ory of Ancient Egypt, 164). During the 18th Dynasty, Thutmose III seemingly celebrated a sed festival in his 30th year, as well; Redford suggests that the year of rest from Asiatic campaigning between Thutmose III’s sixth and seventh campaigns, which corresponds precisely to his Year 30, signifies a “holiday year” used to celebrate this landmark anniversary (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 158). 69. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 43. 70. Wente and Van Siclen III, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 227–228. The occurrence of a coregency under Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is essentially undisputed among conservative Egyptologists, as supporting evidence for it is plentiful. See Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 116; Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 24; and Richard A. Parker, “Once Again the Coregency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II,” in Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 35 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), 228. Nevertheless, Shea firmly disputes the notion of such a coregency, though formerly he advocated one. His current position is built on a foundational presupposition, namely that Amenhotep II died in the Red Sea. The proof Shea presents for his position is that Amenhotep II reportedly launched two “first campaigns.” According to Shea’s theory, a successor (Amenhotep IIB) was secretly and deceitfully placed on the throne after Amenhotep IIA drowned in the Red Sea, but with the caveat that the later pharaoh used the same birth name and throne-name as his deceased predecessor, thus completing the reign of “Amenhotep II” as an imposter (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 44–46). This outlandish theory, however, is fraught with difficulties, creating far more problems than it solves, the foremost being that this entire leap of speculation is based on the false—yet completely handicapping—presupposition that the exodus-pharaoh died in the Red Sea. Since this presumption was demonstrated to be inaccurate, only Shea’s arguments stand to be evaluated. If the two “first campaigns” of Amenhotep II were actually one campaign, which will be proven subsequently, then Shea loses all impetus for his fantastic claim. Moreover, he provides no precedent in Egypt’s long history for the practice of two pharaohs ruling under the same name, with the latter using his predecessor’s nomen and praenomen as his own. Surely such an act would incite a court rebellion and turn the royal family against the officials who secretly placed the imposter on the throne. Shea also asserts that the two coronation celebrations for Amenhotep II—one after his father died on ca. 22 March, and the other on ca. 22 November, as recorded on the Memphis Stele—represent a contradiction, implying the reigns of different rulers. However, three inescapable problems plague this assertion: (1) if Amenhotep IIB was coronated on 22 November, the deception of the court officials would have been exposed; (2) the exodus occurred on 15 Nisan (25 April), which would render inconceivable Amenhotep IIB’s coronation as late as 22 November; and (3) the attestation of “two accession dates” actually supports a coregency. In The Biography of Amenemheb, it is stated that Thutmose III died on vii, 30 (ca. 22 March) of his 54th year, and that on the very next day Amenhotep II was “established on the throne of his father” (Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 20). However, both the Semna Stela and BM 10056 offer iv, 1 (ca. 22 November) as his accession date, and since on BM 10056 the year-number even changes immediately after the mention of 22 November, a definitive conclusion can be made that Amenhotep II’s regnal years were numbered from ca. 22 November, not from 23 March (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 121). Shea claims that if indeed Amenhotep II was inaugurated when he became coregent on 22 November of an earlier year, there would be no need for an installation ceremony on the day after Thutmose III died.
Actually, the Egyptian texts never refer to an installation ceremony on 23 March;
they note only that he was established on his father’s throne. Before Thutmose III died, Amenhotep II ruled as a coregent with his father, with full pharaonic authority; only after his father died, however, did he actually take the throne as the pharaoh with ultimate authority. Yet even if there was a ceremony immediately after his father’s death, such an event at the outset of his sole rule would serve to establish him on the throne and lessen the chance of a usurpation attempt by a potential challenger. In addition to all of these problems with Shea’s argumentation, what pharaoh of the proud and powerful 18th Dynasty would equate himself with a deceased predecessor, especially one who lost his slave-base, lost the firstborn child of every Egyptian citizen, lost the world’s most powerful army, and died shamefully in a mass drowning? Moreover, could such a grand scheme be expected never to be challenged, or to surface at some later time during Egypt’s entire storied history? Thus the notion of two Amenhotep II’s is resolutely rejected. 71. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 117. 72. Vandersleyen notes that in spite of the good physical development of Amenhotep II, an examination of his mummy reveals that he was of average height and died at about 44 years of age (Claude Vandersleyen, L’Egypte et la Vallée du Nil, vol. 2 [Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995], 336). Harris and Weeks, adding that his wavy hair was brown with gray at the temple, suggest that he was 45 at death (Harris and Weeks, X-Raying, 138). 73. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 44. 74. G. Robins, “The Value of the Estimated Ages of the Royal Mummies at Death as Historical Evidence,” Göttinger Miszellen 45 (1981), 63–68. 75. While Thutmose III’s exact age at his accession is unknown, his reign lasted into his 54th regnal year. According to Brugsch-Bey, he reigned 53 years, 11 months, and 1 day (Heinrich Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs [London: Bracken Books, 1902], 193), while Tyldesley claims that he reigned 53 years, 10 months, and 26 days (Tyldesley, Hatchepsut, 96, 215). 76. Harris and Weeks, X-Raying, 138. 77. Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 34. 78. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 341. 79. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 59. 80. “Previously, on seeing a man from Egypt, the kings of Canaan fled bef[ore him, but] now the sons of Abdi-Ashirta make men from Egypt prowl about [like do]gs” (The Amarna Letters, ed. and trans. William L. Moran [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992], 183). 81. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte, vol. 2, 333. This and all subsequent quotes by Vandersleyen are translated into English from the original French by Lydia Polyakova and Inna Kumpyak. Horemheb reigned from ca. 1335–1307 BC. 82. Yohanan Aharoni, “Some Geographical Remarks Concerning the Campaigns of Amenhotep II,” JNES 19:3 (Jul 1960), 177. 83. James B. Pritchard, Rosetta Stone Chinese
2011年3月17日星期四
Perhaps camels were used to bring ore to the smelting area.
A second way of dating is to attempt to reconstruct the sequence of rock engravings (e.g., Anati 1968). The amount of erosion and the color of tile patina of the camel petroglyphs are close to that of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptionS, providing yet another small bit of evidence that the two are roughly contemporaneous. That the camels are not the latest rock engravings is indicated by a bit of defacing or attempts to draw new characters over the outline of the lead camel. A third, and perhaps best, way to date a petroglyph is when it is accompanied by inscriptional evidence. In the case of the Wadi Nasib camel petroglyph, we have already noted at least two datable inscriptions that appear on the same rock face. The first is the rock stele of Ammenemes III of the 12th Dynasty. The second inscription is the Proto-Sinaitic inscription known as Gerster Inscription I. As noted, there is virtually universal agreement that these inscriptions date to the 15th century BC, about the transition from the Late Bronze Age I to Late Bronze Age IIA. The date of the inscriptional evidence at Wadi Nasib correlates precisely with the archaeological data that show that the peak of activity was during the 12th and 18th Dynasties of Egypt. There is evidence for later activity during the 19th and 20th Dynasties over at Serabit el-Khadem, although this was at a reduced scale when compared with the earlier expeditions. At Wadi Nasib proper, there is presently no evidence for activity later than ca. 1500 BC. Taking all three lines of evidence together, it seems quite reasonable to date the camel petroglyph to about the middle of the period of peak activity in this region at nearby Serabit el-Khadem. That is, around 1500 BC. The Ammenemes III stela. This very weathered Egyptian rock-inscription has three horizontal lines of heiroglyphics at the top and six vertical columns below. The surviving top portion speaks of the 20th year of Ammenemes III, a 12th Dynasty ruler (19th century BC). Dating this inscription helps determine the date of the adjacent camel petroglyphs. Implications of the Wadi Nasib Camel PetroglyphsThe possibility that these camel petroglyphs are contemporary with the mining activity at Serabit el-Khadem provides new insights into the copper and turquoise industry with regard to transport of the mined materials. Previously, it has been assumed that donkeys were the primary mode of transporting copper and turquoise from the mining centers back to Egypt. Certainly donkeys were used. However, this petroglyph suggests that camels were in use, too. Indeed, these two camels could represent a small caravan (full size representations of a camel caravan have been recently found at Petra). Camels would be ideally suited for transporting loads of copper and turquoise. Keep in mind that part of the trail crosses over sandy stretches. Camels cannot only travel across sand easier; they carry twice the load of a donkey, move faster and need less feeding and watering (Davis 1987: 166). There does not appear to be a load on the back of the camels, although this may not be surprising since the camels are shown as headed in the direction toward Serabit el-Khadem and may not have picked up their loads [of ore?] as yet. Another possibility is that these camels were employed locally and may have just dropped off loads of ore near the smelting center in Wadi Nasib and are just returning to Serabit el-Khadem, a few miles to the east, to pick up more ore. These camel petroglyphs also have implications for the history of camel domestication as well as their historicity in the Biblical text. There continue to be some scholars who follow Albright’s skepticism (1942; 1945; 1949: 207) that references to camels in the patriarchal narratives are anachronistic (e.g. Koehler-Rollefson 1993: 183). However, there is now a growing body of scholars who believe that camel domestication must have occurred earlier than previously thought (prior to the 12th century BC) and that the patriarchal narratives accurately reflect this (e.g., Ripinsky 1984; Coote and Whitelam 1987: 102; Zarins 1992: 826; Borowski 1998: 112–18).5 This is not to say that domesticated camels were abundant and widely used everywhere in the ancient Near East in the early second millennium. However, the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily require large numbers of animals. As Borowski (1998: 118) notes, the Biblical evidence indicates that the camel was used primarily as a pack and riding animal during patriarchal times. These data do not require large herds associated with later camel breeding nomads. In this regard, Gottwald (1974; 1978) is correct in not characterizing the patriarchs as pastoral nomads, camel or otherwise. Indeed, the Hebrews had a prohibition against eating camel meat (cf Lv 11:4; Dt 14:1) which probably extended to the drinking of camel milk (Davis 1986: 147). Thus, the patriarchs were not likely keeping large herds of camels for subsistence, the tradition of later camel nomads. Rather, camels were used in relatively smaller numbers, primarily as pack and riding animals. The smaller amount of evidence for domestic camels in the late second millennium BC, especially in Palestine, is in accordance with this more restricted use. The camel petroglyph from the Wadi Nasib, nevertheless, adds to the growing body of evidence for the use of domesticated camels (albeit on a modest scale) in the ancient Near East prior to the 12th century BC. Borowski, Zarin, and others, thus appear to be correct in not dismissing the reference to camels in the patriarchal narratives as merely anachronistic. Recommended Resources for Further StudyBible and SpadeWinter 2006100 Reasons to Trust OT History Archaeology and theOld TesamentFootnotes:1. The party included the author, Dr. William Shea, Dr. Richard Davidson, Prof. JoAnn Davidson, Dr. David Merling, Devin Zinke, Rahel Davidson, John Davidson, Rebecca Younker, and Michael Younker. 2. Gerster notified William Albright about the Wadi Nasib inscriptions on March 7, 1960. The inscriptions were initially published by J. Leibovitch in Le Museon 74 (1961). They were also commented on by Sir Alan Gardiner in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, and by Albright himself, in his small volume entitled The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment (Harvard University Press, 1966: 28–29). 3. Immediately to the right of the Gerster text No. 1, Albright thought there was the outline of a rectangular panel with a rounded corner and a cartouche which appears to enclose the name of Sekhem-re’-khu-tawi, the 15th pharaoh of the 13th Dynasty who ruled over three years (ca. 1760 BC). However, Rainey doubts this reading (Rainey 1975: 108). 4. There was originally some confusion on the precise spatial relationship of Gerster No. 2 and the Ammenemes III stele. The original artist’s depiction, from which Gardiner worked, showed the bull’s head as directly under the Ammenemes III stele. In actuality it is about 20 cm to the right (Gardiner 1962: 45–46). 5. This discovery evokes a parallel found at Aswan, Egypt, that also depicts a man leading a camel by a rope. This petroglyph was originally described by Georg Schweinfurth in 1912 (see picture and discussion of this petroglyph in Ripinsky 1983: 27 and 1984: 139). Again, the petroglyph can possibly be dated by an accompanying inscription. The inscription is hieratic and was dated by Moeller to 2423–2263 BC (Sixth Dynasty), making it considerably older than the Wadi Nasib camel petroglyph (ibid.). Bibliography Albright, W. F.1942 Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.1945 Review of J. P. Free’s Camel Article. Journal of Biblical Literature 64: 287–88.1949 The Archaeology of Palestine. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth: Middlesex.1966 The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment (Harvard Theological Studies, 22). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Anati, E.1968 Rock-Art in Central Arabia: The Oval-headed People of Arabia. Universite’ de Lovain: Institut Orientaliste. Borowski, C.1998 Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press. Bulliet, R.1975 The Camel and the Wheel.
Rosetta Stone
Rosetta Stone
the agreement with the Sabbatical and Jubilee data and the evidence of the Tyrian king list
ranted, then, that the reign length data of Kings and Chronicles are historically accurate, could it be that some ancient editor was astute enough to add up the numbers and derive a 480-year figure in a fashion something like that of Wellhausen or Barnes, and then project this 480-year figure back into the time between the exodus and the start of Temple construction? In other words, those who are seeking ways to show that the Bible is not to be trusted in historical matters could say that the 480 years were deduced somehow from the regnal data, which can be accepted as historically correct. They would claim that the editor decided to stop counting either after the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (Barnes) or after the return under Cyrus (Wellhausen, Burney, and Hawkins). Then this late-date redactor, once he or she had discovered a 480-year sum in the regnal data, imposed it on the time between the exodus and the start of construction of Solomon’s Temple. One would wonder what purpose this might serve, since the pattern had to wait to modern times to be discovered. It would also imply that this editor knew nothing about the proper methods of interpreting the dates, but merely added numbers from various starting and stopping places until a nice sum was found. But let us, for now, consider this option as a possibility: namely, that the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1 were extracted somehow from the regnal data. This idea cannot be right because it cannot be reconciled with what has just been established. Since the regnal data of Kings and Chronicles, covering a period of over four centuries, have been demonstrated by careful scholarship to have every mark of authenticity,[28] then how could it be that when we come to 1 Kgs 6:1, the chronological data there are suddenly no longer historical, but contrived and mythical? For those who prefer redaction criticism, if we grant that the surrounding numerical figures, including the “fourth year” of Solomon, are to be taken literally, then could any judicious approach that deals with literary genre say that the 480 years in the same verse are to be taken as unhistorical? This is particularly pertinent if we accept Cassuto’s argument that the very form in which the number is written is meant to convey exactness.[29] Some numbers in the Bible clearly are not to be taken in a strictly literal sense (the “seventy times seven” of Matt 18:22, for example). The context and literary convention being followed are usually plain enough in such cases, however, to show that a non-literal interpretation is intended. For 1 Kgs 6:1, similarly, the context and literary convention being followed dictate that the 480 years must be taken as literal in intention. There is no indication that ancient readers would have understood it in any other sense. To treat it as other than literal would open the door to the radical revisionism that no interpreter with a high view of the inspiration of Scripture could accept: the forty years of Israel in the desert would not be literal, nor the forty days of the temptation of Jesus, nor his three days in the tomb, and so on without end, so that we would no longer be able to understand the plain meaning of any factual statement in Scripture. d. The Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles show that the 480 years are literal years. Redaction criticism, such as would seek to impose a non-literal 480 years in the midst of an otherwise historical account, has been shown by its practitioners to be a very subjective methodology. It can be, and has been, bent to favor propositions that fly in the face of archaeological or historical facts. Fortunately we do not need to use this unreliable method in order to investigate whether the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1 are authentic. A proper way of determining their validity is to examine their agreement with the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles. Once we accept the small adjustment that Solomon died before Tishri 1 of 931 bc, instead of on or after Tishri 1 as Thiele assumed, then we not only have a correction for Thiele’s problems with the reigns of the Judean monarchs that he was never able to resolve,[30] but also, by placing the start of Temple construction in 967 bc instead of 966 bc, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years all fall into place with precision and harmony. This precision and harmony cannot be explained as the interpolations of a late-date deuteronomist and his supposed daughters (dtr1, dtr2, etc.) who were interspersing into their account the various allusions to these events in order to fool readers into thinking that the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles were observed in Israel’s past. Although interpolations by a “deuteronomist” are the standard wisdom of rationalist scholarship, it is clear that any deceiver who was interspersing allusions in this fashion could never have gotten all the dates right. The principle of the Jubilee years, first presented in JETS in 2003,[31] was cited in Wood’s “Rise and Fall” article (pp. 477, 488) and by Steinmann in the same issue of JETS[32] as an important argument in favor of the early date for the exodus. It is also important in demonstrating the integrity of all the chronological data of Kings and Chronicles and in establishing the date for the composition of Leviticus. The argument, however, has never been addressed by advocates of a thirteenth-century exodus, even though there have been several expansions of the basic thesis and additional information in its support since the original presentation in JETS. These later articles have provided new evidence to show that Israel’s priests were keeping track of the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles all the time that Israel was in its land, and that the start of counting must have been in 1406 bc. Since these various later articles dealing with the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles may not be readily available to all readers, a summary will be given here of their findings. This will be a brief summary only; for more complete information the articles referenced must be consulted. The reader may also wish to compare the dates that will be given with the dates for the kings of Judah given in Young’s “Tables of Reign Lengths” article.[33] The simple thesis that Israel’s priests began counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles when they entered the land in Nisan of 1406, as they were commanded to do in Lev 25:1–10, explains the following facts: First, for the Jubilee years: The Hebrew text of Ezek 40:1, by saying that it was both Rosh HaShanah (New Year’s Day) and the tenth of the month, establishes that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of a Jubilee year. Only in a Jubilee year did the year start on the tenth of the month (Lev 25:9). The date was the Day of Atonement, Tishri 10 of 574 bc.[34] Since the Jubilee year was identical to the seventh Sabbatical year,[35] the first year of this cycle must have been forty-eight years earlier, starting in 622 bc. 1406 bc, the year that Israel entered Canaan that can be derived from the chronological note of 1 Kgs 6:1, was 784 years, or sixteen Jubilee cycles earlier than this date, thus showing that 1406 would have been the first year of a Jubilee (and Sabbatical) cycle. This is in agreement with an entry into Canaan in that year, since Israel was to start counting the cycles when they entered the land of Canaan (Lev 25:1-10).[36] Entirely consistent with this, the Talmud and the Seder ‘Olam explicitly state that Ezekiel’s Jubilee was the seventeenth Jubilee.[37] The Seder ‘Olam, the older of these sources, does not cite the fact that Rosh HaShanah was on the tenth of Tishri in Ezek 40:1 as an argument establishing that it was a Jubilee year. Rabbi Yose simply states that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of the seventeenth Jubilee, apparently based on historical remembrance. The Seder ‘Olam and the Talmud state that another Jubilee was observed in the eighteenth year of Josiah.[38] According to Judean Tishri-based reckoning, Josiah’s eighteenth year began in Tishri of 623 bc, which was forty-nine years, or exactly one Jubilee cycle, before Ezekiel’s Jubile
language learning
language learning
订阅：
博文 (Atom)