A Discussion of the Political Situation in Palestine as Reflected in the EA Letters
Those who espouse the conventional chronological viewpoint for the background of the EA Letters are represented by Professor A, those who argue for the revised stance, by Professor B.
Professor A May Clarify Conventions Starting Position Thus:
We, as conventional historians, may suggest that Palestine was, during the EA Period, divided up into many city states, not two main kingdoms (north and south). We like to point out that, during Amarna, there was a 'king of Hazor' (which they reckon doesn't fit Ahab's/Jehoram's time).
We observe further that the geopolitical situation at the time of Abdi-hiba does not fit at all that of Jehoram's day, but is more appropriate in the context of the small states of the first millennium as reconstructed on the basis of first millennium Assyrian sources. That is why we object to Velikovsky's reconstruction of EA, and argue for the division of the land into small states:
The fundamental issue is that the El Amarna letters clearly presuppose a time when Palestine was divided into a number of city states, each with its own king, whereas in the time of Jehoshaphat [Velikovsky's choice for Abdi Hiba] and Ahab to which Velikovsky assigns the El Amarna letters, there were simply two kingdoms, Israel in the North and Judah in the South."
To which Pofessor B responds (with ref. to Ages in Chaos ch 6):
Professor A shows here his unfamiliarity with both the geography of Palestine as seen through the El-Amarna Letters and that of the books of Kings and Chronicles. To describe the Palestine of the Letters simply as a collection of city states, as if each were equal and independent, is a misleading generalization. For example, the paramount position of the king of Jerusalem in southern Palestine is evident from the letters and detailed in the comment section of EA#287. This again Velikovsky has dealt with fully, but a few words here would not be amiss in order to correct the impression that Professor A would give us.
[Progessor B will presume here that there was also a 'king of Shechem', a point that some revisonists have contested]. Thus he continues, quoting AHARONI, Y., The Land of the Bible (London, 1966), 162:
To begin with, Jerusalem was certainly not the only city ruled directly by Abdi-Hiba - the Letters refer to Bethlehem and Manahath as being within his realm. Of all the hill country of Judah and Ephraim, the only towns mentioned are these three: Bethlehem, Manahath and Shechem. Nevertheless, a number of other towns besides these were also in existence. Since six letters have been preserved from the king of Jerusalem, one may not assume that the absence of these other towns is accidental. Apparently the kings of Jerusalem and Shechem [sic] dominated, to all practical purposes, the entire hill country at that time.
So Abdi-Hiba, who Professor A would have us believe ruled a single city only, ruled all the southern hill country of Palestine. Moreover, his authority certainly extended further. One letter indicates that the Egyptian governor of Gaza was subordinate to Abdi-Hiba [EA 287], so it seems likely that his authority originally extended over some of the Philistine cities of the sea-coast. This is confirmed by the fact that the rebel Philistine cities, including Gezer and Gath, fought against Abdi-Hiba himself rather than the Egyptian authorities. One of these rebels, Milkili of Gezer, wrote to another, Tagu, saying:
"Let us break away from the city of Jerusalem" [EA 289].
So, even from the scant information that the Letters give us, the extent of the "land(s) of Jerusalem" looks suspiciously like that of Judah of the mid-9th century - a kingdom centred on Jerusalem, ruling all the southern hill country and holding nominal suzerainty over some of the Philistine cities of the coast."
Professor A's further comment that the Palestine of Ahab and Jehoshaphat's time was divided simply into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, is, of course, completely wrong. The details of Kings and Chronicles are, like that of the letters, scant, but it hardly allows such a simplistic interpretation. What of Moab, with its king Mesha, that paid tribute to Israel! "Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder and used to pay the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs and the wool of hundred thousand rams in tribute." II Kings 3:4; and the other trans-Jordanian countries of Ammon and Mount Seir? (II Chronicles 20:10). And the numerous cities of Philistia, each with their own rulers, some of which paid tribute to Jehoshaphat? "Some of the Philistines brought him gifts and silver in tribute; the Arabs themselves brought him, in small stock, seven thousand seven hundred rams and seven thousand seven hundred he-goats." II Chronicles 17:11.
In Jehoram's reign the Philistines rebelled and invaded Judah "... the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians." II Chronicles 21:16, as they did in the time of Abdi-Hiba. Edom and Libnah were also independent of Judah during Jehoram's reign "In his (Jehoram's) days the Edomites revolted from under the dominion of Judah, and made themselves a king." II Chronicles 21:8-10. Having recently become independent implies of course that they were tribut payers before that. These are merely the states whose independence has been recorded in the scanty sources - there were doubtless others. From where does Pofessor A derive the fiction of a Palestine neatly divided into two states in the middle of the ninth century? - certainly not from the books of Kings and Chronicles".
Finally, Professor B concludes, with reference to the Cambridge Anc. History:
The "individual kings of such cities as Gezer, Lachish, Megiddo, Shechem [we could add Hazor, D.M.], etc" (Pofessor A) pose no problem in this context. The official title of such "kings" in the El-Amarna correspondence was AWILU, "free man" or "chief", and their office was that of HAZIANU, "governor", (literally "inspector"). Some were local dynasts, such as the Philistine Milkili of Gezer, others were local city governors, either native (in which case, quite possibly hereditary, like a medieval earl or baron), or military governors of the empire - in each case reporting directly to the imperial capital. (Cf. the brothers of Jehoram that were given fenced cities to rule, and the "princes of Israel" slain by him - II Chronicles 21:3-4).
Source: Based on what Martin Sieff wrote (assisted by Peter James), "In Defence of the Revised Chronology", SIS Review, Vol. I, No. 2 (Middlesbrough, Spring 1976).
Das Obige auf Deutsch
Eine Diskussion über die Politische Situation in Palästinien zur Zeit der El Amarna Briefe
Professor A spricht für jene die den allgemein bekannten chronologischen Ansichten folgen, und Professoer B für die neue Chronologie.
Professor A mag nun den Standpunkt der allgemein bekannten Chronologie erläutern:
In unserem Denken gab es zur Zeit der El Amarna Briefe mehrere Stadtstaaten im Palästinischem Raum und nicht nur zwei Königreiche, Israel im Norden und Judah im Süden. Dies ist der Grund warum wir gegen Velikovskys Gesichtspunkte sind.
Die grundlagende Tatsache besteht das die EA Briefe in eine Zeit gehören, als es dort viele kleine Stadtstaaten gab, jede mit ihrem eigenen König, während zur Zeit Josaphats (Velikovskie Kandidat für Abdi Hiba) und Ahab gab es dort nur ihre beiden Königreiche.
Nun hören wir die Antwort von Professor B:
Es scheint das Professor A die politische Situation zur Zeit Josaphats and Ahabs, wie sie in den geschichtlichen Büchern des Alten Testaments beschrieben wird, nicht versteht. Wie er so das Palästinische Land, seine Einwohner und politischen Umstände, mit Hilfe der EA Briefe, als nur eine Anzahl von Stadtstaaten beschreibt, als ob jeder dieser gleichranging und unabhängig voneinander waren, ist eine irre führende Schlußfolgerung. Vom EA Brief #287 lernen wir zum Beispiel, das der König in Jerusalem die erhabenste Stellung inne hatte. Als der Ägyptische Abgesandte oder Offizier Pharaohs, Addaja - Vorgänger von Pauru - seine Position verlassen wollte, musste er dazu vor dem König von Jerusalem erscheinen und Abdi Hiba schrieb über dieses Zusammentreffen: "Adaja sagte mir: Entlasse mich doch." Die EA Briefe machen es klar, das Abdi Hibas Einfluß sich bis zu den Küstenstädten, ins südliche Hügelland und auch in nördlichere Teile erstreckte. Die Briefe sprechen von Jerusalem, Urusalim, Bethlehem, Manahath und wohl auch Sechem als zu Abdi Hiba gehörend. Im großen und ganzen herrschte er über alle diese Gegenden. Deshalb lesen wir auch in den Briefen das, wenn die sich auflehnenden Ortschaften der Philister, einschließlich Gezer und Gath, kämpften, war das gegen Abdi Hiba und nicht den Ägyptischen Besetzungstruppen. So schrieb einer der Aufrührer, Milkili von Gezer, an Tagu: "Lasst uns von der Stadt Jerusalem abfallen." EA#289 (Mercer).
Wir stellen also fest das eine Anzhl der verschiedenen Kleinherrscher dem König von Jerusalem untertan waren. Wie vergleicht sich diese Sachlage mit dem biblischen Bericht? Professor A's Annahme das Palästinien im 9. Jahrhundert nur aus Judah und Israel bestand ist ganz falsch. Wir lesen in der Bibel das Mesha von Moab Tribut an den König von Jerusalem zahlte, so taten es auch die Philister und Araber. Ihre Städte lehnten sich kurze Zeit später gegen Jerusalem auf. Andere unabhängige Stadtstaaten waren Edom, Libnah, Gezer, Lachish, Megiddo, Hazor und Shechem. Der biblische Bericht stimmt mit dem Eindruck von Stadtstaaten ganz genau überein. Quelle: Based on what Martin Sieff wrote (assisted by Peter James), "In Defence of the Revised Chronology", SIS Review, Vol. I, No. 2 (Middlesbrough, Spring 1976).
[The End]
1) In the introduction to an early compilation of Assyrian and Babylonian literature, the opinion of two early scholars is given. Budge and Bezoldi describe it as follows: "The writing on the Tell el-Amarna tablets resembles, to a certain extent, the Neo-Babylonian - i.e., the simplification of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire, used commonly in Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B.C." [Roger Henry, `Synchronized History', p. 138; Robert F. Harper, `Assyrian and Babylonian Literature', N.Y. 1904, XII.]
Other translators of at least portions of the EA letters include:
1) A.H. Sayce (I), `The Cuneiform Tablets of El Amarna Now Preserved in the Boulaq Museum' in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, March 1889, p. 326-413. This translation represents early attempts.
2) Jorgen Alexander Knudtzon (Norwegian, bio dates unknown), `Die El Amarna Tafeln' (1915), Aalen, Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964)
3) William Lambert Moran (1921-????), 1992.
4) Hugo Winckler, EA Letters, translated by J. Metcalf
5) Professor Anson F. Rainey, 1978, Tel Aviv.
6) William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971), 1960.
7) Greenberg
8) A(dolph) Leo Oppenheim (b. in Vienna 1904-1974 University of Chicago), Letters from Mesopotamia.
Crawl out of this tomb
Submenu