I don’t know what the archaeological or documentary evidence is for Mohammed since I haven’t studied it, so I can’t comment on it. I do know that there was no imposition of monotheism on Canaan by anybody. No conquest of any kind. No cultural imposition of any kind. There was never any time when Isreal ruled all of Canaan. Strictly speaking, the Israelites of the era in question weren’t even monotheist. While there was a Yaweh cult in Jerusalem, it was henothesitic in nature rather than monotheistic and the countryside around Jerusalem as well as the rest of Canaan was riddled with the temples of fertility cults and other modes of worship, sometimes side by side with Yahweh worship. The Yaweh cult did not become monotheistic until the 8th century BCE and that had more to do with trying to cement political power in Jerusalem than anything else.
What I’m getting at is that there was no change of culture, either violent or otherwise. Jerusalem’s power grew slowly and gradually and it was never all encompassing. There is definitely no sign of any monotheistic movement c. 1200 BCE, the alleged time of the Exodus. There isn’t even any monothesim during the 10th century era of David and Solomon (who may also be legendary).
I’m still around but still not willing to dig up through sites at this moment.
Yes, I got plenty of hits too. But by casually glancing at them, most were about the recipes included in it to turn bronze into gold, or the cyphering of it, sites about esoterism and alchemy, etc…along with some christian sites. The only dates I found were from apologetic sites which aligned it to the jewish history as told in the bible, a mention about it being “post-pharaonic” and one giving the date of 200 AD.
So, I would like something more scholarly about it. It’s certainly out there but I’m just too lazy tonight to try to find it.
Sure, we can. Like we can make guesses about Ulysses. But I still thinks it’s just an intellectual game.
This part is not correct. First, concerning the epoch, when did the exodus happened? No one knows, since no one knows anything about it.
Anyway, it’s not obvious at all there was any sudden “rise from the desert” of people who would have conquered Canaan. There’s not much evidences of such a thing happening. And finally, if it happened, these people most probably didn’t profess “one god”. Polytheism and henotheism are attested at quite late dates. Since we’re in Papyruses, check the “elephantine papyrus”, for instance, which contains a reference to a god associated with YHWH, probably his spouse. There are even evidences of it in the bible itself, explicit or implicit (like “Elohim”, which is derivated from the name of a semi-henotheistic god worshipped in this area) Monotheism didn’t appear suddenly there. The religious evolution which led to it is not that well known (lack of written sources), but there isn’t a shortage of educated guesses. You’re taking the bible at face value when believing that the Hebrews emerged from the desert with YHWH in their carts and conquered the whole area in a heartbeat. It’s been written long after the events recounted supposedly took place and isn’t a factual account of them.
What could I say that I didn’t already write? It could have been so. But how are you going to establish this?
I know that Jews were constantly straying off the “true path” until Babylonian captivity. The rest I don’t know enough to agree or to argue. What good sources you recommend?
Well…Apparently, there are several Leyden papyruses (i.e. kept in the Leyden museum). One of them is a list of various magical recipes, hence all the esoterical sites. I just read the translation of another one, dated from around Ramses II reign, but it’s only praises to the god Amon. Still searching until I go to bed (for a brief time)
Another good book is Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford who suggests that the Exodus should be associated with the Hyksos expulsion by the Pharaoh Ahmose who chased them down to southern Canaan. This would change the Biblical dates of the Exodus but it would involve some conquest in Canaan by a guy named Ahmose. The only problem is that its a conquest by Egyptians not Isrealites, but some have suggested that Moses is a Judaized version of Ahmose (which would explain the floating baby as an apologetic device). I’m not sure about the latter claim but the Hyksos theory makes some sense on an aesthetic level. They were semitic invaders who took control of Egypt for several centuries before being driven out. It’s argued by some that this forms a loose basis for the story of Joseph who rose to power in Egypt before his family was driven out. It should be noted, though, that while the Hyksos were semitic, they were not Israelites.
I thought I was being very critical of the Bible, trying to find an explanation that makes sense. My interpretation was that Exodus is a record of internal strife, kind of like Mohammed taking power in Arabia under the banner of One God, and on a much smaller scale at that, because there were no repercussions in the outside world at all to the events in Canaan. Of course, it is impossible to establish anything with certainty about those times.
I meant that you were taking this part of the bible (monotheism being already existing at the earlier times of Israel’s story, the conquest of Canaan) at face value, not the whole bible.
However, merely not believing that the flight from Egypt occured has told by the bible, but accepting the rest isn’t being “very critical” of its content, IMO. There aren’t much things in the earliest history of the Israelites as recorded in the bible which can be corroborated by external sources. Archeological or historical evidences rather tend to contradict it.
Once again, this story having been written down long after the events by people who had a religious agenda which was significantly different from the actual religious beliefs at the times of these events (and not necessarily in agreement with the religious practices at their own times, actually) it makes it fairly unreliable.
When Rameses II boasts about his victory, for instance, the account is likely not extremely reliable and very biased. But at least, it’s written by a contemporary and an actor of the events. Not X centuries later, by someone else, who has a widely different belief system and worldview.
Taking a city might be more believable than parting the red sea, but it’s still part of the same myth about the origins of the Israelites. And not necessarily more reliable because it doesn’t involve a miracle.
That’s my whole point. I understood your interpretation but I’m still stating it’s a wild guess that is unprovable, and not backed by any evidences, hence that any other guess is as likely to be correct. Including, as I said, a group of people actually being in servitude in Egypt and actually fleeing it.
As for the Leiden papyrus : i’m going to concede the point, not because I found some evidence that it’s generally accepted as genuine, but because I didn’t find evidences that it isn’t. The references I found about it being “post-pharaonic” or “dating from 200 AD” could actually have refered to any of the XXX other Leiden papyruses (I assumed at the beginning that there was only one Leiden papyrus, so when I read something, I assumed it was about this particular manuscript, without checking any further).
So, I’m going to accept that there were Habirous building monuments in Egypt around the time of Rameses II. If for some reason I bother checking again and find contradictory informations, I’ll let you know. Once again, if some doper has more informations on this topic, he’s welcome to post. We’re still left though with the issue of knowing whether these apirus were the hebrews, rather than for instance, as some posit, a generic term for foreigners living east of the Sinai.
The Hapiru were probably not an ethnic group but a social designation. They are referred to over a long period of time and a broad geographical area as “brigands” and “outlaws” who were sometimes hired as mercenaries or contract laborers. The majority of scholarship is of the oinion that “Hapiru” was a sort of catch-all term for displaced city dwellers or others living on the fringes of the city states who were regarded as a nuisance, as low lifes, as bandits but who were occasionally hired on an ad hoc basis as mercenary soldiers, contracted servants and laborers. It seems like they were not much trusted, though.
New Iskander, There is one theory that resembles something like your idea of a localized rebellion.
While the Hapiru were not “Hebrews” as such, there was a theory advanced by George Mendenhall in the 70’s that the rise of Israelite culture was precipitated by a peasant revolt against the Canaanite rulers of Egyptian controlled city states in southern Canaan. Mendenhall argued that the Hapiru (that is the social class referred to by that name who happened to live in Canaan, not a specific ethnic group) fomented rebellion by the rural peoples against the city states. Mendenhall further argues that this revolt was driven by an egalitarian ideology, put forth by the Hapiru and possibly imported from Egypt. This ideology was monotheism and it worked because the Canaanite religious system relied on royal cults in which the kings had control of all religious rituals and access to the gods. Yahwistic monotheism did away with royal control and gave religious access to everyone equally. Mendenhall’s theory maintains that a combination of feudal resentment by the peasants and an empowering religious ideology led to the overthrow of the old Canaanite system and the rise of the Israelites in the hill regions of Canaan. Mendenhall does not argue that this was a widespread movement but only a localized social rebellion in the highlands of southern Canaan in which the Yahweh cult displaced the Canaanite cults and the Hapiru leaders of the rebellion took power and became “Israel.”
I should point out that this theory is now rejected by many scholars as highly speculative and unsupported by archaeology. For one thing, it doesn’t appear that the rural regions would have been able to summon the resources or the manpower to mount a rebellion and for another the Canaanite cults were not really supplanted by monotheistic Yahwism until much later. Yahweh did become the official royal cult in Jerusalem but there is no evidence that there was any attempt to eradicate other practicesuntil well after the era of Mendenhall’s proposed peasant revolt.
At least we seem to agree that there always is a sizeable political aspect in establishment of monotheistic religion. There has to be a strong ruler that selects a particular religion and puts it above all others and this ruler is paying less attention to spiritual message than to the usefulness of the religion he takes up. Christianity was languishing in Roman world as one religion among many, until Constantine lend it full support of the Roman State. While it always contained the seed of monotheism, it was not a domineering religion. I read that some cults were more influential among Romans at different times (Mitraism, for example). Thus, every religion is potentially a monotheistic religion, because they all strive for spiritual dominance. Does it all depend on the circumstances of particular times? Could it be that at some time rulers might prefer a balance of different cults, while at other times they might see a necessity for a single religion in the land?
I recognize the value of the argument that monotheism in Canaan was established gradually (and at least in part for political reasons) and might have been projected back into mythical times. What that means to me is that the cult of YHWH was in existence for a long time, awaiting its champion. Then so might have been the cult of Allah for long time before Mohammed. Was Moses that champion, or was it David or Solomon or somebody else? Hard to say, indeed. All I was saying that if we accept Mohammed’s story as true, then Moses story, purged from all the nonsense, might be another example of the same archetypal pattern of Middle East religion and politics.
I don’t get this part. Why, if you want to use a religion for political motives, would this religion have to be monotheistic? The Pharaos were granted divine status in a polytheistic religion. The middle-east city states were polytheist with a tendancy to swift toward henotheism (in the sense that one god was granted a proeminent status, while other retained only secondary roles), and still these religions had a political meaning. The persian empire’s religion was dualist.
You seem to imply that in a polytheistic religions, there would be a competition between different gods, or that the worship of a given god would be some sort of independant cult within a broader set of religious beliefs. I don’t seee it that way. Though the hinduists worship various gods, it’s still the same religion, and despite this the current Indian government do use religion as a political tool. It doesn’t use a particular god (say, Ganesh), though. I agree that the clergy of a particular god can become powerful enough for the rulers to have to rely on them (like in Egypt with the priests of Amon), but it doesn’t have to be so.
And concerning the late roman empire, it’s a peculiar situation, since there was actually wholy different religions competing (say, the cult of the egyptian goddess Isis and christiannism), since essentially all religions were authorized in the empire. But before the imperial era, the roman state religion was polytheistic. Depending on the circumstances, one god or another would receive public sacrifices, for instance. But the religion was still polytheist. Each god had his “job” and “duties”, and no evolution towards monotheism, not even henotheism took place.
Apparently, there was a common meaning to the word ‘Apiru’ as ‘riffraff’ or similar, both in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Here we are touching on another uncertian point, when does riffraff becomes a nation with a religion? There are numerous instances of that in history, including US or Australia.
As far as perjorative names and their relation to ethnicity, sometimes it is very hard to determine what comes first: when I was growing up small children in Russia were commonly using an insult “zhid” against each other, applying it indisciminately to anybody they didn’t like, regardless of ethnicity; only when I was much older I suddenly realize that this word relates specifically to Hebrew people. Jews seem to be particularly cursed in this respect, as simply their ethnic term is carrying offensive connotations in the minds of many other people.
While we are on a subject of Russia, there was another phenomenon I observed with my own eyes during waning days of Soviet empire. There was a considerable influx of people from small neighbourhood ‘republics’ coming to work all over Russia, penetrating into the most remote villages. They were mostly from Caucasus region, with Chechens (who are now in open revolt against Russia on territorial and religious principles) especially numerous. There must be something about delapidated empires that attracts such an incursion. I call it ‘incursion’ because those people didn’t assimilate, but kept apart as small units, which made them stronger. Those people were rarely doing the actual physical work, instead usually acting as middlemen, procuring materials, organizing financing and security and hiring local labor to do most of the basic tasks.
I think that we can’t understand the past strictly based on archeological record. Sometimes we can get a clue about remote history by looking at real life at the present and recent times.
I think it depends on the size of the political area in question. It’s much more difficult to consolidate a unified religion over a broad geographical area than a small one. Empires like the Persian, Alexandrian and Roman found it more expedient to allow local traditions of worship than to try to impose their own. The pantheons of conquered cultures were often simply identified as different interpretations of the same family of Gods. Some rulers like Darius simply appointed themselves as the head priests for the temples or religions of conquered regions which allowed them to maintain political control of other cults without the headaches which would be caused by trying to supplant them. The people of Israel were particularly resistant to that. The Seleucid occupation was overthrown in a revolt after Antiochos installed a statue of Zeus in the Temple. Some of the Roman emperors even deified themselves and set up temples in occupied regions. Caligula tried to install a statue of himself in Jerusalem and was forced to abandon the attempt after some adamant resistance by the populace. Unified religion and monotheistic practice is easier to establish in a smaller area where the poulation is already somewhat culturally homogenous.
Islam claims it’s monotheistic heritage from the same tradition as Judaism. Strictly speaking, Allah is Yahweh. The God of Islam is perceived as being identical to the God of Abraham and Moses. Mohammed’s movement was really seen (by Mohammed at least) as a sort of reformation- a revival, if you will- of monotheistic worship which had fallen into disrepair.
You’re right that the Yahweh cult is old indeed and that Yahweh was worshipped before the cult became monotheistic. The origins of Yahweh are lost in antiquity, but yes, it was one tribal cult among many which eventually became preeminent. It’s “champion” if you will, was likely the Judean King, Josiah as much as anyone else. One of the books I linked to above (The Bible Unearthed) makes a case that the Exodus story was composed during his reign in order to weave a unified narrative for the people of Israel which incorporated a number of different tribal traditions and legends as well as to establish the centrality of the Temple in Jerusalem. This would accordingly have given Jerusalem (and Josiah) the religious authority it needed to remain strong politically.
Here I would argue again that archeology isn’t enough. Would it “appear” that Mohammed can carry Arabia before he actually did it? Everything was against him and he was extremely lucky to save his skin a few times. Here we come against the individual willpower as a factor in changing history, and there is no way to account for that in any logical way, except that sometimes it simply does happen.
I agree with that. The spiritual situation of the late Roman empire with a few uprooted universal religions fighting for dominance must be very different than accepted pantheon of local deities, big and small, of classical polytheism model.
I would agree that the component of the individual is a wild card and that objections to Mendenhall’s Peasant Revolt Theory based purely on assumptions about logistical capabilities are not especially persuasive or dispositive. The continued henotheistic practice in the rural areas- the very areas where monotheism is supposed to have been so inspiring under the Peasant Revolt Theory- is more problematic, IMO.
In any case, The objectors to theory are not so much claiming dispositive falsification of the theory so much as they are claiming that it has yet to be confirmed. Personally, I think there may be something to it but it’s still only speculative at this point.
That must mean that the messages of monotheism and polytheism were existing side by side throughout history at least since the time of Akhenaten or may be even earlier. Toynbee even deduced a possible montheism in Minoan Crete, not unlike Christianity, based on images of Mother of God figure and early legends of Zeus who was born and died on Crete, as opposed to later ‘immortal’ Zeus, a chief god of succeeding polytheistic Greek pantheon.
Also, polytheism is getting tricky sometimes. Some Hindus say that they also have One Big God and the rest are simply subservient deities, what we call Saints.
The paradox of the stubbornness of Hebrews to worship many different cults in opposition to purported Mosaic message before the Babylonian captivity and their sudden equally stubborn monotheism after the captivity was pointed out by Gibbon.
I enjoyed it too. As you can see, the Exodus story is a hopelessly tangled mess as a target for historical discovery but it’s a fascinating topic all the same.