Tweet
Some historical commentary;
1.) Textual geneology indicates that the first few biblical books were written much later than the period written about. One can expect anachronisms like the mention of cavalry long before they were actually used in the middle east. Anachronisms like this are how textual criticism proceeds to identify the actual period during which the books were written.
2.) The various city-states that dotted the levant during this period are all identified as Caananite. In this context, "Caananite" is a broad category, but does have some identifying features. They spoke a semitic language, had been on site for centuries, but had been affected by the Amorite migrations some time before, which probably created these states by an amalgamation of Amorites and prior occupiers, the Caananites. I've been suspicious that the "Hebrew" attack and occupation of the southern levant, as related in Exodus, was a garbled record of the Aramean migrations, which would have produced a similar record of events. Keep in mind; there is tremendous conflation of actual events and complete fiction in the biblical text. The various authors, at various times, mixed Sumerian mythology, the history of other peoples, archetypal tales (Moses' abandonment as an infant is an example of these), and actual events to weave the biblical narrative.
3.) Most historians question or dismiss the idea of the sojourn in Egypt for the biblical 400 years. The current interpretation is that the Apiru (Hebrews) entered Egypt during the Hyksos domination, when presumably semitic peoples were more welcome than usual. When the Hyksos regime collapsed, the other semitic groups (including the Apiru), left Egypt.
4.) The Hyksos are, at present, unidentifiable. There have been quite a few crackpot theories, though. Very entertaining sometimes. The Hyksos did speak a semitic language, used and introduced chariots into Egypt, and came from the north. Other than those scant facts, not much is definitively known. In grad school, I proposed a project to identify the Hyksos. It's a mystery, and I wanted to solve it. The dept head, who was also my advisor at the time, told me that the other projects I proposed were much more do-able and that the origin of the Hyksos was one of those un-answerable historical questions. Moral; be VERY suspicious when anyone announces that they know who the Hyksos really were. The crackpot mad scientist Immanuel Velikovsky identified the Hyksos as the Amalakites, but there have been others.
1.) Textual geneology indicates that the first few biblical books were written much later than the period written about. One can expect anachronisms like the mention of cavalry long before they were actually used in the middle east. Anachronisms like this are how textual criticism proceeds to identify the actual period during which the books were written.
2.) The various city-states that dotted the levant during this period are all identified as Caananite. In this context, "Caananite" is a broad category, but does have some identifying features. They spoke a semitic language, had been on site for centuries, but had been affected by the Amorite migrations some time before, which probably created these states by an amalgamation of Amorites and prior occupiers, the Caananites. I've been suspicious that the "Hebrew" attack and occupation of the southern levant, as related in Exodus, was a garbled record of the Aramean migrations, which would have produced a similar record of events. Keep in mind; there is tremendous conflation of actual events and complete fiction in the biblical text. The various authors, at various times, mixed Sumerian mythology, the history of other peoples, archetypal tales (Moses' abandonment as an infant is an example of these), and actual events to weave the biblical narrative.
3.) Most historians question or dismiss the idea of the sojourn in Egypt for the biblical 400 years. The current interpretation is that the Apiru (Hebrews) entered Egypt during the Hyksos domination, when presumably semitic peoples were more welcome than usual. When the Hyksos regime collapsed, the other semitic groups (including the Apiru), left Egypt.
4.) The Hyksos are, at present, unidentifiable. There have been quite a few crackpot theories, though. Very entertaining sometimes. The Hyksos did speak a semitic language, used and introduced chariots into Egypt, and came from the north. Other than those scant facts, not much is definitively known. In grad school, I proposed a project to identify the Hyksos. It's a mystery, and I wanted to solve it. The dept head, who was also my advisor at the time, told me that the other projects I proposed were much more do-able and that the origin of the Hyksos was one of those un-answerable historical questions. Moral; be VERY suspicious when anyone announces that they know who the Hyksos really were. The crackpot mad scientist Immanuel Velikovsky identified the Hyksos as the Amalakites, but there have been others.
I've revised my opinion about the high movement BTW - it adds a new dimension to scenario play and it's a laugh to attack several cities in one turn.
Comment