George Athas:
You wrote: “Oral tradition for nomadic cultures is, indeed, the norm.
Writing is quite extraordinary. Do we have any examples of writing from
ancient nomadic cultures?”
You raise the key issue there.
How many herders of sheep and goats started a new monotheistic religion
prior to the common era that is still with us today? Only the Hebrews.
How many herders of sheep and goats prior to the common era retained a
scribe to write down their foundational story from the very beginning, so that
from day #1 this culture had sacred scripture? Only the Hebrews.
Are those two factors related?
In my opinion, IR-Heba’s former scribe, being desperate for some
employment, begged the tent-dwelling Hebrews in the northeast Ayalon Valley
to hire
him to write down their foundational story [the Patriarchal narratives] on
50 cuneiform tablets, using Akkadian cuneiform to write
Canaanite/pre-Hebrew/Hebrew words. The Hebrews themselves, per your insight,
had not
planned to have anything written down: “Oral tradition for nomadic cultures
is,
indeed, the norm. Writing is quite extraordinary.”
Moreover, prior to the common era, having a canon [that everyone agreed
was the bona fide extent of sacred scripture] was unknown outside of Judaism.
There’s no such canon in Egypt or Mesopotamia.
Although the first Hebrews’ core religious beliefs were not themselves an “
accident”, the fact that such religious beliefs got written down in
Akkadian cuneiform from day #1 was, to a large extent, an “accident”:
IR-Heba’s
former scribe was out of work and was desperately seeking scribal
employment of any kind, even to the point of offering his scribal services to
tent-dwellers living near Jerusalem. And the rest, as they say, is history.
The writing peculiarities that are unique to IR-Heba’s scribe, as to
Amarna Letters coming out of Canaan proper, are the same writing peculiarities
that are unique to the Patriarchal narratives in the Bible: use of xireq
compaginis; spelling “Ayalon” as having only one syllable before the
lamed/L; the Hurrian number 318; penchant for frequent use of numbers
generally, including the following round numbers that appear in the Patriarchal
narratives: 10 and 20 and 50 and 80; use of the Canaanite word zu-ru-ux,
which is Biblical Hebrew ZR(Y [note the possible confusion between heth and
ayin in dealing with Akkadian cuneiform], in connection with describing the
strength of a powerful person in Egypt [Akhenaten/Joseph]; reference to
$e-e-ri/Seir; reference to Rubutu/Kiriath Arba; reference to Shechem;
dozens of Hurrian names, including in each case a rare Hurrian name that
begins
with the logogram IR; referring to the Amorite princeling [Milk-i-Ilu] of
the Ayalon Valley as being in confederate relationship with tent-dwellers;
use of the Hurrian word ibri meaning “lord”; and the phrase “land of the
Kassites” [a concept that is oddly prominent for two sources that are
coming out of inland south-central Canaan]. Although a plethora of
geographical locales are referenced, neither source ever mentions southern hill
country, even in passing. There was no there there in the drought-plagued
Late
Bronze Age. It’s too bad that a-l-l university scholars mistakenly think
that the Patriarchal narratives portray the Patriarchs as “going up”/(LH
to the hills/mountains/HR of southern hill country, when the text says
nothing of the sort. Genesis 37: 14 in fact says that the Patriarchs’ XBRWN
is “a low tract of land of wide extent, fit for corn land…, and suited for
battlefields” : (MQ. Sadly, that geographical misunderstanding has
prevented university scholars from seeing the one-to-one match between the
world
of IR-Heba’s Amarna Letters and the world of the Patriarchal narratives.
In both sources we see, more generally, the nomenclature that was current
in Year 14, including Egyptian officials whose names begin with pA,
frequent references to “7 and 7”, and references to Naharim. And of course
there’
s very extensive commentary on the tumultuous events of Years 12-14 in
south-central Canaan, complete with minute details in both sources. The
nomenclature and political concerns in Amarna Letters written by IR-Heba’s
scribe
are very similar to the received text of the Patriarchal narratives. They’
re dealing with the s-a-m-e world: south-central Canaan in Years 12-14.
S-a-m-e.
Both sources oddly expect Pharaoh [Akhenaten] to solve their problems,
with IR-Heba’s scribe even writing [for IR-Heba] these memorable, startling
lines: “As the king [pharaoh Akhenaten] has placed his name in Jerusalem
forever, he cannot abandon it – the land of Jerusalem.” Note the passionate
commitment to land located in or near Jerusalem, and the seemingly naïve hope
that pharaoh Akhenaten can be counted on to resolve all problems there
[which in fact did not happen!].
As to yet another interesting connection, Akhenaten may have named
IR-Heba, who may have been a younger son, the new ruler of Jerusalem over the
objections of IR-Heba’s father, who wanted his firstborn son to be his
successor. That of course is very close to what the first Hebrews desperately
wanted Akhenaten to do in Year 14 in the Ayalon Valley [see the comparable
situation in chapter 48 of Genesis, where Joseph’s firstborn son Manasseh is
not allowed to receive the finer inheritance], so that pursuant to Akhenaten’
s actions, Milk-Ilu’s firstborn son Yapaxu [who hated tent dwellers] would
not be his father’s successor. Amarna Letter EA 286: 9-16 is analyzed as
to IR-Heba in that way by Tom Ishida at p. 155 in “The Royal Dynasties in
Ancient Israel” (1977): “The words imply that the Egyptian overlord
[Akhenaten] intervened in the strife for the succession in the kingdom of
Jerusalem. As a result, the normal practice that the king and queen-mother
[of
Jerusalem] designated the heir-apparent was overridden, and the Egyptian
king appointed Abdi-heba [IR-Heba] to be king. It is clear that he was a
member of the royal family of Jerusalem but his parents did not want to
choose
him as the successor, presumably because of his inferior rank in the order
of succession.”
* * *
The Patriarchal narratives would have been composed in any event, as a
great oral story, in Year 14. But if that non-Hebrew low-level scribe of
IR-Heba from Jerusalem had not been down and out and unemployed at the time of
Akhenaten’s death, we would not have the incomparable Patriarchal
narratives as a w-r-i-t-t-e-n document as of a year or so after Akhenaten’s
death.
Yes, it was totally against the odds, but then again, so is the idea that
herders of sheep and goats in south-central Canaan might start a new
monotheistic religion prior to the common era that is still with us today,
complete with the Patriarchal narratives that have p-i-n-p-o-i-n-t
historical
accuracy in a Year 14 context.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
