History of Semites

As the title indicates, we shall be concerned in this first volume of the “Semitic Theological Series” with the principle and theology of the cultus of the Semites of the Ancient Near East. 

 

CHAPTER I

History of the Semites

  1. Definition of the theme.

As the title indicates, we shall be concerned in this first volume of the “Semitic Theological Series” with the principle and theology of the cultus of the Semites of the Ancient Near East. The area of the cultus is taken as the field of theological research because it is in their cultus that the Semites expressed their theo­logical convictions.

Geographically by the Ancient Near East1 we mean the countries commonly known as Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia*.

Historically by the Ancient Near East we mean a period of history of this Semitic area beginning with the establishment of the first Semitic empire by Sargon of Akkad in 2370 B. C. and ending with the destruction of the Neo-Babylonian Empire by the Persians in 539 B. C. A precise definition of the Semites is not possible because the relationship between language and race is extremely complex in the Ancient Near East. The identification and classification of the various Semitic peoples, who

*According to C. Rabin, the Semitic area includes a central part consisting “mainly of the Arabian Peninsula, but in some cases also including the Syrian home of Aramaic, and’two marginal regions: one extending from Palestine via Ugarit to Mesopotamia, the other the Ethiopian group on the African mainland ‘ (“The Origin of the Subdivisions of Semitic” in: Hebrew and Semitic Studies presented to G. R. Driver, edrs. D. W. Thomas & W. D. Mettart, Oxford, 1963, p. 107.) For a description of the geographical features of these countries see B. Netanyahu, edr. “TheWorld History of the Jewish People”, vol. I, Tel-Aviv, 1964, pp. 7-96.

 

migrated into the Ancient Near East[1], are based exclusively on documentary evidence of the specific language that happened to have been used by a particular group[2].

The 60-70 identifiable Semitic dialects are normally grouped into five “languages” — Accadian, Aramaic, Canaanite, Arabic South Arabian, Fthiopic – and these again into three sub groups, East Semitic, North west Semitic (Arabic and Canaanites) and South Semitic (Arabic and South Arabian- Ethiopic)        [1]

Accordingly the usual classification of the main groups of the Semites is as follows:

  1. East Semites: Old Akkadians, Assyrians and Baby­lonians.
  2. West Semites:
  3. Northwest Semites: Amorites, Canaanites, Hebrews, Aramaeans and Phoenicians.

[1] The question of the original home of the Semites is a very disputed one among the scholars. There are three prevalent views on the original home of the Semites: 1 he classical view assigns to the Semites the Arabian: Peninsula as their original home. See. C. Brockelmann, Grundriss d. Vergl Gramm. I” 1908, pp. 7, 8, 13,21. For a brief summary of the origin and history of this view seed. Ml. Grintz, ” On the Original home of the Semites” In: JNES 21, 1962 p. 187, col. I. footnote no. 4. Another view is that the cradle of the Semitic people was in the northern Mesopotamia and adjacent regions See J. M, Grintz, ibid; A. Moret and G. Davy. From Tribe to Empire. New York, 2 1970, p 195; Albert T. Clay, The Empire of the Amorites, New Yo’k, 2 1980, pp 27 49. A third view credits the Semites with a pro ethnic stage common with the Hamites in North Africa and the Semitic offshoot of this Hamito-Semitic family separated itself from the parental body in the African side of the Red Sea and migrated in to the Ancient Near East in successive stages, the first of which was to produce the Akkadians. E. Speiser. “Ethno-Lingustic Elements”, in: B. Netanyahu, edr , World History of the Jewish People, op. cit- pp. 138-140,

[1] Philip Hitti, The Near East in History, Princeton, 1961, p, 31;’Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago & London, 1965 p 48. But race and language were by no means coextensive in any age of the Ancient Near East, For an account of the Ethnolinguistic complexity and for examples of supeiregional and supernational common languages in the history of the Semites, see, B. Netanyahu, edr., World History of the Jewish people, op cit., pp 104-108.

[1] C. Rabin ‘ The Origin of the Subdivisions of Semitic”, in; Hebrew and Semitic Studies, op. cit , P. 104.

Southwest Semites: North Arabs, South Arabs and Ethiopians[1].

By the designation “Semites” we do not mean a race but a group of nations who happend to occupy the Near East and had a common family of language and a common cultural pattern. In the present quest for the ritu- ology of the Semites weare not going to deal with the cultus of all the Semitic peoples known to us, but with a few representative groups as shall be defined later.

  1. The Historiography of the Semites.

A brief account of the history of the Semites is nece­ssary as an introduction to the present research because of the integral relationship between the political and the reli­gious in the Semitic culture, as we shall see. But before we start with the history of the Semites a few remarks are to be made on the nature of their history and historiography. “From the earliest moments when we begin to see men of Semitic race appearing on the stage of history they were already scattered, despite their undeniable basic unity”.[2] Therefore there is no unity and continuity in their history, but a uniform pattern. An observable pattern in the history of the various Semitic peoples is migration from a sedantary home or from a nomadic stage to a new homeland, conflict with the inhabitants of the new homeland, undergoing a process of urbanization and entering into historic existen­ce by establishing cities or kingdoms or powerful empires by supporting or with the support of the related tribes[3].

[1] A. Halder, Who were the Amorites, Leiden, 1971, p. 2; D. J. Wiseman, edr„ Peoples of the Old Testament Times, Oxford, 1973, p. 15; Leopold Sabourin, Priesthood. A comparative Study, Leiden, 1973, p. 45; Car! Brockelmann, Grundriss der veigleichenden Grammatik der Semetischen Sprachen, Hildesheim 21966, vol I. pp 5ff.

[2] Moret & Davy, From Tribe to Empire, op. cit.. p. 190.

[3] ibid p. 193. Though the Arabic hypothesis is disputed, the historical facts verify periodical migrations, urbanization upto imperialization. “The periodical wave theory seems to have been originated by Winckler who in his “Geschichte

 

page 4

The history of the Semitic peoples beginning with migrations and ending in kingdoms or empires shall be pre­sented according to the historiography of the Semites’. The Semites conceived history theocentrically and interpreted historical events as the result of joint divine-human venture[1]. The history of a people and the biography of their

[1] As A. K. Grayson points out the question of the historiography of the Semites is complex and neglected. (Assyrian and Babylonien Chronicles, New York, 1975, p. 2) There are two extreme views on the person and work of the Se­mitic Gods and consequently on the historiography of the Semites. It has been often axiomatically held, especially by the History-of-Redemption School, that except uahweh the God of Israel, all the Semitic Gods were nature Gods, inca­pable of acting in history. Therefore historiography is of late origin in the Ancient Near East and it is an original contribution of Israel to the world civi­lization in general. See U. Cassuto. “The Beginning of Historiography among Israelites” in: Biblical and Oriental Studies, Jerusalem, 1973, pp. 7-16. He questions the appropriateness of calling Herodotus the father of history and of crediting the Hittites with the authorship of historiography in the Ancient Near East. He claims: “As far as we know today the writing of history originated among the Israelites”, ibid p. 8. See also, H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der

 

Babyloniens und Assyrians” says: “The home of the Semites was Arabia due to geographical conditions and to the fact that Semites are at present found in that land. The migrations are due to over-population und recur periodically. He said, “we have definite knowledge of four main Semitic migrations north­ward”. These are in reverse order; 1. The Arabian which began in the seventh century A. D. and culminated in the conquest of Islam; 2. the Aramaic, from the fifteenth to the thirteenth century B. C. 3. the Amarite, a thousand years earlier, 2400-2100 B. C.; and 4. another, a thousand years earlier when Babylon was settled by the Semites.” A. T. Clay, The Empire of the Amorites. op. cit., p 28; Moret Er Davy, From Tribe to Empire, op. cit., p. 194.

[1] As A. K. Grayson points out the question of the historiography of the Semites is complex and neglected. (Assyrian and Babylonien Chronicles, New York, 1975, p. 2) There are two extreme views on the person and work of the Se­mitic Gods and consequently on the historiography of the Semites. It has been often axiomatically held, especially by the History-of-Redemption School, that except uahweh the God of Israel, all the Semitic Gods were nature Gods, inca­pable of acting in history. Therefore historiography is of late origin in the Ancient Near East and it is an original contribution of Israel to the world civi­lization in general. See U. Cassuto. “The Beginning of Historiography among Israelites” in: Biblical and Oriental Studies, Jerusalem, 1973, pp. 7-16. He questions the appropriateness of calling Herodotus the father of history and of crediting the Hittites with the authorship of historiography in the Ancient Near East. He claims: “As far as we know today the writing of history originated among the Israelites”, ibid p. 8. See also, H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der

Page 5

God were co-extensive and simultaneous. The decisive factor which determines history was the will of the national God.

In spite of the difference in quality and quantity of the historical material available from the Ancient Near East, it is undeniable that the Semites understood history as a divine-human enterprise.’ The following analysis of the history of the Semites shall further illustrate this point.

 

Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Testament, Berlin, 1972, (BZ«W 128), pp. 1—7; S. Mowinckel, “Israelite Historiography” in: Annual of Swedish Theological Institute, 2. 1963. pp. 4-26; G Hoelseher, Die, Anfaenge der he- braischen Geschichts-schreibung, Heidelberg, 1942, pp. Iff; see also foot­note no. 1 on p. 1; C. R. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History, London. 1953. For a modified version of this extreme claim see. E. A. Speiser, “Historiography and Historical Sources in Ancient Mesopotamia” in: B. Mazar, The World History of the Jewish people, Tel-Aviv, 1970, I. 2, pp. 1-8; idem “The Biblical Idea of History in its Common Near Eastern Setting” in: IEJ. 7, 1957, pp. 201-216; S. N. Kramer, “Sumerian Historiography ‘ in: IEJ, 3, 1953, pp. 217 ff, R C. Rentan, edr,. The Ideas of History in the Ancient Near East, New Haven & London, 1966, etc ; Cf.; A Malamat, “Doctrines of Causality in the Hittite and Biblical Historiography” in: VT. 5. 1955, pp. 1 ff; H Cancik, Grundzuege der Hethitischen und Alttestamentlichen Geschi- chtsschreibong, Wiesbaden, 1976.

In radical opposition to this claim of uniqueness of the Israelite God and Israelite historiography, B. Albrektson argues that all the Semitic Gods ate Lords of history from the time of the Sumerians. (History and the Gods, An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, Lund, 1967; W. G. Lambert in his review article on Albrektson’s “History and the Gods” does not chailenge the main issue raised by Albrektson that Jahweh cannot claim any uniqueness as God of history, (in: Orientalia, 39, 1970. pp. 170-17 7; see also, J. R. torter, “Old Testament Historiography”, in: G. W Anderson, edr , Tradition and Situation, Oxford, 1979, pp. 125 ff; N. K Gottwald, The Tribes of Jahweh, New York, 1979. pp. 671-675; S. Moscati. Historical Art in the Ancient Near East, Rome, 1963). H G. Guterbock, “Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200” in: ZA. 42 (NF. 8) 1934, pp. 1 ff; 44 (NF. 10), 1938, pp. 45ff; W. A. Irwin, “The Orientalist as a Historian,” in: JNES 8, 1949, pp. 298-309.

For elaborate bibliography on Ancient Near Eastern Historiography see, J. H. Hayes and J M. Miller edrs., Israelite and Judaean History, London 1977. pp. 1-2; G. W. Anderson, edr.. Tradition and Situation, op cit. foot­note Nos. 1 ff on pp. 125-131.

1 I. I. Seeligmann, ‘ Menschliches Heldentum und goettliche Hilfe, die doppelte Kausalitaet im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken” in: ThZ, 19, 1973, pp, 385-411; R. Albertz, Persoenliche Froemmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Reli- gionsinnerer Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon, Stuttgart, 1978, pp. 140-157,

Page 6

  1. Kings, dynasties and people were chosen to execute the Divine Will’. The violation of the Divine Will was al­ways met with punishment in the form of political change[2]. According to the theocentric national ideology every people and city or empire had its own God and in many cases the city or empire and the people were named after the name of the respective God, e.g. Ashur[3]. Conflicts between cities and peoples were also interpreted as “a stru­ggle between gods of the respective cities who gained or lost glory as the heavy chariots and serried infentary of their earthly servants won or fled”[4].

    Every epoch or kingdom or empire had a divine sovereign in relation to whom events were recorded. Accordingly the history of the Semites can be analysed in relation to various Gods and their dispensations. The main dispensations which are important for our research are:

    1. The Sumero-Akkadian Dispensation of Enlil.
    2. The Babylonian Dispensation of Marduk.
    3. The Assyrian Dispensation of Ashur.
    4. The Chaldean Dispensation of Marduk.
    5. The Dispensations of Baal and Jahweh.
    6. The Universal Dispensation of Jesus the Messiah, “very God of very God”[5].

     

    1. C. Westermann, *’Zum Geschichtsverstaendnis des Alten Testaments” in: Prob- leme biblischer Theologie; (G. v. Rad zum 70. Geburtstag) Munchen, 1971, pp, 615ff.

    2. [1] H. Gese “Geschichtliches Denken im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament” in: ZThK 55, 1958, pp. 135 ff.

      [1] Moret and Davy, op cit p. 197

      [1] M. Jastrow. Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria, New York, 21971, pp. 15 ff. C. E. Von Sickle, A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World, Westport, 2 1970, Vol. I, p. 44.

      [1] The Cultus of Jesus evolved by the Semites is the subject of the following volumes of this series.