Misplaced Pages

Kenite hypothesis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:40, 7 March 2020 editZhomron (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,621 edits Removed redirect to Yahweh#OriginsTag: Removed redirect← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:46, 19 December 2024 edit undoSinclairian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,114 edits Missed one. 
(161 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Biblical source criticism theory}}
]'s c. 1900 watercolor painting ''] and ]''. Jethro was the most well known Midianite.]] ]'s c. 1900 watercolor painting ''] and ]''. Jethro was the most well known Midianite.]]
The '''Kenite hypothesis''' (also called the '''] hypothesis''') proposes that the origins of ], and by extension ], do not lie in historic ] as the ] describes, but instead originated in the area immediately south of the ], possibly extending far into the northwest ], on the east shore of the ] on the ],<ref>{{citation |last= Dever |first= W. G. |author-link= William G. Dever |title=Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? |publisher= ] |date=2006 |isbn= 978-0-8028-4416-3 |page=34}}</ref> in the area the Tanakh calls "]". The theory states that Yahweh originally was a Midianite deity, who through trade made his way up north to the proto-]. Another theory is that a confederation of regional tribes were connected to monotheistic ritual at Sinai.<ref>Mondriaan, Marlene Elizabeth . "The rise of Yahwism : role of marginalised groups". Diss. University of Pretoria. 2010. p. 413. Retrieved 24 June 2016. </ref>


The '''Kenite hypothesis''', or '''Midianite–Kenite hypothesis''', is a hypothesis about the origins of the ] of ]. As a form of ], it posits that Yahweh was originally a ] (i.e., ]) god whose cult ] northward to the proto-].
The theory originated in 18th century academia. Up until the mid-18th century, many scholars believed the events in described in the ] were wholly historical, but as the ] progressed and new sciences such as ] began to burgeon, scholars were faced with a slew of challenges to long standing assumptions. As it became more and more clear that the archeological record generally didn't agree with the narratives of the ], scholars began to critically observe the Bible in order to reformulate the corpus on biblical history. Among other things, the topic of how ] had actually formed became hotly debated. As reconstructing ancient events can be largely speculative without a variety of sources, many turned to the discounted narratives of the Bible in hopes of parsing out the factual basis of the events described within.


The hypothesis first came into prominence in the late nineteenth century. It is based on four key points: an ] of the ] dealing with the Midianite connections of ]; allusions in ancient poetic compositions to the original residence of Yahweh; ] of the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries BCE; and the presupposition of ] as the eponymous ] of the Kenite tribe of ]. The hypothesis thus interrogates the ] origins of ]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Blenkinsopp |first=Joseph |date=December 2008 |title=The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309089208099253 |journal=Journal for the Study of the Old Testament |language=en |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=131–153 |doi=10.1177/0309089208099253 |issn=0309-0892}}</ref> and posits that the geographic origins of Yahweh, and by extension ], do not lie in the Biblical ] as ] but rather lie farther south, in the region the ] calls "]" on the eastern shore of the ] on the ]. This land was inhabited by peoples including the Kenites.<ref>{{cite book |last= Van der Toorn |first= Karel |chapter= Yahweh |editor1-last= Van der Toorn |editor1-first= Karel |editor2-last= Becking |editor2-first= Bob |editor3-last = Van der Horst |editor3-first= Pieter Willem |title= ] |publisher= Eerdmans |year= 1999 |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=yCkRz5pfxz0C&pg=PA912 |page= 912 |isbn= 978-0-8028-2491-2}}</ref>
] was the first to propose that Yahweh had originally made his home in what was historically the kingdom of ],<ref>Richard von der Alm, ''Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation'', I (Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1862), pp. 320-22, 480-83.</ref> citing for evidence numerous passages where the deity is described as coming from southern lands. A decade later, a similar theory was independently espoused by ],<ref>''Vergelijkende Geschiedenis van der Egyptische en Mesopotamische Godsdiensten'', I (Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1872), pp. 558-60.</ref> and more fully by ].<ref>''Geschichte des Volkes Israel'', I, in Wilhelm Oncken (ed.), ''Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen'' (Berlin: G. Grote, 1887), pp. 130-31, and ''Biblische Theologie des Alten Testament'', I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905), pp. 42-43</ref> The hypothesis in the form it currently takes was more completely worked out by ];<ref>Joseph Blenkinsopp, op. cit., pp. 132-133.</ref> and later was accepted by ], Gerrit Wildeboer, ], and ].<ref>George Aaron Barton (1859–1942), US Bible scholar and professor of Semitic languages. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426024921/http://www.archives.upenn.edu/faids/upt/upt50/bartonga.html |date=2012-04-26 }}</ref>

==History==
] in 1862 was the first to propose that Yahweh had originally made his home in what was historically known as the kingdom of ] (the area immediately south of the ]),<ref>Richard von der Alm , ''Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation'', I (Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1862), pp. 320-22, 480-83.</ref> citing numerous passages where the deity is described as coming from southern lands.
A decade later, a similar theory was independently espoused by ],<ref>''Vergelijkende Geschiedenis van der Egyptische en Mesopotamische Godsdiensten'', I (Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1872), pp. 558-60.</ref> and more fully by ] (1887).<ref>''Geschichte des Volkes Israel'', I, in Wilhelm Oncken (ed.), ''Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen'' (Berlin: G. Grote, 1887), pp. 130-31, and ''Biblische Theologie des Alten Testament'', I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905), pp. 42-43</ref>
The hypothesis in the form it currently takes was more completely worked out by ];<ref>Joseph Blenkinsopp, op. cit., pp. 132-133.</ref> and later was accepted by ], Gerrit Wildeboer, ], and ].<ref>George Aaron Barton (1859–1942), US Bible scholar and professor of Semitic languages. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120426024921/http://www.archives.upenn.edu/faids/upt/upt50/bartonga.html |date=2012-04-26 }}</ref>

The theory was widely accepted at first, particularly among German and anglophone scholars. ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] each endorsed it. <ref name=Blenkinsopp132>
Blenkinsopp, J. (2008). The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 33(2), 131–153 (here p. 132f.). {{doi|10.1177/0309089208099253}}.</ref>
By the 20th century the theory had become controversial. Detractors included ], ],<ref name="V. Winnett, 1949, p. 69">F, V. Winnett, ''The Mosaic Tradition,'' 1949, p. 69</ref> ] and ],<ref name=Blenkinsopp132/> besides Gorden (1907),<ref name="A.R. Gorden, 1907, pp. 106">A.R. Gorden, ''The Early Traditions of Genesis'', 1907, pp. 106 ff</ref> Konig (1912),<ref name="E. Konig, 1912">E. Konig, ''Geschichte der Altestamentlichen Religion'', 1912, pp. 162ff.</ref> Kittel (1917),<ref name="ReferenceA">R. Kittel, ''Geschichte des Vokes Israel I'', 6th ed., p. 392n</ref> Volz (1947),<ref>Volz, ''Mose und Sein Werk'', 2nd ed., M. Buber, Moses, 1947, pp. 94ff.</ref> and Procksch (1950).<ref name="ReferenceB">Procksch, ''Theologie des Alten Testaments'', pp. 76f.</ref>

More recently, ] (2008) revisiting the available evidence concludes that "this hypothesis provides the best explanation currently available of the relevant literary and archaeological data".<ref name=Blenkinsopp132/> By contrast Tebes (2021), focusing on ] from the ] and Northern ], presents the "Midianite" influence on Canaan as a drawn-out process of ] taking place during the 10th to 6th centuries BCE.<ref name="Tebes">Juan Manuel Tebes, The Archaeology of Cult of Ancient Israel’s Southern Neighbors and the Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis. In J.M. Tebes & Ch. Frevel (eds.), The Desert Origins of God: Yahweh's Emergence and Early History in the Southern Levant and Northern Arabia. Special volume of Entangled Religions 12/2 (2021). {{doi|10.46586/er.12.2021.8847}}.</ref>


==Basic model== ==Basic model==
The Kenite hypothesis rests on four bases: an interpretation of the ] dealing with the ] connections of ], allusions in ancient poetic compositions to the original residence of ], ]ian topographical texts from the 14th - 12th centuries BCE, and ] as the eponymous ancestor of the ].


Critical examination of the biblical narrative of Moses meeting ] and the events that unfolded thereafter comprise the first support of the Kenite theory. Moses, son of ]tical parents<ref>Exod. 2:1-2</ref> sojourns in the land of Midian, where he eventually marries the daughter of Jethro, described as a priest (perhaps ''the'' priest) of Midian. At a sacred spot, a ], situated beyond the normal pasturage of the Midianites but apparently frequented by Midianites nonetheless, Moses received a revelation from a deity previously known to him only notionally, if at all,<ref>Exod. 3:13</ref> presumably a deity worshipped by Midianites considering the pre-existing ] of the mountain, whose name was revealed to be "Yahweh". Later on, after having led the ], Moses returns to the sacred mountain, and Jethro comes to him, having heard about Yahweh's great feats.<ref>Exod. 18:7</ref> Jethro blesses the deity, proclaiming Him like no other.<ref>Exodus 18:8</ref>
The Kenite hypothesis rests on three bases: an interpretation of the biblical texts dealing with the Midianite connections of Moses, allusions in ancient poetic compositions to the original residence of Yahweh, Egyptian topographical texts from the fourteenth to the twelfth century, and ] as the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites.


Critical examination of the narrative of Moses meeting Jethro and the events that unfolded thereafter comprise the first support of the Kenite theory. Moses, son of ] parents<ref>Exod. 2:1-2</ref> but adopted into the family of the ], murders an Egyptian slavemaster for harshly beating an Israelite slave. To escape punishment, he flees to the land of Midian, where he rescues a Midianite woman named ] and her sisters from belligerents taking water from their well. As his reward, he takes Zipporah as his wife and lives long enough in Midian to have two sons with her<ref>Exod. 2:11-22</ref>. During this time he was in service with his father-in-law, a priest (perhaps ''the'' priest) of Midian, named both Reuel<ref>Exod. 2:18</ref> and Jethro.<ref>Exod. 3:1; 4:18</ref> At a sacred spot, a ], situated beyond the normal pasturage of the Midianites but apparently frequented by Midianites nonetheless, Moses received a revelation from a deity previously known to him only notionally, if at all<ref>Exod. 3:13</ref>, presumably a deity worshipped by Midianites considering the pre-existing sacrality of the mountain, whose name was revealed to be Yahweh. Later on, after having lead the Israelites out of Egyptian captivity, Moses finds himself back at the sacred mount, and Jethro comes to him, having heard about Yahweh's great feats.<ref>Exod. 18:7</ref> The two enter a tent with ] and Moses recounts the great deeds of Yahweh, and Jethro blesses the deity, proclaiming Him like no other.<ref>Exodus 18:8</ref> The passage in question can be interpreted two ways: Jethro either acknowledges Yahweh as superior to his own (unmentioned) gods and converts to the Israelite religion on the spot, or celebrates the demonstration of Yahweh's might and reaffirms the implied Midianite faith to him. The general interpretation is the former; that Jethro, a non-Jew, recognized the true God in Yahweh, the God of Israel, and pays him homage. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis, on the other hand, interpret the passage as the latter; that Jethro expresses to his proud joy that the God he and his people already worshipped, Yahweh, has proved himself mightier than all other gods. Thus, rather than Jethro’s conversion to ], the passage actually shows the first incorporation of the Israelite leaders into the worship of Yahweh. The passage in question can be interpreted two ways: with Jethro either acknowledging Yahweh as superior to his own (unmentioned) gods and converting to the Israelite religion on the spot, or celebrating the demonstration of Yahweh's might and reaffirming the implied Midianite faith to him. The general interpretation is the former; that Jethro, a non-Jew, recognized the true God in ], the God of Israel, and paid him homage. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis, on the other hand, interpret the passage as the latter; that Jethro expresses to his proud joy that the God he and his people already worshipped, Yahweh, has proved himself mightier than all other gods.{{sfn|Miller II|2021|p=19}} Thus, rather than Jethro's conversion to ], the passage actually shows the first incorporation of the Israelite leaders into the worship of Yahweh.


Early Yahwistic ] is the next base of support for the Kenite hypothesis.{{sfn|Pfitzmann|2020|p=1}} On five separate occasions, Yahweh is given explicit residency in the lands south of the biblical ]. These passages are ] ]:2, ] ]:4, ] ]:3 and 3:7, and ] ]:1. Each passage describes Yahweh as having come forth from the lands of Midian and Edom, sometimes in specific places such as ], ], and ], and sometimes in generic terms where the deity is described as coming from ], a word literally meaning "south." Mount Seir, in particular, became a synonym for the Edomites both inside and outside the Hebrew Bible, the ] mention a "people of ''Shēri''", and a 13th-century BCE topographical list made by ] in West ] mentions the "] of Seir".{{sfn|Fleming|2020|pp=40, 53}} The texts of the "]" and the "]" seem to ], depending on which was written first, and while both say Yahweh "shone forth" from Mount Paran, the "Blessing of Moses" is unique in that it specifically mentions that Yahweh actually ''came'' from Mount Sinai. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain this by citing evidence of textual corruption in the passage.{{cn|date=December 2024}}
The connection of the Midianites to the Kenites is made somewhat conjecturally. "Jethro" is only one of many names the Torah and later books of the Tanakh ascribe to Moses' father-in-law. He is first called "Reuel" when he is introduced in Exodus 2:18, however for the remainder of the Book of Exodus he is only referred to as "Jethro". In both the Book of Numbers and the Book of Judges, Moses' father-in-law is called neither "Jethro" or "Reuel", but "Hobab". Several unsatisfactory attempts at harmonization have been made: that Hobab and Jethro are alternative names for the same person, that Jethro/Hobab is the ''son'' of Reuel, which requires that in Exodus 2:16 "father" (]: {{Hebrew|אָב}} ''ʾāḇ'') means "grandfather" (''ʾāḇ'' can also mean "male ancestor") and in Exodus 2:18 "daughter" (Hebrew: {{Hebrew|בַּת}} ''bat'') means "granddaughter" (''bat'' can also mean "female descendant"), that Hobab is actually the ''brother''-in-law of Moses and the reading of "father-in-law" in the Book of Numbers and the Book of Judges are the result of a scribal error (the Hebrew words for "brother-in-law" and "father-in-law" are spelled the same — {{Hebrew|חתן}} — but pronounced differently, ''ḵātān'' vs. ''ḵōtēn'', respectively), or that the name "Reuel" was simply inserted into Exodus 2 by a scribe for whatever reason. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain the discrepancy as follows: since clan names and place names have a much better chance of survival in the collective memory than personal names, the most probable, if partial, solution is that "Reuel" is the name of the clan or lineage to which Hobab belonged. In the Book of Genesis, "Reuel" is listed as one of the sons of ]<ref>Gen. 36:4, 10</ref> — i.e. as an Edomite tribe — and is also the name attached to a group of confederate clans.<ref>Gen. 36:13, 17; ] 1:41</ref> In the same lists, a clan known as ''Ithran'' is also mentioned. Later, in the ] and the ], two ] (Arabian) names, ''Jithra''<ref>2 Sam. 17:25</ref> and ''Jether'',<ref>1 Chron. 2:17</ref> are mentioned. ''Ithran'', ''Jithra'', and ''Jether'' are all considered variants of the name ''Jithro'' — that is, Jethro. Because of this, ] asserted that that the father-in-law and Midianite priest was indeed Jethro, and that Hobab was Moses’ son-in-law, a member of the Reuel clan, and a metalsmith by profession.<ref>W.F. Albright, "Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition", ''CBQ'' 25 (1963), pp. 1-11, and ''Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan'' (London: Athlone Press, 1968), pp. 33-37.</ref>


The possibility has also been entertained that the biblical version of the history of early humanity has preserved, in the story of Cain and his line (Gen. 4:1-24), an echo of the role of the Kenites in the early history of Israel. In this view, the name of the Kenite tribe is held to derive from Cain's name. The Kenites, like Cain, were nomadic. The Kenites were metalworkers, a science which the Book of Genesis states the descendants of Cain invented. Immediately after Cain is expelled to the wilderness by Yahweh for Abel's murder, the biblical narrative states that in the times of the children of Adam and Eve's new son, Seth, people began to call on Yahweh's name for the first time. However, Yahweh states during the episode of the ] that his name, Yahweh, was not known to previous generations.
Early Yahwistic poetry is the next base of support for the Kenite hypothesis. On five separate occasions, Yahweh is given explicit residency in the lands south of the biblical ]. These passages are ] ]:2, ] ]:4, ] ]:3 and 3:7, and ] ]:1. Each passage describes Yahweh as having come forth from the lands of Midian and Edom, sometimes in specific places such as ], ], and ], and sometimes in generic terms where the deity is described as coming from ], a word literally meaning "south." Mount Seir, in particular, become a synonym for the Edomites both inside and outside the Hebrew Bible, the ] mention a "people of ''Sheiri''", and a 13th century BCE topographical list made by ] in West Amāra mentions the "] of Seir". The text of the Blessing of Moses and the Song of Deborah seem to quote each other, depending on which was written first, and while both say Yahweh shone forth from Mount Paran, the Song of Moses is unique in that it specifically mentions that Yahweh actually ''came'' from Mount Sinai. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain this by citing evidence of text corruption in the passage. The passage in question, Deuteronomy 33, reads as follows:


Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain this inconsistency as a preserved implication that the cult of Yahweh said to have been created by Moses had a known pre-history. Further indirect support for the Kenites being the true bearers of the Yahwistic faith is taken from the positive portrayal of Kenites in the rest of the Tanakh. Kenites and some groups closely associated with them appear to have been known as fervid devotees of their god Yahweh, even during times when Yahweh's own chosen people, the Israelites, had at large abandoned his worship. These examples lend to speculation as to what other expressions of what might be called a sort-of Yahwistic primitivism, for which no obvious explanation is at hand, may be relics of the aboriginal, pre-Israelite Yahwism associated with the Kenites and related groups.<ref name=Blenkinsopp132/>
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:100%; vertical-align:top;"
|-
! #
! English translation
! ]
! Hebrew
|-
| 1
| (Moses) said: "The Lord came from Sinai and shone forth from Seir to them; He appeared from Mount Paran and came with some of the holy myriads; from His right hand was '''a fiery Law''' for them.
| ''wayymar Yahwe missīnai bā wəzāraḥ miśēʿīr lāmō hōp̄īaʿ mēhar pārān wəʾāṯāh mēriḇəḇōṯ qōḏeš; mīmīnō'' '''ʾšḏṯ''' ''lå̄mō''
| {{Hebrew|וַיּאמַר יהוה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹ֣ת קֹ֑דֶשׁ מִימִינוֹ '''אשדת''' לָמוֹ}}
|}


==Criticism==
The points presented as evidence of text corruption is as follows: the Hebrew term "{{Hebrew|אשדת}}" is a ], it does not occur anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, or anywhere else in the entire corpus of the Hebrew language throughout history. Jewish scholars explained this puzzling word by deeming it an esoteric compound of the Hebrew words ''ʾeš'' (fire) and ''dōṯ'' (law), thus yielding "fierly Law". However, proponents of the Kenite hypothesis instead claim that the word is not a compound at all, but a deliberate alteration of the word "{{Hebrew|אשדת}}", a variation of the name ], the goddess which was worshipped as Yahweh's consort in the early centuries of the Israelite kingdoms. Taking a step further, they postulate that the reference of "holy myriads" (''mēriḇəḇōṯ qōḏeš'') is actually an alteration of the place-name "]", which is placed in the vicinity of Paran by Numbers 13:26. Thus, "He appeared from Mount Paran and came with some of the holy myriads; from His right hand was a fiery Law for them." becomes the equally coherent "He appeared from Mount Paran and came to Meribath-Kadesh; from His right hand was Asherah." Furthermore, tablets from ] blesses its recipient "by Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah" — connecting the Tanakh verses linking Yahweh to Teman and his consort Asherah. Therefore it is concluded that the point of departure for Yahweh’s triumphal going forth, and therefore his original residence among his devotees, is that part of Edom (Seir, Teman) which lay west of the Arabah. According to the biblical texts, this was the country of the Kenites.


Several assertions of Kenite hypothesis have been disputed by scholars.
The possibility has also been entertained that the biblical version of the history of early humanity has preserved, in the story of Cain and his line (Gen. 4:1-24), an echo of the role of the Kenites in the early history of Israel. The name of the tribe, Kenite, is derived from Cain's name. The Kenites, like Cain, were nomadic. The Kenites were metalworkers, a science which the Book of Genesis states the descendants of Cain invented. Immediately after Cain is expelled to the wilderness by Yahweh for Abel's murder, the biblical narrative that in the times of the children of Adam and Eve's new son, Seth, people began to call on Yahweh's name for the first time. However, Yahweh states during the episode of the ] that his name, Yahweh, was not known to previous generations. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain this inconsistency as a preserved implication that the cult of Yahweh said to have been created by Moses had a known pre-history. Further indirect support for the Kenites being the true bearers of the Yahwistic faith is taken from the positive portrayal of Kenites in the rest of the Tanakh. Kenites and some groups closely associated with them appear to have been known as pervervid devotees of their god Yahweh. Together with Othniel and Jerahmeel, Caleb is a Kenizzite, and therefore closely related to the Kenites. In the narratives about the ], Caleb is prominent for his religious zeal. He is the one who, after the initial reconnoitring of the land, urges immediate attack, and is approved of as possessing "a different spirit". His brother ], one of the Judges, saved Israel after Yahweh’s spirit came upon him. ], killer of ], and for that reason declared to be ‘most blessed of women’, was one of the Kenites who migrated to the north and settled near Kedesh in Naphthali. The ]s, first heard of during the reign of ] but who were certainly in existence much earlier, were fanatical Yahwists who rejected the culture of Canaan, even to the extent of living in tents and eschewing intoxicants, were also of Kenite stock according to 1 Chronicles 2:55. These examples lend to speculation as to what other expressions of what might be called a sort-of Yahwistic primitivism, for which no obvious explanation is at hand, may be relics of the aboriginal, pre-Israelite Yahwism associated with the Kenites and related groups.<ref>Vol 33.2 (2008): 131-153 2008 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC DOI: 10.1177/0309089208099253</ref>


There is little-to-no evidence of significant interaction between the southern and central ] during the timeframe when the Israelite religion would have crystallized; in fact, the only cultural diffusion discernible during this time period came from ancient Egypt, and even then there is no evidence that the actual cultic practices of Palestine or Midian changed at all. As summarized by Tebes (2021), "uring this period, there is no evidence of contacts between the local semi-pastoral societies with the Israelite (or proto-Israelite) population settling down in the central highlands of Palestine, not to mention the transmission of religious ideas."<ref name="Tebes"/> Furthermore, a Midianite–Kenite origin for the Yahweh cult has obvious implications for ethnic origins, specifically the origins of Judah, and raises the further question of how this cult came to be adopted by the early Israelite settlers in the central Palestinian highlands. The theory postulated that the Judahites were part of an Arabian trade league of numerous clans that ended up migrating north to Palestine, however in the 250 years that have passed since this explanation was offered, a number of genetic and archeological studies have concluded that the people that would become the Israelites originated in Canaan.<ref name="Tubb">{{cite book |last1=Tubb |first1=Jonathan N. |title=Canaanites |year=1998 |publisher=University of Oklahoma Press |isbn=0-8061-3108-X |url=https://archive.org/details/canaanites00tubb |pages=13–14 |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=McNutt|first=Paula|title=Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|year=1999|url=https://archive.org/details/reconstructingso0000mcnu|url-access=registration|page=|isbn=978-0-664-22265-9}}</ref><ref>K. L. Noll, A&C Black, 2001 p. 164: "It would seem that, in the eyes of Merneptah's artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups." "It is likely that Merneptah's Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley."</ref>
==Criticisms==


Other critics disagree with the attribution of the Kenites to Cain. ], for instance, points out the Hebrew form of the singular "Kenite" (Hebrew: קֵינִי ''Qeiniy''), is identical or strikingly similar to ] words meaning "]",<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Sayce|first=A. H. |author-link=Archibald Sayce|editor-first=James|editor-last=Hastings|editor-link=James Hastings|encyclopedia=] |title=Kenites |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hastings/dictv2/Page_834.html |edition= |year= 1899|publisher= |volume=II |location= |id= |isbn= |doi= |page=834 |quote= }}</ref> an etymology which forgoes the implied connection of metallurgy to Cain and his descendants and instead attaches it directly and unambiguously to the craft. The definition of the term ''Qinim'' as "metalsmiths" or "people of ''Qayin''" are equally coherent.
The Kenite hypothesis is not without its faults. For one, much has been learned between when the theory was first formed in the 1860's and today. For one, a Midianite–Kenite origin for the Yahweh cult has obvious implications for ethnic origins, specifically the origins of Judah, and raises the further question of how this cult came to be adopted by the early Israelite settlers in the central Palestinian highlands. The theory postulated that the Judahites were part of an Arabian trade league of numerous clans that ended up migrating north to Palestine, however in the 250 years that have passed since this explanation was offered, a number of genetic and archeological studies have concluded that the people that would become the Israelites originated ''in'' Canaan,<ref name="Tubb 1998 13–14">{{harvnb|Tubb|1998|pp=13–14}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=McNutt|first=Paula|title=Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|year=1999|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hd28MdGNyTYC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Reconstructing+the+Society+of+Ancient+Israel++By+Paula+M.+McNutt#v=onepage&q=&f=false|isbn=978-0-664-22265-9}}</ref><ref>K. L. Noll, A&C Black, 2001 p. 164: "It would seem that, in the eyes of Merneptah's artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups." "It is likely that Merneptah's Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley."</ref> contradicting both the biblical narratives of Abraham settling the Holy Land and Joshua's conquest some 500 years later, and obviously the explanation offered by the proponents of the Kenite hypothesis. Because much of the theory is speculative, combined with a lack of physical evidence just as any theory for the origins of Yahweh and his worship lacks, many scholars reject the Kenite hypothesis.<ref>Meek, op. cit. pp. 86-99.</ref><ref>A.R. Gorden, ''The Early Traditions of Genesis'', 1907, pp. 106 ff</ref><ref>E. Konig, ''Geschichte der Altestamentlichen Religion'', 1912, pp. 162ff.</ref><ref>R. Kittel, ''Geschichte des

Vokes Israel I'', 6th ed., p. 392n</ref><ref>Volz, ''Mose und Seine Werk'', 2nd ed., M. Buber, Moses, 1947, pp. 94ff.</ref><ref>F, V. Winnett, ''The Mosaic Tradition,'' 1949, p. 69</ref><ref>Procksch, ''Theologie des Alten Testaments'', pp. 76f.</ref><ref>(cr. H. H. Rowley, op. cit. p. 51)</ref>
Others disagree with the theory's reliance on a supposed historical basis for the narratives of Moses. Most scholars, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE,<ref name="Dever2001">{{cite book|first=William G.|last=Dever|title=What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&pg=PA99|year=2001|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0-8028-2126-3|page=99}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Avraham|last=Faust|title=Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience|url=https://www.academia.edu/11906343|year=2015|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-319-04768-3|page=476}}</ref> agree that Moses, as portrayed by the Tanakh, is a legendary figure.<ref name=Archaeo>{{cite journal | last=Dever | first=William G. | title=What Remains of the House That Albright Built? | journal=The Biblical Archaeologist | publisher=University of Chicago Press | volume=56 | issue=1 | year=1993 | issn=0006-0895 | doi=10.2307/3210358 | pages=25–35| quote=the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure| jstor=3210358 | s2cid=166003641 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Robert D.|last=Miller II|title=Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bXZfAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA21|date=25 November 2013|publisher=BRILL|isbn=978-90-04-25854-9|page=21|quote=Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.'}}</ref> There is also the issue of the timeframe of the narratives' composition. The general consensus, despite the collapse of the ], is that the Book of Exodus was compiled around 600 BCE and finalized by 400 BCE,<ref>{{Cite book|last=McEntire|first=Mark|title=Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch|publisher=Mercer University Press|year=2008|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VwOs9f1FpmsC&pg=PA87 |isbn=9780881461015}}</ref> 800-1000 years after Moses would have existed and the Exodus would have occurred. However, this does not preclude the idea that Moses and the Exodus were pre-existing motifs in Israelite thought — the narratives were certainly based on extensive oral tradition, the age of which cannot reasonably be determined with any veracity. But even still, this was not uniform. The ] prophets ] and ] draw on the Exodus in their preachings, meanwhile of the ] prophets contemporary to them, ] and ], only Micah mentions the Exodus, only doing so briefly. However, the southern Israelites weren't completely ignorant of the apparently ancient Exodus narrative, as they are featured at length in ] and ],{{sfn|Na'aman|2011|p=40}} and Moses is mentioned by name in ], ], ], and ], as well as by ].<ref>] 15</ref> Even still, this is a strong indication that the Exodus narrative was vastly more developed in the setting of the northern kingdom than the southern kingdom, which raises the question of how a people could have realistically allowed knowledge of such a central and holy piece of their own history to be divided by political borders. The story of the Exodus may, therefore, have originated only a few centuries earlier, perhaps in the 9th or 10th centuries BCE, and taken different forms in Israel and Judah.<ref>{{cite book |last=Russell |first=Stephen C. |title=Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature |year=2009 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-022171-8 |page=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OMISLh2ZC08C}}</ref> Combined with the strong consensus among scholars that the Exodus narrative is largely legendary, it spells problems for the largest beam of support for the Kenite hypothesis.

For these reasons, among others, many scholars outright reject the Kenite hypothesis.<ref>Meek, op. cit. pp. 86-99.</ref><ref name="A.R. Gorden, 1907, pp. 106"/><ref name="E. Konig, 1912"/><ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>Volz, ''Mose und Seine Werk'', 2nd ed., M. Buber, Moses, 1947, pp. 94ff.</ref><ref name="V. Winnett, 1949, p. 69"/><ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{Excessive citations inline|date=October 2021}}


==References== ==References==
{{Reflist}}
<references />

==Bibliography==
* {{cite book |last=Cross |first=Frank Moore |author-link=Frank Moore Cross |title=Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1973 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-eOycxXAoHMC |isbn=0-674-09176-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Day |first=John |author-link=John Day (Old Testament scholar) |title=Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan |series=] |volume=265 |publisher=Sheffield Academic Press |year=2002 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2xadCgAAQBAJ |isbn=978-0-567-53783-6}}
* {{cite book |title=Yahweh before Israel: Glimpses of History in a Divine Name |last=Fleming |first=Daniel E. |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-108-83507-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cfwAEAAAQBAJ}}
* {{Cite journal |title=The Verb *yahway |journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |url=https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1381.2019.508716 |last=Kitz |first=Anne Marie |issue=1 |volume=138 |pages=39–62 |doi=10.15699/jbl.1381.2019.508716 |year=2019 |issn=0021-9231}}
* {{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Theodore J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-erqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA214 |title=The Origin and Character of God |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2020 |isbn=978-0-19-007254-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Miller |first=Patrick D. |author-link=Patrick D. Miller |title=The Religion of Ancient Israel |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |year=2000 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JBhY9BQ7hIQC |isbn=978-0-664-22145-4}}
* {{cite book |title = Yahweh: Origin of a Desert God |last = Miller II |first = Robert D. |publisher = Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht |year = 2021 |isbn = 978-3-647-54086-3 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=SrbkEAAAQBAJ |series = Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments |volume = 284}}
* {{cite journal |last=Na'aman |first=Nadav |title=The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition |journal=] |volume=11 |year=2011 |pages=39–69 |doi=10.1163/156921211X579579}}
* {{cite book |last=Stone |first=Robert E. II |chapter=I Am Who I Am |editor1-last=Freedman |editor1-first=David Noel |editor2-last=Myers |editor2-first=Allen C. |title=Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible |publisher=Eerdmans |year=2000 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qRtUqxkB7wkC&q=i+am |isbn=9789053565032}}
* {{cite book |title=Un YHWH venant du Sud?: De la réception vétérotestamentaire des traditions méridionales et du lien entre Madian, le Néguev et l'exode (Ex-Nb ; Jg 5 ; Ps 68 ; Ha 3 ; Dt 33) |last=Pfitzmann |first=Fabian |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |year=2020 |isbn=978-3-16-159122-8 |language=fr |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ckj1DwAAQBAJ |series=Orientalische Religionen in Der Antike |volume=39}}

] ]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 13:46, 19 December 2024

Biblical source criticism theory
James Tissot's c. 1900 watercolor painting Jethro and Moses. Jethro was the most well known Midianite.

The Kenite hypothesis, or Midianite–Kenite hypothesis, is a hypothesis about the origins of the cult of Yahweh. As a form of Biblical source criticism, it posits that Yahweh was originally a Kenite (i.e., Midianite) god whose cult made its way northward to the proto-Israelites.

The hypothesis first came into prominence in the late nineteenth century. It is based on four key points: an interpretation of the biblical texts dealing with the Midianite connections of Moses; allusions in ancient poetic compositions to the original residence of Yahweh; ancient Egyptian topographical texts of the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries BCE; and the presupposition of Cain as the eponymous progenitor of the Kenite tribe of Midian. The hypothesis thus interrogates the ethnic origins of Judah and posits that the geographic origins of Yahweh, and by extension Yahwism, do not lie in the Biblical Canaan as conventionally understood but rather lie farther south, in the region the Tanakh calls "Midian" on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea. This land was inhabited by peoples including the Kenites.

History

Friedrich Wilhelm Ghillany in 1862 was the first to propose that Yahweh had originally made his home in what was historically known as the kingdom of Edom (the area immediately south of the Dead Sea), citing numerous passages where the deity is described as coming from southern lands. A decade later, a similar theory was independently espoused by Cornelis Petrus Tiele, and more fully by Bernhard Stade (1887). The hypothesis in the form it currently takes was more completely worked out by Karl Budde; and later was accepted by H. Guthe, Gerrit Wildeboer, Henry Preserved Smith, and George Aaron Barton.

The theory was widely accepted at first, particularly among German and anglophone scholars. Eduard Meyer, Bernhard Stade, Karl Budde, Hugo Gressmann, George Aaron Barton, Thomas Kelly Cheyne, and Henry Preserved Smith each endorsed it. By the 20th century the theory had become controversial. Detractors included Theophile James Meek, Frederick Winnett, Martin Buber and Roland de Vaux, besides Gorden (1907), Konig (1912), Kittel (1917), Volz (1947), and Procksch (1950).

More recently, Blenkinsopp (2008) revisiting the available evidence concludes that "this hypothesis provides the best explanation currently available of the relevant literary and archaeological data". By contrast Tebes (2021), focusing on archaeological evidence from the Southern Levant and Northern Arabia, presents the "Midianite" influence on Canaan as a drawn-out process of cultural transmission taking place during the 10th to 6th centuries BCE.

Basic model

The Kenite hypothesis rests on four bases: an interpretation of the biblical texts dealing with the Midianite connections of Moses, allusions in ancient poetic compositions to the original residence of Yahweh, Ancient Egyptian topographical texts from the 14th - 12th centuries BCE, and Cain as the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites.

Critical examination of the biblical narrative of Moses meeting Jethro and the events that unfolded thereafter comprise the first support of the Kenite theory. Moses, son of Levitical parents sojourns in the land of Midian, where he eventually marries the daughter of Jethro, described as a priest (perhaps the priest) of Midian. At a sacred spot, a "mountain of God", situated beyond the normal pasturage of the Midianites but apparently frequented by Midianites nonetheless, Moses received a revelation from a deity previously known to him only notionally, if at all, presumably a deity worshipped by Midianites considering the pre-existing sacrality of the mountain, whose name was revealed to be "Yahweh". Later on, after having led the Israelites out of Egyptian captivity, Moses returns to the sacred mountain, and Jethro comes to him, having heard about Yahweh's great feats. Jethro blesses the deity, proclaiming Him like no other.

The passage in question can be interpreted two ways: with Jethro either acknowledging Yahweh as superior to his own (unmentioned) gods and converting to the Israelite religion on the spot, or celebrating the demonstration of Yahweh's might and reaffirming the implied Midianite faith to him. The general interpretation is the former; that Jethro, a non-Jew, recognized the true God in Yahweh, the God of Israel, and paid him homage. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis, on the other hand, interpret the passage as the latter; that Jethro expresses to his proud joy that the God he and his people already worshipped, Yahweh, has proved himself mightier than all other gods. Thus, rather than Jethro's conversion to Yahwism, the passage actually shows the first incorporation of the Israelite leaders into the worship of Yahweh.

Early Yahwistic poetry is the next base of support for the Kenite hypothesis. On five separate occasions, Yahweh is given explicit residency in the lands south of the biblical Kingdom of Judah. These passages are Deuteronomy 33:2, Judges 5:4, Habakkuk 3:3 and 3:7, and Isaiah 63:1. Each passage describes Yahweh as having come forth from the lands of Midian and Edom, sometimes in specific places such as Bozrah, Mount Seir, and Mount Paran, and sometimes in generic terms where the deity is described as coming from Teman, a word literally meaning "south." Mount Seir, in particular, became a synonym for the Edomites both inside and outside the Hebrew Bible, the Amarna letters mention a "people of Shēri", and a 13th-century BCE topographical list made by Rameses II in West Amara mentions the "Shasu of Seir". The texts of the "Blessing of Moses" and the "Song of Deborah" seem to quote each other, depending on which was written first, and while both say Yahweh "shone forth" from Mount Paran, the "Blessing of Moses" is unique in that it specifically mentions that Yahweh actually came from Mount Sinai. Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain this by citing evidence of textual corruption in the passage.

The possibility has also been entertained that the biblical version of the history of early humanity has preserved, in the story of Cain and his line (Gen. 4:1-24), an echo of the role of the Kenites in the early history of Israel. In this view, the name of the Kenite tribe is held to derive from Cain's name. The Kenites, like Cain, were nomadic. The Kenites were metalworkers, a science which the Book of Genesis states the descendants of Cain invented. Immediately after Cain is expelled to the wilderness by Yahweh for Abel's murder, the biblical narrative states that in the times of the children of Adam and Eve's new son, Seth, people began to call on Yahweh's name for the first time. However, Yahweh states during the episode of the burning bush that his name, Yahweh, was not known to previous generations.

Proponents of the Kenite hypothesis explain this inconsistency as a preserved implication that the cult of Yahweh said to have been created by Moses had a known pre-history. Further indirect support for the Kenites being the true bearers of the Yahwistic faith is taken from the positive portrayal of Kenites in the rest of the Tanakh. Kenites and some groups closely associated with them appear to have been known as fervid devotees of their god Yahweh, even during times when Yahweh's own chosen people, the Israelites, had at large abandoned his worship. These examples lend to speculation as to what other expressions of what might be called a sort-of Yahwistic primitivism, for which no obvious explanation is at hand, may be relics of the aboriginal, pre-Israelite Yahwism associated with the Kenites and related groups.

Criticism

Several assertions of Kenite hypothesis have been disputed by scholars.

There is little-to-no evidence of significant interaction between the southern and central Levant during the timeframe when the Israelite religion would have crystallized; in fact, the only cultural diffusion discernible during this time period came from ancient Egypt, and even then there is no evidence that the actual cultic practices of Palestine or Midian changed at all. As summarized by Tebes (2021), "uring this period, there is no evidence of contacts between the local semi-pastoral societies with the Israelite (or proto-Israelite) population settling down in the central highlands of Palestine, not to mention the transmission of religious ideas." Furthermore, a Midianite–Kenite origin for the Yahweh cult has obvious implications for ethnic origins, specifically the origins of Judah, and raises the further question of how this cult came to be adopted by the early Israelite settlers in the central Palestinian highlands. The theory postulated that the Judahites were part of an Arabian trade league of numerous clans that ended up migrating north to Palestine, however in the 250 years that have passed since this explanation was offered, a number of genetic and archeological studies have concluded that the people that would become the Israelites originated in Canaan.

Other critics disagree with the attribution of the Kenites to Cain. A. H. Sayce, for instance, points out the Hebrew form of the singular "Kenite" (Hebrew: קֵינִי Qeiniy), is identical or strikingly similar to Aramaic words meaning "smith", an etymology which forgoes the implied connection of metallurgy to Cain and his descendants and instead attaches it directly and unambiguously to the craft. The definition of the term Qinim as "metalsmiths" or "people of Qayin" are equally coherent.

Others disagree with the theory's reliance on a supposed historical basis for the narratives of Moses. Most scholars, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE, agree that Moses, as portrayed by the Tanakh, is a legendary figure. There is also the issue of the timeframe of the narratives' composition. The general consensus, despite the collapse of the Documentary hypothesis, is that the Book of Exodus was compiled around 600 BCE and finalized by 400 BCE, 800-1000 years after Moses would have existed and the Exodus would have occurred. However, this does not preclude the idea that Moses and the Exodus were pre-existing motifs in Israelite thought — the narratives were certainly based on extensive oral tradition, the age of which cannot reasonably be determined with any veracity. But even still, this was not uniform. The northern prophets Amos and Hosea draw on the Exodus in their preachings, meanwhile of the southern prophets contemporary to them, Micah and Isaiah, only Micah mentions the Exodus, only doing so briefly. However, the southern Israelites weren't completely ignorant of the apparently ancient Exodus narrative, as they are featured at length in Psalm 78 and Psalm 114, and Moses is mentioned by name in Psalm 77, Psalm 90, Psalm 99, and Psalm 105, as well as by Jeremiah. Even still, this is a strong indication that the Exodus narrative was vastly more developed in the setting of the northern kingdom than the southern kingdom, which raises the question of how a people could have realistically allowed knowledge of such a central and holy piece of their own history to be divided by political borders. The story of the Exodus may, therefore, have originated only a few centuries earlier, perhaps in the 9th or 10th centuries BCE, and taken different forms in Israel and Judah. Combined with the strong consensus among scholars that the Exodus narrative is largely legendary, it spells problems for the largest beam of support for the Kenite hypothesis.

For these reasons, among others, many scholars outright reject the Kenite hypothesis.

References

  1. Blenkinsopp, Joseph (December 2008). "The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah". Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 33 (2): 131–153. doi:10.1177/0309089208099253. ISSN 0309-0892.
  2. Van der Toorn, Karel (1999). "Yahweh". In Van der Toorn, Karel; Becking, Bob; Van der Horst, Pieter Willem (eds.). Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Eerdmans. p. 912. ISBN 978-0-8028-2491-2.
  3. Richard von der Alm , Theologische Briefe an die Gebildeten der deutschen Nation, I (Leipzig: Otto Wigand, 1862), pp. 320-22, 480-83.
  4. Vergelijkende Geschiedenis van der Egyptische en Mesopotamische Godsdiensten, I (Amsterdam: Van Kampen, 1872), pp. 558-60.
  5. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, in Wilhelm Oncken (ed.), Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen (Berlin: G. Grote, 1887), pp. 130-31, and Biblische Theologie des Alten Testament, I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905), pp. 42-43
  6. Joseph Blenkinsopp, op. cit., pp. 132-133.
  7. George Aaron Barton (1859–1942), US Bible scholar and professor of Semitic languages. online Archived 2012-04-26 at the Wayback Machine
  8. ^ Blenkinsopp, J. (2008). The Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 33(2), 131–153 (here p. 132f.). doi:10.1177/0309089208099253.
  9. ^ F, V. Winnett, The Mosaic Tradition, 1949, p. 69
  10. ^ A.R. Gorden, The Early Traditions of Genesis, 1907, pp. 106 ff
  11. ^ E. Konig, Geschichte der Altestamentlichen Religion, 1912, pp. 162ff.
  12. ^ R. Kittel, Geschichte des Vokes Israel I, 6th ed., p. 392n
  13. Volz, Mose und Sein Werk, 2nd ed., M. Buber, Moses, 1947, pp. 94ff.
  14. ^ Procksch, Theologie des Alten Testaments, pp. 76f.
  15. ^ Juan Manuel Tebes, The Archaeology of Cult of Ancient Israel’s Southern Neighbors and the Midianite-Kenite Hypothesis. In J.M. Tebes & Ch. Frevel (eds.), The Desert Origins of God: Yahweh's Emergence and Early History in the Southern Levant and Northern Arabia. Special volume of Entangled Religions 12/2 (2021). doi:10.46586/er.12.2021.8847.
  16. Exod. 2:1-2
  17. Exod. 3:13
  18. Exod. 18:7
  19. Exodus 18:8
  20. Miller II 2021, p. 19.
  21. Pfitzmann 2020, p. 1.
  22. Fleming 2020, pp. 40, 53.
  23. Tubb, Jonathan N. (1998). Canaanites. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 13–14. ISBN 0-8061-3108-X.
  24. McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-664-22265-9.
  25. K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, A&C Black, 2001 p. 164: "It would seem that, in the eyes of Merneptah's artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups." "It is likely that Merneptah's Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley."
  26. Sayce, A. H. (1899). "Kenites". In Hastings, James (ed.). A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. II. p. 834.
  27. Dever, William G. (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-8028-2126-3.
  28. Faust, Avraham (2015). Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience. Springer. p. 476. ISBN 978-3-319-04768-3.
  29. Dever, William G. (1993). "What Remains of the House That Albright Built?". The Biblical Archaeologist. 56 (1). University of Chicago Press: 25–35. doi:10.2307/3210358. ISSN 0006-0895. JSTOR 3210358. S2CID 166003641. the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure
  30. Miller II, Robert D. (25 November 2013). Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance. BRILL. p. 21. ISBN 978-90-04-25854-9. Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.'
  31. McEntire, Mark (2008). Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch. Mercer University Press. ISBN 9780881461015.
  32. Na'aman 2011, p. 40.
  33. Jeremiah 15
  34. Russell, Stephen C. (2009). Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature. Walter de Gruyter. p. 1. ISBN 978-3-11-022171-8.
  35. Meek, op. cit. pp. 86-99.
  36. Volz, Mose und Seine Werk, 2nd ed., M. Buber, Moses, 1947, pp. 94ff.

Bibliography

Categories: