Arab Christians are Arabs
By
Raja G. Mattar
'History
is a set of agreed-upon lies
(Napoleon)
A few weeks ago I received by email an article
by a Dr. Walid Phares titled Arab Christians who
are they? Initially I brushed it off as rather
inconsequential, but it subsequently came to my
attention that Dr. Phares is promoting some rather
bizarre ideas about Arab Christians on the lecture and TV
circuit in the U.S., contesting their Arab ethnicity and
claiming their persecution by Moslems. Being an Arab
Christian myself, I would like to use some of the views
of Dr. Phares as an entry point to highlight the
falsities being promulgated by him and a few others under
the guise of scholarly studies. Sadly, many of these
anti-Arab activists fit the characterization of
self-hating Arabs.
Arab Christians have always existed in the
Middle East, and long before the advent of Islam. In Lebanon
today they number about 1.3 million (about one-third of
the population) mainly of Maronite denomination. In Syriathey
number approximately two million (or about 10% of the
population) which include a significant community of
Maronites. In Egypt, Christians, mostly Copts, are about
4.5 million, or about 6% of the population. There are one
million in Iraq of various denominations, or about 4% the
population. The Christians of Palestine and Jordan may
number 600,000, but so many population shifts had taken
place that it is difficult to venture a reliable
estimate.
Where are the Maronites
of the Holy Land currently distributed? The
residential diocese of Haifa has six parishes
ministered by five diocesan priests, two monks,
nine nuns and four young persons preparing for
priesthood. This diocese has approximately 7,060
faithful. In the Exarchy of Jerusalem, the number
of faithful is estimated to be 45 families, which
is about 135 faithful, including 4 families in
Bethlehem, 7 in Beth Jala, 2 in Beth Sahour in
Ramallah and a few people in Abou Dis, Beit
Hanina, Sha'fat and Ar-Ram. |
The Christians of Lebanon, Syria and Palestineplayed
a pioneering role in reviving Arab culture from the
comatose state it was in under the Ottomans. The
renaissance of Arab culture owes a great deal to the many
Christian Arab scholars who were among the forerunners in
shaping Arab national identity. The Maronites role, in
particular, was of major cultural importance. In Lebanon
they are the backbone of its cultural diversity. A Saudi
friend once commented that if the Maronites did not exist
we would have to invent them!
There have been occasional claims that the
Maronites can trace their ancestry to Phoenicians. This
is a myth intended to distance the Maronites from their
Arab roots. The Maronites were inhabitants of Orontes
(Al-Assi) valley in Syria. They are most probably
descendants of some Arab tribes who never converted to
Islam. The eminent Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi
(incidentally, a Christian) in his A House of
Many Mansions [1988] states (ch. 6):
It is very possible that the Maronites, as a
community of Arabian origin, were among the last Arabian
Christian tribes to arrive in Syria before Islam
.
Certainly, since the 9th century, their
language has been Arabic, which indicates that they must
have originated as an Arab tribal community
. The
fact that Syriac remains the language of their
liturgy
is irrelevant. Syriac, which is the
Christian literary form of Aramaic, was originally the
liturgical language of all the Arab and Arameo-Arab
Christian sects, in Arabia as well as in Syriaand Iraq.
Salibi also notes (in ch. 4), that Patriarch Istifan
Duwayhi, a Maronite historian of the 17th
century, points out that the Maronites had to move
their seat out of the valley of the Orontes to Mount
Lebanon as a result of Byzantine, not Muslim
persecution. Salibi further goes on to say:
Between 969 and 1071
the Byzantines were in
actual control of the Orontes valley
. They must
have subjected the Maronites to enough persecution to
force them to abandon the place and join their
co-religionists in Mount Lebanon
. In Muslim Aleppo,
however, the community survived, as it does to this
day. El Hassan Bin Talal (former crown prince of
Jordan and a prominent scholar) in his Christianity
in the Arab World [1994] (ch. 7),
emphasizes: It is possible that the Maronite church
would not have survived the Byzantine reconquests in
Syria between the 10th and 11th
centuries
had the Byzantines
succeeded in
occupying the whole of Syria, leaving no parts under
Muslim rule, where dissident Christian groups could find
refuge from Byzantine persecution.
I hope we can put to rest the myth of the
Maronites as descendants of the Phoenicians. The
Phoenicians lived mainly on the coasts of Lebanon and Syria.
If one wants to belabor the subject their descendants are
obviously the coast dwellers, mainly the Sunnis. In any
case, the Greek historian Herodotus wrote in the 5th
century BC, that the Phoenicians themselves were Arab
tribes from the Arabian shores of the Red Sea.
Dr. Phares in his article mentions pogroms
of the Copts in Egypt. This a serious and
misleading accusation. The term pogrom means organized
and systematic killing of an ethnic group usually
sanctioned by the government. There may have been
occasional sectarian clashes, but I have yet to come
across a historical record to the effect that the Copts,
or any other Arab Christian group for that matter, having
been the target of pogroms. (The only recorded massacre
of Christians was in 1860 in Mount Lebanon, and the
origin of that unfortunate event was a social rebellion
by Maronite serfs against their Druze overlords). Pogroms
were an invention of Christian rulers in Europe, mostly
directed against Jews - for which Palestinian Arabs, both
Christian and Moslem, have been paying dearly as the
Christian West tries to atone for its sins at their
expense. This western guilt complex, nurtured
continuously by Zionist propaganda, has resulted in a
tomblike silence over the atrocities perpetrated by Israel
over the past 60 years.
It is often mentioned that the Copts of Egyptare
descendants of the Pharaohs. But so much history had
elapsed between the disappearance of the Pharaohs and the
arrival of Islam, that this claim appears questionable,
and in any case the Moslems of Egypt have every bit as
much right to it, if indeed that claim is anything more
than intellectual hair-splitting.
The article in question also claims that the
Christians remaining in Palestine are experiencing
one of their most severe choices: surrender to
Islamization, or join the pan-Middle East Christian
boat
. This is a flagrant a distortion of
reality. Palestinian Christians are not suffering atthe hands
of the Moslems, but at the hands of the Israelis, and the
bullet-scarred statue of the Virgin Mary in the Church of
the Nativity in Bethlehem is a poignant testimony to this
fact. We are witnessing before our very eyes the gradual
de-Christianization and de-Islamization of Arab Jerusalem
due to persistent Israeli measures aimed at deliberately
destroying the Arab character of the city, while the
Western world, spearheaded by successive U.S.
administrations, displays utter insensitivity, if not
outright acquiescence, to this demographic crime.
Dr. Phares talks about the Moslems
demonizing those who have formedtheir
national state, Israel. He seems to believe, along
with many others, that the Jews of Palestinewere a large
community dispersed by the Romans and now entitled to
return to their homeland. According to Israel
Finkelstein, an Israeli archeologist, in his monumental
work The Bible Unearthed [2001], the
Hebrews were never a large community, never had a
substantial kingdom, never were in Egypt (the exodus from
Egypt is just a myth). The number of Jews dispersed by
the Romans from Palestine was minimal; most Jews remained
in Palestine, some gradually became Christians, and, some
further on, Moslems. (See Review by SBDougherty below)
The bulk of the Jews who have been pouring into Palestinefor
decades under the so-called Right of Return
have no demonstrable kinship to the Hebrew inhabitants of
Palestinein Roman times. The fanatical settlers
especially those of East European or Russian origins -
who claim to return to their ancestral land
are, as advanced by Arthur Koestler (a Hungarian Jew) in
his scholarly work The Thirteenth Tribe
[1976], descendants of the Khazars, southern Russian
tribes who converted to Judaism about 740 AD (ch.1).
Their empire collapsed after their defeat by the Russians
late in the 10th century and they dispersed
all over Europe. Alfred Lilienthal (an American Jew) in
an article written in 1981 titled Zionism and
American Jews confirms: In The Thirteenth
Tribe, Arthur Koestler, supported overwhelmingly by
such anthropologists as Ripley, Weissenberg, Hertz, Boas,
Mead and Fishberg, proves that the vast majority of
today's Jews are descendants of the Khazars of South
Russia
. The Ben-Gurions, the Golda Meirs, and the
Begins, who have clamored to go back home,
probably never had antecedents in that part of the
world.
*******************
The Arabian desert and the area around it gave
birth to a number of tribes and civilizations -
Phoenicians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Hebrews,
Canaanites, Nabateans, etc. These tribes continuously
drifted out of the desert into the fertile areas of the
Levant and the Nile valley. Their languages were very
similar, one could even call them dialects of the same
language. Even present-day Hebrew shares remarkable
similarities with Arabic. These tribes had different
religions. At one time most were pagan, some were Jewish.
With the advent of Christianity some became Christian.
Thus Christianity was not an ethnic denomination but a
religion adopted by many of these tribes. Many of the
great Arab poets of pre-Islamic times were Christian,
(Imru-al-Qays, Amr ibn-Kulthum, Tarafa ibn al-Abed,
among others).
The language prevalent in the Arab world today
is called Arabic, but it is no more than the dialect of
one major Arab tribe, Qureish, which became the language
of the Quran. That language spread like wildfire in Syria,
Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and northern Egypt because the
people in these areas were effectively already speaking
dialects of the same language.
What used to be known as Bilad Al Sham (Greater Syria,
if you will) was Arabized long before Islam. To quote
Salibi again (ch. 5): Since pre-Islamic times,
Mount Lebanonappears to have been densely populated by
Arab tribes.
In ch. 7: To maintain
that the Syrians came to be arabized after the conquest
of their country by the Muslim Arabs was simply not
correct, because Syria was already largely inhabited by
Arabs in fact, Christian Arabs long before
Islam.
When Islam expanded out of Arabia into what is
now called the Middle East, most oriental Christians
(Monophysites, Maronites, Nestorians) were in deep
political and theological conflict with Byzantium. Many
gradually converted to Islam, including the largest Arab
tribe, the Taghlebs, who converted sometimes in the 10th
century. These Christian Arab tribes may have found in
Islam with its insistence on the indivisibility of God
(La Ilah Illa Allah meaning There is no
God, but God) a simplified version of their faith.
The process involved no coercion. The only battles that
took place were with the Byzantines. Most Christian Arabs
- in fact all, except the Melchites who were allied
theologically with the Byzantine Church) - cooperated
actively with the Moslems, with many actually fighting
alongside the Moslems (folklore has it that the Arab
saying: My brother and I against my cousin, and my
cousin and I against the foreigner dates from this
period).
Numerous small, dissident Christian sects
among them the Copts and the Maronites -
survived and even prospered under Islamic rule,
while their equivalents in Christian Europe
disappeared under official
persecution. Many researchers going through the tax
records (the Zakat paid by the Moslems as compared to the
tribute, called the Jizya, paid by non-Moslems, mostly
Christian) of the early Islamic rule of Syria and Egypt
came to the conclusion that as late as the 12th
century, i.e. six centuries after the rise of Islam, the
majority of the population of Syria and Egypt was
Christian, hardly indicative of any Islamic coercion to
convert.
A quote from the eminent Bertrand Russell, a
Nobel Prize winner, may be in order at this point:
I have always been told throughout my youth
of the fanaticism of the Mohammedans, and especially that
story of the destruction of the library at Alexandria.
Well, I believed all these stories, but when I came to
look into the history of the times concerned, I had a
great many shocks. In the first place, I discovered that
the library of Alexandria was destroyed a great many
times, and the first time was by Julius Caesar. But the
last time was supposed to have been by the Mohammedans,
and for this I found no justification whatsoever. Nor did
I find that the Mohammedans were fanatical. The contests
between Catholics, Nestorians, and Monophysites were
bitter and persecuting to the last degree. But the
Mohammedans, when they conquered Christian countries,
allowed the Christians to be perfectly free, provided
they pay a tribute. The only penalty for being a
Christian was that you had to pay a tribute that
Mohammedans did not have to pay. This proved completely
successful, and the immense majority of the population
became Mohammedans, but not through any fanaticism on the
part of the Mohammedans. On the contrary they, in the
earlier centuries of their power, represented free
thought and tolerance to a degree that the Christians did
not emulate until quite recent times.
Bertrand Russell (Eng. philosopher, 1872-1970):
"Reading History As It Is Never Written" [1959]
Of prime historical significance is the fact
that in the early stages of Arab rule, Christians Arabs
played a crucial cultural role, highly appreciated by the
Islamic rulers. Due to their familiarity with the Greek
heritage, they helped translate the legacy of Greece to
Arabic, giving an intellectual boost to the emerging Arab
civilization which was later, through its outposts in Spain
and Sicily, to rouse Europe from the slumber of its dark
ages.
************************
Is there such a thing as an Arab ethnicity at
present? I think not. There is no group of people in the
world that can claim pure ethnicity, except perhaps in
some remote islands. Let me take as an example France,
which is proud of its cultural, historic, and moral
heritage. Most of Southern Franceis Italian in its ethnic
origins; farther west it is Basque; up north, it is
Breton and Norman. Paris was a haven for refugees
throughout its history. Even Napoleon, to whom the French
pay homage, was from Italo-French Corsica. Can one claim
that there is such a thing as, ethnically, a French race?
There is, however, such a thing as an Arab
culture. Apart from the obvious racial minorities
(Christians and animists in Southern Sudan, Kurds in Syriaand
Iraq, Berbers in North Africa, and a few others), the
rest of the population is culturally Arab. Culture is the
language they speak, the poetry they recite, the songs
they sing, the foods they eat, the music they dance to,
and the history they share.
Trying to find ethnic slots in which to place
various peoples is first an exercise in futility, and
second in racism. Cultures do exist, however, and whether
we like it or not, whether some scattered thinkers in and
outside the Arab world like it or not, whether some
self-hating Arabs like it or not, we are for
better or for worse part of the Arab culture. Arab
Christians have contributed a lot to this culture, and
they should be proud of their contributions. Those who
deny this heritage are reneging on their cultural roots
and trying to identify with some extinct civilizations.
They are turning their backs on the Christian giants of
Arab culture the Gibrans, the Naimehs, the
Bustanis, the Yazigis, the Zeidans, the various Khourys,
the Abou Madis, the Maaloofs, the Al-Akhtals (old and
new), and yes, the Fayrouzes, the Rahbanis, the Al Roumis
and trying to find their heroes in the tombs of
Byblos and the sarcophagi of Egypt.
Needless to say, many Arabs are dissatisfied
with the current state of Arab affairs. Things do look
frustrating, depressing and seemingly hopeless. During
such periods of national malaise, there is a tendency
among some intellectuals to deny even belonging to their
own culture and to find an outlet in esoteric ideas and
fanatic ideologies. That is one of many reasons why
Communism took over Russia, Nazism took over Germany and
radical Islamism is now holding itself as an alternative
to secular Arabism. But the current torpor in our
political landscape is no reason to create an imagined
identity for ourselves from the ruins of defunct
civilizations. Nor is it sufficient justification to
distance ourselves from our Arab culture and attach
ourselves to a technologically and militarily superior
West, whose past and present morality massacres,
wars, religious pogroms, colonialism, and ethnic
cleansings, up to and including Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,
Bagram and the unconditional support of Israels
genocidal policies are hardly occasion for great
pride.
There are many agitators who have a political
agenda and are keen to distort history and statistics to
fit such an agenda, imagining ethnic differences where
none exist. They are either alien to this culture -
or have alienated themselves from it - and are
trying to fabricate falsehoods and pass them on as
history to uninformed listeners or readers. They are
trying to invent for Arab Christians an artificial
identity antagonistic to the environment they have always
been part of, not realizing - or maybe they are - that by
nurturing such a rift they might be creating
among Arab Christians an anti-Islamic 'fifth column',
disloyal to its own culture and probably imperiling whole
Christian communities in the Arab Middle East. And
for what? To toady to Israel and its patrons in the U.S.?
The millions of Christians are a dynamic part of
the Arab landscape and should remain so. They should
cooperate with the Moslems to develop a secular society
where all citizens are equal, regardless of religious
affiliation or ethnic (imagined or real) background. They
should not be encouraged to adopt a confrontational
attitude towards their compatriots, and they should
refuse to becomes pawns of foreign powers trying to
dominate, destabilize, and re-colonize the Middle East,
as exemplified by the enormous military and financial
backing bestowed over the years upon Israel and the
recent military assault on Iraq. Perhaps the imperative
of Christian-Moslem harmony applies to Lebanon nowadays
more than ever.
We Arab Christians should avoid at all costs to forge
alliances with any new crusaders against Arabs or
Islam. We should support the Arabs struggle today
against these neo-crusaders who are masquerading as
liberators and democracy promoters, and who are trying to
disfigure Arab history and reshape Arab culture and
values. Our contributions to Arab culture are immense. We
really don't need some cultural defectors to instill in
us a persecution complex and a hostile mindset towards
our fellow citizens, when we should act, as we always
did, as bridges between the Arab world and the West.
Arabs - Moslems and Christians - have their
hands full right now trying to field the onslaught of
Zionist and neo-conservative propaganda spewing out of
the West, without having to contend with a contingent of
self-hating Arabs in their midst. In this charged
political atmosphere of demonization of Arabs and Islam,
we should reclaim our role as defenders, interpreters,
interlocutors, spokespersons of our geographical
hinterland, of our Arab depth. We have helped the nascent
Arab empire in its early years gain access to the Greek
classics, we have helped reawaken Arab identity from its
Ottoman stupor. Let us not allow Western and/or Israeli
fundamentalists to cast a pall over it again.
When the crusaders entered Jerusalem in 1099,
we, Arab Christians, were massacred along with the
Moslems. The brutality in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan
clearly demonstrates that the morality of the new
crusaders is no better than the morality of those who
came here centuries ago.
Raja
G. Mattar is a former Middle East regional manager of a
multinational company and is currently a business
consultant living in Beirut. He can be contacted at ranimar@cyberia.net.lb
Fiat Lux: Archeology and the Old
Testament
By Sarah Belle Dougherty
Archeology has long been considered a good
friend of the Hebrew Bible. Just as Heinrich
Schliemann's discoveries proved that Homer's
stories were not purely mythical, so
archeological discoveries in Old Testament lands
have been taken to demonstrate that the Bible is
history rather than legend. Although for
centuries textual critics have realized that the
Old Testament represents the editing together of
several texts produced at different times by
different groups, until the 1970s most
archeologists continued to accept its accounts at
face value. Since virtually all were Christians
or Jews with a strong commitment to the truth of
the Bible, they interpreted their finds in light
of scripture. No wonder, then, that archeological
findings confirmed the Bible when researchers
used the Old Testament to identify, date, and
interpret the significance of the towns,
buildings, pottery, and other artifacts they
unearthed.
But in the 1970s a new trend emerged as
archeologists began to treat discoveries in the
Holy Land as they would those anywhere else.
Concentrating on Israel's ancient history itself,
rather than solely on its biblical associations,
they used artifacts, architecture, settlement
patterns, animal bones, seeds, soil samples,
anthropological models drawn from world cultures,
and other modern methods to produce a description
based on scientific evidence. The Bible
Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient
Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (Free
Press, New York, 2001, 385 pages, ISBN
0684869128, cloth, $26.00; Touchstone Books, New
York, 2002, ISBN 0684869136, paperback, $14.00)
brings this scholarship to a general audience.
Dr. Finkelstein is director of the Sonia and
Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv
University, and Dr. Silberman is director of
historical interpretation for the Ename Center
for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation
in Belgium.
Seeking to "separate history from
legend," the authors "share the most
recent archaeological insights -- still largely
unknown outside scholarly circles -- not only on when,
but also why the Bible was
written," discoveries which "have
revolutionized the study of early Israel and have
cast serious doubt on the historical basis of
such famous biblical stories as the wanderings of
the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt and
conquest of Canaan, and the glorious empire of
David and Solomon" (p. 3). The Bible
Unearthed discusses in some detail the
evidence behind these claims, and shows why,
although "no archaeologist can deny that the
Bible contains legends, characters, and story
fragments that reach far back in time. . . .
archaeology can show that the Torah and the
Deuteronomistic History bear unmistakable
hallmarks of their initial compilation in the
seventh century BCE" (p. 23).
The Bible opens its account of the Jewish
people with the wandering of the patriarchs,
beginning with Abraham. To judge by recent cover
stories in such magazines as National
Geographic and Time, one would
think that Abraham must be a well-established
historical character. Said to be a Babylonian
from Ur in what is now southern Iraq, according
to Genesis Abraham moved northwest to
Haran in southern Turkey, where the voice of God
told him to go south into Canaan. The Bible
traces all the nations of the region to his
family. The Moabites and Ammonites derive from
his nephew Lot; the Jews and southern Arabs from
Abraham's sons, Isaac and Ishmael respectively.
There follow Isaac's sons Esau -- father of the
Edomites and other desert tribes -- and Jacob;
then Jacob's twelve sons, each of whom ruled one
of the twelve tribes of Israel. One son, Joseph,
is sold into slavery in Egypt. During a famine
the rest of the family, seeking relief there,
discover that Joseph has risen high in the
Pharaoh's favor. After Jacob's death, the
children of Israel remain in Egypt.
What archeological evidence is there
concerning these biblical figures? Archeologists,
many of them churchmen, have searched in- tensely
for evidence of the historical patriarchs because
they felt that unless these people actually
existed, their own religious faith would be
erroneous. Although the Bible provides a great
deal of specific information, the search has
proved unsuccessful. Discrepancies in details are
significant because such "specific
references in the text to cities, neighboring
peoples, and familiar places are precisely those
aspects that distinguish the patriarchal stories
from completely mythical folktales. They are
crucially important for identifying the date and
message of the text" (p. 38). For example,
camels were not commonly used as beasts of burden
in the Near East until the seventh century BCE,
and the Philistines did not settle in Canaan
until after 1200 BCE. Excavation of several sites
mentioned as prominent in Genesis
sometimes show that in the early Iron Age they
were insignificant or nonexistent, but by the
late eighth and seventh century BCE had become
important.
Analysis shows, moreover, that the genealogies
of the patriarchs and the nations deriving from
them represent "a colorful human map of the
ancient Near East from the unmistakable viewpoint
of the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah
in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. These
stories offer a highly sophisticated commentary
on political affairs in this region in the
Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods" (pp.
38-9). The Bible also gives a dominant role to
Judah in Genesis, even though at that
time it was insignificant:
It is now evident that the selection of
Abraham, with his close connection to Hebron,
Judah's earliest royal city, and to Jerusalem
. . . was meant also to emphasize the primacy
of Judah even in the earliest eras of
Israel's history. It is almost as if an
American scripture describing pre-Columbian
history placed inordinate attention on
Manhattan Island or on the tract of land that
would later become Washington, D.C. The
pointed political meaning of the inclusion of
such a detail in a larger narrative at least
calls into question its historical
credibility. -- p. 43
The authors conclude that the patriarchal
traditions
must be considered as a sort of pious
"prehistory" of Israel in which
Judah played a decisive role. They describe
the very early history of the nation,
delineate ethnic boundaries, emphasize that
the Israelites were outsiders and not part of
the indigenous population of Canaan, and
embrace the traditions of both the north and
the south, while ultimately stressing the
superiority of Judah. -- p. 45
Rather than a chronicle or history, evidence
indicates that this part of Genesis was
a national epic created in the seventh century
BCE which successfully joined many regional
legendary ancestors into one unified tradition.
A second series of biblical events revolves
around the slavery of the Jewish people in Egypt,
the miraculous escape of 600,000 led by Moses,
their wandering in the wilderness for forty
years, their swift conquest of the Promised Land
under Joshua, and the slaughter of all the
original inhabitants. These events, memorialized
in major Jewish festivals, occupy four of the
first five books of the Bible traditionally
attributed to Moses. Physical evidence and
historical texts confirm that Canaanites had
traditionally settled in the prosperous east
delta region of Egypt, particularly in times of
drought, famine, and war. Some came as landless
conscripts and prisoners of war, others as
farmers, herders, or tradesmen. Egyptian
historians tell of the Hyksos, Canaanite
immigrants who became dominant in a great delta
city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians
around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the
Egyptian government controlled immigration from
Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern
delta and at one-day intervals along the
Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept
extensive records, none of which mention the
Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group
entering, leaving, or living as a people in the
delta.
Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late
thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there
is only one mention of the name Israel, despite
many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is
there any archeological evidence for a body of
people encamping in the desert and mountains of
Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:
Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative
are real. A few were well known and
apparently occupied in much earlier periods
and much later periods -- after the kingdom
of Judah was established, when the text of
the biblical narrative was set down in
writing for the first time. Unfortunately for
those seeking a historical Exodus, they were
unoccupied precisely at the time they
reportedly played a role in the events of the
wandering of the children of Israel in the
wilderness. -- p. 64
Archeology also reveals dramatic discrepancies
concerning the military campaign of Joshua, dated
between 1230-1220 BCE, when the powerful
Canaanite kings were supposedly destroyed and the
twelve tribes inherited their traditional
territories. Abundant Late Bronze Age Egyptian
diplomatic and military correspondence and other
existing texts give detailed information about
Canaan, which was closely administered by Egypt
at that time for a period of several centuries.
The Canaanite cities were small and unfortified
-- Jericho and some of the other cities mentioned
were even unsettled altogether -- and the total
population of Canaan probably did not exceed
100,000. While in fact many Canaanite cities were
burned and destroyed in the thirteenth century
BCE, evidence points to widespread causes
affecting also prosperous cultures in Greece,
Turkey, Syria, and Egypt. A major factor was
mysterious, violent invaders known as the Sea
People, who included the Philistines. In 1185 BCE
the last king of Ugarit (a large port on the
coast of Syria) wrote that "enemy boats have
arrived, the enemy has set fire to the cities and
wrought havoc. My troops are in Hittite country,
my boats in Lycia, and the country has been left
to its own devices" (p. 87). A contemporary
Egyptian inscription states that "The
foreign countries made a conspiracy in their
islands. . . . No land could stand before their
arms" (ibid.). In evaluating the biblical
account, Finkelstein and Silberman conclude that
The book of Joshua offered an
unforgettable epic with a clear lesson --
how, when the people of Israel did follow the
Law of the covenant with God to the letter,
no victory could be denied to them. That
point was made with some of the most vivid
folktales -- the fall of the walls of
Jericho, the sun standing still at Gibeon,
the rout of Canaanite kings down the narrow
ascent at Beth-horon -- recast as a single
epic against a highly familiar and suggestive
seventh century background, and played out in
places of the greatest concern to the
Deuteronomistic ideology. In reading and
reciting these stories, the Judahites of the
late seventh century BCE would have seen
their deepest wishes and religious beliefs
expressed. -- pp. 94-5
But if the Israelites did not flee Egypt and
invade Canaan, who were they? After the
Arab-Israeli War of 1967, Jewish archeologists
began to thoroughly explore, map, and analyze the
hill country of Judah, looking for settlement
patterns, evidence of lifestyles, and changes in
demography and the environment.
These surveys revolutionized the study of
early Israel. The discovery of the remains of
a dense network of highland villages -- all
apparently established within the span of a
few generations -- indicated that a dramatic
social transformation had taken place in the
central hill country of Canaan around 1200
BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or
even the infiltration of a clearly defined
ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a
revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly
sparsely populated highlands from the Judean
hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in
the north, far from the Canaanite cities that
were in the process of collapse and
disintegration, about two-hundred fifty
hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here
were the first Israelites. -- p. 107
Further research showed that there had been
two previous waves of settlement: first in the
Early Bronze Age around 3500 BCE, peaking at
about 100 villages and towns, which were
abandoned around 2200 BCE; and again in the
Middle Bronze Age shortly after 2000 BCE,
resulting in 220 settlements ranging from
villages to towns and fortified centers,
comprising perhaps 40,000 people. This period
ended sometime in the sixteenth century BCE, and
the highlands remained sparsely populated for 400
years. The Israelite settlements of around 1200
BCE contained 45,000 people in 250 sites,
climaxing in the eighth century BCE with 160,000
people in over 500 sites. During settled times,
farming was common; in unsettled times, herding
sheep and goats dominated, a pattern found
throughout the Middle East. As Canaanite cities
collapsed, the pastoralists in the hills were
forced to grow their own grain and produce,
resulting in settlements. Thus,
the emergence of early Israel was an
outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite
culture, not its cause. And most of the
Israelites did not come from outside Canaan
-- they emerged from within it. There was no
mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent
conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who
formed early Israel were local people -- the
same people whom we see in the highlands
throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The
early Israelites were -- irony of ironies --
themselves originally Canaanites! -- p. 118
The authors hold in this connection that the
stories in the Book of Judges about
conflicts with the Canaanites -- such as those
concerning Samson, Deborah, and Gideon -- may be
authentic memories of village conflicts and local
heroes preserved as folktales, combined and
recast for later theological and political
purposes.
Thirdly, the Bible tells of the golden age of
the united kingdom of Israel ruled over by a
Judean monarch, first David and then his son
Solomon. It describes a renowned empire spreading
from the Red Sea to the border of Syria, the
splendor of Jerusalem and the first Temple built
by Solomon, as well as other magnificent building
projects. This united kingdom then split into
Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Does
archeology confirm this picture? Despite
legendary exaggerations and elaborations, the
authors believe that David and Solomon did exist
-- but as minor highland chieftains ruling a
population of perhaps 5,000 people. No
archeological evidence exits around 1005-970 BCE
for David's conquest or his empire, nor in
Solomon's time (ca. 970-931 BCE) is there any
evidence of monumental architecture or of
Jerusalem as more than a village:
As far as we can see on the basis of the
archaeological surveys, Judah remained
relatively empty of permanent population,
quite isolated, and very marginal right up to
and past the presumed time of David and
Solomon, with no major urban centers and with
no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages,
and towns. -- p. 132
There is no trace of written documents or
inscriptions, nor of the Temple or palace of
Solomon, and buildings once identified with
Solomon have been shown to date from other
periods. Current evidence refutes the existence
of a unified kingdom: "The glorious epic of
united monarchy was -- like the stories of the
patriarchs and the sagas of the Exodus and
conquest -- a brilliant composition that wove
together ancient heroic tales and legends into a
coherent and persuasive prophecy for the people
of Israel in the seventh century BCE" (p.
144).
Kingdom of David and Solomon according to
the Bible
In the second half of the book the authors
sketch the history of Israel and Judah from 930
to 440 BCE based on archeological evidence,
comparing it with the biblical account. They show
that the northern and southern kingdoms were
always separate and independent. Because of
topography and natural resources, Israel to the
north was always more populous, cosmopolitan,
prosperous, and therefore desirable to foreign
conquerors, while Judah long remained poor,
sparsely populated, and isolated. The Old
Testament material about this era was written
from the viewpoint of the Judean royalty and
Deuteronomistic priests with their religious
reforms: insistence on the worship of one
imageless God in the Temple at Jerusalem and the
complete separation of a united Jewish people
from surrounding peoples. There is much evidence
that such monotheistic demands were an innovation
in both Judah and Israel, where worship of
subsidiary gods and goddesses, as well as the
heavenly bodies, was traditional. Nor were they
adopted widely by the people, who continued to
worship using goddess figures in their homes. The
Deuteronomistic account, the authors hold, is a
cautionary epic joining elements from various
regions to serve seventh-century Judean
interests. Later, after the Babylonian exile, it
was refashioned to meet new (though in many ways
similar) conditions, resulting in the accounts we
have today.
In summing up the significance of these recent
findings, Finkelstein and Silberman maintain that
"the historical saga contained in the Bible
. . . was not a miraculous revelation, but a
brilliant product of human imagination" (p.
1), and argue that
the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its
historicity, do not depend on dutiful
historical "proof" of any of its
particular events or personalities . . . The
power of the biblical saga stems from its
being a compelling and coherent narrative
expression of the timeless themes of a
people's liberation, continuing resistance to
oppression, and quest for social equality. It
eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense
of shared origins, experiences, and destiny
that every human community needs in order to
survive. -- p. 318
For centuries, however, Jews, Christians, and
Moslems have believed that events in their racial
and religious history are recorded in the Old
Testament. Even today many continue to believe
that the biblical account is literally true, or
at least basically accurate. Scholarly findings
in archeology, textual analysis, history, and
newly translated ancient documents all point to a
reality which may be difficult for many
traditional and fundamentalist believers to
reconcile with a faith that depends on biblical
events, promises, prophecies, and revelations
being historical facts. Nonetheless, this
knowledge represents a new dawning in our
understanding of these religions and their
ancient history.
(From Sunrise magazine, February/March 2003;
copyright © 2003 Theosophical University Press)
|
|