Archaeology and Exodus in the News

Zahi Hawass, Egyptian director of antiquities (or some such), has an article discussing a tomb and its potential connections to Hebrew history, which of course means “The Exodus.”

The discovery of this tomb which took place almost 20 years ago remains an important archaeological event. The reason for this is that the person buried in the tomb was known as "Aper-al" and this is an Egyptianized form of a Hebrew name. Aper-al was the vizier for King Amenhotep III, and later for his son King Akhenaten. Pharaoh Akhenaten was the first ruler to institute monotheism represented by the worship of the sun which he called Aten.

Excavations of this tomb continued for almost 10 years, beginning in 1980 and ending in late 1989. Amongst the artefacts discovered here were several portraits entitled "spiritual father of Aten" as well as "the Priest" and "the first servant of Aten." This means that Aper-al served as the chief priest of Aten in the Memphis region during the reign of King Akhenaten.

First, it’s unclear to me how this story intersects with Israelite history at all, much less the Exodus narrative. Everyone who knows biblical history knows that the pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep II, not III, and certainly not IV. The Exodus happened roughly 100 years before Akhnaten (aka Amenhotep IV) in precisely 1446 BC.

Actually, it’s a point of some contention whether the Exodus (if it happened at all) happened under Amenhotep II in the mid-fifteenth century BC OR under Rameses II in the early thirteenth century BC. Either way, Akhnaten falls squarely in the middle between the two.

Second, what biblical figure should we connect this “Aper-al” to? The Bible gives Joseph a vizier-like position but by the Bible’s chronology, he would have to predate the Exodus by 430 years, not 60. What about Moses? Well, the Bible gives no such indication that Moses had a position like that. He certainly wouldn’t have been buried in Egypt, fully assimilated to Egyptian culture. I have heard it claimed that Moses got his monotheistic ideas from Amarna Egypt (or was it that Akhnaten got his monotheistic ideas from the Hebrews?).

So, at best, we have some unknown assimilated Hebrew who may or may not have influenced or been influenced by Aten worship. Not a very compelling biblical connection, so I must conclude that the “Exodus” connection is merely thrown into this story to gain more readers. What a surprise!! Near Eastern archaeologists using tenuous biblical connections for publicity purposes.

Incidentally, the claim that Akhnaten was a monotheist at all is rather far-fetched. Egyptian religion is consistently henotheistic, and Akhnaten was no exception (that means, you get all worked up about your god being the most supreme over all the other gods – not monotheistic where you claim the others don’t even exist. That’s a relatively late development to the religious landscape).

Via Agade

Noll's Ethics of Being a Theologian

I finally got around to reading K.L. Noll's Chronicle article on the difference between religious study and theology (thanks to my colleague Chris for posting a link to it on Facebook). I know that several others have evaluated this piece recently, but I'm still mulling over Noll for myself and will perhaps respond more fully later once I've read the thorough critiques by Chris Heard and Tyler Williams. I have to admit that on first read, I'm very sympathetic to Noll's characterization of the difference between religious studies and theology. (I've posted before on the issue. Here. And on the related issue of apologetics vs. critical Bible scholarship.) While I continue to ponder the implications of Noll's article, here are a few excerpts that caught my attention.

My encounter with that professor reflects a problem endemic to academe. Most people do not understand what religious study really is. Professors of religion are often confused with, or assumed to be allies of, professors of theology. The reason for the confusion is no secret. All too often, even at public universities, the religion department is peopled by theologians, and many of those theologians refuse to make the distinction that I am about to make.
 . . .
Theology also views itself as an academic discipline, but it does not attempt to advance knowledge. Rather, theologians practice and defend religion. Theology is a set of words about a god; therefore, while theology is one of many objects of investigation for a religion researcher, it is the substance of the scholarship produced by a theologian.

There is nothing wrong with the practice and defense of religion, but it is not the study of religion. The best theologians are scholars who have immersed themselves in many of the same academic disciplines favored by religion researchers. Like good religion research, good theology is generated by the application of sound reasoning to empirical evidence. But there is a crucial difference. The religion researcher evaluates that evidence from within a tradition of secular, academic "wisdom." The theologian evaluates the same evidence from within a tradition of sacred, esoteric "wisdom." The distinction is not trivial and ought to be recognized and honored by religion researchers and theologians alike.
. . .
In other words, the theologian maintains that there exists an irreducible element in religious ritual that we religion researchers cannot hope to comprehend. I expect every theologian to believe this and will never argue with theologians about it.

I was surprised when I read the comments to this article at the Chronicle. Maybe I followed him because I'm sympathetic to his reasoning, but the reactions were defensive and apologetic. I shouldn't have been surprised. My own posts on the subject garnered a similar reaction - objectivity is impossible, you're just as biased as we are, etc.

Lately, I've been wrestling with this issue - separating my approach to the Bible into professional and confessional categories and carefully trying to keep them apart. Perhaps Joel Willitts is right that it's more important to keep them together, realizing we can't separate the scholar from the scholarship.

Religious Harmony, Tolerance, and Scripture

The current issue of Time (Jun 15, 2009) has an article titled "Decoding God's Changing Moods." The main premise is that sacred Scripture for the world's 3 monotheistic faiths vacillate between tolerance and violence in relation to other religions.

The ancient Scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam reveal a pattern--and if we read it correctly, there may be hope for reconciliation and religious harmony. (p. 42 - print version)

The "code" to understand this vacillation is very simple. Peaceful environment + economic prosperity = tolerance.  Insecure environment + socio-economic struggle = violence. The primary biblical example propping up this proposition is the pre-exilic tension with surrounding nations (especially during Josiah's reign) combined with the exclusivistic monotheism of Second Isaiah during the exile versus the post-exilic inclusivism of Ruth, Jonah, & P.  The point is that world peace and religious harmony are in everyone's best interest - a win-win scenario instead of the inevitable lose-lose that we get from constant strife.

While I agree on principle that peace is desirable, I found it interesting that the writer uses Isaiah 2:4 as an example of how this world peace and harmony was "foretold."

         Isaiah 2:4 (ESV) 
        He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
        and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,and their spears into pruning hooks;
        nation shall not lift up sword against nation,neither shall they learn war anymore.

If a pre-exilic book (First Isaiah) has this sentiment, then does it really fall into line according to his "code"? I'd hardly call the time of First Isaiah one of peace and prosperity as Judah watched Assyria destroy Israel and devastate the Judean countryside. Also, what to do with the fact that many such statements about world peace reflect an eschatological extension of unrealized hopes for the present?

However, the main weakness of his conclusion is that he overlooks the fact that the Hebrew Bible's statements about tolerance or acceptance of other nations don't imply acceptance of other religions. Isaiah 2, for example, seems to indicate that all nations will come to recognize YHWH as the only true God and come to worship and learn from him in Jerusalem. Isaiah 19 is even more explicit in its depiction of Egypt and Assyria converting to worship YHWH.

Isaiah 19:21-25 (ESV) 
    And the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will now the LORD in that day and worship with sacrifice and offering, and they will make vows to the LORD and perform them. [22] And the LORD will strike Egypt, striking and healing, and they will return to the LORD, and he will listen to their pleas for mercy and heal them.
    [23] In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians.
    [24] In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, [25] whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance."

I'm not sure the Hebrew Bible ever reflects positive tolerance of other religions. The other examples - Ruth, Jonah, and P - also reflect the need for conversion to worship YHWH. Jonah is sent to Nineveh to preach repentance. Ruth accepts Naomi's religion when she vows to stay with her (Ruth 1:15-16). P's "everlasting covenant" is still between YHWH and all creatures of the earth (Gen 9:16). Now we can argue that the monotheistic faiths are all worshiping the same God, so these examples apply, but I really doubt that's what the biblical writers had in mind. I don't think the Bible says much at all about international relations and religious tolerance.

Mr. Wright (the author of the article) wants to emphasize that religious tolerance is a biblical option, too. Don't just focus on the "kill the infidels" passages like Deut. 20:17. But if the peace-loving passages imply "converting the infidels", then we really don't have biblical support for the idea of tolerance and harmony among many religions. The parts of the Bible that do reflect religious pluralism condemn it as idolatrous and wrong, the story having been recorded from the YHWH-only perspective.

While I'm all for peace, non-violence, and living together in mutual respect, love, and harmony, it's hard to make an ancient text support modern sensibilities of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance that were completely foreign to the writers.

Ugaritic Magic & the Bible

As modern readers of the Bible, it is easy to forget that the Bible is a product of the ancient world where magic was as much a part of religious culture as sacrifices, and temples, and myths about the many gods.

The Bible doesn't give us any magical spells, but we can understand a little bit of the larger religious culture of the ancient Near East by looking at the many texts found at Ugarit -- a city north of Israel that was destroyed around 1200 BCE.

For example, KTU 1.169 is a magical incantation of some sort. It relates generally to the biblical world through connections with the magical practices of the ancient Near Eastern culture described in the Bible, through connections of poetic or figurative language of the Bible, and through the formulaic language of religious curses found in the Bible.

The difficulties involved in interpretation of this text have generated many articles but no consensus on what it’s about. The problems fall into two categories—either, issues with otherwise attested words whose meaning can be determined but whose function here is difficult to determine, or issues with words that are only attested here in this text (and it has a lot for a short tablet) so no one is quite sure either what they mean or how they’re being used.

There are 3 options for understanding the purpose of this text:

1) It is an incantation against sexual impotence (Saracino, Pardee)

2) It is an incantation for casting out demons/ghosts/evil spirits who cause disease (Avishur)

3) It is an incantation against sorcery (Fleming)

While it seems to be a stretch to identify the affliction of the priest’s client as sexual impotence, the likelihood is high that a physical illness or condition of some kind prompted the consultation with the priest.[1] The belief that diseases were caused by evil spirits was common in the ancient world (Avishur 1981, 14).

Avishur (1981:14-16) interprets the incantation progressively in a way that incorporates the two remaining options – first it is an incantation against evil spirits who cause disease, then against the magicians who invoked the evil spirits to inflict disease. The first strophe is against the spirits directly. The second strophe is against the magicians. Fleming and Ford both treat this as just an incantation against the sorcerers based on the direct address to the sorcerer in line 9. However, it makes sense to consider both the sorcerer and the supernatural power that he was perceived to control as being the object of the incantation.

While not explicitly containing any incantations, the Hebrew Bible shows a clear awareness of the practice of ritual magic in Israel and the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East. Joseph was able to interpret the dreams of Pharaoh when his magicians and wise men could not (Gen 41). Similarly, Daniel is placed over all the magicians, enchanters, and sorcerers of Babylon (Dan 5:11). In the Exodus story, Moses and Aaron trade displays of supernatural power with the magicians of Pharaoh (Exod 7-9). Balak of Moab hires Balaam to curse Israel, paying him the “fees for divination” (Num 22:7). Saul consults a medium to contact the dead spirit of Samuel (1 Sam 28:7). Leviticus and Deuteronomy legislate against the practice of magic (Lev 20:27, Deut 18:10-11). Manasseh is accused of sorcery and other magical practices that characterized his religious abominations in addition to idolatry (2 Chron 33:1-9). The prophets also present a negative view of magic, characterizing sorcery and divination as a key component of false prophecy (Isa 2:3, 19:3, 47:9-12; Ezek 13:18-21; Jer 27:9).

The act of casting out evil spirits or demons is common to the Gospels (i.e., Matt 8, Mark 6, et. al.) where it is often closely associated with healing the sick. There are no explicit incantations in the New Testament but Matthew 8:16 describes Jesus casting out spirits “with a word” and passages like Matthew 7:22 and Luke 9:49 (“we saw someone casting out demons in your name”) reflect the need to invoke the name of a powerful religious authority to give effectiveness to the banishment. The Gospels portray the name of Jesus being used to bring power to the pronouncement in the same way that the deities Baal and Horon are invoked in KTU 1.169.

In addition to the cultural connections with the practice of ritual magic, many phrases similar to those used in KTU 1.169 can be found in the Hebrew Bible.

Parallels with the similes from lines 3-4:

“like smoke from a window” Hosea 13:3

“like a goat to the mountain” 1 Sam 24:3

“like a lion to the lair” Jer 25:38 & Ps 10:9

It is interesting to note that the image, not the exact phrasing, is important. Many of the parallels use close synonyms, not the exact words, which indicates this is stock imagery but not stock formulaic language.

One final observation related to biblical language is that the calling down of curses as punishment as found in lines 6-8 is reminiscent of Lev 26 and Deut 28 and the invocation of curses as punishment for breaking the covenant. The curse language from those passages is itself part of the stock imagery of the ancient Near East as has been demonstrated through comparisons with ANE treaty language such as that found in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon and the Aramaic treaty from Sefire.

Reference List

Avishur, Y. 1981. The ghost-expelling incantation from Ugarit. UF 13:13-25. Fleming, D. 1991. The voice of the Ugaritic incantation priest (RIH 78/20), UF 23: 141-154. ---. 2002. Ugaritic incantation against sorcery (RIH 78/20). In The Context of Scripture. Vol. III: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Eds. William K. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger. Leiden: Brill. Ford, J.N. 2002. The Ugaritic incantation against sorcery: RIH 78/20 (KTU² 1.169). UF 34: 153-211. Saracino, Francesco. 1982. Ras Ibn Hani 78/20 and some Old Testament connections. VT 32/3: 338-343.

---

[1] The “sexual impotence” interpretation seems to rest solely on the use of the word “rod, staff” to be a euphemism for “penis.” The connection seems rather weak without further evidence.

The Etymology of God and Allah

Here's another example of how the internet can foster the spread of misinformation. I happened upon a blog post that re-posted in full someone else's rant about why Christians should not use the word "Allah" as a name for God. To stop the spread of misinformation, I won't link to it. I fully agree with them that the current associations of the name as the proper name of the god of Islam make it unacceptable as a generic name for God. But why would English-speaking Christians need to use an Arabic word for God anyway? In today's world, it would simply cause confusion -- making it seem like the two biggest world religions really worship the same god (they don't).

However while the main point of the rant was correct, the post itself included a very glaring error of Hebrew etymology intended to discredit the word as a deity's name. They said that the Arabic word "Allah" was the same as (i.e., cognate to) the word for "oak trees" in the Hebrew Bible. This is completely incorrect. The terms are not related. The Arabic word is cognate to 'Eloah, a rare Hebrew synonym for El or Elohim, both used as generic words for "god." The same is true in English -- we can use "god" generally like "the Greek gods" or specifically as "God" to refer the Judeo-Christian God. One of the Hebrew words for "oak tree" is 'elah which looks similar to the Aramaic cognate of 'Eloah which is 'Elah. The spelling looks the same in my English transliteration, but there are differences in the original script. I suppose that similarity is possibly the source of the mix-up. (Side note on historical grammar: In Arabic and Aramaic, the last vowel in 'allah or 'elah is a historically long /a/. That's how we know for certain that 'elah "oak" in Hebrew is not related because historically long /a/ shifted to /o/ in the Canaanite dialects. This resulted in the /o/ vowel we have in 'eloah and 'elohim in Hebrew.)

At any rate whatever the origin of the word "Allah," it no longer carries a neutral connotation as a general word "god." As such, it would be inappropriate to use it for any deity except the god of the Quran. In the same way, it would be inappropriate to refer to any deity as YHWH except for the God of the Bible. One can read a good theological discussion of the differences between YHWH and Allah here. (that is, it's more articulate than the rant that I'm not linking to.)