Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Yes, Jim, that was intended to be to the list, thank you. But you're wrong
about Amon, Ra and Aten. Amon/Amun and Re/Ra were the two often-identified
sun-gods, long considered the patron deity of the kings. Aten was also a
son-god, but he was claimed to be different. Re/Ra was NOT used for Aten. So
any references to Re actually point AWAY from the rule of Akhenaten. 

 

Besides which, the whole Akhenaten – monotheism idea is highly exaggerated.
Amenhotep IV, AKA Akhenaten, was not a monotheist. He never denied the
existence of other gods. He simply transferred Royal support from the
all-powerful priests of Amun/Amon/Re/Ra to the priests of Aten that he
appointed. A brilliant political move.  The whole "monotheism" thing is in
the minds of early scholars of Egypt who looked for the Bible everywhere,

 

 

Yigal Levin  

 

  _____  

From: JimStinehart AT aol.com [mailto:JimStinehart AT aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:39 PM
To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Redford's 1970 answer to Kitchen's 1998 point

 

Yigal Levin:
 
[I hope you meant to post the message to me below, rather than it being
off-list.  To me it sounds like a post, not like something off-list.  I hope
I am not doing something wrong here.]
 
You wrote:  “The "Amarna Age" lasted less than 20 years. Are you claiming
that this is all the time the Patriarchal Age took as well? Besides, I don't
se any






references to Aten in the Patriarchal narratives either.”













 
1.  Let me answer your second question first.  In the Amarna Age, Aten and
Ra (or Re) were often viewed as being the same, semi-monotheistic god.
(That’s a gross oversimplification, but there’s no reason to get into
Egyptian theology here.)  The city most identified with Ra/Re was On (called
“Heliopolis” by the Greeks).  The name of Joseph’s Egyptian priestly
father-in-law honors the god Ra, and may even be blatantly monotheistic:
“Potiphar” may mean “the gift of  t-h-e  Ra”.  If so interpreted, the
definite article “the” would be outrageously monotheistic.  Potiphar is from
On.  To see the name Re, rather than Aten, at Amarna, just look at the names
of Akhenaten’s last two daughters -- Neferneferure and Setepenre -- where
both end in Re, and neither has an explicit reference to Aten.  If the
reference to Joseph being age 30 “years”, in 6-month “years”, when he became
an Egyptian official is a disguised reference to Year 15, based on Joseph
being undoubled age 15, then as of Year 15 Akhenaten’s last two daughters
had been born, and their names had honored Re directly, as being an indirect
reference to Aten.
 
The foregoing is oversimplified, but so be it.  The point is that the final
long section of the Patriarchal narratives in Egypt is chock-full of
references to Re/Ra, one way or the other, while not having a single
reference, in any way, shape or form, to Amen.  Indeed, many books of the
Bible have the Hebrew word Amen, but not the Patriarchal narratives.  So if
the Patriarchal narratives were composed in the Amarna Age, with the Hebrew
author wanting Akhenaten to stand tall and resolutely resist the dreaded
Hittites north of Canaan, then it would behoove that Hebrew author never to
mention Amen while talking about Egypt, and rather to mention Re.
 
2.  I see the bulk of the Patriarchal narratives as having been composed in
Year 15 of Akhenaten’s reign, by the first Hebrew, with the finishing
touches, especially all the numbers, having been added shortly after
Akhenaten’s death.  The Hebrew author knows that Akhenaten was the first
historical monotheistic leader of a people, who ruled over his people in
Egypt for 17 years, because Genesis 47: 28 says precisely that as to
Jacob/“Israel”:  that he was the first historical monotheistic leader of a
people, who ruled over his people in Egypt for 17 “years”.  Moreover, when
Joseph is said twice to die at age 110, that likely is a symbolic reference
to 11 tenfold, given that Joseph is Jacob’s 11th son.  Similarly, when
Abraham is said to die at age 175 “years”, that likely is a symbolic
reference to 17½ tenfold, referencing the fact that we know that Akhenaten
died more than ½-way through his regnal Year 17, an objective historical
fact which suggests the peculiar number 17½.  The numbers in the text
concerning the deaths of the two great Patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob, thus
deftly memorialize the precise length of Akhenaten’s reign.  (Indeed, the
e-n-t-i-r-e  internal timeline of the Patriarchal narratives is built on
that same, peculiar number, a number that is not prominent in any other
literature in 5,000 years of mankind’s long history:  17½.)  No other
Biblical author, and no human being in the 1st millennium BCE or later, knew
those specific historical facts, which cannot possibly be coming from
multiple 1st millennium BCE authors of the Patriarchal narratives, as
today’s scholars would have it.  The pinpoint historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives as to all numbers, in the context of the Amarna Age,
is truly breathtaking.
 
In the ancient world, there was a sophisticated technique, used to rare
(indeed unique) perfection by the Hebrew author of the Patriarchal
narratives, whereby a storyline was created, which in a literal sense would
today be said to be “fictional”, but yet the main point of that storyline
was to eternally memorialize, in story-telling form, what had actually
happened in secular history, rather than recounting legends, etc.  It was
much closer to non-fiction than to fiction, yet the storyline was carefully
crafted, rather than being merely a passive recording of what had literally
happened in secular history.
 
In order to save the tent-dwelling Hebrews in rural northern and central
Canaan from the dreaded Hittites, the first Hebrew had to get Akhenaten to
rise to the occasion.  The Hebrew author shrewdly realized that the main
impediment in that regard was that Akhenaten was drowning in his own tears
over his horribly deteriorating personal family situation.  Akhenaten kept
having this terrible, paralyzing thought that perhaps what all Egypt was
whispering was in fact right:  that Egypt would have been much better off if
Akhenaten’s more meritorious older brother had lived to become pharaoh,
rather than Akhenaten becoming pharaoh.  Note how that particular, odd,
unusual fact pattern applies so strikingly to the first two Patriarchal
successions.  Ishmael is the more meritorious older (half-)brother, who on
his own meritorious initiative comes to have descendants who are chieftains
of 12 tribes.  But the younger brother, Isaac, though not being a towering
figure in terms of individual merit, is nevertheless the divinely-approved
proper choice to be the sole leader of the next generation of new
monotheists.  The next Patriarchal succession is but a variation on that
same theme.  The older (full-)brother, Esau, is the great hunter who
provides meat for his father, but nevertheless the brainy younger brother,
Jacob, is the divinely-approved proper choice to be the sole leader of the
next generation of new monotheists.  Akhenaten would have absolutely loved
both of those two stories.  The other, somewhat similar, scenario that was
plaguing Akhenaten in Years 13-15 was the thought that perhaps Egypt would
have been better off if his father had chosen as his successor a manly son
by a minor wife.  To counter that negative thought, in the Patriarchal
narratives Ishmael cannot be Abraham’s proper choice, despite Ishmael’s
merit, because Ishmael’s birth mother is not Sarah, who is Abraham’s
original main wife #1.  Likewise, in the last Patriarchal succession, Joseph
cannot be the right choice, despite his tremendous merit and manliness,
because his birth mother Rachel was not Jacob’s original main wife #1.
Rather, the divinely-approved proper choice to be the sole leader of the
next generation of new monotheists must be Judah, a younger son, whose birth
mother was the original main wife #1 of his father (namely Leah, who married
Jacob 7 days before Rachel did).  We see that Akhenaten would have dearly
loved all of those Patriarchal succession stories.
 
So Yes, I do indeed see the historical time period of the Patriarchal Age as
being exceedingly short.  Virtually all of the many stories from chapter 14
of Genesis to the end of Genesis relate to what actually happened in secular
history in Years 12-15 of Akhenaten’s reign.  (The only exceptions are a
small handful of material added centuries later.)
 
Today, what we love about the Patriarchal narratives is that it gives us a
wonderful look at what life was like for the first Hebrews, who lived in
tents in northern and central Canaan, and it is a contemporary written
record of what the first Hebrews’ divinely-inspired religious views were.
Yet at the time, in my controversial view, what motivated the composition of
the Patriarchal narratives was a perceived desperate need by the first
Hebrew to get pharaoh Akhenaten out of his family doldrums, so that
Akhenaten would take the lead in getting all of Canaan and Egypt to stand
united as one against the dreaded Hittites, who for a very brief moment in
time, especially in Year 14, seemed potentially to be on the road to
brutally conquering much of the Near East.  That’s the dire way things
looked in Year 15, when the Patriarchal narratives were composed.    
 
That’s why there’s no mention of Amen, at all, even indirectly, in the
Patriarchal narratives.  Amen was only totally out of style in Egypt for a
very short period of time, which basically corresponds to the Amarna Age.
The Amarna Age is the only historical period of time when the substantive
content of the text of the Patriarchal narratives makes historical sense.
 
3.  Not to bring up a bad subject, but in my view, the only way that
scholars can ever be made to realize that the Patriarchal narratives have
pinpoint historical accuracy, in the context of the Amarna Age, is if we
could get scholars to re-examine the underlying geography of the Patriarchal
narratives.  The radical ultra-southerly re-interpretation of the geography
of the Patriarchal narratives by Ezra in post-exilic times, many centuries
after the fact, is what has made Genesis 14: 5-7 seem like nonsensical
fiction.  But in fact, if we get the geography right, almost every word of
those three Bible verses, which relate to a very “minor” phase of the Great
Syrian War in Year 14, can be historically verified by reference to Amarna
Letters EA 197, EA 177 and EA 175.  Until and unless we can get university
scholars like yourself to consider the possibility of a northern geography
for the Patriarchal narratives, the pinpoint historical accuracy of the
Patriarchal narratives will remain hidden.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2689 - Release Date: 02/15/10
09:35:00