Как известно, в Библии указано, что ещё Моисей получил от Бога скрижали. Несомненно, он мог их прочесть. Это уже подразумевает наличие письменности у евреев во времена Моисея. А между тем, археология даёт совершенно иную картину, и позводяет датировать письменность евреев гораздо более поздним временем.
"ANCIENT ISRAEL What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?" Lester L. Grabbe:
3.2.5 Writing, Literacy and Bureaucracy
The Proto-Canaanite alphabet is attested as early as the fourteenth century BCE, but the standard view of its development into the Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets of Iron IIA is now contested. A concomitant debate concerns the development of official written texts: seals, inventories, documents, records, diaries and the like. Finally, there is the question of how early and how widespread knowledge of writing was within the wider population.
B. Sass (2005) has recently re-evaluated the development of the Northwest
Semitic alphabet. The conventional view had been that the latest Proto-
Canaanite inscriptions were to be dated to the eleventh century, followed
by the early monumental inscriptions from Byblos in the tenth century (the
Ahiram sarcophagus being placed about 1000 BCE). The earliest examples
of the Aramaic and Greek alphabets were also placed in the eleventh century, even though the actual evidence suggested this was two and a half centuries too early (Sass 2005: 14). Sass himself sees no problem with the relative chronology but argues that the absolute chronology should be lowered by about 250 years for many of the diagnostic inscriptions (see the chart in 2005: 73).
Currently, there is a dearth of monumental and other inscriptions that
one associates with a functioning state until the ninth century. Sass (2005: 60) argues that the lack of monumental inscriptions is a reflection of the true state of affairs - there were few such inscriptions produced at that time (the lack of finds after so much archaeological work over many decades is definitive). On the other hand, administrative documents have not been found because they were probably written on perishable material. The finds of bullae that once sealed documents is one of the main indicators (Lemaire 1981; Sass 2005: 51; cf. Reich, Shukron and Lernau forthcoming).
What does this say about the development of a bureaucracy, which in
turn is usually taken as evidence of a fully fledged state? We should first be aware that a state can exist without the existence of writing (Trigger 2003: 595-8). Bureaucracy can exist without writing, and a state does not need an enormously complicated bureaucracy to be a state. Ancient Israel and Judah were not Mesopotamia or Egypt. The scribal structure needed to carry out the necessary administrative tasks might have been a fairly minimal one, with scribes trained by apprenticeship rather than in scribal schools, and the scribal office perhaps handed down from father to son (Grabbe 1995:
160-1, 173-4). On the other hand, the kingdom of Solomon as described in the biblical text would have required an extensive bureaucracy to co-ordinate all the various governmental activities ascribed to his reign. Rather than a sophisticated administrative apparatus at the beginning of Israelite statehood (which is the picture given to us in the Bible), there are increasing signs of the spread of writing and literacy as time goes on, with the climax reached in seventh-century BCE Judah. This 'explosion of writing' has been explained as evidence of an increase in the bureaucracy (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 270; Stern 2001: 169). The finds indicate a greater quantity of written objects preserved from the seventh century - seals, seal impressions, ostraca and inscribed weights (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 270, 280-1; Stern 2001:169-200) - seeming evidence that Judah had become a fully developed state by this time (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:281,284). Thus, the sorts of written objects catalogued here do look like the type of written material that would be the product of the bureaucracy and state administration, but this was long after the tenth century.
The extent of literacy among the population has been much debated, but
in order to understand ancient Judaism fully, we must keep in mind that it was mainly an oral society, like most other societies of the ancient Near East (Harris 1989; Niditch 1996; Young 1998). Although writing was known in both Egypt and Mesopotamia from about 3000 BCE, writing in many cases was quite complicated and primarily in the hands of professional scribes. Most people in the ancient world were not literate, even in cultures with an alphabetic script, and we have no indication that the Jews were any different from their Near Eastern neighbours. Ability to write one's name or decipher a seal inscription implies a different concept of literacy than the capacity to read, understand and write long documents (cf. Street 1984; Niditch 1996: 39-45). A society can know writing and still be an oral society (Macdonald 2005). If Jewish literacy at the turn of the era was no more than about 3-5 per cent (Hezser 2001: 496), it would have been correspondingly less in a largely peasant population in the early centuries of Northwest Semitic writing. If there had been lengthy written material, who would have read
it?
All examples of writing we have from Palestine in this era are short and
functional. Estimates of how early we have inscriptions in Palestine vary.
N. Na'aman (1994c: 219-22) pointed out that there were no pre-eighthcentury alphabetic writings in the area of Israel and Judah (except for the Gezer calendar which he suggested was probably Canaanite). The spread of alphabetic writing did not antedate the mid-eighth century, and not a single inscription has been found in Jerusalem before the late eighth century. This was more than a decade ago; things have changed but not by much. To the tenth century Renz (1995) attributes the Gezer calendar and three short inscriptions from Tel Batash, Tel 'Amal and Rosh Zayit - to which he adds two brief inscriptions from Beth-Shemesh and Tel Rehov VI. In addition to the four Arad ostraca that Renz attributes to the ninth century, along with the short inscription from Tell el-Hammah and the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscription, he would include two from Tel Rehov IV (see also Mazar forthcoming a).
Even if there had been widespread functional literacy, there was very little
written material available.
As already noted above, by the seventh century there was a significant
increase in written artifacts, which has been interpreted as demonstrating a greater degree of literacy in Judah at this time. Indeed, it has been associated with the rise of the Deuteronomic movement and the promulgation of Deuteronomy under Josiah:
The very fact that a written law code suddenly appeared at this time meshes well with the archaeological record of the spread of literacy in Judah ... The report of the appearance of a definitive written text and its public reading by the king accords with the evidence for the sudden, dramatic spread of literacy in seventhcentury Judah ... Writing joined preaching as a medium for advancing a set of quite revolutionary political, religious, and social ideas. (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001:280-1,284)
I am not so sure that the inferences drawn here are justified: the increases
are generally those associated with the bureaucracy and scribal bureaucrats.
The increase in written material of this sort would not necessarily indicate an
increase of general literacy in the population. There are also levels of literacy: the ability to read the short inscription on a seal impression or even an administrative document does not demonstrate the reading of long religious documents. If Deuteronomy was really produced at this time - a view widely held but also disputed (§3.1.6.2) - the writers were naturally literate. But it does not follow that there was greater literacy in the general population.
There is no evidence of multiple copies of the document or that people were
reading it for themselves; on the contrary, it was by public teaching - perhaps
including public reading - that it would have been promulgated (cf. Deut.
31.10-13).
The archaeological finds of seals, seal impressions and ostraca give no
support to the view that 'writing joined preaching for advancing a set of
quite revolutionary political, religious, and social ideas'. Where are such
ideas promulgated in the seal impressions and ostraca? Granted, the apparent move to aniconic inscriptions on seals may be a datum giving evidence of the spread of Josiah's reform. But the mere presence of aniconic seals is not an overt means of propagating the revolutionary ideals that accompanied such a reform. The move away from iconography would be a consequence of such a reform, not the vehicle for advancing it. The changes in seal impressions would probably have been noted consciously only by a very few. The much debated issue of schools in ancient Israel (Lemaire 1981; Millard 1985; Crenshaw 1985; 1998: 85-113; Haran 1988; Grabbe 1995: 171-4) includes two separate questions. Did schools exist to teach scribes? The answer is, possibly, but the case is not proved. Although scribes were trained in schools in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, the scribal needs for a small entity such as Judah could probably be met by a form of apprenticeship. The second issue is, did schools exist for general public education? The answer is definitely negative. If there were schools for others than scribes, they would have been for the wealthy and aristocratic, though these could probably afford to hire tutors. Apart from scribal schools, schools are first attested in the Greek period.
...
CHAPTER 4
Iron IIB (900-720):
Rise and Fall of the Northern Kingdom
...
4.1.2 Hebrew Inscriptions
The number of Hebrew inscriptions for this period is surprisingly small. This
fact is one of the supports used by those who argue that writing only began
to be used extensively in the latter part of the monarchy (§3.2.5). What we
have are mostly ostraca (Renz 1995:1, 40-144). The main texts - those with
legible text of any length - are the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions (Gogel 1998:
#6.1.14) and the Samarian ostraca (Gogel 1998: #6.1.21; TSSI 1; Lemaire
1977). The former are mainly of religious interest and are discussed below
in that context (§4.2.5). The Samarian ostraca are usually dated to the early eighth century and explained as administrative documents relating to wine and oil brought into the city from outside (Kaufman 1992). H. M. Niemann (2007) has recently explained them differently: they document attempts by Jehoash and Jeroboam II to integrate the traditional tribal links into their personal power network. It was the practice to have elite members of the clans reside as 'honoured guests' in Samaria for shorter or longer periods of time, stabilizing political links between the Samarian king (warlord) and the surrounding clans. Wine and oil were sent from their local constituents to the clan members residing in Samaria, and the ostraca are to be explained as receipts for these goods. The ostraca are an important source of data on names of people in ancient Israel.
Для начала неплохо было бы определиться что подразумевается под термином "евреи" относительно времени той эпохи.
Опять же, Моисей, это личность мифологическая, и как-бы приписывать ей создание какой-либо письменности всё-таки несколько несерьёзно. Говорить же в историческом контексте к примеру об Орфее, Тоте, или там Гермесе Трисмегисте, было бы не совсем верно, думается.
Для начала неплохо было бы определиться что подразумевается под термином "евреи" относительно времени той эпохи.
Опять же, Моисей, это личность мифологическая, и как-бы приписывать ей создание какой-либо письменности всё-таки несколько несерьёзно. Говорить же в историческом контексте к примеру об Орфее, Тоте, или там Гермесе Трисмегисте, было бы не совсем верно, думается.
Вот именно! Но не все это понимают, и принимают всё, что написано в Библии за чистую монету. С другой стороны, некоторые пророки более позднего времени (ИМХО Исаёя-Иезекииль как минимум) могут считаться вполне историческими личностями. А вот письмена евреев до возникновения царства на поверку (пока ещё) выходят мифом, а не реальностью.
Вот именно! Но не все это понимают, и принимают всё, что написано в Библии за чистую монету. С другой стороны, некоторые пророки более позднего времени (ИМХО Исаёя-Иезекииль как минимум) могут считаться вполне историческими личностями. А вот письмена евреев до возникновения царства на поверку (пока ещё) выходят мифом, а не реальностью.
Это проблемы "принимающих", пусть хоть хроники Толкиена в свои "летописи" впишут, чем же тут им можно помочь.))
"Древнееврейский язык" - вообще из средневековья термин, почему он до сих пор продолжает муссироваться это загадка, нонсенс попросту говоря.
У иудеев не было своего какого-то отдельного языка, они говорили на ханаанском, как и все ханаанеяне и прочие народности живущие в Палестине того времени. Позже арамейский язык полностью заменил ханаанский, окончательно где-то в эпоху Ахеменидов. Письменность до перехода на арамейскую естественно была тоже ханаанской.
Для начала неплохо было бы определиться что подразумевается под термином "евреи" относительно времени той эпохи.
Ну, наверное, применительно к данной конкретной эпохе, это тот самый библейский народ, который был выведен из Египта Моисеем и его кланом, а затем осел в "Земле Обетованной" под руководством Иисуса Навина. Плюс все те, кто описываются как "12 колен Израилевых" в Ветхом Завете в ранний период их государственности (т. е. вплоть до времени увода в полон). Если принять "традиционную дату" Исхода, то это примерно период 1280-586 г. г. до н. э., а если самую древнюю дату Исхода, то верхний кусок попадает уже на период сразу после гиксосов (ок. сер. 16 в. до н. э.). Вопрос в том - была ли у этого народа письменность, если была, то какая (в т. ч. стадии эволюции древнееврейского письма). И ещё - когда она появилась. Каким временем датируется самое позднее применение древнееврейского письма?
Ну, наверное, применительно к данной конкретной эпохе, это тот самый библейский народ, который был выведен из Египта Моисеем и его кланом, а затем осел в "Земле Обетованной" под руководством Иисуса Навина. Плюс все те, кто описываются как "12 колен Израилевых" в Ветхом Завете в ранний период их государственности (т. е. вплоть до времени увода в полон).
Если принять "традиционную дату" Исхода, то это примерно период 1280-586 г. г. до н. э., а если самую древнюю дату Исхода, то верхний кусок попадает уже на период сразу после гиксосов (ок. сер. 16 в. до н. э.).
Вопрос в том - была ли у этого народа письменность, если была, то какая (в т. ч. стадии эволюции древнееврейского письма). И ещё - когда она появилась. Каким временем датируется самое позднее применение древнееврейского письма?
"Библейский народ" - это мифология, данные мифические события достоверными историческими данными не подтверждаются.
"Дата Исхода" - "примерно период 1280-586 гг до н.э."?! Вы это серьёзно, или просто немножко запутались?
С термином "древнееврейское письмо" тоже неплохо бы разобраться.))
Сообщение отредактировал Лисий: 26.09.2013 - 19:11 PM
"Библейский народ" - это мифология, данные мифические события достоверными историческими данными не подтверждаются.
Этот вопрос подробно разбирается в книге, которую я привёл выше - "ANCIENT ISRAEL What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?" Lester L. Grabbe. Именно она наталкивает на определённого рода размышления.
"Дата Исхода" - "примерно период 1280-586 гг до н.э."?! Вы это серьёзно, или просто немножко запутались?
А если прочесть не "между строк", а буквально, что я написал, то легко можно убедиться, что вы неправильно интерпретируете мои слова. Никто не говорил, что исход из Египта длился 800 лет. Я писал:
Ну, наверное, применительно к данной конкретной эпохе, это тот самый библейский народ, который был выведен из Египта Моисеем и его кланом, а затем осел в "Земле Обетованной" под руководством Иисуса Навина. Плюс все те, кто описываются как "12 колен Израилевых" в Ветхом Завете в ранний период их государственности (т. е. вплоть до времени увода в полон). Если принять "традиционную дату" Исхода, то это примерно период 1280-586 г. г. до н. э., а если самую древнюю дату Исхода, то верхний кусок попадает уже на период сразу после гиксосов (ок. сер. 16 в. до н. э.).
Речь шла об эпохе от Исхода (традиционно примерно 1.280 г. до н. э.) до пленения.
С термином "древнееврейское письмо" тоже неплохо бы разобраться.))
Этот вопрос подробно разбирается в книге, которую я привёл выше - "ANCIENT ISRAEL What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?" Lester L. Grabbe. Именно она наталкивает на определённого рода размышления.
А если прочесть не "между строк", а буквально, что я написал, то легко можно убедиться, что вы неправильно интерпретируете мои слова. Никто не говорил, что исход из Египта длился 800 лет. Я писал:
Речь шла об эпохе от Исхода (традиционно примерно 1.280 г. до н. э.) до пленения.
Давайте. Жду разбирательств.
Она на английском же, эта книга, её разбирать сложновато будет, что там нового сказано, если кратко?
А Вы поинтересуйтесь ситуацией в регионе на 1280 г. до н.э.
Для начала давайте выясним когда слово "еврей" впервые вошло в употребление. Какие имеются сведения на этот счёт?
Она на английском же, эта книга, её разбирать сложновато будет, что там нового сказано, если кратко?
Для того, чтобы сказать, я должен узнать, что было известно старого... Но, думаю, для специализирующегося на вопросах истории Израиля там чего-то сенсационно нового в книге под названием "Древний Израиль: Что мы знаем, и как нам это стало известно" не должно быть. Хотя как обобщающий материал - интересно. Что касается письма, я несколько отрывков выше выложил.
Переводить же книгу на русский... Ну, это как-то трудновато будет. Работа халявная, да и тематика чуток не из того региона, в котором зиждется мой основной интерес.
А Вы поинтересуйтесь ситуацией в регионе на 1280 г. до н.э.
Вы считаете, что я не в курсе? Время приблизительно битвы при Кадеше. Или вы что-то иное подразумевали? Мне кажется, что традиционная датировка, во времена когда она возникла, как-то пыталась увязать евреев с хапиру.
Для начала давайте выясним когда слово "еврей" впервые вошло в употребление. Какие имеются сведения на этот счёт?
А какая разница, когда появилось это слово?
Этноним не столь важен. Хотя вопрос этнонима сам по себе интересен, здесь мы чересчур расширим тему, если начнём разбирать все подобного рода вопросы. Факт то, что этноним отвечает какому-то конкретному этносу. Неважно, как мы его будем называть.
Для того, чтобы сказать, я должен узнать, что было известно старого... Но, думаю, для специализирующегося на вопросах истории Израиля там чего-то сенсационно нового в книге под названием "Древний Израиль: Что мы знаем, и как нам это стало известно" не должно быть. Хотя как обобщающий материал - интересно. Что касается письма, я несколько отрывков выше выложил.
Переводить же книгу на русский... Ну, это как-то трудновато будет. Работа халявная, да и тематика чуток не из того региона, в котором зиждется мой основной интерес.
Вы считаете, что я не в курсе? Время приблизительно битвы при Кадеше. Или вы что-то иное подразумевали? Мне кажется, что традиционная датировка, во времена когда она возникла, как-то пыталась увязать евреев с хапиру.
А какая разница, когда появилось это слово?
Этноним не столь важен. Хотя вопрос этнонима сам по себе интересен, здесь мы чересчур расширим тему, если начнём разбирать все подобного рода вопросы. Факт то, что этноним отвечает какому-то конкретному этносу. Неважно, как мы его будем называть.
Нет исторических достоверных данных о существовании "Древнего Израиля", и вряд ли они появились в этой книге, так думается.
Если в курсе событий той эпохи, то как Вы представляете себе победоносное вторжение неких диких племён с дубьём наперевес во владения супердержавы того времени? во всяком случае египетские источники о таковых случаях молчат, и кстати о битвах с египтянами в Палестине в библейских сказаниях вроде тоже ничего не упоминается.))
А какому тогда этносу? на каком языке говорил Ханаан?
Сообщение отредактировал Лисий: 26.09.2013 - 20:41 PM
Нет исторических достоверных данных о существовании "Древнего Израиля", и вряд ли они появились в этой книге, так думается.
Если в курсе событий той эпохи, то как Вы представляете себе победоносное вторжение неких диких племён с дубьём наперевес во владения супердержавы того времени? во всяком случае египетские источники о таковых случаях молчат, и кстати о битвах с египтянами в Палестине в библейских сказаниях вроде тоже ничего не упоминается.))
А какому тогда этносу? на каком языке говорил Ханаан?
1. А какие сведения вы называете "исторически достоверными"? Когда по "исторически достоверным" сведениям в Палестине впервые появились государства Израиль и Иудея?
2. Я сказал о традиционной т. з. И в данном случае я ничего представлять не могу. Только процитировать исследования учёных. Например "Historical Dictionary of Ancient Israel" Niels Peter Lemche, серия "Historical Dictionaries of Ancient Civilizations and Historical Eras", No. 13, The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Lanham, Maryland, and Oxford 2004:
The exodus from Egypt had been questioned for a long time, because
from a rationalistic point of view the number of Israelites that left
Egypt was so enormous that the last Israelite would hardly have left
Egypt before the first one entered Canaan. Whatever their personal
preference and theological background, most scholars accepted that an
exodus had taken place, probably involving far fewer Israelites than
argued by the biblical historiographers.
...
A modern historical reconstruction of the history of ancient Palestine
would in many respects present a rather different picture of ancient
Israel. Few contemporary scholars would accept the idea of a patriarchal
age, and they would be almost totally against the idea of an
extensive Israelite exodus from Egypt. If anything happened, its scale
was so insignificant that it never left any impression on Egyptian history
as the exodus is not a part of Egyptian recollections about the
past.
The history of the Israelite conquest of Canaan has been transformed
into a history of social unrest and change among the inhabitants
of Palestine already living in this place for centuries. Hardly any trace indicates an Israelite immigration, let alone conquest toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. Instead of a conquest followed by the rule of the judges, Palestinian society evolved over a period of several hundred years. It was a change that involved political rearrangements and
allowed new political entities to appear but basically these changes
happened among a population that had for centuries lived within the
borders of ancient Palestine.
Chronology of Ancient Israel
Period of the Patriarchs: ок. 1.900-1.700 г. г. до н. э.
Israel in Egypt: ок. 1.700-1.280 г. г. до н. э. Exodus: ок. 1.280 г. до н. э.
Conquest of Palestine: ок. 1.250-1.200 г. г. до н. э.
Статья CHRONOLOGY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT из этой же книги:
the
Old Testament allows for a span of time between the Exodus and
the building of Solomon's temple of 480 years, which cover twelve
generations, each of 40 years. This is not an exact indication of
time, but rather ideological numbers bearing a meaning not limited
to the measure of real time. Both 12 and 40 function as round numbers.
Such round numbers could also be used about a more limited
span of time.
In this way King David is allowed to rule for 40 years, Solomon,
his son for another 40 years, but Solomon's two successors, Rehoboam
and Abij ah together ruled for only 20 years (17 + 3 years),
that is, half the time of David and Solomon. The mania for using
ideological numbers is also apparent in lists such as the one of the
so-called "minor judges" (see Judge) in Judg 10:3-5; 12:8-13. Here
five judges functioned together for 70 years (23 + 22 + 7 + 10 + 8
years), or also for structuring the chronology of kings of less importance
than David or Solomon. Thus the four rulers in Jerusalem,
who follow Asa of Judah, together rule for 40 years (25 + 8 + 1 +
6). It is obvious that Old Testament historiographers were not fundamentally
interested in real chronology and nowhere any critical
note is found referring to chronological problems. This is obvious
in the case ofIsrael's history before the introduction of the monarchy.
The chronological framework, dividing this period into the
time of the patriarchs, the sojourn in Egypt and the exodus, the
conquest and the Period of the Judges, has nothing to do with history.
Из статьи EGYPT в той-же книге:
Ramesses II (1279-1213 B.C.E.)-often believed to be the Pharaoh
of the Exodus-stands out among its many great rulers, not
only because of the duration of his reign that covered most of the
13th century B.C.E. but also because of his political achievements
and especially the number of monuments from his time that literally
litters Egypt.
В той же книге, из статьи EXODUS, HISTORY:
The debate about the historicity of the exodus has been intense
since the 18th century C.E. when doubts were cast on the great
number of Israelites leaving Egypt counting 600,000 men plus
women and children (Exod 12:37), perhaps as many as 3,500,000
people. As it was said at that time, given the short distance from
Egypt to Canaan, the last Israelite would not have left Egypt before
the first had entered Canaan. In the 19th and 20th centuries,
when scholars became able to read the Egyptian documents and inscriptions
after the deciphering of the hieroglyphs, it was soon recognized
that no Egyptian source mentions an exodus of any large
population group as described in the Old Testament. Since the discovery
of the mummies of the Pharaohs in the royal cache it has
also been difficult to maintain that an Egyptian Pharaoh of the 18th
or 19th dynasty drowned in the Sea of Reeds-especially not
Ramesses II (1279-1212 B.C.E.), usually considered the Pharaoh of
the exodus narrative. The tendency among scholars is either to reject
any historicity of the exodus event, or to reduce the scale of
this event considerably, turning it into an insignificant occasion totally
ignored by the Egyptian authorities of the past. A third possibility
is to consider the exodus story an Israelite variant of the
Egyptian tradition about the expulsion of the Hyksos, something
that happened not in the fourth century but in the sixth century
B.C.E. This possibility was already chosen by the Jewish historiographer
Josephus.
Целиком статья про Рамзеса Второго:
RAMESSES II. Egyptian Pharaoh (1279-1213 B.C.E.) of the New
Kingdom. Although never mentioned in the Old Testament, many
scholars think he was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus of the
Israelites. The note about the Israelites building the city of Rameses
before the Exodus (Exod 1: 11) provides the main reason for
this identification. Historically, Ramesses II was without doubt the
mightiest ruler of the late Egyptian Empire, and the person who
checked the Hittite advance into Syria, but historically he has no
relation to any exodus of the Israelites having the Pharaoh drowning
with his army in the waters of the Sea of Reeds (Exod 14).
New Bible Atlas 1985 года даёт верхнюю датировку Исхода примерно 1.450, а нижнюю - примерно 1.270-1.260 г. г. до н. э. (стр. 31-39).
Curtis, "Oxford Bible Atlas":
глава out of egypt The biblical narrative tells of how the Hebrews lived in the Goshen area, in
the Nile Delta region in Egypt, and worked as slaves on the store cities of
Pithom and Rameses (Exod. 1: 1–11). Since the latter was named after
Pharaoh Rameses II, those who have sought a historical context for these
events have suggested that Rameses II was the pharaoh of the oppression.
According to the biblical account, Moses was found floating in a basket by the
daughter of the pharaoh (a similar tale is told about the Mesopotamian king
Sargon) and brought up in Egypt, but when he had grown up he fled to the
land of Midian (Exod. 2). (The Midianites were a nomadic people so their
‘land’ is difficult to locate on a map.) While looking after the sheep of his
father-in-law Jethro, a Midianite priest, he is described as having his encounter
with God who called him to return to Egypt to rescue his people
(Exod. 3). After a series of plagues which afflicted Egypt (Exod. 7–12), Moses
led the people via Succoth and Etham ‘on the edge of the wilderness’ (Exod.
13: 20) until they encamped ‘in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the
sea’ (Exod. 14: 2). This was the setting of the remarkable deliverance described
in Exodus 14: 15–30.
Attempts have been made to pinpoint geographically the place of the
crossing of the sea as envisaged in the story, but the places mentioned cannot
be located with certainty. The stretch of water has traditionally been referred
to as the Red Sea, but the Hebrew phrase yam sûp
¯
is perhaps more accurately
translated Reed Sea (though the word sûp
¯
also seems to refer to underwater
vegetation in Jonah 2: 5). A suggested location for the Reed Sea has been Lake
Sirbonis on the shore of the Mediterranean, but the biblical account stresses
that ‘God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines’ (Exod.
13: 17), a route which would have passed close to Lake Sirbonis. In 1 Kings 9:
26, the term clearly refers to the eastern arm of the Red Sea, the Gulf of
Aqaba, but it is highly unlikely that this location is envisaged in the Exodus
story which sees the crossing of the sea as the precursor of the entry into the
wilderness. It is perhaps more likely that the story presupposes a location in
the vicinity of the Bitter Lakes, north of the Gulf of Suez. But in any event it
is the theological significance which matters to the biblical writer more than
the geography, a point often overlooked by those who seek to find natural
explanations for the phenomena described in the story.
THE OXFORD BIBLE COMMENTARY:
C. Exodus and History.
1. On the assumption that the book is
intended as history, it is natural to ask how it has come by what
it knows or claims to know about the early history of Israel.
The first step is to ask about the history of the book itself; but
as it is only a part of the Pentateuch we can refer to PENT for
discussion of the various proposals. The view taken in this
commentary (broadly that of Van Seters 1994) can only be
stated here, that the work consists of two main strands with
different styles and interests, which I refer to as J and P. J was
created from a variety of source material by an author writing
probably in the seventh or sixth century BCE. Some J material
is earlier than Deuteronomy, some of it later and clearly
dependent on that book; see e.g. EX 23:10—19 contrasted with
13:3-10. P was written by a priestly author in the later sixth or
fifth century. It seems to me likely that P was not an independent
work later combined with J, but was written from the
beginning as an expansion of J.
2. Exodus, then, was developing during a time when the
nation's continuing existence as a distinct community was in
prolonged doubt. It was written to strengthen national feeling
and support national identity. The two main traditions or
ideas which J uses to achieve this are those of Israel's origin
from a group of exploited aliens in Egypt, and of YHWH's
covenant with them at Mt. Sinai. They were, according to this
writer, a nation specially claimed by the God of all the earth as
his own (19:5). His claim, his care and protection, and in
return their exclusive attachment to him and faithful obedience
to his moral direction would preserve them as a nation.
The main ideas added by P were that of YHWH's covenant of
promise to Israel's ancestors and that of his presence among
his people in a sanctuary specially built at his direction, and
this has obvious relevance to the time of restoration. Note that
'covenant' has various shades of meaning in the OT (see
Mendenhall 19920, Nicholson 1986).
3. Despite the great attention given by scholars in this
century to what they have called 'tradition history' (I again
refer to PENT for a brief survey), I do not believe it is possible to
write a history of the way in which these traditions developed.
The evidence is simply insufficient. Nor is there much to go
on to distinguish traditional material from the authors' own
contributions. However, the central narrative assertion, that
YHWH delivered Israel's ancestors from slavery in Egypt, is
certainly traditional: it is central to the prophecy of Hosea in
the eighth century BCE, as well as to the book of Deuteronomy
in the late seventh. It is much more doubtful that the claim
that YHWH made a covenant with Israel at Sinai can be
described as traditional (Nicholson 1986). It is important in
Deuteronomy and writings influenced by it; but it plays no
significant role in any prophetic book before Jeremiah, itself
influenced by Deuteronomy. Still less securely rooted in tradition
is the concept of the mobile sanctuary; although it depends
on the ancient tradition of temple-building in the Near
East (see EX 25—31), it appears practically only in the P strand in
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.
4. With the exception of the Exodus from Egypt itself, the
major ideas of the book are not popular traditions but ideas of
an intellectual elite striving to preserve or excite national
feeling in a time of crisis, and to reshape the national spirit
through an exclusive monotheistic ideal which they saw as the
only way to preserve the nation at all.
5. What then is the likelihood that the traditions of Exodus
reach right back, as the book claims, to the origin of Israel?
(See, among others, S. Herrmann 1973; de Vaux 1978: i. 321-
472; Ramsey 1981: 45-63; Houtman 1993: 171-90.) If one
abstracts the many miraculous elements, the story in itself is
not implausible, and indeed similar events appear in Egyptian
records (S. Herrmann 1973: 23—9, de Vaux 1978: i-374). The
names Moses and Aaron are best explained as of Egyptian
origin (Houtman 1993: 75, 83). It is generally assumed that
before the traditions were committed to writing they were
carried by oral tradition, maybe in connection with the feast
of Passover which celebrates the Exodus, and possibly in
poetry (Cross 1973: 124 n. 38), which is less subject to loss
and distortion than a prose tale. The date of the event is most
often put at the end of the Bronze Age, in the thirteenth
century BCE. But some (e.g. Bimson 1978) maintain the fifteenth-
century date suggested by the Bible's own chronology.
6. However, recent research into traditions about historical
events in modern non-literate societies shows that it would be
difficult for reliable historical knowledge to survive the hundreds
of years separating any possible date for the events
related and any likely date for the writing, even if that was
much earlier than I have suggested (Kirkpatrick 1988). Moreover,
the hard archaeological evidence that would show that
the nation of Israel came from outside Canaan is lacking. The
material culture of early Iron Age Israel is like that of Late
Bronze Age Canaan, only poorer (Finkelstein 1988, Dever
1992). At most there could have been a small group which
escaped from Egypt and passed on its traditions to related
groups in Canaan (so Gottwald 1980: 36, etc.). And the Passover
did not become a national festival until the end of the
seventh century (2 Kings 23:22); could the rustic family celebration
from which it arose have been the bearer of a national
tradition?
7. It therefore remains unclear to what extent Exodus presents
authentic historical events. It should in any case be clear
from the way in which it speaks of history (see c.2) that we
cannot use the book as a historical source. Its aim is not to
present an objective record, but to celebrate the glory of
YHWH.
"ANCIENT ISRAEL What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?" Lester L. Grabbe:
3.2.1 The Question of the Exodus
The idea that the ancestors of Israel were in Egypt for a period, that they
were oppressed, that they came out of Egypt 'with a high hand' (Exod. 14.8),
and that they entered the promised land after a period in the wilderness is
a major concept in the biblical text. How historical is this? The last part of
the picture - the conquest of the land of Canaan - will be discussed below,
but here we focus on the general question of the exodus. Several issues are
involved:
1. The exodus tradition in the biblical text. The vast bulk of the
Pentateuchal text describing the exodus and related events seems to be
quite late (Albertz 1994: 23-4, 42-5: 'exilic or early post-exilic'). The
question is whether the exodus is presupposed in early texts. It was
once widely argued that the exodus was embodied in certain passages
quoting an early Israelite 'credo' (Von Rad 1965), but subsequent study
suggested that some of these passages (e.g., Deut. 6.21-23; 26.5-9;
Josh. 24.2-13) were actually late (Nicholson 1973: esp. 20-7). Some
point out that Hosea (12.1; 13.4), for example, presupposes the exodus
tradition. Not everyone is confident any longer in such literary analysis;
in any case, this would take us back only to the eighth century, long
after the alleged event. Whatever the reality, it is clothed in a thick layer
of mythical interpretation. The Pharaoh is a generic figure, without
a name. A series of ten miracles is enacted - and attempts to find
naturalistic explanations (e.g., Hort 1957) miss the point: the aim of
the narrative is to magnify the power of Yhwh and his servant Moses.
According to the plain statement of the text, 600,000 men of military
age came out; with the elderly, women and children, the number would
have been at least three or four million (Grabbe 2000c). The crossing
of the Red Sea seems to mix a more naturalistic account, in which an
east wind moves the waters (Exod. 14.21), with a more miraculous one
in which the sea divides and the water stands on either side like walls
(Exod. 14.22-29). F. M. Cross (1973: 121-44) attempted to argue that
a naturalistic account, in which the Egyptians died in a storm as they
pursued the Israelites across the sea in boats, is reflected in Exod. 15.7,
but his philological analysis is flawed (Grabbe 1993b). Thus, even if
Exodus 15 is an example of early poetry as some argue (e.g., Robertson
1972; Cross and Freedman 1955; Cross 1973: 121-44), it does not
appear to give a picture different from the surrounding narrative (for
the argument that Exodus 15 is not early, see Noth 1962). The biblical
text does not provide any particular time for Israel's coming out of
Egypt, and a number of the dates assigned to the event depend on
data not really relating to the exodus itself (e.g., the settlement, the
Merneptah Stela).
2. Semites in Egypt. A number of Egyptian texts from the second
millennium BCE mention peoples who were non-Egyptian and
probably Semitic (see the survey in Malamat 1997). The Egyptian texts
refer to 'foreigners' under the categories of 'Asiatics' ('3mw), Nubians
and Libyans (Leahy 2001: 548). None of the 'Asiatics' mentioned in
Egyptian texts is referred to in such a way as to make one identify them
with Israelites (though see the discussion on the Shasu at §2.2.1.4).
What it does indicate is that the idea of people from Syro-Palestine
- including possibly some early Israelites - living for a time in Egypt is
not in and of itself problematic.
3. The Merneptah Stela (see §3.1.2 for a full discussion). Appeals to this
text as evidence for the exodus are very problematic. The inscription
provides no evidence for any sojourn in Egypt for those identified in the
text as 'Israel'; on the contrary, this entity appears to be in Palestine.
4. References in Egyptian texts (Frerichs and Lesko 1997; Davies 2004).
There is nothing in Egyptian texts that could be related to the story in
the book of Exodus. It is not just a question of the official ignoring of
defeats of the Pharaoh and his army. There is no period in the second
half of the second millennium BCE when Egypt was subject to a series
of plagues, death of children, physical disruption of the country and the
loss of huge numbers of its inhabitants. Occasionally, a scholar has seen
a remarkable resemblance between Moses and an Egyptian official, but
the arguments have not met widespread acceptance. At most, one could
say that a memory of the Egyptian figure was used to create the figure
of Moses in the biblical text. G. I. Davies (2004) surveys almost all the
evidence available, but little of it is very compelling; indeed, he finds
the attempts to equate the exodus tradition with certain figures known
from Egyptian sources as 'not very convincing'. Thus, his conclusion
that the exodus 'tradition is a priori unlikely to have been invented'
appears tacked on rather than arising from his data.
5. Egyptological elements in the exodus narrative. Some have argued that
elements within the text fit the period of Rameses II (Hoffmeier 1997),
but this is not sufficient; one must show that they do not fit any other
period in history (see nos. 6-7 below). It has been widely accepted that
there are names and other references that suggest some knowledge of
Egypt in the exodus narrative, but how early are they? What is notable
is that there are few incidental or accidental references to Egypt, such as
one might expect, unlike some other biblical passages such as found in
Isaiah and Jeremiah; most of what is present is topographical (Redford
1987: 138). More important, a number of the Egyptian elements in
the exodus story are anachronistic, for example, reference to the 'land
of Goshen' which occurs only in later Egyptian texts (Redford 1987:
138-49). There is no agreement among Egyptologists about elements
that could only be dated to an early period.
6. The cities Rameses (Pi-Ramesse) and Pithom (Exod. 1.11). The first
problem is identification of the sites in question. Pi-Ramesse is widely
identified with Qantir (Pusch 2001; Bietak 1987: 164; Hoffmeier 1997:
117), though Redford asked where the 'Pi' (Egyptian pr 'house') of Pi-
Ramasse had gone (1963: 408-10; 1987: 138-9; but cf. Helck 1965).
No agreement about the identity of Pithom (Egyptian pr-'Itm 'the
house of Atum') has been reached (Wei 1992). Many argue for Tell
el-Maskhuta (Redford 1963: 403-8; Holladay 2001), but this site was
not settled between the sixteenth and the seventh centuries. The nearby
site of Tell el-Ratabah is another possibility, but it was reoccupied only
about 1200 BCE (Wei 1992; Dever 1997a: 70-1). It is therefore difficult
to understand Davies' statement that 'they are more likely as a pair to
belong to a tradition that originated in the Ramesside period than to
a later time' (2004: 30). If Tell el-Maskhuta was known as 'Pithom'
from about 600 BCE (Davies 2004: 30) and topographical names with
'Rameses' were also widespread in the first millennium BCE (Redford
1987: 139), this argues that the tradition of Exod. 1.11 was likely to be
late, rather than Ramesside.
7. The supposed route of the exodus from Egypt. Some have argued that
the route of the Israelites' journeyings in the Bible matches the actual
topography and Egyptian settlements on the ground (Hoffmeier 2005;
Krahmalkov 1994). A more careful look shows, however, that the text
does not reflect the fifteenth or thirteenth centuries BCE but the seventh
or eighth (MacDonald 2000: 63-100; Dever 2003a: 18-20). Some of
the itineraries are rather vague, showing little actual knowledge of the
topography supposedly being described (Deut. 2.1-25; Num. 21.10-
20), with Num. 33.1-49 going the farthest in suggesting knowledge of a
real travel route (MacDonald 2000: 98). Only at the end of Iron II (but
not Iron I or early Iron II) were most of the sites that can be identified
actually occupied. Most scholars argue that the itineraries in Exodus
and in Numbers 33 are the result of late editing of several different
traditions that do not presuppose the same route (Haran 1976; Davies
1990).
8. Conquest of the Trans Jordanian region. Trying to extract historical data
from this tradition is difficult. There is some indication, for example,
that at least some of the peoples listed in the tradition are simply
creations from the names of mythical figures. Some of the most feared
inhabitants of the land are the Anakim who are descended from the
Rephaim (Num. 13.35; cf. Deut 1.28; 2.10, 11, 21; 9.2; Josh. 11.21-
22; 14.12, 15; 15.14). One of the main figures is Og of Bashan. He is
said to be from the remnant of the Rephaim and dwells in Ashtarot and
Edrei (Num. 21.33-35; Deut. 1.4; 3.10-11; Josh. 9.10; 12.4; 13.12; cf.
Num. 13.33). These names are significant. Other passages (such as Job
26.5; Ps. 88.11-13; Isa. 26.14, 19; Prov. 9.18), as well as the Ugaritic
texts, associate the Rephaim with the dead. The god Rapha'u of an
Ugaritic incantation seems to dwell in Ashtarot and Edrei (KTU 1.108).
Thus, it appears that myth has been historicized, and the shades of the
dead have been turned into ethnographical entities. The writer seems
at times to have taken traditional or mythical names and used them
to create a narrative about ethnic groups. There is also some evidence
that the writer has drawn on topographical knowledge of the eighth or
seventh centuries to draw up his list of journeys.
9. Archaeological evidence. No event of the size and extent of the exodus
could have failed to leave significant archaeological remains. Israel's
itinerary has already been discussed (point #7 above). According to
the book of Numbers (10.11; 12.16; 13.26; 20.1, 22; 33.36) much of
the 40 years of 'wandering' was spent near Qadesh-Barnea. This and
related sites in Sinai and southern Palestine should yield ample evidence
of a large population in this region. Yet we find nothing (Finkelstein
and Silberman 2001: 62-4). Qadesh (Tell el-Qudeirat) itself has been
extensively excavated but shows no habitation between the Middle
Bronze Age and the tenth century BCE (Cohen 1981; 1997; Dever
2003a: 19-20) or even later (Ussishkin 1995a).
Opinions about the historicity of the exodus are divided. Despite the
efforts of some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way to salvage the
biblical text as a description of a historical event. A large population of
Israelites, living in their own section of the country, did not march out of an
Egypt devastated by various plagues and despoiled of its wealth and spend 40
years in the wilderness before conquering the Canaanites. This does not rule
out the possibility that the text contains a distant - and distorted - memory
of an actual event. Some feel that the tradition is so strong in the Bible that
some actual event must lie behind it, though it might be only a small group of
(slave?) escapees fleeing Egypt (a view long and widely held). This is accepted
even by some of those proposing theories about the indigenous origin of
Israel in Canaan (see below, §3.2.4.2). Some think it might even be a hazy
remembrance of the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt in the sixteenth century
BCE (e.g., the Egyptologist A. Gardiner [1933]).
Yet others point out that there is no necessity for assuming there was an
exodus in the early history of Israel (Dever 1997a: 7-21). There is no external
evidence for such an event, and any arguments must depend on the biblical
tradition; however, since we know of many Egyptian connections with Israel
and Judah at later times, from the time of the monarchy to the Persian and
Hellenistic periods (cf. Isa. 19.19-25; Jeremiah 42-44), this could have been
sufficient to give rise to the story in the biblical text. Many scholars now agree
that there is little clear evidence that the biblical tradition is an early one.
В общем и в целом, авторы согласны с вашей оценкой, что в 13 веке никакого Исхода быть не могло. Да и вообще, Исход - дело сомнительное.
3. Ханаан - на ханаанском, конечно. А на каком языке общались древние евреи (т. е. палестинское население в период от Судей до плена, 12-6 века) сказать не могу. Не знаю. Знаю, что в эллинистический период евреи пользовались арамейским, прежде чем перейти на греческий. Что было раньше мне неведомо. Арамейский же, как и арамейское письмо, был одним из официальных языков персидской администрации империи Ахеменидов.
1. А какие сведения вы называете "исторически достоверными"? Когда по "исторически достоверным" сведениям в Палестине впервые появились государства Израиль и Иудея?
2 ....
В общем и в целом, авторы согласны с вашей оценкой, что в 13 веке никакого Исхода быть не могло. Да и вообще, Исход - дело сомнительное.
3. Ханаан - на ханаанском, конечно. А на каком языке общались древние евреи (т. е. палестинское население в период от Судей до плена, 12-6 века) сказать не могу. Не знаю. Знаю, что в эллинистический период евреи пользовались арамейским, прежде чем перейти на греческий. Что было раньше мне неведомо. Арамейский же, как и арамейское письмо, был одним из официальных языков персидской администрации империи Ахеменидов.
1. Во всяком случае те, которые не подтверждены другими источниками исторически достоверными считать уж точно не следует.
О "появлении" "государства Израиль" древним как известно было ничего неизвестно. Или Вы не в курсе?))
Иудея - с VII в. до н.э.
3. А с чего Вы решили что палестинское население 12-6 вв до н.э. имеет какое-либо отношение к т.н. "древним евреям"? Какие источники об этом свидетельствуют(кроме библейских конечно)? К "древним евреям" можно отнести лишь иудеев, не более.
Язык у иудеев тоже был ханаанским, собственно об этом и сама Библия свидетельствует и современные лингвисты.
1. Во всяком случае те, которые не подтверждены другими источниками исторически достоверными считать уж точно не следует.
О "появлении" "государства Израиль" древним как известно было ничего неизвестно. Или Вы не в курсе?))
Иудея - с VII в. до н.э.
3. А с чего Вы решили что палестинское население 12-6 вв до н.э. имеет какое-либо отношение к т.н. "древним евреям"? Какие источники об этом свидетельствуют(кроме библейских конечно)? К "древним евреям" можно отнести лишь иудеев, не более.
Язык у иудеев тоже был ханаанским, собственно об этом и сама Библия свидетельствует и современные лингвисты.
1. Тогда половину древнегреческих авторов на свалку.
2. Не в курсе. Тематика чуток не моя. Хотя Библию читал и в целом на Западе она до сравнительно недавнего времени считалась весьма достоверным источником.
1. Тогда половину древнегреческих авторов на свалку.
2. Не в курсе. Тематика чуток не моя. Хотя Библию читал и в целом на Западе она до сравнительно недавнего времени считалась весьма достоверным источником.
3. Библейские, конечно.
Хорошо, тогда можно о степени достоверности ведь судить.
Имеются источники которые опровергают "библейские", т.е. опять же достоверность - под вопросом.
А как насчёт других, небиблейских?
Сообщение отредактировал Лисий: 27.09.2013 - 10:26 AM
Хорошо, тогда можно о степени достоверности ведь судить.
Имеются источники которые опровергают "библейские", т.е. опять же достоверность - под вопросом.
А как насчёт других, небиблейских?
Иногда можно. А иногда принимаем на веру сообщения. Хотя довольно часто сообщения авторов, принятые на веру позднее находили подтверждения (прямые, или косвенные).
Это интересно. Например? Сенниф-нифиб или Навуходоносор не ходили походом на евреев? Или что?
Иногда можно. А иногда принимаем на веру сообщения. Хотя довольно часто сообщения авторов, принятые на веру позднее находили подтверждения (прямые, или косвенные).
Это интересно. Например? Сенниф-нифиб или Навуходоносор не ходили походом на евреев? Или что?
А чей город была Самария? Когда она возникла?
А иногда и опровержения.
Например про тот же "исход", насчёт чего Вы ссылочку выше на англицком и приводили.))
На "евреев" уж точно не ходили,"Синиф-нифиб" с Навуходоносором такого слова то наверняка никогда не слышали.)) На Иудею ходили, ну так то VII в до н.э. и далее, поэтому смотрим выше, вспоминаем о чём речь.
Арамейский видимо, раз название страны соответствующее - Бит-Хумри. В 9 в. до н.э., что вполне соответствует данным о проникновении арамеев в центральную Палестину.
Но это уже не тема ветки вообще-то, а ежели есть желание то без проблем, заводите веточку в соответствующем разделе по поводу рассмотрения подробностей по библейской "истории евреев", там и побеседуем. Можно хоть с самого "Бытия" начать.))
Правда Вам было бы неплохо предварительно углубить свои познания в вопросе, раз уж Вы как сами признавались что тематика данная "чуток не ваша", ... ну чтоб воду в ступе лишний раз не толочь.
Сообщение отредактировал Лисий: 27.09.2013 - 12:27 PM
... А с чего Вы решили что палестинское население 12-6 вв до н.э. имеет какое-либо отношение к т.н. "древним евреям"? Какие источники об этом свидетельствуют(кроме библейских конечно)? К "древним евреям" можно отнести лишь иудеев...
Палестинцы - вообще потомки "народов моря", стало быть уж точно не семитские племена. И давайте не путать этноним "евреи" и имя конфессии - "иудеи".
И вообще, из достоверных источников по истории Израиля я бы воспринимал только археологию, но никак не библейский в значительной мере мифологизированный и очень рано идеологизированный текст.
Палестинцы - вообще потомки "народов моря", стало быть уж точно не семитские племена.
Это арабы и с (действительно несемитскими) "народами моря" не связаны.
И давайте не путать этноним "евреи" и имя конфессии - "иудеи".
В библейское время это было одно и тоже.
И вообще, из достоверных источников по истории Израиля я бы воспринимал только археологию, но никак не библейский в значительной мере мифологизированный и очень рано идеологизированный текст.
Совершенно согласен с модератором ayoe, в своё время написавшим "Для меня Библия, это прежде всего исторический источник, сведения которого, особенного, это касается Ветхого Завета, достоверны в той мере, в какой они могут быть доказаны и подтверждены другими клинописными сведениями и археологическими артефактами."
И кроме того Библия это культурное сокровище, сравнимое с библиотекой Ашшурбанипала.
Сообщение отредактировал Бероэс: 28.09.2013 - 18:30 PM
Это арабы и с (действительно несемитскими) "народами моря" не связаны.
Имя пелешту, пелешти - так называли одно из племён народов моря. Потом случилось то же самое, что и с болгарами: имя осталось прежним, а этнический состав полностью поменялся. Теперь они-таки реально арабы...
Палестинцы - вообще потомки "народов моря", стало быть уж точно не семитские племена. И давайте не путать этноним "евреи" и имя конфессии - "иудеи".
И вообще, из достоверных источников по истории Израиля я бы воспринимал только археологию, но никак не библейский в значительной мере мифологизированный и очень рано идеологизированный текст.
С чего это палестинцы потомки "народов моря"? Скорее наоборот евреи в какой-то мере родственны "народам моря". Римский историк Тацит считал, что евреи - выходцы с Крита.
Однако, евреи по языку семиты, а вот язык "народов моря" не семитский. Следовательно, можно говорить уже о том, что двенадцать колен говорили как минимум на двух языках. Язык "народов моря" - агглютинативный, на территории Передней Азии мне известен только один такой язык - шумерский. Возможно, евреи потомки того древнего смешанного шумеро-семитского населения Передней Азии. Потомками того же населения являются "народы моря"?
Еще к размышлению.
На древнетюркском языке гунны названы ун ук т.е. десять племен, была у них своя письменность восходящая к арамейскому письму, ее расшифровал историк Мухамадиев А.Г. Возможно, гунны и есть десять пропавших колен, в этом случае, по языку они могли быть не семитами.
Тема закрыта
