Rex Banks
The Amarna Tablets.
The Merneptah Stela.
The Amarna Tablets
Certain discoveries at the Egyptian site of el-Amarna from 1887 have been of great interest to biblical archaeologists, and for reasons which we will explain below, the advent of the "new chronology" has intensified discussion of the findings from this site, which was the location of the ancient capital of Egypt. In particular, attention has focussed upon a collection of tablets recovered from the site which are generally referred to as the Amarna Letters. These Letters include communications to the Pharaoh of the day from officials of Palestine and Syria who express concern about disruption being caused by a group know as the Habiru. According to The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia the chief significance of the Letters is threefold:
the Amarna Letters are the most important primary evidence for the history of the Amarna age;
they refer to the Hapiru (q.v.), a subject relevant for the study of Heb origins; and
they show the internal socio-political situation of Caanon just prior to the Hebrew conquest. (emphasis mine)
Concerning the "internal state of affairs" in Palestine at the time we are told:
"Local princes desired to rebel against Egypt and gain their independence. Hittite encouragement made them all the more eager to rebel. The Amarna Letters give several cases of conflicts between such rebels and loyal vassels, both of whom were sending letters to Egypt in which they proclaimed their loyalty and complained of the disloyalty of others.... the Hapiru appear as intruders and trouble-makers from the outside (whose)... members were being augmented by dwellers in the cities who deserted their leaders to join themselves with the Hapiru. Members of the Hapiru were available for military service as the mercenaries for anyone who wished to hire them. In general they were seen as a threat both to Egyptian power and to the existing social structure of Palestine."
Thus we have a picture of a land divided into small, feuding city states and experiencing a great deal of social unrest. Clearly if these tablets do indeed paint a picture of the conditions in Canaan just prior to the Hebrew invasion then they are of great interest to biblical archaeologists. For example as the Catholic Encyclopaedia explains:
"The various peoples (Chanaanites, Hethites, Amorrhites, Pherezites, etc.) who made up the population of Western Palestine, constituted a number of mostly independent cities, distracted by those mutual jealousies which have been revealed by the Tell el-Amarna tablets, and hence not likely to combine their forces against Israel's invasion."
What's more, some argue that the Letters not merely describe general conditions at about the time of Joshua, but that they make reference to events associated with the conquest itself. For example one tablet reads in part: "They have entered the land to lay waste... strong is he who has come down. He lays waste." It has been suggested that this is a reference to the invading Israelite army, "he" being the God of Israel. The same tablet contains the following plea from a Canaanite leader: "All the lands of the king have broken away ... The Habiru are plundering the lands of the king. If no troops come in this very year, then all the lands of the king are lost." The question of whether the Habiru/Hapiru are to be identified as the Hebrews has been debated for ages. It seems most likely that the term refers, not to a particular ethnic group, but rather to a class of people who were not part of mainstream society. They were often pictured as marauders, wanderers, nomads, mercenaries and suchlike. The evidence suggests that the invading, unsettled Israelites could well have been classified as Habiru/Hapiru, but it also seems clear that the term is not restricted to a particular ethnic group. So perhaps the Amarna tablets do indeed record the reactions of Canaanite vassals of Egypt to Joshua's invading army, although there is no general agreement that this is the case.
The "new chronology" has added a new twist to the Amarna debate. According to David Rohl, "the Amarna period is contemporary with the rise of the Israelite monarchy" (emphasis mine) and the tablets do not date to the time of the conquest or earlier. Rohl argues that "the Amarna Letters log the whole process, beginning with the Hebrew revolt in the central hill country of Palestine at the beginning of King Saul's reign and ending with the assault upon Jerusalem in the eighth year of King David". (emphasis mine) Thus we have the intriguing suggestion from certain revisionists that the Amarna correspondence deals with that period of time when a new power base emerges in the Levant under the rule of Saul and David. Clearly the implications of this suggestion are quite startling, and this is another reason why the debate between defenders of the "conventional chronology" and advocates of the "new chronology" has sometimes been quite heated.
Earlier we discussed the fact that the "conventional chronology" is under attack from those who believe that the biblical Shishak has been misidentified, and Rowl's dating of the Amarna period grows out of his conviction that this is indeed the case.
However Rohl also claims that a completely independent strand of evidence provided by the Letters themselves supports the "new chronology." Apparently one tablet contains a letter from one Abimilku of Tyre who informs Pharaoh Akenaten that a fire has destroyed part of the palace in the city of Ugarit. In the charred remains of this palace, archaeologists have discovered a tablet describing an eclipse near sunset in the month of Hiyaru, which is mid-April to mid-May. In 1988, computer retro-calculation revealed that on May 9th in the year 1012 B.C. an eclipse did occur at this location some 30 minutes before sunset, and the calculations also revealed that this was the only total solar eclipse within an hour of sunset during the entire second millennium B.C. Therefore Rowl draws the conclusion that Abimilku's letter and the fire occurred after (but for various reasons not long after) the tablet recording the eclipse had been inscribed. He claims that this provides independent confirmation that the Amarna period was not located prior to or during the conquest, but around the time of the eclipse (1012 B.C.). This of course is the Saul-David era.
We cannot take the time to discuss all the evidence adduced by Rowl in support of his revision, but he does quote leading Biblical historians Moshe Greenberg, George Mendenhall and Kyle McCarter to show that David and his gang provide the "clearest example" of and "most striking parallel" to the Habiru of the Amarna period. Mc Carter calls David "an 'apiru chief." Rowl points out that if it was not for widespread commitment to the "conventional chronology," there would be general recognition that the situation of the Habiru corresponds perfectly with the situation of David's outlaw band. (For a detailed discussion of the correspondence between the tablets and the biblical record of Palestine at the time of Saul-David see A Test Of Time pp 225-298). He is adamant that "the general political topography of the Levant in the Amarna period closely corresponds to that described in the second book of Samuel which deals with the beginning of the United Monarchy period in Israelite history." Examples of this similarity in political topography include the following:
1) During the Amarna period "In the coastal plain and Jezreel valley the city state rulers who correspond with Amenhotep 3rd and Akenaten bear names of Indo-European origin.." (emphasis mine) They include the kings of Gath, Ashkelon, Megiddo. When we compare the situation with the biblical narrative we find that according to Scripture "In the time of Saul, the coastal plain is dominated by five Philistine ...(lords) based at the cities of Askelon, Gath, Gaza, Ashdod and Ekron...The Philistines are of Indo-European stock."
2) During the Amarna period "The city of Gezer is in the hands of Canaanite rulers bearing West Semitic names..." Again there is a match with the biblical record, since according to Scripture "During the early Monarchy Period, Gezer is ruled by Canaanite kings who are not part of the Philistine confederacy ..." In fact "Gezer only comes under Israelite control when the city is given as a dowry to Solomon following its defeat and destruction by Pharaoh." (1 Kings 9:16)
3) During the Amarna period (Akhenaten's reign) Jerusalem is an independent city state and is ruled by one Abdiheba, whose name means "servant of Heba" - Heba being a Hurrian goddess. When we turn to Scripture we find a similar situation at the time of Saul and during the time of David's first seven years as king. During this period also Jerusalem is "an independent enclave.." and at this time also the city is "ruled by ...an Indo-European or Hurrian elite."
4) During the Amarna period "To the North, the region of Syria is dominated by kings of Amorite stock- Abdiashirta and later, his son Aziru. These rulers continuously stir up trouble in the region and attack neighbouring city states." When we turn to Scripture we find a similar situation at the time of David. According to the biblical record, "The main opponent of David...was Hadadezer, 'the Rehobite king of Zobah' (2 Sam. 8:3) whose sphere of influence encompassed the whole of Syria." Rohl also points out that the name Aziru (which appears on the tablets) is a hypocoristicon, or accepted shortening of a longer more formal name. He adds: "Professor William Moran, the recognised expert on the archive, suggests that the name of the king of..(ancient Syria)should be translated as '[N is the] helper' where 'N' represents the name of a deity. If we substitute the pre-eminent Syrian weather god Hadad for ' [N]' then we would get 'Hadad is the helper' - in other words the biblical name Hadadezer." Rohl concludes:
"Thus we can justifiably conclude that our el-Amarna Aziru is a Syrian ruler whose full name was probably Hadadaziru. Within the new chronology he must be one and the same as King Hadadezer, long-time enemy of King David."
But Rohl goes further than simply pointing out the similarities between "the general political topography" of the Amarna tablets and the book of second Samuel. He goes on to make the startling claim that King Saul is to be identified with a character named Labayu who features in the Amarna correspondence! In his words " " if the new chronology's synchronism of the Amarna period with the early Monarchy period is correct, then this Labayu must be none other than the first Israelite king - Saul!" In support of this contention Rohl appeals to "a number of remarkable similarities" between the two, among them the following:
1) Labayu of the and Letters was a "rebellious vassal" who was regarded as a "major threat to the stability of the region." The Letters record that he even sends a warning to Pharaoh not to interfere in his affairs, couching it in the form of a proverb: "If an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man that struck it?" Now during Saul's reign, the Philistines owed their allegiance to Egypt, and we are told that under Saul, Israel rose in revolt against the Philistines incurring their enmity. (1 Sam. 13:3-5)
2) "Labayu's scribes were poorly versed in the language employed by the other nations (Akkadian). Albright thinks it is because Labayu was new to the game of international politics: he was a king whose 'beginnings were insignificant' ". Certainly this corresponds with Saul's situation. When Samuel speaks to Saul of his future elevation, Saul replies: "But am I not a Benjamite, from the smallest tribe of Israel, and is not my clan the least of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? Why do you say such a thing to me?" (1 Sam. 9:20, 21) Both Labayu and Saul appear to have little knowledge of "any courtly tradition." Rohl quotes Albright who says that one of Labayu's letters was written in "almost pure Canaanite" and tells us that "Labayu's 'Canaanite' is simply early Hebrew". (emphasis mine)
3) Rohl tells us that the Amarna Letters speak of Labayu's close connection with the Habiru. One letter from Abdiheba, ruler of Jerusalem informs Pharaoh that Labaya had at one time established a power base in the region of Shechem for his Habiru mercenary forces. Abdiheba asks: "Are we to act like Labayu, when he was giving the land of Shechem to the Habiru?" On the basis of such texts as 1 Sam. 14:21-22 and 1 Sam. 13:6, 7 Rohl argues that Saul's "Hebrews" are mercenaries who are to be identified as Habiru, and he points out that in one Letter Labayu himself is described as "the Habiru who was raised up against the lands."
4) In one letter Labayu writes: "Moreover, the king wrote for my son. I did not know that my son was consorting with the Habiru. I herewith handed over to Addaya (the Egyptian commissioner in Gaza)." As we said above, David and his band of outlaws fit the description of the Habiru perfectly, and we know of the love which Saul's son Jonathan had for David. In 1 Sam. 20:30 Saul accuses his son of associating with David saying "you son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse (David) to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?"
5) Labayu dies in battle against a confederacy of Western city state rulers under the leadership of the ruler of Gath, and following his death his sons urge war "against the people of Gina for having killed (their)...father." Saul too died in battle, and his last stand was at Mount Gilboa. Interestingly Gina is situated close to the southern slopes of Gilboa. Rohl suggests that the deaths of both men are parallel in other ways as well, but we will simply note here that both men die in battle, that both evidently meet their end in the same locale, and that in both cases the enemy appears to have been the same.
6) According to the Amarna Letters, following the death of Labayu the troops of Gath garrisoned the town of Bethshan. According to Scripture following the death of Saul, the men of Israel "abandoned the cities and fled; then the Philistines came and lived in them". (1 Sam. 31:7)
Given the similarity in political topography and the correspondences in the lives of Labayu and Saul, this suggestion that the Amarna tablets preserve an account of the first Israelite king is certainly worthy of consideration. Rohl tells us that Labayu likely means "Great Lion (of N)" where "N" represents the name of a deity. In light of this it is interesting that when David hides from Saul's men in the cave of En-Gedi (1 Sam. 24) he writes: "I am in the midst of lions (Hebrew 'lebaim'); I lie among ravenous beasts - men whose teeth are spears and arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords". (Ps. 57:4) Perhaps once the constraints of the "conventional chronology" are removed, links between Scripture and the Letters become apparent which were not evident to several generations of scholars.
Rohl goes on to suggest that the Amarna tablets also connect with the events of the early years of David's reign following the death of Saul. For example, Abdiheba the ruler of Jerusalem writes to Pharaoh:
"May the King give thought to his land; the land of the King is lost. All of it has attacked me....The strong arm of the King took the land of Naharim (Mitanni) and the land of Kasi Cush) but now the habiru have taken the very cities of the King...The King did nothing! ....made the King send a commissioner to fetch me, along with my brothers, and then we will die near the King our Lord."
Rohl believes that the new chronology explains the situation of the Jerusalem ruler - he was about to fall into the hands of David who, according to Scripture, took Jerusalem in about 1003 B.C. Rohl tells us that there are a number of references in the Letters which throw light upon the activities of David in his early years as King, but we will close with just one more Amarna quotation. In a letter to Pharaoh Akhenaten from Labayu's son Mutbaal, written after Labayu's death, the writer responds to a question from the Egyptians about the whereabouts of someone called Ayab. Concerning this individual Mutbaal says "he has been in the field for two months. Just ask Benenima. Just ask Dadua. Just ask Yishuya..." Rohl suggests that the five characters mentioned here, are also found in the biblical record, as follows:
1) If Saul is Labayu, then clearly Mutbaal is to be identified as Ishbaal (Ish-bosheth [2 Sam. 2:8]) Eshbaal (1 Chron. 8:33) son of Saul. Mutbaal is the Canaanite form of Ishbaal. Both mean Man of Baal.
2) According to Rohl, Ayab is none other than Joab commander of David's Haribu forces. We are told that in Hebrew, Joab means "Yo is the father," Yo or Ya being a common abbreviation for Yahweh. Rohl shows that it was common to place something called the "prosthetic aleph" ("A") before a name, and that therefore Ayab should be interpreted as A-Ya-ab. With the "A" removed we are left with "Ya-ab" which, like Joab, means "Ya is the father."
3) Benenima is identified as Baanah, the tribal chief who later assassinated Ishbaal. (2 Sam. 4) We are told that both names convey the same meaning, "son of [the god] Ana."
4) Dadua is identified as David. Rohl calls this "the most crucial of all identifications." After some discussion of such matters as the Hebrew form of this name, its rendering in the Septuaguint etc., he tells us that "scholars have recognised that the Hebrew name Dad/Dud is the exact equivalent of Akkadian Dadu as found in names such as Dadiya, Daduilu, dadusha and Dadanu."
5) Yishuya Rohl identifies as Jesse, father of David. In Hebrew Jesse is Yisay and we are told that "the Canaanite name Yish-uya and the Hebrew name Yish-ay are identical."
It is worth while pointing out that if these identifications are correct, it is understandable why Ishbaal refers Akenaten to David in connection with Joab's whereabouts, because of course Joab was David's army commander and also his nephew. (2 Sam. 8:16; 1 Chron. 2:16)
Understandably with the advent of the "new chronology" the Amarna Tablets have attracted a
great deal of attention, and undoubtably vigorous debate will continue in the future. Clearly it is
not easy for the nonspecialist to familiarise himself with all the relevant information, but if the
revisionists are correct, the Letters offer a unique insight into history of the Israelite nation
during the earliest years of the monarchy, and confirm the biblical record at a number of different
points.
The Merneptah Stela.
In his The Bible As History Werner Keller writes:
"In the Cairo Museum there is a monument from a mortuary temple near Thebes, on which they victory of Pharaoh Merenptah over the Lybians is commemorated and celebrated...(and) other notable victories which this ruler is said to have achieved are also mentioned. The end of the hymn of praise runs as follows; 'Canaan is conquered, Yanoam is blotted out. The people of Israel is desolate, it has no offspring: Palestine has become a widow for Egypt.' " (emphasis mine)
Keller goes on to explain that the hymn is very significant because "here for the first timein human history the name 'Israel' is immortalised, and that by a foreigner and a contemporary." Because of its importance, the seven foot high block containing the hymn, known as the Merneptah Stela, has been the subject of much study and debate since its discovery by Flinders Petrie in 1896. From what I have read, the reference to Israel should probably read "Israel is desolate, its seed is not," and the meaning is that Israel's food supply has been destroyed. Of particular interest is the fact that the text suggests that Israel at this time was not a small tribe, but was on par with the other cities mentioned.Now according to the "conventional chronology" Merneptah ruled between 1213-04 B.C., (Britannica), and given this chronology the stela (dated to the fifth year of his reign) would provide proof that by the end of the 13th century, Israel was settled in the land of Canaan. Clearly this would effectively answer those critics who affirm that Israel did not emerge as a nation until the next century. However recently the revisionists have suggested a later date for Merneptah's reign. David's Rohl for example argues that "new chronology" the stela dates from about 880 B.C. Too Rohl argues that "The final strophe on the 'Israel Stela' is not a record of Merenptah's personal military activities but rather a view of the international scene as it appeared in his reign." According to Rohl, the victory over Israel which is spoken of, is that of Merneptah's father Rameses 2nd (the biblical Shishak [see above]). As we said earlier, the chronology debate is continuing, but either way the Merneptah Stela provides an early and significant extra biblical reference to the nation of Israel. Home|Contents