Biblical History

Biblical history is a tangled can of worms. So many people want to believe so many things and the evidence one way or another is rather sketchy. That's not to say that there is nothing to be learned. What this means is that the things that we have to learn are complex.

We can't say that, “Yes this happened this way because this proves it and that ancient record says so.” However, we can say things like, “because this text was written in this way we think that this is more likely than that.”

When you get right down to it any source can be twisted to say whatever you want it to say. If you want something to be true enough you will believe that the evidence says whatever you want.

Looking at the bible as a book briefly we see that much of it was written in Chaldean Babylon, but that there are sources that came from much earlier. The Hebrew alphabet is based upon the earlier Greek alphabet rather than on cuneiform suggesting that the cuneiform language had been lost for some time before the Greek one was adopted.

It is possible that the events in Genesis were taken from Babylonian sources. It is possible that the Egyptian influences in things like Jewish kosher law came from the Egyptian influence on Levantine culture.

It's not possible that the bible is literal fact. It has a lot of inconsistencies in it, and if you are the sort of person who has to have your religious books absolutely right or absolutely wrong, then all I can say is that it isn't absolutely right.

Looking at external sources we have Egyptian records from the Armarna period (circa 1400 BCE or there abouts) that talk about the Habiru. A militarily capable people who are nomadic. These could be the ancient Hebrew speaking Jews. They might not be.

A letter to Egypt from Canaan asks for Egyptian support against the Habiru in about 1350. Canaan was a vassal state of Egypt, and therefore the protection of Canaanite lands would have been of interest to the ancient Egyptians.

Apiru, or dust makers, were a castoff group out of Canaan. These were criminals and the disenfranchised. They were the same as the Habiru, but did they originate in Canaan, or were they disliked because they were from elsewhere? When Canaan asked for help they were asking for help against rabble rousers among their own people.

But were the Habiru the Jews? Well, to that we can't say. Based on having nothing to contradict this they might have been. We can say that there is more evidence that they were than that they weren't based upon the idea that the name sounds similar and that the Jews were nomadic. There were many nomadic peoples though.

If they were the Jews then they would have been just forming in about 1350. They weren't shepherds. They would not have originated where they say that they do in the bible and the Exodus would never have happened. If they were a group that made up a component of the Jews however this all might still have happened. . . or it might not have.

In the book of Genesis there are several myths that come out of Sumer. These myths are clearly traceable to Sumerian myths? Or did they happen to go through another path? Abraham is said to come out of the city of Ur. Ur of the Chaldeas not of Sargon's kingdom, or of Babylon. Chaldea was where some of the Hebrew bible was penned down remember.

The myths could have gone from Sumer to Babylon to Chaldea and then to Jewish lore. Given just this alone it is slightly more likely that the Jews had a tradition of myths that came from Sumer than that they simply decided to adopt elements of Chaldean myth because of the stress in Jewish society on tradition. It isn't anything we can say for certain however.

The ten commandments have some similarities to the code of Hammurabi. The popularly depicted two tablet form is a common contract form from Mesopotamia, and as such suggests an origin sometime at the dawn of Babylonian power or just a little before or after. This suggests an Abraham that left Ur between 1850 BCE and 1750 BCE.

This is consistent with the relatively xenophobic nature of the later Jews, and the Mesopotamian myths in Genesis. It explains why the myths are Mesopotamian rather than Hurian, or Canaanite, but only if they did in fact depart from Mesopotamia and landed in Egypt. If they had departed from Mesopotamia and only went as far as the Levant they would have been absorbed by Levantine culture.

Egypt was invaded by a people called the Hyksos. The Hyksos were predominantly west semitic, but we know that they weren't all west semitic. There were Indo European Hurians in the mix and may have also contained the Jews.

There is a theory that the Jews were not slaves. They certainly didn't build the pyramids. We know this because we know who did actually build the pyramids. They might have been mercenaries that served as a buffer between the Levant and Egypt. If this is the case they would have been a force to be reckoned with, having the military traditions of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt as well as constant readiness because of the instability of the politics of the region.

Another theory is that the Jews were a people called the Shasu. This word basically means to move on foot. In the fifth dynasty about (roughly 2500 to 2350 BCE) this term began to be applied to tribes that the Egyptians encountered to the north. This fits the idea that there were wandering shepherds in the north with some military strength. This doesn't mean that they were the Jews, but rather suggests that Abraham could have come from this pool of people.

In the Eighteenth Dynasty through the third intermediate period (about 1550 to 650 BCE) they begin to be found in Egyptian texts as a people with more likely ties to the Jews. Places and names are mentioned and we can be reasonably sure that they are talking about the Jews. A figure Yhw is said to come from this area, and we can reasonably guess that this is YHWH.

These people were just past the border of Egypt as is consistent with the earlier mentioned theory that they were a military mercenary group that left Egypt. It's also consistent with a lot of other things. Also it should be noted that these Shasu were not mentioned coming out of Egypt.

This brings us to the Exodus. If they were IN Egypt then they LEFT Egypt. That's a far cry from being slaves who left during a period of cataclysmic plagues. They might not have been in Egypt however. Egypt never recorded losing battles, so we wouldn't know really, but wouldn't something have been mentioned?

Well, trouble is that a lot of things happened in Egypt between 1800 and 1400 or so. We can't prove anything one way or another. But let us say that they were in Egypt. They would have left before or right around the reign of Akhenaten (beginning at about 1350) and might have picked up a trace of monotheism. The religion picked up Egyptian ideas of purity and blended them into Kosher law.

Both monotheism and Kosher law came into prominence in what is called the Levitical period. This is the time that Levitical law was put into place. Leviticus was penned in 550 ish BCE, but may have had its roots in 1500 BCE or there abouts. That proves that the events to this point definitely might or might not have happened.

At this point our myths are plausible. I tend to lean towards the Jews doing roughly what they said that they did with lavish embellishments. They might have come later and adopted the beliefs and stories of a small group who actually did those things. Those things may not have happened and they might have come completely out of Canaan.

Return Home