery was announced in a lecture by Theophilus Pinches to the Victoria Institute, London, in 1897. Having examined several tablets belonging to the Spartoli Collection in the British Museum, he found that they describe a war of wide-ranging magnitude, in which a king of Elam, Kudur-laghamar, led an alliance of rulers that included one named Eri-aku and another named Tud-ghula - names that easily could have been transformed into Hebrew as Khedor-la’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal. Accompanying his published lecture with a painstaking transcript of the cuneiform writing and a translation thereof, Pinches could confidently claim that the biblical tale had indeed been supported by an independent Mesopotamian source.
"With justified excitement the Assyriologists of that time agreed with Pinches reading of the cuneiform names. The tablets indeed spoke of "Kudur-Laghamar, king of the land of Elam"; all scholars agreed that it was a perfect Elamite royal name, the prefix Kudur ("Servant") having been a component in the names of several Elamite kings, and Laghamar being the Elamite epithet-name for a certain deity. It was agreed that the second name, spelled Eri-e-a-ku in the Babylonian cuneiform script, stood for the original Sumerian ERI.AKU, meaning "Servant of the god Aku," Aku being a variant of the name of Nannar/Sin. It is known from a number of inscriptions that Elamite rulers of Larsa bore the name "Servant of Sin," and there was therefore little difficulty in agreeing that the biblical Eliasar, the royal city of the king Ariokh, was in fact Larsa. There was also unanimous agreement among the scholars for accepting that the Babylonian text’s Tud-ghula was the equivalent of the biblical "Tidhal, king of Go’im"; and they agreed that by Go’im the Book of Genesis referred to the "nation-hordes" whom the cuneiform tablets listed as allies of Khedorla’omer.
"Here, then, was the missing proof - not only of the veracity of
the Bible and of the existence of Abraham, but also of an international event
in which he had been involved!
"....The second discovery was announced by Vincent Scheil, who reported that he had found among the tablets in the Imperial Ottoman Museum in Constantinople a letter from the well-known Babylonian King Hammurabi, which mentions the very same Kudur-laghamar! Because the letter was addressed to a king of Larsa, Father Scheil concluded that the three were contemporaries and thus matched three of the four biblical kings of the East - Hammurabi being none other than "Amraphael king of Shin’ar."
"....However, when subsequent research convinced most scholars that Hammurabi reigned much later (from 1792 to 1750 B.C., according to The Cambridge Ancient History), the synchronization seemingly achieved by Scheil fell apart, and the whole bearing of the discovered inscriptions - even those reported by Pinches - came into doubt. Ignored were the pleas of Pinches that no matter with whom the three named kings were to be identified - that even if Khedorla’omer, Ariokh, and Tidhal of the cuneiform texts were not contemporaries of Hammurabi - the text’s tale with its three names was still "a remarkable historical coincidence, and deserves recognition as such." In 1917, Alfred Jeremias (Die sogenanten Kedorlaomer-Texte) attempted to revive interest in the subject; but the scholarly community preferred to treat the Spartoli tablets with benign neglect.
"....Yet the scholarly consensus that the biblical tale and the Babylonian texts drew on a much earlier, common source impels us to revive the plea of Pinches and his central argument: How can cuneiform texts, affirming the biblical background of a major war and naming three of the biblical kings, be ignored? Should the evidence - crucial, as we shall show, to the understanding of fateful years - be discarded simply because Amraphel was not Hammurabi?
"The answer is that the Hammurabi letter found by Scheil should not have sidetracked the discovery reported by Pinches, because Scheil misread the letter. According to his rendition, Hammurabi promised a reward to Sin-Idinna, the king of Larsa, for his "heroism on the day of Khedorla’omer." This implied that the two were allies in a war against Khedorla’omer and thus contemporaries of that king of Elam.
It was on this point that Scheil’s find was discredited, for it contradicted both the biblical assertion that the three kings were allies and known historical facts: Hammurabi treated Larsa not as an ally but as an adversary, boasting that he "overthrew Larsa in battle," and attacked its sacred precinct "with the mighty weapon which the gods had given him."
"A close examination of the actual text of Hammurabi’s letter reveals that in his eagerness to prove the Hammurabi-Amraphel identification, Father Scheil reversed the letter’s meaning: Hammurabi was not offering as a reward to return certain goddesses to the sacred precinct (the Emutbal) of Larsa; rather, he was demanding their return to Babylon from Larsa.
"....The incident of the abduction of the goddesses had thus occurred in earlier times; they were held captive in the Emutbal "from the days of Khedorla’omer"; and Hammurabi was now demanding their return to Babylon, from where Khedorla’omer had taken them captive. This can only mean that Khedorla’omer’s days were long before Hammurabi’s time.
"Supporting our reading of the Hammurabi letter found by Father Scheil in the Constantinople Museum is the fact that Hammurabi repeated the demand for the return of the goddesses to Babylon in yet another stiff message to Sin-Idinna, this time sending it by the hand of high military officers. This second letter is in the British Museum (No. 23,131) and its text was published by L.W. King in The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.
"....That the goddesses were to be returned from Larsa to Babylon is made clear in the letter’s further instructions.
"....It is thus clear from these letters that Hammurabi - a foe, not an ally, of Larsa - was seeking restitution for events that had happened long before his time, in the days of Kudur-Laghamar, the Elamite regent of Larsa. The texts of the Hammurabi letters thus affirm the existence of Khedorla-omer and of Elamite reign in Larsa ("Ellasar") and thus of key elements in the biblical tale. ….
[End of article]
Hammurabi
has, over the years, been dated everywhere from c. 2400 BC to 1400 BC,
prompting Donovan Courville to write of the king as "floating about in a
liquid chronology of Chaldea" (The Exodus Problem and its
Ramifications, Vol. II, p. 289.). In the Introduction to my article,
Hammurabi the Great King of Babylon was
King Solomon
I
wrote on this messy dating situation:
Introduction
There has been a great deal of divergence of opinion over the years as
to the date to be assigned to Hammurabi, so much so that Courville, who
radically revised Hammurabi down to c. 1400 BC, wrote in 1971 of Hammurabi as
"floating about in a liquid chronology of Chaldea" [20]. According
to Kevin Knight in his New Advent offline article, entitled
"Hammurabi".[25]:
The King-lists would suggest 2342 B.C. as the date of [Hammurabi's]
accession; but it is now commonly believed that these lists need to be
interpreted, for from the "Chronicles concerning early Babylonian
Kings", published by L. W. King (1907), it appears that the first and
second Babylonian dynasties were not successive, but in part contemporary; the
first kings of the second dynasty (that of Shesh-ha) ruled not at Babylon, but
on "the Sea-country". Other indications furnished by Nabonidus,
Assurbanipal, and Berosus lead us to lower the above date. Thureau-Daugin and
Ungnad place the reign of Hammurabi between 2130 and 2088 B.C.; Tofteen adopts
the dates 2121-2066 B.C.; King suggests 1990-1950 B.C.; Father Scheil, O.P.,
says 2056 B.C. is the probable date of the king's accession, which Father
Dhorme places in 2041.
[End of quote]
In other words, the conventional chronologists have really had no idea
in which era to place the great Hammurabi.
[End of quote]
My
own strong view on this (see article) is that Hammurabi was a contemporary of
the great king Solomon (c. 950 BC conventional dating), and I actually believe
that Hammurabi was in fact king Solomon
himself ruling over Babylon.
Hammurabi
has been aligned with the Middle Bronze Era of archaeology on the flimsiest of
pretexts and he needs to be re-located to the cosmopolitan era of King Solomon
in the Late Bronze Age.
Elamite
Invasion of Palestine
Father
Felix writes optimistically:
Independently of the identification of Amraphel with
Hammurabi, however, science corroborates the truth of the Elamite invasion of
Palestine above. About 2330 B.C. the Sumerian empire was conquered by the
Elamites and Amorhites in combination, "and the control of Mesopotamia
passed into the hands of the Semitic dynasties of Isin, Larsa and
Babylon." (See: THE AGE OF THE GODS, A study of Culture in Prehistoric
Europe and the Ancient East, by Christopher Dawson, London 1928, page 120.)
By now we can be
sure that the expansive date of 2300 BC is going to be way too early, but, that
said, where is the historical and archaeological evidence that Palestine was
invaded in this case?
Now, here is the
true historical and archaeological era for the invasion of the Sumerian
coalition of Chedorlaomer and his mates into Abrahamic Palestine:
An Archaeology for Abraham
and its Effect on
Conventional Chronology
by
Damien F. Mackey
I have often referred to, or quoted from, Dr. John
Osgood’s important article, “Times of Abraham” (Ex Nihilo T.J., Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87), in which he
archaeologically nails Abram’s four Mesopotamian contemporaries (as named in
Genesis 14:1) - in relation to En-geddi - to the Late Chalcolithic/Ghassul IV
phase of Palestine. Osgood had concluded that one of the caves in the region,
called the “Cave of the Treasure”, was where the local Amorites had stashed
their possessions, as itemised by Pessah Bar-Adon who published details of this
cave: “… axes and chisels; hammers; ‘mace
heads’; hollow stands decorated with knobs, branches, birds, and animals such
as deer, ibex, buffalo, wild goats, and eagle; ‘horns’ … smooth and elaborately
ornamented 'crowns'; small baskets; a pot; a statuette with a human face;
sceptres; flag poles; an ivory box; perforated utensils made … from
hippopotamus tusks; and more”. (Bar-Adon, P., 1980. The Cave of the Treasure, Exploration Society,
Jerusalem. As cited by Osgood, p. 82.)
Bar-Adon, Osgood said, queried the reasons for the
articles in this context as if somebody had left them there and had intended to
return, but was not able to:
"What induced the owners of this treasure to hide it hurriedly away
in the cave? And what was the event that prevented them from taking the
treasure out of its concealment and restoring it to its proper place? And what
caused the sudden destruction of the Chalcolithic settlements in the Judean
Desert and in other regions of Palestine" ….
(Bar-Adon, P., 1962. Israel
Exploration Journal, 12: 218-9).
Osgood firstly after that showed how this En-geddi
culture linked with Ghassul IV, sill in Palestine (op. cit., ibid.):
The remarkable thing about this culture also was
that it was very similar, if not the same culture, to that found at a place in
the southern Jordan Valley called Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of
this culture), and also resembles the culture of Beersheba. The culture can in
fact be called 'Ghassul culture' and specifically Ghassul IV.
The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans
Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba and the rest of the Negev as well as
from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at the same time. It is remarkable
when looked at on the map that this disappearance of the Ghassul IV culture
corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by the Mesopotamian
confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates its culture
at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization,
Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar.
If that be the case, then we can answer Bar-Adon's
question very positively. The reason the people did not return to get their
goods was that they had been destroyed by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia,
in approximately 1,870 B.C. [Osgood’s date, not mine] in the days of Abraham.
Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an
isolated context, this may be possible to accept, but many might ask: What
about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others may ask: What does this do to
Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need to be asked concerning
the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for the Philistines were
closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis 20). So we must
search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately the
end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will be
faced.
Then, next, Osgood showed how Ghassul IV in turn
connected up archaeologically with Mesopotamia (ibid., pp. 82-84):
THE MESOPOTAMIAN COMPLEX OF
CHEDORLAOMER
Ghassul IV corresponds in Mesopotamia to the period
known as the Jemdat-Nasr/Uruk period, otherwise called Protoliterate (because
it was during this period that the archaeologists found the first evidence of
early writing). Ghassul IV also corresponds to the last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or
pre-Dynastic period …. Let us look, therefore, at both of these geographically
and archaeologically, and see what we find.
Uruk is so called because it refers to a culture
associated with the archaeological site called Warka (Uruk of Mesopotamian
history or biblical Erech - Genesis 10:10) in the land of Sumer or biblical
Shinar … and we note that one of the kings of the Mesopotamian confederacy came
from Shinar, namely Amraphel,
Jemdat Nasr is a site in northern Sumer, northeast
of Babylon …. It is a site that was found to have a pottery with similarities
to the culture of Elam and corresponding in time to the later phases of the
Uruk culture.
We have in Mesopotamia, therefore, archaeological
evidence that there was a period in which the Uruk culture, and an Elamite
culture typified by Jemdat Nasr, were in some sort of combination, and this
corresponds to the period in Palestine when the Ghassul culture disappeared.
The writing of this period does not allow us to recognise at this point any
particular kings from contemporary records for it is undeciphered, but all that
is known archaeologically is in agreement with the possibility of a combine of
nations of the description of Genesis 14 existing. Considering the war-like attitudes of
Sumer and Elam in later years this is all the more remarkable, for no other
period of Sumer/Elamite relationship
accepts the possibility of such a semi-benevolent relationship.
Archaeology in Iran, in the plain of Susiana, has
demonstrated a resurgent Elamite culture contemporary with Jemdat Nasr in
Mesopotamia and this fits the biblical suggestion of a dominant Chedorlaomer
(Genesis 14). ….
[End of quote]
Having determined all of this, Osgood now turns his
attention towards Egypt: (ibid., pp.
84-85):
BUT EGYPT!
At this stage there will be
many objections to the hypothesis here presented, for it is totally
contradictory to the presently held Egyptian chronology of the ancient world. However,
I would remind my reader that the Egyptian chronology is not established,
despite claims to the contrary. It has many speculative points within it. Let
us continue to see if there is any correspondence, for if Abraham was alive in
the days of the Ghassul IV culture, then he was alive in the days of the
Gerzean culture of pre-Dynastic Egypt, possibly living into the days of the
first Dynasty of Egypt.
The correspondence between this period in Palestine
and in Egypt is very clear, and has been solidly established, particularly by
the excavations at Arad by Ruth Amiram … and at Tel Areini by S. Yeivin. ….
Such a revised chronology as here presented would
allow Abraham to be in contact with the earliest kings of Dynasty I and the
late pre-Dynastic kings, and this would slice a thousand years off the
presently held chronology of Egypt. To many the thought would be too radical to
contemplate. The author here insists that it must be contemplated. Only so will
the chronology of the ancient world be put into proper perspective. Long as the
task may take, and however difficult the road may be, it must be undertaken.
In order to support the present revised chronology
here held, the author sites another correspondence archaeologically, and this
concerns the Philistines and Egypt.
[This section by Osgood, some of whose argument I
shall be modifying and also developing further on, comes from ibid., pp. 85-86]:
THE PHILISTINE QUESTION
Genesis 20 makes it clear that Abraham was in
contact with the Philistines, yet the accepted chronological record presently
held does not recognise Philistines being in the land of Philistia at any time
corresponding with the days of Abraham. Yet the Bible is adamant.
The Scripture is clear that the Philistines were in
Canaan by the time of Abraham … or at least around the area of Gerar between
Kadesh and Shur (Genesis 20:1), and Beersheba (Genesis 21:32) …. A king called Abimelech was present, and his
military chief was Phicol (Genesis 21:22).
The land was called the Land of the Philistines
(Genesis 21:32). According
to Genesis 10:14, the Philistines were
descendants of one Egyptian ancestor, Casluhim, but apparently they dwelt in
the region occupied by Caphtor which was apparently the coastlands around the
delta region. Now many attempts have been made to associate Caphtor with Crete,
but the attempt is strained and unsubstantiated.
[Bill Cooper, in After the Flood (pp. 191 & 193), has suggested instead that
Capthor’s descendants pertain to the Kaptara of the Assyrian inscriptions, whilst
Anamim, another son of Mizraïm, are the adjacent A-na-mi; both in
Phoenicia, not Crete].
Osgood continues (op. cit., pp. 85-86):
…. We have placed the end
of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans-Jordan and Taleilat Ghassul at
approximately 1870 B.C., being
approximately at Abraham's 80th year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would
follow this, significantly for our discussions. Stratum V therefore at early
Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and
the next stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870
B.C. This is a new culture significantly different from Stratum V.
Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with
the name of Narmer (First Dynasty of Egypt) … and she dates Stratum IV to the
early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part of Canaan EB I. Amiram
feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum V (Chalcolithic)
at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad. …. However, this is based on the
assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of Canaan's history, long time
periods which are here rejected.
The chronological conclusion is strong that
Abraham's life-time corresponds to the Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least
a portion of Dynasty 1 in Egypt, which equals Ghassul IV through to EB I
Palestine. The possibilities for the Egyptian king in the Abrahamic narrative
are therefore:
1. A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
2. Menes or Narmer, be they separate
or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).
Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a
late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king of northern Egypt, just before the unification
under Menes.
Thus the Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C. Clearly, if
this were the case, by this scheme the Philistines were in Canaan already, and
must therefore have at least begun their
migration in the late Chalcolithic of Egypt and Palestine.
Therefore, we need to look in southwest Canaan for
evidence of Egyptian (cum Philistine) migration, beginning in the late
Chalcolithic and possibly reaching into EB I (depending on the cause and
rapidity of migration), in order to define the earliest Philistine settlement
of Canaan from Egyptian stock. Is there such evidence? The answer is a clear
and categorical YES.
Amiram, Beit-Ariah and Glass … discussed the same
period in relationship between Canaan and Egypt. So did Oren. ….
Of the period Oren says:
"Canaanite Early Bronze I-II and Egyptian late pre-Dynastic and
early Dynastic periods". …. He says of the findings in Canaan:
"The majority of Egyptian vessels belong to the First Dynasty repertoire while a few sherds can be assigned with certainty to the late pre-Dynastic period." (emphasis mine) …. He continues:
"The occurrence of
Egyptian material which is not later than the First Dynasty alongside EB A I-II
pottery types has been noted in surface collections and especially in
controlled excavations in southern Canaan. This indicates that the appearance
and distinction of the material of First Dynasty in northern Sinai and southern Canaan should be viewed as one related
historical phenomenon." (emphasis mine) ….
The area surveyed was between Suez and Wadi
El-Arish. EB I-II had intensive settlement in this area.
He continues further:
"Furthermore, the wide distribution of Egyptian material and the somewhat permanent nature
of the sites in Sinai and southern
Canaan can no longer be viewed as the results of trade relations only. In
all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way
into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian
domain and its resources were exploited on a large
scale."
(emphasis mine) ….
And again:
"The contacts which began in pre-Dynastic, times, were most
intensive during the First Dynasty Period ….
Ram Gopha … is bolder about this event or
phenomenon, insisting on it being a migration:
"Today we seem to be justified in assuming some kind of immigration of people from Egypt to southern Canaan. . ." ….
Further:
"...the Egyptian migration during the First Dynasty period may be
seen as an intensification of previously existing relationships between the two
countries. These relations had already
begun in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period but reached sizable proportions
only in the Late Pre-Dynastic period" (first phases of Palestinian EB 1). (emphasis
mine) ….
[My comment] What this could mean in my context is
that, after the defeat of the Mesopotamian collation, which had controlled
Palestine, the contemporary ruler of Egypt, the biblical Abimelech, moved into
the vacuum. Or, as Oren says: “In all
likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into
Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain and its resources were exploited on a large scale."
Osgood continues:
The testimony is clear. Excavation at Tel Areini
identifies such an Egyptian migration and settlement starting in the
Chalcolithic period. …. There was definitely a migration of Egyptian people of
some sort from northern Egypt into southern Palestine, and particularly the
region that was later known as Philistia." ….
The testimony of Scripture is clear that there were
Philistines who came from Egypt into Palestine in the days of Abraham. This
revised chronology identifies such a migration in the days of the Ghassulians,
who I insist, perished during the early days of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan.
This period must then be grossly redated in accordance with biblical
expectations, instead of evolutionary assumptions.
Osgood concludes this wonderful paper with the
following (p. 87):
SUMMARY
In summary, Abraham entered the land of Canaan at
approximately 1875 B.C. In his days there was a settlement of Amorites in
En-gedi, identified here with the Ghassul IV people. This civilization was ended
by the attack of four Mesopotamian monarchs in a combined confederation of
nations, here placed in the Uruk-Jemdat Nasr period in Mesopotamia. They were a
significant force in ending the Chalcolithic of Palestine as we understand it
archaeologically, and Abraham and his army were a significant force in ending
the Jemdat Nasr domination of Mesopotamia, and thus the Chalcolithic of
Mesopotamia, by their attack on these four Mesopotamian monarchs as they were
returning home. Egypt was just about to enter its great dynastic period, and
was beginning to consolidate into a united kingdom, when from northern Egypt a
surge of Egyptian stock, including the Philistines, moved north into southern
Palestine to settle, as well as to trade, identified in a number sites in that
region (most notably in the strata of Tel Areini, Level VI then V) as the
Philistines with whom Abraham was able to talk face to face. The biblical
narrative demands a redating of the whole of ancient history, as currently
recognised, by something like a one thousand year shortening - a formidable
claim and a formidable investigation, but one that must undertaken.
[End of article]
The brilliant
research of Dr. John Osgood here, to nail the Abrahamic era to a given
archaeological phase, is what I believe our Catholic scholars of biblical
history are now long overdue to start doing, instead of offering the faithful
scraps of useless fare.
Damien Mackey.
No comments:
Post a Comment