Sedert die wetenskaplike ondersoek na die Bybel jare gelede begin het, het die godsdienstige landskap stadig maar seker ontvou in twee breë godsdienstige strome wat langs mekaar vloei en mekaar grotendeels uitsluit. Daar is baie kerke wat hulleself in die tradisionele stroom van die Christendom bevind wat die legitimiteit van Bybelwetenskap in beginsel ontken. Bybelwetenskaplikes - wat veral in die raamwerk van die gereformeerde teologie 'n tuiste gevind het (alhoewel sommige van hulle selfs daar ongemaklik voel) - is weer van mening dat die eersgenoemde groep 'n pre-wetenskaplike benadering tot die Bybel volg wat in die wetenskaplike tyd waarin ons lewe geen legitimiteit meer het nie. Tussen hierdie pole is daar baie mense wat oor die geldigheid van hierdie paradigmas nadink. 'n Boek soos Hier staan ek... is 'n voorbeeld daarvan (sien bespreking). Uiteindelik gaan dit oor die ruimte wat vir geloof geskep word.
Ons lewe in 'n tyd waarin daar 'n intense godsdienstige debat plaasvind. Aan die een kant is daar die Christene wat in 'n bykans twee-duisend jaar oue tradisie staan wat glo dat ons die Bybel onvoorwaardelik kan en moet glo en toepas. Aan die ander kant is daar die Bybelwetenskaplikes en ander teoloë wat radikaal met die tradisionele opvattinge gebreek het en wat die Bybelse teks glad nie as "heilig" beskou nie, maar gewoon as 'n boek waarin daar van mense se denke oor God vertel word. Tussen hierdie teenpole is daar natuurlik meer genuanseerde sieninge, asook die groter samelewing met baie mense wat vrae vra, wat wonder of hulle maar net als so kan glo, wat twyfel. Die eerste groep loop die gevaar dat hulle hulself uit die gesprek uitsluit en dat hulle mettertyd feitlik geen inpak meer op die samelewing sal hê nie. Die tweede groep kan mense se geloof radikaal ondermyn en in effek die deur na 'n sekulêre samelewing oopmaak (sommige van hulle glo self nie meer nie).
In hierdie skrywe bekyk ek elk van hierdie groepe van nader. Ek kyk watter persepsies hulle van mekaar het, wat hulle essensiële vertrekpunte is, wat die inpak van hul sieninge op geloof is en hoe gewone Christene sinvol hul eie perspektief kan vorm. Ekself kom uit 'n tradisioneel-Christelike agtergrond (soos bykans almal in Suid Afrika) en beskou myself as 'n behoudende Christen. Ek het die afgelope tyd oor verskeie sake met persone wat hulle aan die kant van die Bybelwetenskap skaar, asook met Sakkie Spangenberg self, binne die raamwerk van die tydskrif Markplein gesprek gevoer. Ek sal in hierdie skrywe meer van my eie ervaring in hierdie verband vertel.
Persepsies skep die werklikheid
Tradisionele Christene en Bybelwetenskaplikes bevind hulleself in twee opponerende paradigmas wat grotendeels onversoenbaar met mekaar is. Elk leef in hul eie paradigma - dit is perspektiewe wat oor jare deur andere, veral die leiers in hul gemeenskap, by hulle ingeprent is. Alhoewel hulle dit nie besef nie, is hulle 'n produk van die godsdienstige of intellektuele kultuur waaruit hulle kom. Soos die filosowe Martin Heidegger (in die algemeen) en Thomas Kuhn (meer spesifiek vir die akademiese wêreld) getoon het, is alle mense - gewoonlik sonder dat hulle dit besef - tot in hul diepste menswees deur die kultuur waaruit hul kom gevorm. Dit beteken dat hulle in effek nie vry en openlik oor sake nadink nie. Hulle denkpatrone is gevorm deur die persone waarna hul opsien, die boeke en tydskrifte wat hul lees en die algemene perspektiewe wat in hul kringe gehandhaaf word. Hulle praat 'n eiesoortige taal, het sekere gemene gebruike asook sekere verwagtinge van mekaar wat as aanvaarbare gedrag in hul geledere beskou word. Hulle is oor jare - soos hulle in daardie paradigma opgebring is - gevorm tot die mense wat hulle is.
Hierdie verbondenheid tot 'n bepaalde paradigma het noodwendig tot gevolg dat almal (selfs in die algemeen) 'n sekere blindekol het. Wanneer 'n mens na iemand luister wat uit 'n ander paradigma kom, dan word dit dadelik binne die paradigma waaruit jyself kom verstaan. Daardie persoon word dadelik verstaan volgens die perspektiewe wat daardie paradigma van die ander een het. Sodra die hoorder die spreker aan 'n sekere paradigma toegeken het, word daar summier aanvaar dat als wat hulle sê - en gaan sê - ooreenkom met die karikatuur wat daardie groep van die ander het. Dit beteken dat die persepsies wat die groepe van mekaar het uiteindelik die werklikheid is waarbinne hulle met mekaar in interaksie kom. Die gevolg is dat hulle nie mekaar "hoor" nie en in effek by mekaar verby praat. Daar word gewoon van meets af aanvaar dat die ander persoon se siening "verkeerd" is en daar word nie ruimte gemaak dat daardie persoon ook 'n geldige punt kan hê nie. In baie gevalle is hul uitsprake gewoon vir die ore van ander luisteraars bedoel om hulle na hul siening te probeer oorhaal.
Wat sulke persepsies betref, beskou die tradisionele Christene die Bybelwetenskaplikes as persone wat die wetenskap klakkeloos naloop en in die proses die geloof verloën. Dat hulle daarop uit is om die Bybelse teks radikaal te kritiseer en so die gesag daarvan ondermyn. Dat hulle die basiese waarhede van die evangelie prysgegee het. Aan die ander kant beskou Bybelwetenskaplikes die tradisionele Christene as mense wat op 'n pre-wetenskaplike wyse met die Bybelse teks omgaan. Hul sieninge is primitief en onvanpas vir die wetenskaplike eeu waarin ons lewe. Hulle is van die werklikheid verwyder.
Die tradisionele Christendom het ongelukkig ook in die verlede baie mense van die kerk vervreem deur hul liefdeloosheid, onbuigsame dogma en die harde sweep van sensuur. Dit het nie alleen diep psigologiese letsels gelaat nie, dit het ook daardie groep onherroeplik van die tradisionele Christendom vervreem. In die boek Hier staan ek... maar ek kan nie sê wie ek is nie en ek is nie alleen nie (Griffel, 2011) vertel 'n aantal persone, waaronder vyf anonieme predikante, omtrent hul negatiewe belewing van die tradisionele Christelike geloof. Onder hulle tel 'n groot aantal persone wat hulle tans in die sfeer van die Bybelwetenskaplike denke bevind - waaronder Sakkie Spangenberg wat as 'n leidende figuur in daardie kringe erken word.
Bybelwetenskaplikes beklee egter nie die morele hoë grond nie en sommige tree op dieselfde wyse op teenoor diegene wat met hulle verskil. Daar is duidelik persone aan albei kante van die spektrum wat nie ander standpunte kan verdra nie - en wat hard en liefdeloos oorkom. Ek het persoonlik al sulke gedrag in verskeie situasies beleef. Ook vanuit Bybelwetenskaplike kringe. Ek kan dit toelig uit my ervaring met die elektroniese tydskrif Markplein. In Januarie 2012 het ek die eerste maal die tydskrif per epos ontvang. Die redakteurs van die tydskrif was vroeër deel van die redakteurspan van Hier staan ek.
Daar het deur die loop van 2012 'n lewendige gesprek oor dinge soos die historisiteit van die Israeliete se uittog en die wetenskaplikheid van Bybelwetenskap ontwikkel. Op 'n stadium was ek en Sakkie Spangenberg die belangrikste opponerende stemme (oor die wetenskaplikheid van Bybelwetenskap). Daarom het dit my nogal verbaas dat die redakteurs hom - as my direkte opponent in die gesprek - gevra het om my boek Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale (Griffel, 2012) te resenseer ('n mens sou dink dat iemand neutraal so iets moet doen). Ek kan uit die resensie aflei dat hy waarskynlik nie meer as die inleiding en die eerste hoofstuk gelees het nie. Hy het die resensie as 'n geleentheid gesien om sy venyn op my te projekteer en het probeer om my belaglik te maak. Hy aanvaar gewoon dat sy paradigma die enigste geldige een is en dit het nie by hom opgekom dat ek gewoon nie by sy paradigma inkoop nie. (Gelukkig het daar darem net te vore 'n baie meer vriendelike resensie in die TEO verskyn - die tydskrif van die teologiese fakulteit van die Universiteit van Pretoria - geskryf deur Gerda de Villiers wat self in daardie paradigma staan.) [1] In 'n sekere sin het presies gebeur waarteen ek vroeër in 'n brief aan Markplein (Feb 2012) gewaarsku het, naamlik dat sommige Bybelwetenskaplikes soos die Atheners van destyds nie ander stemme op die markplein kan verdra nie en hul bes sal doen om sulke stemme te smoor (soos destyds met Sokrates gebeur het).
Dit was vir my duidelik dat Sakkie glad nie belang gestel het om te hoor wat ek sê nie. Ek het reeds in 'n brief in die vorige uitgawe (Sep 2012) geskryf: "Volgens Sakkie [se skrywe in Markplein Mei/2012] het ek ''n broertjie dood' aan die woord 'Bybelwetenskaplike'. Dit lyk vir my so al of Sakkie my met hierdie opmerking soos 'n lastige vlieg probeer afskud. Hy ignoreer my problematiek en gaan gewoon voort om te bevestig dat 'vakspesialiste' soos hy weet wat hulle doen. So asof ander mense geen reg het om vrae te vra nie. So asof net hy en ander 'Bybelwetenskaplikes' die reg het om uiteindelik uitsprake oor die 'wetenskaplikheid' van hul studieveld te maak. Na my mening gaan dit hier oor die wortel van die problematiek wat die huidige godsdienstige gesprek in Suid-Afrika raak...
Dit lyk vir my so al of Sakkie nog in die raamwerk van die moderne (waarby ek modernistiese bedoel) paradigma opereer (Diek se artikels in Markplein toon dieselfde inslag). Dit blyk vir hom moeilik te wees om te aanvaar dat ons vandag vir verskeie narratiewe kan ruimte maak en dat 'wetenskaplikes' soos hy wat in hul vakdissiplinêre paradigma vasgevang is (soos die wetenskapsfilosoof Hans Kuhn uitgewys het) dit uit die aard van die saak moeilik vind om te aanvaar dat ander narratiewe ook geldig kan wees. Oor sy summiere verwerping van die moontlikheid dat prominente Bybel figure soos Abraham werklik kon lewe, kan ek net na die werk van Martin Bernal verwys (veral bekend vir sy boek 'Black Athena'), wat toon dat die 'hiperkritiese' en 'beterweterige' houding van geleerdes nie aan die feit verander dat diegene wat die tekste geskryf het baie nader aan daardie gebeure gelewe het nie (in direkte kontinuïteit van daardie vroeë tradisie)... Vir enige 'oop gesprek' is dit belangrik dat die gespreksgenote regtig probeer om na mekaar te luister. Ek is nie seker of Sakkie (en Diek) regtig 'hoor' wat ek sê nie." (brief verkort) Na die episode het ek gewonder of ons mekaar ooit sal "hoor" en of daar nie 'n onoorbrugbare paradigmatiese gaping tussen ons is nie.
Die kernwaarhede van elke paradigma
Elk van die groepe huldig sekere sieninge wat hulle tot onaantasbare "waarhede" verhef. Dit is veral die verskillende wyses waarop hulle die Bybel as teks beoordeel wat hulle fundamenteel van mekaar skei. Tradisionele Christene aanvaar dat die Bybelse tekste oorspronklik deur bekende skrywers soos Moses, Samuel, Dawid en so meer opgeteken is, dat dit oorspronklik onder leiding van die Heilige Gees woordeliks korrek geskryf is, dat dit as sodanig (behalwe vir kleinere foute wat met die oordra ingesluip het) aan ons oorgelewer is, dat dit 'n betroubare bron oor die geskiedenis is, dat dit in geheel gesien oor God se verlossingsplan met die mens handel en dat dit as die geïnspireerde "Woord van God" beskou moet word. Bybelwetenskaplikes is op hul beurt van mening dat die Bybelse teks op 'n laat stadium deur (meestal) onbekende skrywers opgeteken is (die tekste van die Ou Testament is grotendeels tydens en na die Babiloniese ballingskap geskryf en die Nuwe Testament lank na die gebeure waaroor dit handel), dat dit op dieselfde vlak as ander antieke tekste beskou moet word, dat dit nie 'n betroubare bron oor die geskiedenis is nie, dat dit grotendeels oor mense se denke oor God handel en dat dit dus as "mense se woorde oor God" gereken moet word.
Tradisionele Christene aanvaar hul sieninge "deur die geloof". Alhoewel hulle die Bybelse teks natuurlik baie versigtig bestudeer, neem hulle in baie gevalle nie kennis van ander buite-Bybelse antieke literatuur wat lig op die Bybelse teks kan werp nie. Hulle word ook nie aan die wyer gesprek oor die tekste blootgestel nie en behou uiteindelik hul kohesie deurdat hul sieninge gewoon as norm binne hul eie geledere beskou word. Baie tradisionele Christene glo dat hulle nie op enige van die "Bybelse waarhede" kan skiet gee nie omdat dit niks anders as kompromie met liberalisme sal wees nie. Wat die Bybelwetenskaplikes betref, aanvaar hulle dat die "wetenskap" hul sieninge onderskryf. Hulle aanvaar dat argeologiese ondersoek getoon het dat die Bybel nie 'n betroubare bron oor die geskiedenis is nie (meestal omdat daar in baie gevalle volgens hulle nie "genoegsame" bewyse gevind kon word nie). In die raamwerk van akademiese studies dwing hulle hul beskouing as die enigste geldige benadering tot die Bybelse teks af.
Daar is baie Christene wat probeer om hul geloof op 'n manier met die wetenskaplike benadering tot die Bybel te versoen. Binne die raamwerk van die gereformeerde teologie - waar die wetenskaplike ondersoek na die Bybel as vertrekpunt geneem word - word verskillende strategieë gevolg om dit te bewerkstellig. So word daar tipies aanvaar dat die waarde van die teks vir ons geloof uiteindelik daarin lê dat ons baie kan leer oor die wyse waarop daardie mense oor God nagedink het. Die teks moet dus nie as 'n bron oor die geskiedenis beskou word nie; dit gaan uiteindelik oor die teologiese denke wat in die teks na vore tree. So skryf Gerda de Villiers in die genoemde resensie oor my boek Abraham en sy God waarin ek 'n saak vir die betroubaarheid van die Genesis-verhale as 'n bron oor die antieke geskiedenis van Israel maak, die volgende:
"[O]m die tekste met argeologie en harde historiese feite te laat klop, misken die intensie van die Bybel: dit wil juis nie ‘n betroubare gesaghebbende bron van die geskiedenis wees nie... Die vraag is dan nie na Abraham as historiese figuur nie, maar na die teologie – of teologieë rondom die Abraham-figuur. Deur tekste het Ou Israel nie ‘n historiese Abraham nie, maar ‘n teologiese Abraham en sy God beskryf. En dít is die Bybelwetenskappe se soektog: nie ‘n historiese Abraham nie, maar ‘n Abraham soos wat Ou Israel hom verstaan het." [2]
Hierdie strategie oorkom die wetenskaplike problematiek rakende gebrek aan bewyslas (vir Bybelse gebeure) asook wonderwerke. Maar dit ondermyn die gesag van die Bybel tot so 'n mate dat dit bykans vir die gemiddelde persoon onhoudbaar word om steeds vertroue in die Bybelse boodskap van verlossing te hê. As die betroubaarheid van die Bybel as bron oor die geskiedenis prysgegee word, dan kom ons uiteindelik voor die vraag te staan: moet ons dieselfde omtrent Jesus doen? Is sy historisiteit ook nie belangrik nie. Op hierdie punt gooi gereformeerde teoloë wal. Sommige soos Ben de Toit (in sy boek God? Geloof in 'n postmoderne tyd (Griffel, 2012)) skop by Jesus vas. Alhoewel hy die bestaan van Satan prysgee en uiteindelik in 'n "God agter God" glo, is die opstanding van Jesus die plek waar hy die streep trek. Maar hoe volhoubaar is so 'n posisie in die raamwerk van Bybelwetenskap?
Christene - veral diegene uit die meer tradisionele stroom - sien hierdie uitkoms as een rede waarom daar in die eerste plek nie aan die eise van die wetenskap toegegee moet word nie. Die gemiddelde persoon is egter nie gemaklik met 'n geloof wat glad nie op 'n sinvolle wyse met die wetenskap in gesprek tree nie. Hulle staan voor 'n dilemma: daar word algemeen aanvaar dat die wetenskap die norm vir alle studievelde moet wees, maar terselfdertyd lyk dit of die wetenskap alle deure vir geloof toemaak. Die vraag is egter of die wetenskap inderdaad die sieninge van Bybelwetenskap onderskryf? Alhoewel dit op die oog af so mag lyk, is dit nogal nie die geval nie. Oor die laaste aantal jare is daar 'n nuwe wending in feitlik alle studievelde waarin daar indringende vrae oor die filosofiese gronde - dit is die basiese veronderstellings wat deur wetenskaplikes gemaak word - gevra word. Die vraag is dus: Hoe wetenskaplik is die wetenskap - en meer spesifiek Bybelwetenskap?
Alhoewel Bybelwetenskaplikes gewoonlik aanvaar dat die "waarhede" van die tradisionele Christendom onhoudbaar is, is hul eie "waarhede" nie so vas en seker as wat hulle self dink nie. Bybelwetenskap is glad nie 'n empiriese wetenskap soos byvoorbeeld fisika, biologie en so meer nie. Dit word onder die sogenaamde "hermeneutiese" dissiplines gereken - dit is die interpreterende studievelde. Hier gaan dit oor die interpretasie van tekste. Alhoewel Bybelwetenskaplikes van mening is dat ander studievelde soos argeologie hul aanslag tot die tekste noodsaak, is dit nie so nie. Daar was oor die laaste aantal jare indringende gesprekke binne argeologiese kringe en daar is grotendeels afgesien van alle pogings om argeologie as 'n empiriese wetenskap te bedryf (sien die artikel op my blog: A critique of archaeology as a science). Daar het 'n groter openheid ontwikkel dat daar verskeie interpretasies van die data kan wees en dat verskillende narratiewe moontlik is. Dit lyk egter nie of die implikasies van hierdie gesprek al werklik tot Bybelwetenskaplike kringe deurgedring het nie. Hul liefde vir die uitdrukking "Bybelwetenskap" (wat eintlik net teksstudies is) en hul houding laat dit soms lyk of hulle onder die wanindruk verkeer dat hulle 'n ware (empiriese) "wetenskap" bedryf.
Alhoewel dit vir die Bybelwetenskap ondenkbaar is, is daar duidelik ruimte vir ander interpretasies van die Bybelse teks as die wat hulle voorstaan. Argeologiese ondersoek het beslis nie die Bybel verkeerd bewys nie (die saak van Bybelwetenskaplikes in hierdie verband berus grotendeels op die gebrek aan "genoegsame" data) en die Bybelskrywers self maak daarop aanspraak dat hulle 'n betroubare weergawe van Israel en later die kerk se geskiedenis opgeteken het. Die probleem het eerder met wonderwerke te doen. Die vraag is dan of ons kan glo dat God bonatuurlik in die geskiedenis ingegryp het en of ons dit op wetenskaplike gronde as mites en magiese beskouinge van primitiewe mense afmaak. Op hierdie punt gaan dit uiteindelik daaroor of ons glo dat God wonderbaarlik in Israel en die kerk se geskiedenis kon werk of nie. Dit val buite die raamwerk van die wetenskap.
Hoe om die geloof te behou?
Daar kan uiteindelik gevra word: Wat is die impak van die verskillende paradigmas op geloof? Daar kan geen twyfel bestaan dat die tradisionele Christendom baie mense deur hul harde en liefdelose dogma van die geloof vervreem het nie. In die boek UnChristian, what a new generation really thinks about Christianity... and why it matters (BakerBooks, 2007), waarin navorsing oor buitestaanders se persepsies oor evangeliese Christene in die VSA bespreek word, skryf die outeurs (self evangeliese Christene): "Painful encounters with the faith also have a strong influence on what a person thinks of Christianity. In fact, we discovered that one-fifth of all outsiders, regardless of age, admitted they 'have had a bad experience in a church or with a Christian that gave them a negative image of Jesus Christ'... Being hurt by Christianity is far more common among the young than among older outsiders. Three out of every ten outsiders said they have undergone negative experiences in churches and with Christians" (p32).
Die persoonlike getuienisse in Hier staan ek is duidelik in lyn met hierdie navorsing. Wat egter opval, is dat die meeste van die persone wie se getuienisse in die boek opgeneem is, ouer mense is. Dit staan in kontras met die Amerikaanse getuienis. Wat kan die rede wees? Dit het moontlik daarmee te doen dat die Afrikaner kultuur in sigself 'n paar dekades terug soms nog 'n harde, ongenaakbare kant gehad het. Die Christelike belewenis in Afrikaner kringe was tot 'n groot mate 'n weerspieëling en projeksie van die wyer Afrikaner kultuur. Dit verander egter nie aan die feit dat die meeste bydraers ook hul vervreemding van die kerk aan die "simplistiese en onhoubare" sieninge van die tradisionele Christendom toeskryf nie. Vir hulle is die tradisionele beskouinge net nie meer relevant tot die wetenskaplike eeu waarin ons lewe nie.
Wat verder omtrent die bydraers opval, is hoeveel van hulle predikante is of was. Hoekom sal so baie predikante hul geloof verloor of ten minste twyfel? Die antwoord hierop het duidelik nie net met die praktiese belewing in die kerk te doen nie maar ook met die teologiese opleiding waartydens hul intellektuele-godsdienstige basis gelê is. Uit die voorafgaande bespreking is dit duidelik dat die Bybelwetenskaplike aanslag wat in die gereformeerde teologie gevolg word 'n belangrike bydraende faktor in hul geloofsherbesinning kon wees. As die wetenskaplike aanslag tot die Bybel onkrities tot sy noodwendige implikasies deurgevoer word, is dit duidelik dat die ruimte vir geloof aansienlik ingeperk word. Die Bybelwetenskaplike benadering werk ongeloof aan die hand. Daarom is dit nodig dat die wetenskaplike basis vir hierdie benadering opnuut onder oë geneem word - dit is nie so "wetenskaplik" as wat algemeen veronderstel word nie.
Daar is natuurlik baie predikante en ander Christene wat met die Bybelwetenskap bekend is, maar wat nie by al haar veronderstellings inkoop nie. Hulle aanvaar dat daar plek vir 'n gesonde vorm van tekskritiek is, maar hulle aanvaar nie die veronderstelling dat die Bybelse teks slegs as teologiese nadenke oor God beskou moet word nie. Hulle is van mening dat daar genoegsame getuienis is dat die Bybelse verhale wel as betroubaar aanvaar kan word. Vir hulle is hierdie punt baie belangrik omdat dit die gesag van die Bybel as "Woord van God" onderlê. Sommige van hulle staan nader aan die tradisionele beskouinge en onderskryf dinge soos die woordelikse inspirasie van die Bybel, die skepping in ses sondae en so meer. Andere onderskryf eerder 'n integriteitsiening van inspirasie (sien die bylaag in my boek Abraham en sy God) en is gemaklik met die Groot Knal (alhoewel dalk nie met Neo-Darwinistiese evolusie nie). Maar hulle staan by die basiese leerstellings van die Christelike geloof. En hulle streef hopenlik om deurgaans in hul interaksie met andere (en veral diegene wat met hulle verskil) die gesindheid van Christus te openbaar.
Alhoewel die Bybelwetenskap nooit die tradisionele perspektief waarin alle tekskritiek summier afgewys word se geldigheid sal aanvaar nie, is daar geen rede om die bestaansreg van ander sinvolle narratiewe te ontken nie. Alhoewel hierdie geleerdes vanweë hul langdurige blootstelling aan die voorveronderstellings van hul eie paradigma nie met ander narratiewe gemaklik is nie, is dit hoog tyd dat hulle afsien van hul pogings tot hegemoniese beheer oor interpretasie. Dit is juis wat die postmoderne mens uit die foute van modernisme geleer het: niemand het 'n alleenreg op interpretasie nie. As Gerda de Villiers dus skryf: "[Die Bybel] wil juis nie ‘n betroubare gesaghebbende bron van die geskiedenis wees nie", dan is dit beslis nie 'n feitlike wetenskaplike stelling nie; dit is gewoon 'n projeksie van haar eie paradigmatiese verbondenheid.
Baie Christene is, net soos die gemiddelde persoon op die markplein van denke, op soek na sinvolle interpretasies. Interpretasies wat relevant is vir die wetenskaplike tyd waarin ons lewe, maar wat terselfdertyd genoeg ruimte skep vir geloof. Tradisionele Christene huldig soms sieninge wat net nie meer vir die kontemporêre mens sin maak nie en dus geloof ondermyn. Ingeligte mense kan net nie meer vrede maak met sieninge wat teen alle wetenskaplike feite ingaan nie. Aan die ander kant huldig Bybelwetenskaplikes sieninge wat nie alleen geen wetenskaplike gronde het nie (wat die vakgebied vanweë haar diep wortels in modernisme geërf het), maar wat ook die ruimte vir geloof aansienlik inperk. Beide paradigmas dra dus by tot ongeloof. Wat nodig is, is sinvolle interpretasies wat genoegsame ruimte vir geloof skep.
Slot
Die tradisionele Christendom en die Bybelwetenskap staan as twee onversoenbare teenpole teenoor mekaar. Twee paradigmas wat nie mekaar se taal verstaan nie en wat ook nie geïnteresseerd is om na mekaar te luister nie. Twee paradigmas wat oor jare gevorm is en wat nie maklik sal verander nie. Beide hou vas aan hul "waarhede" - die een groep aan die waarhede van die "geloof" en die ander aan die waarhede van die "wetenskap". Tog is die geloof nie van meets af in kompetisie met die wetenskap nie - ons kan in wonderwerke glo al dink ons dat die wetenskap oor die algemeen die wette van ons wêreld goed beskryf. Die dae waarin Bybelwetenskaplikes gedink het dat hulle narratief die enigste geldige narratief is, is ook verby. Bybelwetenskap is glad nie so wetenskaplik as wat soms in daardie kringe gedink word nie. Dit is juis hierdie beperking van Bybelwetenskap wat die ruimte skep waarin ander geldige interpretasies kan bestaan. Daar is vandag ruimte vir verskillende sinvolle narratiewe. Daar is ruimte vir die gemiddelde persoon om hul eie narratief saam te stel - om vir hulleself te dink. Om dit so te konstrueer dat dit ruimte maak vir geloof.
[1] In Op soek na Abraham en sy God argumenteer ek dat die Genesis-verhale sedert die vroegste tye in Israelitiese kringe oorgelewer is (die pre-patriargaalse verhale is dus nie tydens die ballingskap uit Babilonië ontleen nie). Ek voer verskeie argumente hiervoor aan wat veral op argeologiese getuienis, vroeë Sumeriese en Akkadiese tradisies asook die oorspronge van die Israeliete se godskonsep berus (die oorspronge van El-Elyon, El-Sjaddai, Elohim - en Satan - in die raamwerk van die Hebreeuse goderaad). Alhoewel ek laasgenoemde as my belangrikste argument beskou, het nie Sakkie of Gerda enige opmerkings daaromtrent gemaak nie.
[2] Gerda gee te hoog op. Bybelwetenskaplikes kan nie daarop aanspraak maak dat hulle toegang tot die denke van Ou Israel het en dus weet hoe hulle Abraham verstaan het nie. Ons rekonstruksie van hul perspektiewe is maar net ons eie perspektiewe oor hulle.
Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud. Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com; wmcloud@yahoo.com
As jy die artikel sinvol vind, stuur dit aan andere wat ook in die kontemporêre godsdienstige gesprek geïnteresseerd is. Share dit. So kan al meer mense saampraat.
Lees Willie Mc Loud se artikels
A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline
A critique of archaeology as a science
Lees die resensie van Gerda de Villiers in TEO hier.
Die Markplein uitgawe (Okt 2012) waarin Sakkie Spangenberg se resensie van Abraham en sy God verskyn, is nog nie op hul webblad gepos nie.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Sunday, 14 October 2012
Islam's role in the upcoming world order
After the Arab Spring the question is: What role will the countries of the Arab Spring play in the upcoming world order. Will they become true democracies or Islamist states at odds with the West? Will stability return or will militant groups assert themselves in the public space created by the revolutions? What impact will the conflict in Syria have on the wider Middle Eastern situation? Such an inquiry should include some understanding of the main forces at work within those Islamic communities and the goals they aspire to. In this article I focus on the Salafists, the Sufi's, the Muslim Brothers and the Shiites, asking: How will each of these groups try to influence the process of change? And how will the poles of influence in the Middle East amplify these influences? What will the new world order eventually look like?
The Arab spring has changed the face of the Islamic world. Arab dictators were swept away by popular uprisings. Democratic elections have taken place in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Libya and Yemen. The euphoria of the revolutions, during which whole populations stood together against their rulers, have in the post-revolutionary period been replaced by cold, calculated power struggles for positions in the new political landscape. Not all the new role players are enthusiastic about democracy. The role of extremist forces in these societies have become more accentuated - in Libya the US ambassador was killed on 12 September 2012 in a terrorist attack that coincided with the popular anger against a trailer of an anti-Islam film posted on YouTube. A question frequently asked is: Who will prevail?
These changes in the Muslim world introduced a more complicated world scene. Previously it was possible to describe the world situation in rather simple terms, for example, the West versus Communism or the West versus Al-Qaeda. The fight against Al-Qaeda did not really involve the rest of the Muslim world (except for Pakistan). The Arab dictators kept their populations in check and the fight against Al-Qaeda was, for the most part, fought in far-away areas outside the borders of civilization (in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc.). The Arab Spring has changed this stable political landscape. A more fluid situation has emerged that can lead to a total realignment in the political landscape of the Middle-East.
The only way to get some grip on this fluid landscape is to identify the main role players that compete for power. The most important of these are not merely involved in the local politics of each country; they are active all over the Middle East. Some work positively towards democracy and cooperation with the West; others strive to reestablish a Muslim caliphate and reject the Western way of life. Their influence on the other players will eventually determine what the new Middle East will look like. Who are the most important of these groups and what are their aims? Their chances of success are to a large extent determined by the poles of influence that amplify their efforts in one direction or another.
Important Muslim groups
The main players in the fluid landscape of the Muslim Middle East are the Salafists, the Sufi's and the Shiites. Although the Muslim Brothers and all their associated groups in other countries are also important, they are not a homogenous group with a particular political vision - their overall goal is to promote Islam in all aspects of life. Some of the Brothers are more sympathetic towards the Salafists and others towards the Sufi-perspectives. I will, therefore, discuss the Brothers as part of the fluid landscape in which these influences compete.
The Salafists is a grouping among Sunni Muslims who take their name from the first generation of Muslims who are collectively referred to as the "Pious Predecessors" (as-Salaf as-Saleh). They view those predecessors as model examples of Islamic practice and support literalist, strict and puritanical approaches to Islam. The Salafists grew in importance since the second half of the nineteenth century as a reaction to the spread of European ideas in Muslim society. In modern times Saudi King Faisal (1906-1975) embraced Salafism and it was through the generous financing of the House of Saud that the current worldwide Salafist movement came about.
The Salafists aspire to reestablish a Muslim caliphate. Caliphate means "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" and refers to a political-religious state governed in accordance with Sharia law. They hope to establish such a caliphate that will surpass national borders (seen as a Western ploy to divide Muslims). Many of these ultraconservative Salafists support violent jihad against civilians as a legitimate expression of Islam. They are active in all the Arab counties where revolutions have occurred.
The main opponent of the Salafists is the Sufi's. The Sufi's also trace their origins to the earliest followers of Muhammad. They are widespread among much of the Muslim world (both among Sunnis and Shiites) and adhere to a more liberal and free interpretation of Islam. The various Sufi orders have their own group liturgies and saints who are venerated in shrines. The orders meet frequently at local mosques, the homes of devotees, or at specific Sufi lodges known as zawiya’s. They are mystics - comparable to Rosicrucianism in the West. Although Sufism is not a political force as such, it has considerable influence behind the scenes. In the aftermath of the Arab revolutions, they have typically supported the liberal forces in the political landscape. They support a transition to true democracy.
In some Arab countries, the Salafists and Sufi's have come in direct conflict with each other. The Salafists view the Sufi teachings as "heretical" and claim that worshipping at graves and shrines is un-Islamic and idolatrous. In Libya, various Salafi attacks against Sufi shrines and libraries have occurred since the revolution. On 24 August 2012 Salafists razed the 500-year-old tomb of Sufi saint Sidi Abd As-Salam Al-Asmar and a mosque library in Zliten, a town 90 miles east of the Libyan capital. On the next day, they bulldozed the Sha’ab mosque in Tripoli. This happened after a prominent Saudi imam, Sheik Muhammad Al-Madkhalee issued a fatwa praising the desecration of Sufi graves and urging Libyan Salafists to do more to clear the North African country of any taint of Sufi worship.
These opposing groups compete for influence, not only in the wider framework of Muslim society but also in the ranks of the Muslim Brothers who are found all over the Arab world. The Brothers, offspring of the Egyptian Society of the Muslim Brothers (Muslim Brotherhood), are the most influential and largest Islamic movement in the Arab world. Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Brothers, was himself a Sufi who participated in the revolution of 1919 against British rule. He adopted a policy of avoiding religious controversy and later rejected terror as a way to further their cause.
Both moderate as well as radical (Salafist) elements are present among the Brothers. One of the important moderate voices among the Brothers is Yusif Al Qaradawi, one of their most prominent intellectual leaders (who twice rejected an official position within the body). Stationed in Qatar, he is the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, and host of a popular Al Jazeera TV show on Islamic laws and principles. He rejects extremism and supports democracy. He supports "Islamic Sufism", praising those who practice it as pious. These, however, excludes Shiites, whom he views as heretics.
Al Qaradawi has called for dialogue with non-Muslims and wrote in his book titled The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, "Islam does not prohibit Muslims to be kind and generous to peoples of other religions, even if they are idolaters and polytheists, ... it looks upon the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, with special regard, whether they reside in a Muslim society or outside it. The Qur'an never addresses them without saying, 'O People of the Book' or 'O You who have been given the Book', indicating that they were originally people of a revealed religion." During a visit to Tahrir Square on 18 February 2011 he began his address with "Oh Muslims and Copts", referring to Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority, instead of the customary opening for Islamic Friday sermons 'Oh Muslims'. It seems that Mohammed Morsi, the current president van Egypt who was until his election himself a Brother, is of the same moderate persuasion.
The last important group is the Shiites. They originated directly after Mohammed's death when some of his followers supported Ali ibn Abu Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, as successor against others who supported one from his circle of close associates named Abu Bakr. The supporters of Ali became known as "Shiat Ali," or "followers of Ali," the source of the term "Shiite". The others became known as Sunnis (named after the Sunnah, the canon of Muhammad's teachings). Since that time the Shiites and Sunnis are the main groups claiming succession from Mohammed. Most Shiites recognize twelve imams in direct succession of Mohammed. The twelfth Imam disappeared in 874. Shiites believe that he did not die and will one day return.
In the sixteenth century, the Safavid dynasty came to power in Iran and forced its subjects to adopt the Shia form of Islam. Since that time the Iranian Shiites and the Arab Sunnis were in constant rivalry. When the Arab world's religious centre shifted to Mecca after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Saudi King Ibn Saud (1876-1953) used this religious alliance to establish the kingdom of Saudi Arabia with the particularly narrow-minded Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam as the state religion. His main rivals were the Iranian Shiites to the east. As mentioned earlier, his son, King Faisal (1906-1975), embraced Salafism. Today the Shiites are a majority in Iran and Iraq. The Hezbollah group in Lebanon is also Shiites, as well as the Alawites in Syria, to whom the Syrian ruling family belongs.
Poles of influence
In this fluid political landscape, there are various poles of influence. These serve as poles of attraction or repulsion and amplify the efforts of the various role players in the Middle Eastern Muslim landscape. The Middle East as we know it, came into existence with the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948. Although the state of Israel serves as a bastion for Western strategic interests in the wider Middle East, its birth gave rise to a strong anti-Israel sentiment throughout the Muslim Middle East. This anti-Israel sentiment would also translate into an anti-Western sentiment.
There was one Muslim country that served as the Western anchor in this anti-Israeli sea of sentiment. This was Turkey. Turkey was established as a state in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal, surnamed Atatürk (meaning "Father of the Turks"). Atatürk transformed the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, westernized and secular nation-state. Turkey became a member of NATO in 1952. In 1987 Turkey applied for EU membership, which was officially recognized in 1999. Since the days of Atatürk, many Arab military leaders followed his example and established secular states. Some of them also brought their countries into the Western sphere of influence.
Since Turkey's Muslim Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002, Turkey's Muslim character became more pronounced in its public and political life - evidenced by changes in dress and appearance, segregation of the sexes, the growth of Islamic schools and banks, and support for Sufi orders. In the same way that Atatürk's reforms were copied by other Muslim leaders, many in the Arab Spring look to Turkey as a working example of a Muslim democracy - as a country that has become wealthy and prosperous. The fact that Turkey's relation with Israel has cooled since the flotilla debacle in May 2010 has led to it being viewed even more positively among the Muslims of the Arab Spring. Turkey is a very important pole of influence in the Muslim Middle East of today, strengthening the democratic impulse throughout the Arab world.
There are, however, important anti-democratic forces working against the Turkish influence in the region. The Salafists are prominent throughout the region and are aggressively trying to restrict the Western influence in the Muslim world. Closely aligned to them are the jihadic groups (some affiliated with Al-Qaeda), who fight a "holy war" against the "infidels". They are active in Libya, the Sinai, Syria and Yemen (and maybe Iraq) with a wide support network spread throughout the entire Muslim Middle East. They have established themselves in northern Mali (in the African Sahara), which provide them with a base where they can regroup and provide support to other jihadists all over the region. They are actively trying to destabilize the Western efforts to assist the region on its path to democracy. If they are not ejected from Mali soon (probably with Western help), they could become a major destabilizing force in all the Arab Spring countries of Northern Africa (and even beyond).
The most important anti-Western (and anti-Israel) pole of influence in the Middle East is the Islamic Republic of Iran which was established in 1979. After the Gulf wars, Iran became the main antagonist of Israel in the Middle East. Today it serves as a stimulus for the anti-Western forces throughout the region, providing many of them (like Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) with financial support. But Shia Iran also endangers the internal stability of some Gulf countries like Bahrain and even that of Saudi Arabia. The popular uprising in Bahrain was ascribed to Shiite groups with ties to Iran, which gave the minority Sunni rulers of that country reason to suppress the revolts. The popular uprisings in that part of the world have in fact reignited the centuries-old Sunni-Shiite conflict, leading to a solidification of the alliance of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia with the USA.
Before the Arab Spring the anti-Israel sentiment, amplified by Iran, was tempered by Turkey's alliance with Israel, the alliance of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia with the West, and the fact that many of the Arab dictators were part of the Western sphere of influence in the Muslim world. Since the Arab Spring, this situation has changed. Turkey has downgraded its relationship with Israel, many pro-Western dictators were overthrown (in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen) and Saudi Arabia has done nothing to stop the anti-Western Salafist impulse. Does this mean that the anti-Israel, anti-Western pull will overwhelm the Muslim world, with the Salafist forces who want to establish a caliphate becoming dominant? The answer is no. The same Arab Spring which deposed the pro-Western dictators also produced an important impulse towards the West and against Iran, in the form of the Syrian revolution. This unites all the pro-revolutionary forces against the Iranian-supported Syrian regime.
The Syrian conflict has created a new reality in the Middle East. It binds the pro-democratic revolutionary forces throughout the Arab world together against the anti-Western influence of Iran. It puts Turkey, a bastion of Western influence in the region, in a position as the main defender of the revolution. Although the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia supports the rebels financially, Turkey provides them with the breathing space to regroup and work against the Syrian regime. At the same time, the Iranian support for the Syrian regime puts Iran in the anti-revolutionary camp to which all dictators belong. The Syrian conflict brings the Sunni world together against the Shiite alliance which includes Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. In this way, it minimizes the Iranian influence in the Arab world. Although the anti-Israel sentiment is still very present all over the Muslim Middle East, the Syrian revolution has dwarfed it to a large extent as an immediate concern.
A new world order is emerging
The eventual question is: Which of the role players will succeed in bringing their vision for the new Middle East to fruition? Stated differently: What will the new world order look like once the Arab Spring has run its course? This is not an easy question to answer. There is, however, important clues which can give us a good idea about the direction in which the Arab world is heading. The strongest influences on the fluid political landscape will probably prevail.
The liberal and Sufi-impulse toward a democratic Middle East, strengthened by the Turkish influence in the region, have a good chance to succeed. The reason for this is that many Muslims are put off by the militants' position. Whereas the Turkish experience have shown that the Muslim electorate supports moderate Islamic politics, the Iraqi and Egyptian experiences have also shown that they tend to move away from religious parties in follow-up elections if those parties endanger their freedoms (in Egypt the share of the religious parties fell from about 70% in the parliamentary elections to about 52% in the presidential elections). The Al Jazeera TV channel, which played such an important role in all the Arab revolutions, also serves as a moderate voice throughout the Muslim Middle East. The whole Arab Spring is about the freedom of human expression (although within certain limits as the reaction to the anti-Muslim film has shown). We can expect the electorate to reinforce those freedoms through the ballot box. At the same time, we can also expect these Arab Spring countries to follow more independent policies which will not always be aligned with US interests.
Another reason why we could look forward to democracy succeeding in the countries of the Arab Spring is the role of the European Union. As in Eastern Europe, the goal of eventual membership of the EU has played an important role in the formation of the present Muslim democracy in Turkey. Once the Syrian conflict is settled, we can expect the European Union to become more active in the politics of the Arab Spring countries, guiding them towards sustained democracy. We can expect some of them to become associated members of the EU (Turkey is an associated member of the EU and its predecessors since 1963). In the long run (over the next 30 years) most of the following countries would probably become associated with the EU: Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan (and possibly Israel, the Palestinian areas, Iraq, Syria and Algeria). It is even possible that many of these countries, together with Turkey, will eventually in some way be incorporated within the framework of the EU.
It is unlikely that democracy will take hold in Saudi Arabia and some of its partners in the Gulf. The reason for this is that the strong Salafist presence in these countries (unchecked by the moderating Sufi influence) will not allow for the spread of perceived Western influences like democracy. At the same time, we can expect Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states to stay aligned with the US in the face of Iranian assertiveness. This dependence on US (NATO) security provides an important leverage for the West to force Saudi Arabia to down-tune its support for Salafist groups across the Arab world.
Iran will stay outside the Western sphere for a very long period of time (more than 30 years at least). I do not foresee that they will turn to democracy any time soon and it is possible that more than one war will eventually be fought against Iran. It is possible that Iran will in the future forge closer ties with jihadi groups. At the moment they are already supporting jihadi groups in the Sinai against their arch-enemy Israel. Others could join these Iranian financed groups in the struggle against Israel once the Syrian conflict is over - many jihad fighters are involved in the armed rebellion against the Syrian regime. This is likely to happen even sooner if Israel attack Iran unilaterally, instead of waiting for its NATO partners to give the green light (probably as part of a wider alliance against Syria-Iran). It is even possible that Iran will eventually become allied to Pakistan to the east.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, the conclusions are clear: Islamic countries are going to play a more substantial role in the upcoming world order. On the one hand, we can expect the countries of the Arab Spring to become part of the Western political landscape, especially within the framework of the future European Union (although probably not as full members). On the other hand, we can expect Iran to play a central role as the main agitator of the West. It is even possible that the following decades will become known for the struggle between the West and Iran in the same way that it was preceded by the struggle against Communism and Al-Qaeda.
The process to integrate the Arab Spring countries into the Western sphere of influence will not be without hiccups. The militant Salafists will see to that. The Arab democracies will have a long and difficult struggle to bring these elements under control. But it seems that we have reason to think that they will work against the forces of chaos to establish order. That they will eventually become stable democracies.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
In another article on my blog titled The Priory of Sion is back I discuss the supposed behind-the-scenes collaboration between Western occult societies like the Rosicrucian Priory of Sion and the Sufi's in bringing about this new world order. The secret order of the Priory of Sion is well-known from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.
The Arab spring has changed the face of the Islamic world. Arab dictators were swept away by popular uprisings. Democratic elections have taken place in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Libya and Yemen. The euphoria of the revolutions, during which whole populations stood together against their rulers, have in the post-revolutionary period been replaced by cold, calculated power struggles for positions in the new political landscape. Not all the new role players are enthusiastic about democracy. The role of extremist forces in these societies have become more accentuated - in Libya the US ambassador was killed on 12 September 2012 in a terrorist attack that coincided with the popular anger against a trailer of an anti-Islam film posted on YouTube. A question frequently asked is: Who will prevail?
These changes in the Muslim world introduced a more complicated world scene. Previously it was possible to describe the world situation in rather simple terms, for example, the West versus Communism or the West versus Al-Qaeda. The fight against Al-Qaeda did not really involve the rest of the Muslim world (except for Pakistan). The Arab dictators kept their populations in check and the fight against Al-Qaeda was, for the most part, fought in far-away areas outside the borders of civilization (in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc.). The Arab Spring has changed this stable political landscape. A more fluid situation has emerged that can lead to a total realignment in the political landscape of the Middle-East.
The only way to get some grip on this fluid landscape is to identify the main role players that compete for power. The most important of these are not merely involved in the local politics of each country; they are active all over the Middle East. Some work positively towards democracy and cooperation with the West; others strive to reestablish a Muslim caliphate and reject the Western way of life. Their influence on the other players will eventually determine what the new Middle East will look like. Who are the most important of these groups and what are their aims? Their chances of success are to a large extent determined by the poles of influence that amplify their efforts in one direction or another.
Important Muslim groups
The main players in the fluid landscape of the Muslim Middle East are the Salafists, the Sufi's and the Shiites. Although the Muslim Brothers and all their associated groups in other countries are also important, they are not a homogenous group with a particular political vision - their overall goal is to promote Islam in all aspects of life. Some of the Brothers are more sympathetic towards the Salafists and others towards the Sufi-perspectives. I will, therefore, discuss the Brothers as part of the fluid landscape in which these influences compete.
The Salafists is a grouping among Sunni Muslims who take their name from the first generation of Muslims who are collectively referred to as the "Pious Predecessors" (as-Salaf as-Saleh). They view those predecessors as model examples of Islamic practice and support literalist, strict and puritanical approaches to Islam. The Salafists grew in importance since the second half of the nineteenth century as a reaction to the spread of European ideas in Muslim society. In modern times Saudi King Faisal (1906-1975) embraced Salafism and it was through the generous financing of the House of Saud that the current worldwide Salafist movement came about.
The Salafists aspire to reestablish a Muslim caliphate. Caliphate means "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" and refers to a political-religious state governed in accordance with Sharia law. They hope to establish such a caliphate that will surpass national borders (seen as a Western ploy to divide Muslims). Many of these ultraconservative Salafists support violent jihad against civilians as a legitimate expression of Islam. They are active in all the Arab counties where revolutions have occurred.
The main opponent of the Salafists is the Sufi's. The Sufi's also trace their origins to the earliest followers of Muhammad. They are widespread among much of the Muslim world (both among Sunnis and Shiites) and adhere to a more liberal and free interpretation of Islam. The various Sufi orders have their own group liturgies and saints who are venerated in shrines. The orders meet frequently at local mosques, the homes of devotees, or at specific Sufi lodges known as zawiya’s. They are mystics - comparable to Rosicrucianism in the West. Although Sufism is not a political force as such, it has considerable influence behind the scenes. In the aftermath of the Arab revolutions, they have typically supported the liberal forces in the political landscape. They support a transition to true democracy.
In some Arab countries, the Salafists and Sufi's have come in direct conflict with each other. The Salafists view the Sufi teachings as "heretical" and claim that worshipping at graves and shrines is un-Islamic and idolatrous. In Libya, various Salafi attacks against Sufi shrines and libraries have occurred since the revolution. On 24 August 2012 Salafists razed the 500-year-old tomb of Sufi saint Sidi Abd As-Salam Al-Asmar and a mosque library in Zliten, a town 90 miles east of the Libyan capital. On the next day, they bulldozed the Sha’ab mosque in Tripoli. This happened after a prominent Saudi imam, Sheik Muhammad Al-Madkhalee issued a fatwa praising the desecration of Sufi graves and urging Libyan Salafists to do more to clear the North African country of any taint of Sufi worship.
These opposing groups compete for influence, not only in the wider framework of Muslim society but also in the ranks of the Muslim Brothers who are found all over the Arab world. The Brothers, offspring of the Egyptian Society of the Muslim Brothers (Muslim Brotherhood), are the most influential and largest Islamic movement in the Arab world. Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Egyptian Brothers, was himself a Sufi who participated in the revolution of 1919 against British rule. He adopted a policy of avoiding religious controversy and later rejected terror as a way to further their cause.
Both moderate as well as radical (Salafist) elements are present among the Brothers. One of the important moderate voices among the Brothers is Yusif Al Qaradawi, one of their most prominent intellectual leaders (who twice rejected an official position within the body). Stationed in Qatar, he is the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, and host of a popular Al Jazeera TV show on Islamic laws and principles. He rejects extremism and supports democracy. He supports "Islamic Sufism", praising those who practice it as pious. These, however, excludes Shiites, whom he views as heretics.
Al Qaradawi has called for dialogue with non-Muslims and wrote in his book titled The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, "Islam does not prohibit Muslims to be kind and generous to peoples of other religions, even if they are idolaters and polytheists, ... it looks upon the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, with special regard, whether they reside in a Muslim society or outside it. The Qur'an never addresses them without saying, 'O People of the Book' or 'O You who have been given the Book', indicating that they were originally people of a revealed religion." During a visit to Tahrir Square on 18 February 2011 he began his address with "Oh Muslims and Copts", referring to Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority, instead of the customary opening for Islamic Friday sermons 'Oh Muslims'. It seems that Mohammed Morsi, the current president van Egypt who was until his election himself a Brother, is of the same moderate persuasion.
The last important group is the Shiites. They originated directly after Mohammed's death when some of his followers supported Ali ibn Abu Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, as successor against others who supported one from his circle of close associates named Abu Bakr. The supporters of Ali became known as "Shiat Ali," or "followers of Ali," the source of the term "Shiite". The others became known as Sunnis (named after the Sunnah, the canon of Muhammad's teachings). Since that time the Shiites and Sunnis are the main groups claiming succession from Mohammed. Most Shiites recognize twelve imams in direct succession of Mohammed. The twelfth Imam disappeared in 874. Shiites believe that he did not die and will one day return.
In the sixteenth century, the Safavid dynasty came to power in Iran and forced its subjects to adopt the Shia form of Islam. Since that time the Iranian Shiites and the Arab Sunnis were in constant rivalry. When the Arab world's religious centre shifted to Mecca after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Saudi King Ibn Saud (1876-1953) used this religious alliance to establish the kingdom of Saudi Arabia with the particularly narrow-minded Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam as the state religion. His main rivals were the Iranian Shiites to the east. As mentioned earlier, his son, King Faisal (1906-1975), embraced Salafism. Today the Shiites are a majority in Iran and Iraq. The Hezbollah group in Lebanon is also Shiites, as well as the Alawites in Syria, to whom the Syrian ruling family belongs.
Poles of influence
In this fluid political landscape, there are various poles of influence. These serve as poles of attraction or repulsion and amplify the efforts of the various role players in the Middle Eastern Muslim landscape. The Middle East as we know it, came into existence with the establishment of Israel as a state in 1948. Although the state of Israel serves as a bastion for Western strategic interests in the wider Middle East, its birth gave rise to a strong anti-Israel sentiment throughout the Muslim Middle East. This anti-Israel sentiment would also translate into an anti-Western sentiment.
There was one Muslim country that served as the Western anchor in this anti-Israeli sea of sentiment. This was Turkey. Turkey was established as a state in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal, surnamed Atatürk (meaning "Father of the Turks"). Atatürk transformed the former Ottoman Empire into a modern, westernized and secular nation-state. Turkey became a member of NATO in 1952. In 1987 Turkey applied for EU membership, which was officially recognized in 1999. Since the days of Atatürk, many Arab military leaders followed his example and established secular states. Some of them also brought their countries into the Western sphere of influence.
Since Turkey's Muslim Justice and Development Party came to power in 2002, Turkey's Muslim character became more pronounced in its public and political life - evidenced by changes in dress and appearance, segregation of the sexes, the growth of Islamic schools and banks, and support for Sufi orders. In the same way that Atatürk's reforms were copied by other Muslim leaders, many in the Arab Spring look to Turkey as a working example of a Muslim democracy - as a country that has become wealthy and prosperous. The fact that Turkey's relation with Israel has cooled since the flotilla debacle in May 2010 has led to it being viewed even more positively among the Muslims of the Arab Spring. Turkey is a very important pole of influence in the Muslim Middle East of today, strengthening the democratic impulse throughout the Arab world.
There are, however, important anti-democratic forces working against the Turkish influence in the region. The Salafists are prominent throughout the region and are aggressively trying to restrict the Western influence in the Muslim world. Closely aligned to them are the jihadic groups (some affiliated with Al-Qaeda), who fight a "holy war" against the "infidels". They are active in Libya, the Sinai, Syria and Yemen (and maybe Iraq) with a wide support network spread throughout the entire Muslim Middle East. They have established themselves in northern Mali (in the African Sahara), which provide them with a base where they can regroup and provide support to other jihadists all over the region. They are actively trying to destabilize the Western efforts to assist the region on its path to democracy. If they are not ejected from Mali soon (probably with Western help), they could become a major destabilizing force in all the Arab Spring countries of Northern Africa (and even beyond).
The most important anti-Western (and anti-Israel) pole of influence in the Middle East is the Islamic Republic of Iran which was established in 1979. After the Gulf wars, Iran became the main antagonist of Israel in the Middle East. Today it serves as a stimulus for the anti-Western forces throughout the region, providing many of them (like Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) with financial support. But Shia Iran also endangers the internal stability of some Gulf countries like Bahrain and even that of Saudi Arabia. The popular uprising in Bahrain was ascribed to Shiite groups with ties to Iran, which gave the minority Sunni rulers of that country reason to suppress the revolts. The popular uprisings in that part of the world have in fact reignited the centuries-old Sunni-Shiite conflict, leading to a solidification of the alliance of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia with the USA.
Before the Arab Spring the anti-Israel sentiment, amplified by Iran, was tempered by Turkey's alliance with Israel, the alliance of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia with the West, and the fact that many of the Arab dictators were part of the Western sphere of influence in the Muslim world. Since the Arab Spring, this situation has changed. Turkey has downgraded its relationship with Israel, many pro-Western dictators were overthrown (in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen) and Saudi Arabia has done nothing to stop the anti-Western Salafist impulse. Does this mean that the anti-Israel, anti-Western pull will overwhelm the Muslim world, with the Salafist forces who want to establish a caliphate becoming dominant? The answer is no. The same Arab Spring which deposed the pro-Western dictators also produced an important impulse towards the West and against Iran, in the form of the Syrian revolution. This unites all the pro-revolutionary forces against the Iranian-supported Syrian regime.
The Syrian conflict has created a new reality in the Middle East. It binds the pro-democratic revolutionary forces throughout the Arab world together against the anti-Western influence of Iran. It puts Turkey, a bastion of Western influence in the region, in a position as the main defender of the revolution. Although the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia supports the rebels financially, Turkey provides them with the breathing space to regroup and work against the Syrian regime. At the same time, the Iranian support for the Syrian regime puts Iran in the anti-revolutionary camp to which all dictators belong. The Syrian conflict brings the Sunni world together against the Shiite alliance which includes Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. In this way, it minimizes the Iranian influence in the Arab world. Although the anti-Israel sentiment is still very present all over the Muslim Middle East, the Syrian revolution has dwarfed it to a large extent as an immediate concern.
A new world order is emerging
The eventual question is: Which of the role players will succeed in bringing their vision for the new Middle East to fruition? Stated differently: What will the new world order look like once the Arab Spring has run its course? This is not an easy question to answer. There is, however, important clues which can give us a good idea about the direction in which the Arab world is heading. The strongest influences on the fluid political landscape will probably prevail.
The liberal and Sufi-impulse toward a democratic Middle East, strengthened by the Turkish influence in the region, have a good chance to succeed. The reason for this is that many Muslims are put off by the militants' position. Whereas the Turkish experience have shown that the Muslim electorate supports moderate Islamic politics, the Iraqi and Egyptian experiences have also shown that they tend to move away from religious parties in follow-up elections if those parties endanger their freedoms (in Egypt the share of the religious parties fell from about 70% in the parliamentary elections to about 52% in the presidential elections). The Al Jazeera TV channel, which played such an important role in all the Arab revolutions, also serves as a moderate voice throughout the Muslim Middle East. The whole Arab Spring is about the freedom of human expression (although within certain limits as the reaction to the anti-Muslim film has shown). We can expect the electorate to reinforce those freedoms through the ballot box. At the same time, we can also expect these Arab Spring countries to follow more independent policies which will not always be aligned with US interests.
Another reason why we could look forward to democracy succeeding in the countries of the Arab Spring is the role of the European Union. As in Eastern Europe, the goal of eventual membership of the EU has played an important role in the formation of the present Muslim democracy in Turkey. Once the Syrian conflict is settled, we can expect the European Union to become more active in the politics of the Arab Spring countries, guiding them towards sustained democracy. We can expect some of them to become associated members of the EU (Turkey is an associated member of the EU and its predecessors since 1963). In the long run (over the next 30 years) most of the following countries would probably become associated with the EU: Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan (and possibly Israel, the Palestinian areas, Iraq, Syria and Algeria). It is even possible that many of these countries, together with Turkey, will eventually in some way be incorporated within the framework of the EU.
It is unlikely that democracy will take hold in Saudi Arabia and some of its partners in the Gulf. The reason for this is that the strong Salafist presence in these countries (unchecked by the moderating Sufi influence) will not allow for the spread of perceived Western influences like democracy. At the same time, we can expect Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states to stay aligned with the US in the face of Iranian assertiveness. This dependence on US (NATO) security provides an important leverage for the West to force Saudi Arabia to down-tune its support for Salafist groups across the Arab world.
Iran will stay outside the Western sphere for a very long period of time (more than 30 years at least). I do not foresee that they will turn to democracy any time soon and it is possible that more than one war will eventually be fought against Iran. It is possible that Iran will in the future forge closer ties with jihadi groups. At the moment they are already supporting jihadi groups in the Sinai against their arch-enemy Israel. Others could join these Iranian financed groups in the struggle against Israel once the Syrian conflict is over - many jihad fighters are involved in the armed rebellion against the Syrian regime. This is likely to happen even sooner if Israel attack Iran unilaterally, instead of waiting for its NATO partners to give the green light (probably as part of a wider alliance against Syria-Iran). It is even possible that Iran will eventually become allied to Pakistan to the east.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, the conclusions are clear: Islamic countries are going to play a more substantial role in the upcoming world order. On the one hand, we can expect the countries of the Arab Spring to become part of the Western political landscape, especially within the framework of the future European Union (although probably not as full members). On the other hand, we can expect Iran to play a central role as the main agitator of the West. It is even possible that the following decades will become known for the struggle between the West and Iran in the same way that it was preceded by the struggle against Communism and Al-Qaeda.
The process to integrate the Arab Spring countries into the Western sphere of influence will not be without hiccups. The militant Salafists will see to that. The Arab democracies will have a long and difficult struggle to bring these elements under control. But it seems that we have reason to think that they will work against the forces of chaos to establish order. That they will eventually become stable democracies.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
In another article on my blog titled The Priory of Sion is back I discuss the supposed behind-the-scenes collaboration between Western occult societies like the Rosicrucian Priory of Sion and the Sufi's in bringing about this new world order. The secret order of the Priory of Sion is well-known from Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.
Monday, 1 October 2012
Die goderaad in Hebreeuse tradisie
Die goderaad is 'n baie belangrike konsep in die Bybel (veral in die Ou Testament). Alhoewel baie Christene onkundig daaromtrent is, staan die goderaad sentraal in die antieke Hebreeuse denke oor God. Dit verteenwoordig hul vroegste denke omtrent God, uit die tyd toe daar nog van "gode" gepraat is in plaas van engele. Die konsep van die goderaad kom nie net in die Bybel voor nie, maar ook regoor die antieke Midde-Oosterse wêreld. Hierdie agtergrond is uiters belangrik as ons die godskonsep van Abraham beter wil verstaan. In die vyfde hoofstuk van my nuwe boek oor Abraham en sy God, fokus ek op die goderaad - en op Abraham se verering van El-Elyon (God, die Allerhoogste), wat in die Bybel as die "vader van die gode" voorgestel word. Hierdie is 'n uittreksel uit daardie hoofstuk. (Die sesde hoofstuk handel oor Abraham se verering van El-Sjaddai (God, die Almagtige), die familie se voorvaderlike God, wat oënskynlik sedert die vroegste tyd as die Koning van die gode in die goderaad beskou is. Die oorsprong van die benaming "Elohim" en van Satan, die teenstander in die raad, word ook bespreek).
“Wie kan in die hemel met die HERE vergelyk word? Wie is soos die HERE onder die hemelinge [i.e. Seuns van God], ’n God grootliks gedug in die raad van die heiliges [i.e. heilige wesens]” (Ps. 89:7, 8).[60]
Ons het tot nou toe grotendeels op daardie deel van die Genesis-verhaal gefokus wat in die Bybel as die vroegste geskiedenis van die mensdom, en veral van Abraham se voorsate, geneem word. Hierdie verhaal oor die vroeë tyd bevat egter ook ander materiaal wat oorspronklik na die Sumeriese milieu kan teruggaan. Ek wil dus nou die soeklig na daardie aspekte van die Israelitiese tradisie uitbrei. Daar is goeie rede om te dink dat belangrike elemente van die Hebreeuse godsdiens en wêreldbeskouing ook na antieke Sumerië teruggevoer kan word. Dat die aanbidding van die God El – onder die name waarin Hy in Genesis genoem word – reeds vroeg onder die Semiete (en selfs Sumeriërs) in Mesopotamië voorgekom het.
Alhoewel ’n mens kan dink dat die God wat vir Abraham geroep het, vir die eerste keer in die geskiedenis daar Sy verskyning gemaak het, is dit nie wat ons in die Genesis-verhaal vind nie. Hiervolgens is die God van Israel reeds deur Adam en Eva aanbid. Sy verering het later na vroeë Sumerië versprei waar Hy deur Henog en Noag aanbid is (ek veronderstel hulle het daar gewoon). Hy was onder andere ook by gebeure soos die vloed en taleverwarring betrokke. Dit was ook daar in Sumerië waar God aanvanklik aan Abraham (toe nog Abram) verskyn het (Gen. 15: 7; Hand. 7: 2, 3), nog voordat Hy deur hom en sy nageslag in Kanaän vereer is. Dit impliseer dat die verering van Abraham se God na Sumerië teruggevoer kan word. Alhoewel God ’n nuwe begin met Abraham (toe nog Abram) maak, was hy beslis nie die eerste persoon wat God aanbid het nie. In die volgende twee hoofstukke fokus ek op hierdie Bybelse aanspraak dat die Hebreeuse God reeds vroeg in Sumerië aanbid is.
El-Elyon, Vader van die Gode
Ons kan ten eerste vra: Onder watter naam het Abraham sy God vereer? Was dit die naam Jahweh? Volgens Eksodus 6: 2 was die naam Jahweh nie aan Abraham of enige van die aartsvaders bekend nie. Ons lees: “Verder het God met Moses gespreek en vir hom gesê: Ek is die HERE (Jahweh). En Ek het aan Abraham, aan Isak en aan Jakob verskyn as God, die Almagtige (El-Sjaddai), maar met my Naam HERE (Jahweh) het Ek My nie aan hulle bekend gemaak nie” (Eks. 6: 2). Hiervolgens was Moses die eerste wat die naam Jahweh aan die Hebreeuse God gegee het – nadat Hy in die brandende bos aan Moses verskyn en sy naam aan hom bekend gemaak het.
Abraham sou sy God dus onder die naam El ken. Dit is die naam waaronder die Midde-Oosterse Semiete, ook in antieke Kanaän, die Oppergod vereer het. In die boek Genesis kom twee vorme van die naam El voor, naamlik El-Elyon (God, die Allerhoogste) en El-Sjaddai (God, die Almagtige). Hierdie twee vorme is meer prominent as die ander attribute wat aan Hom toegedig word.
Melgisedek, die koning van Salem (Jerusalem), was ’n priester van El-Elyon (Gen. 14: 18-22). Hy het Abraham (toe nog Abram) tydens hul ontmoeting ná die oorwinning oor die invallende Elamiete, in die naam van El-Elyon geseën (Gen. 14: 17-24). Abraham het later ook saam met sy seun Isak ’n offer by die “berg van die HERE” in Salem (duidelik aan El-Elyon) gaan bring (Gen. 22: 2, 13, 14; vgl. 2 Kron. 3: 1). Die Abrahamse familie het El weer onder die naam El-Sjaddai as hul voorvaderlike God vereer (Gen. 17: 1; 28: 3; 35: 11; 43: 14; 48: 3; Eks. 6: 3 ens.).
Ek wil eers op El-Elyon fokus en kyk hoe hierdie naam verder in die Hebreeuse Bybel gebruik word. Dit is gou duidelik dat hierdie naam na El se rol as vader van die “gode” verwys. Alhoewel ons in die latere Hebreeuse literatuur vind dat die heilige wesens saam met God engele genoem word, was dit nie oorspronklik so nie. In die vroeë Hebreeuse literatuur is die heilige wesens of dan “heiliges” (asook ooreenkomstige gevalle wesens) nog “gode” genoem, net soos in die Kanaänitiese en Sumeriese tradisies. El-Elyon is as die vader van die gode gereken, wat op hul beurt as “Seuns van God (Elohim)” of gewoon “gode” beskou is (Gen. 6: 2; Job 2: 1).[61]
Een van die mooi beskrywings van El-Elyon as “vader van die gode” kom in Psalm 82 voor waar ons lees: “Ek self het gesê: Julle is gode, en julle is almal seuns van die Allerhoogste (Elyon)” (Ps. 82: 6). Ons vind ’n ander mooi beskrywing in Deut. 32: 8 en 9 waar ons lees: “Toe die Allerhoogste (Elyon) aan die nasies ’n erfdeel gegee het, toe Hy die mensekinders van mekaar geskei het, het Hy die grense van die volke vasgestel volgens die getal van die Seuns van God. Want die HERE (Jahweh) se erfdeel is sy volk, Jakob is sy afgemete erfdeel.” (In vroeë vertalings is die grondteks gebruik wat “kinders van Israel” in plaas van “Seuns van God” lees, maar die ontdekking van ’n ou fragment by Qumran in Israel [62] het getoon dat die Septuaginta dit korrek as “Seuns van God” aangee.) Hier word vertel hoedat El-Elyon, duidelik as vader van die gode, die nasies as erfdeel onder die Seuns van God verdeel het.[63]
Die Seuns van God
Wie was hierdie Seuns van God? Alhoewel die Seuns van God nie in die Hebreeuse tradisie duidelik geïdentifiseer word nie, is daar tog enkele gedeeltes wat ons na die vroeë Hebreeuse denke hieromtrent terugneem. So lees ons in Genesis 6: 2 van die Seuns van God wat by die mense se dogters kinders verwek het. (Ek bespreek dit in diepte in my komende boek oor die Gevalle Engele.) Hier verwys dit oënskynlik na gevalle engele (2 Pet. 2: 4, 5; Jud. 1: 6, 7). Ons lees ook elders in die boek Job van hulle, naamlik waar vertel word hoe “die Seuns van God” voor die aangesig van die HERE (Jahweh) verskyn het (Job. 1: 6; 2: 1). Die Satan was tussen hulle.
Ons vind ’n ekwivalente uitdrukking as Seuns van God in Psalm 29: 1 en 89: 7, waar hulle “Seuns van die Magtige” (as “hemelinge” vertaal in die Ou Afrikaanse vertaling van die Bybel) genoem word. Hierdie uitdrukking is waarskynlik oorspronklik ook as “Seuns van God” gelees soos in die Septuaginta en die vroeë Kanaänitiese Ugarit-literatuur gesien kan word.[64,65] Ons lees in hierdie gedeeltes: “Gee aan die HERE (Jahweh), o Seuns van God, gee aan die HERE (Jahweh) eer en sterkte” (Ps. 29: 1) en “die hemele loof u wondermag, o HERE (Jahweh), ook u trou in die vergadering van die heiliges (i.e. heilige wesens). Want wie kan in die hemel met die HERE (Jahweh) vergelyk word? Wie is soos die HERE (Jahweh) onder die Seuns van God” (Ps. 89: 6-7). In hierdie geval verwys dit na goeie engele en hemelwesens. Ons sien dus dat die “Seuns van God” oënskynlik goeie sowel as gevalle hemelwesens ingesluit het.
Verder is daar Deuteronomium 4: 19 en 20, wat duidelik by Deuteronomium 32: 8 en 9 aansluit, waar na die “Seuns van God” verwys word (sien die bespreking in die vorige paragraaf). Ons kan weer Deuteronomium 32: 8 en 9 aanhaal: “Toe die Allerhoogste (Elyon) aan die nasies ’n erfdeel gegee het, toe Hy die mensekinders van mekaar geskei het, het Hy die grense van die volke vasgestel volgens die getal van die Seuns van God. Want die HERE (Jahweh) se erfdeel is sy volk, Jakob is sy afgemete erfdeel.” In Deuteronomium 4: 19 en 20 word daar ook so na die goddelike erflating (aan die “Seuns van God”) verwys, alhoewel daar nou na God, as vader van die gode, onder sy latere naam Jahweh verwys word. Ook hier word genoem dat Jahweh die volk Israel as erfdeel ontvang het.
Ons lees: “[Neem julle dan terdeë in ag] dat jy ook jou oë nie na die hemel opslaan, en as jy die son sien en die maan en die sterre, die hele leër van die hemel, jou laat verlei en voor hulle neerbuig en hulle dien nie – dinge wat die HERE (Jahweh) jou God aan al die volke onder die hele hemel uitgedeel het. Maar die HERE (Jahweh) het julle geneem en julle uit die yster-smeltoond, uit Egipte, uitgelei om sy erfvolk te wees soos dit vandag is.” As ons hierdie gedeelte met Deuteronomium 32: 8 en 9 vergelyk dan lyk dit of die gode van die son, maan en sterre onder die Seuns van God gereken is.
Daar is baie ander gedeeltes wat dit bevestig. Ek noem enkeles. In 1 Konings 22 word diegene rondom God se troon ook, soos in Deuteronomium 4: 19, as die “hemelse leërskare” beskryf (1 Kon. 22: 19). Dit is ’n term wat na die hemelliggame, die sterre en planete, verwys (Ps. 33: 6). Ons lees verder in die boek Job hoe God vir hom (Job) vra: “[Waar was jy] toe die môresterre saam gejubel en al die Seuns van God gejuig het” (Job 38: 7) asook in die Lied van Debora hoedat die sterre aan die geveg deelgeneem het: “Uit die hemel het die sterre geveg, uit hul bane het hulle teen Sisera geveg” (Rigt. 5: 20 – vgl. ook Dan. 8: 10, 11).
Hierdie konsepte was nie uniek aan Israel nie. Dit is konsepte wat wyd oor die antieke Midde-Ooste voorgekom het. Net soos in Israel, is El ook onder die Kanaäniete as die vader van die gode gereken. Ook daar is die gode van die son, maan en sterre onderskei en is hulle “Seuns van God (El)” genoem.[66] Ons vind hierdie konsepte ook in antieke Sumerië, waar die God An as die vader van die gode gereken is. Die God An kom feitlik presies met die Ugaritiese El ooreen.
Die goderaad
El-Elyon was nie alleen die vader van die gode nie; die gode het ook op sy berg byeengekom. Hierdie berg is die “godeberg” of “berg van samekoms” genoem omdat die gode daar vergader het (Eseg. 28: 16; Jes. 14: 13). Ons lees dat hierdie berg in die uithoeke van die noorde te vinde was: “En jy het in jou hart gesê: Ek wil opklim in die hemel, my troon verhef bo die sterre van God en sit op die berg van samekoms in die uithoeke van die noorde. Ek wil klim bo die hoogtes van die wolke, my gelykstel met die Allerhoogste (Elyon)” (Jes. 14: 13,14).
Ons lees nie alleen dat die gode op die godeberg byeengekom het nie; ons lees ook dat hulle saam raad gehou het. Daarom word daar ook in die Hebreeuse literatuur na hierdie samekoms van die gode as die godevergadering of goderaad verwys. Ons lees in Psalm 82: “God staan in die vergadering van die gode; Hy hou gerig te midde van die gode” (Ps. 82: 2). Hier word God (Elohim) [67] uitgebeeld waar Hy regspraak lewer in die goderaad. Ons lees ook in Psalm 89: “Wie is soos die HERE (Jahweh) onder die Seuns van God (sien die vroeëre bespreking), ’n God grootliks gedug in die raad van die heiliges (i.e. heilige wesens)” (Ps. 89: 7, 8). Die goderaad was duidelik ’n baie belangrike konsep in die Hebreeuse tradisie.
Ons vind ’n besondere mooi beskrywing van die goderaad in 1 Konings 22: 19-22. In hierdie geval lees ons hoedat die profeet Miga self in die gees in die goderaad teenwoordig is en die bespreking in die raad dophou. Ons lees: “En die HERE (Jahweh) het gesê: Wie sal Agab oorhaal, dat hy kan optrek en val by Ramot in Gilead? En die een het so gesê, en die ander weer so. Toe kom die gees vorentoe en gaan voor die aangesig van die HERE (Jahweh) staan en sê: Ek sal hom oorhaal. En die HERE (Jahweh) vra hom: Waarmee? En hy sê: Ek sal uitgaan en ’n leuengees word in die mond van al die profete. En Hy sê: Jy sal oorhaal, ja, jy sal ook oorwin; gaan uit en doen so.” In hierdie geval word daar na die betrokke lid van die raad as “die gees” verwys – dit staan in kontras met die ouer tradisie toe die lede van die raad “gode” genoem is.
Die konsep van die godeberg, waar die goderaad byeenkom, was nie uniek tot die Israelitiese tradisie nie. Dit het wyd oor die antieke Midde-Ooste voorgekom. Die Kanaäniete sowel as die Sumeriërs het dieselfde konsep gehuldig. Ons vind in die Kanaänitiese tradisie, net soos in die Hebreeuse tradisie, dat die gode op El se berg byeengekom het. Ook in Mesopotamië was daar ’n baie ou tradisie dat die gode eens op An, die vader van die gode, se berg vergader het.[68] In latere tye het Enlil egter daar in die plek van sy vader An koning van die gode geword en het hulle rondom hom byeengekom.
Waar was die godeberg?
Dit is duidelik dat die konsep van die godeberg baie oud is. In die vroegste tradisies is dit die berg van die vader van die gode, waar al sy “kinders”, die Seuns (of kinders) van God, vergader het. Verder staan die verskillende tradisies nie los van mekaar nie; inteendeel, daar is ’n duidelike kontinuïteit in hierdie tradisie wat baie ver in die geskiedenis teruggaan.
Die vroegste verwysings na hierdie berg kom in die Sumeriese literatuur voor. Hiervolgens is die godeberg “Hursag” genoem, wat “groot/hoof/oudste berg” beteken [69]. Die berg was iewers in die noorde te vinde en is oënskynlik met een of ander berg in die noordelike Zagrosgebergtes verbind [70]. As dit in die gebied van Aratta geleë was, kan ons dit dalk met een van die hoë berge in die gebied van Urartu vereenselwig (sien die bespreking in Hoofstuk 2).
Sien plaat 12 op bladsy 122 vir 'n foto van die berg Sahand, agter in die Zagros-gebergtes en naby die Urmia-meer in die noorde van die hedendaagse Iran. Was dit dalk die godeberg in die noorde?
In latere weergawes van die Gilgamesh-heldeverhaal verskuif die ligging van hierdie berg na die weste en word dit iewers in die Westelike Sederberge, wat na die Amanusgebergtes verwys, geplaas [71]. Ons lees hoedat die helde van hierdie heldeverhaal uiteindelik na ’n lang tog die berg te siene gekry het: “They were gazing at the Cedar Mountain, the dwelling of the gods, the trone-dais of the goddesses” [72].
Hierdie Westelike godeberg is waarskynlik presies dieselfde godeberg wat deur die Kanaäniete erken is. Hulle het een van die hoogste pieke in die Amanus, Berg Haman, met die godeberg van El vereenselwig. Hierdie berg is “Hursanu” genoem [73] – duidelik afgelei van die Sumeriese naam “Hursag”. As hierdie berg regoor die Midde-Ooste as godeberg erken is, dan verwag ons dat die godemitologie wat met hierdie berg vereenselwig is, ook grotendeels sou ooreenstem.
Die Sion-godeberg
Dit is moontlik dat die heilige berg in Jerusalem reeds in die tyd van Abraham of selfs vroeër as ’n plaaslike weergawe van die godeberg erken is. As sodanig was dit ’n aardse weergawe van die kosmiese godeberg waar God regeer. Volgens die Genesis-verhaal is El-Elyon, die vader van die gode wat op die godeberg byeenkom (vgl. die bogenoemde bespreking), reeds in die tyd van Melgisedek daar – waarskynlik op dieselfde berg – in Jerusalem (wat toe nog Salem genoem is) vereer. Ons vind dan ook dat die benaming van El-Elyon se berg as “berg van samekoms in die uithoeke van die noorde” (Jes. 14: 13, 14), ook op hierdie berg, wat later Sion genoem is (Ps. 9: 11; 74: 2; 76: 2 ens.), van toepassing gemaak is soos ons lees:
“[D]ie berg Sion, in die uithoeke van die noorde …” (Ps. 48: 3, letterlik vertaal.[74])
Volgens die Genesis-verhaal het Abraham self ook vir El as El-Elyon vereer. Ons kan dit sien in die verhaal van die oorwinning oor die Elamiete waar Melgisedek, die priester van El-Elyon, vir hom as priester opgetree het (Gen. 14: 17-24). Hy het self ook na die berg van El-Elyon gegaan – dit is as ons aanvaar dat die berg waar hy vir Isak moes gaan offer dieselfde berg in Jerusalem is waar Melgisedek die priester-koning was. Dit maak sin dat hy daarheen sou gaan omdat Melgisedek vroeër as sy priester opgetree het. Hierdie berg word dan ook “berg van die HERE” (Gen. 22: 14) genoem.
Wie was El-Elyon?
As El-Elyon reeds in daardie vroeë tyd deur die Abrahamse familie op die godeberg in Salem as die plaaslike weergawe van die vader van die gode vereer is, dan is dit heel moontlik dat hulle Hom as die eweknie van die Sumeriese vader van die gode beskou het. Vanweë hul afkoms uit Sumerië sou hulle Hom ook onder sy Sumeriese naam An ken. Wat Elyon betref, is dit opvallend dat Hy nie alleen soos An as die vader van die gode beskou is nie, maar dat die betekenis van die naam Elyon, naamlik “Allerhoogste”, feitlik presies met die naam van die God An ooreenkom (sien hieronder).
Soos ek vroeër genoem het, is die wigskrifsimbool wat gebruik is om An se naam te skryf ook gebruik om...
(einde van die aanhaling uit hoofstuk 5 van Op soek na Abraham en sy God)
Notas in die aangehaalde teks
60. In die Ou Afrikaanse vertaling word die Godsnaam Yahweh as HERE geskryf.
61. Hierdie terminologie sal vir baie Christene vreemd klink omdat dit nie baie in die Bybel voorkom nie. As hulle aan “gode” dink, dan dink hulle dadelik aan afgode. Dit is egter nie wat die term hier beteken nie. Dit is gewoon die antieke manier om na “hemelse wesens” te verwys, waarvan sommige goed was en andere gevalle geraak het. In latere tye het hierdie term in die Hebreeuse tradisie in onbruik verval en is daar van engele gepraat – waarvan sommige ook goed en ander gevalle was. Latere variante van die Septuaginta vertaal dan ook die uitdrukking “Seuns van God” in Gen. 6: 2 as “engele”.
62. Die tekste is in 1947 daar ontdek.
63. Ons vind ook later dat daar in die Hebreeuse literatuur melding gemaak word van sekere “vorste” wat oor volke soos die Perse en Grieke geheers het (Dan. 10: 20). Hier is die benaming “god” (vir die gode van die ander volke) met “vors” (duidelik ’n engel) vervang.
64. Mullen 1980:191
65. Die betekenis van die woord “El” (God) is ook “Magtige”.
66. Mullen 1980:195-196
67. Dit is die mees algemene Hebreeuse woord vir God.
68. Jacobsen 1987:280
69. George 2003:466
70. Falkowitz 1983:108
71. George 2003:93
72. George 2003:603
73. Mullen 1980:130
74. Mullen 1980:154
Die aanhaling is uit hoofstuk 5 van Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale, deur Dr Willie Mc Loud (uitgewer: Griffel, 2012).
Lees ook: Abraham en sy God - Inleiding
Hoofstuk 1: Abraham is die skakel
Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com
“Wie kan in die hemel met die HERE vergelyk word? Wie is soos die HERE onder die hemelinge [i.e. Seuns van God], ’n God grootliks gedug in die raad van die heiliges [i.e. heilige wesens]” (Ps. 89:7, 8).[60]
Ons het tot nou toe grotendeels op daardie deel van die Genesis-verhaal gefokus wat in die Bybel as die vroegste geskiedenis van die mensdom, en veral van Abraham se voorsate, geneem word. Hierdie verhaal oor die vroeë tyd bevat egter ook ander materiaal wat oorspronklik na die Sumeriese milieu kan teruggaan. Ek wil dus nou die soeklig na daardie aspekte van die Israelitiese tradisie uitbrei. Daar is goeie rede om te dink dat belangrike elemente van die Hebreeuse godsdiens en wêreldbeskouing ook na antieke Sumerië teruggevoer kan word. Dat die aanbidding van die God El – onder die name waarin Hy in Genesis genoem word – reeds vroeg onder die Semiete (en selfs Sumeriërs) in Mesopotamië voorgekom het.
Alhoewel ’n mens kan dink dat die God wat vir Abraham geroep het, vir die eerste keer in die geskiedenis daar Sy verskyning gemaak het, is dit nie wat ons in die Genesis-verhaal vind nie. Hiervolgens is die God van Israel reeds deur Adam en Eva aanbid. Sy verering het later na vroeë Sumerië versprei waar Hy deur Henog en Noag aanbid is (ek veronderstel hulle het daar gewoon). Hy was onder andere ook by gebeure soos die vloed en taleverwarring betrokke. Dit was ook daar in Sumerië waar God aanvanklik aan Abraham (toe nog Abram) verskyn het (Gen. 15: 7; Hand. 7: 2, 3), nog voordat Hy deur hom en sy nageslag in Kanaän vereer is. Dit impliseer dat die verering van Abraham se God na Sumerië teruggevoer kan word. Alhoewel God ’n nuwe begin met Abraham (toe nog Abram) maak, was hy beslis nie die eerste persoon wat God aanbid het nie. In die volgende twee hoofstukke fokus ek op hierdie Bybelse aanspraak dat die Hebreeuse God reeds vroeg in Sumerië aanbid is.
El-Elyon, Vader van die Gode
Ons kan ten eerste vra: Onder watter naam het Abraham sy God vereer? Was dit die naam Jahweh? Volgens Eksodus 6: 2 was die naam Jahweh nie aan Abraham of enige van die aartsvaders bekend nie. Ons lees: “Verder het God met Moses gespreek en vir hom gesê: Ek is die HERE (Jahweh). En Ek het aan Abraham, aan Isak en aan Jakob verskyn as God, die Almagtige (El-Sjaddai), maar met my Naam HERE (Jahweh) het Ek My nie aan hulle bekend gemaak nie” (Eks. 6: 2). Hiervolgens was Moses die eerste wat die naam Jahweh aan die Hebreeuse God gegee het – nadat Hy in die brandende bos aan Moses verskyn en sy naam aan hom bekend gemaak het.
Abraham sou sy God dus onder die naam El ken. Dit is die naam waaronder die Midde-Oosterse Semiete, ook in antieke Kanaän, die Oppergod vereer het. In die boek Genesis kom twee vorme van die naam El voor, naamlik El-Elyon (God, die Allerhoogste) en El-Sjaddai (God, die Almagtige). Hierdie twee vorme is meer prominent as die ander attribute wat aan Hom toegedig word.
Melgisedek, die koning van Salem (Jerusalem), was ’n priester van El-Elyon (Gen. 14: 18-22). Hy het Abraham (toe nog Abram) tydens hul ontmoeting ná die oorwinning oor die invallende Elamiete, in die naam van El-Elyon geseën (Gen. 14: 17-24). Abraham het later ook saam met sy seun Isak ’n offer by die “berg van die HERE” in Salem (duidelik aan El-Elyon) gaan bring (Gen. 22: 2, 13, 14; vgl. 2 Kron. 3: 1). Die Abrahamse familie het El weer onder die naam El-Sjaddai as hul voorvaderlike God vereer (Gen. 17: 1; 28: 3; 35: 11; 43: 14; 48: 3; Eks. 6: 3 ens.).
Ek wil eers op El-Elyon fokus en kyk hoe hierdie naam verder in die Hebreeuse Bybel gebruik word. Dit is gou duidelik dat hierdie naam na El se rol as vader van die “gode” verwys. Alhoewel ons in die latere Hebreeuse literatuur vind dat die heilige wesens saam met God engele genoem word, was dit nie oorspronklik so nie. In die vroeë Hebreeuse literatuur is die heilige wesens of dan “heiliges” (asook ooreenkomstige gevalle wesens) nog “gode” genoem, net soos in die Kanaänitiese en Sumeriese tradisies. El-Elyon is as die vader van die gode gereken, wat op hul beurt as “Seuns van God (Elohim)” of gewoon “gode” beskou is (Gen. 6: 2; Job 2: 1).[61]
Een van die mooi beskrywings van El-Elyon as “vader van die gode” kom in Psalm 82 voor waar ons lees: “Ek self het gesê: Julle is gode, en julle is almal seuns van die Allerhoogste (Elyon)” (Ps. 82: 6). Ons vind ’n ander mooi beskrywing in Deut. 32: 8 en 9 waar ons lees: “Toe die Allerhoogste (Elyon) aan die nasies ’n erfdeel gegee het, toe Hy die mensekinders van mekaar geskei het, het Hy die grense van die volke vasgestel volgens die getal van die Seuns van God. Want die HERE (Jahweh) se erfdeel is sy volk, Jakob is sy afgemete erfdeel.” (In vroeë vertalings is die grondteks gebruik wat “kinders van Israel” in plaas van “Seuns van God” lees, maar die ontdekking van ’n ou fragment by Qumran in Israel [62] het getoon dat die Septuaginta dit korrek as “Seuns van God” aangee.) Hier word vertel hoedat El-Elyon, duidelik as vader van die gode, die nasies as erfdeel onder die Seuns van God verdeel het.[63]
Die Seuns van God
Wie was hierdie Seuns van God? Alhoewel die Seuns van God nie in die Hebreeuse tradisie duidelik geïdentifiseer word nie, is daar tog enkele gedeeltes wat ons na die vroeë Hebreeuse denke hieromtrent terugneem. So lees ons in Genesis 6: 2 van die Seuns van God wat by die mense se dogters kinders verwek het. (Ek bespreek dit in diepte in my komende boek oor die Gevalle Engele.) Hier verwys dit oënskynlik na gevalle engele (2 Pet. 2: 4, 5; Jud. 1: 6, 7). Ons lees ook elders in die boek Job van hulle, naamlik waar vertel word hoe “die Seuns van God” voor die aangesig van die HERE (Jahweh) verskyn het (Job. 1: 6; 2: 1). Die Satan was tussen hulle.
Ons vind ’n ekwivalente uitdrukking as Seuns van God in Psalm 29: 1 en 89: 7, waar hulle “Seuns van die Magtige” (as “hemelinge” vertaal in die Ou Afrikaanse vertaling van die Bybel) genoem word. Hierdie uitdrukking is waarskynlik oorspronklik ook as “Seuns van God” gelees soos in die Septuaginta en die vroeë Kanaänitiese Ugarit-literatuur gesien kan word.[64,65] Ons lees in hierdie gedeeltes: “Gee aan die HERE (Jahweh), o Seuns van God, gee aan die HERE (Jahweh) eer en sterkte” (Ps. 29: 1) en “die hemele loof u wondermag, o HERE (Jahweh), ook u trou in die vergadering van die heiliges (i.e. heilige wesens). Want wie kan in die hemel met die HERE (Jahweh) vergelyk word? Wie is soos die HERE (Jahweh) onder die Seuns van God” (Ps. 89: 6-7). In hierdie geval verwys dit na goeie engele en hemelwesens. Ons sien dus dat die “Seuns van God” oënskynlik goeie sowel as gevalle hemelwesens ingesluit het.
Verder is daar Deuteronomium 4: 19 en 20, wat duidelik by Deuteronomium 32: 8 en 9 aansluit, waar na die “Seuns van God” verwys word (sien die bespreking in die vorige paragraaf). Ons kan weer Deuteronomium 32: 8 en 9 aanhaal: “Toe die Allerhoogste (Elyon) aan die nasies ’n erfdeel gegee het, toe Hy die mensekinders van mekaar geskei het, het Hy die grense van die volke vasgestel volgens die getal van die Seuns van God. Want die HERE (Jahweh) se erfdeel is sy volk, Jakob is sy afgemete erfdeel.” In Deuteronomium 4: 19 en 20 word daar ook so na die goddelike erflating (aan die “Seuns van God”) verwys, alhoewel daar nou na God, as vader van die gode, onder sy latere naam Jahweh verwys word. Ook hier word genoem dat Jahweh die volk Israel as erfdeel ontvang het.
Ons lees: “[Neem julle dan terdeë in ag] dat jy ook jou oë nie na die hemel opslaan, en as jy die son sien en die maan en die sterre, die hele leër van die hemel, jou laat verlei en voor hulle neerbuig en hulle dien nie – dinge wat die HERE (Jahweh) jou God aan al die volke onder die hele hemel uitgedeel het. Maar die HERE (Jahweh) het julle geneem en julle uit die yster-smeltoond, uit Egipte, uitgelei om sy erfvolk te wees soos dit vandag is.” As ons hierdie gedeelte met Deuteronomium 32: 8 en 9 vergelyk dan lyk dit of die gode van die son, maan en sterre onder die Seuns van God gereken is.
Daar is baie ander gedeeltes wat dit bevestig. Ek noem enkeles. In 1 Konings 22 word diegene rondom God se troon ook, soos in Deuteronomium 4: 19, as die “hemelse leërskare” beskryf (1 Kon. 22: 19). Dit is ’n term wat na die hemelliggame, die sterre en planete, verwys (Ps. 33: 6). Ons lees verder in die boek Job hoe God vir hom (Job) vra: “[Waar was jy] toe die môresterre saam gejubel en al die Seuns van God gejuig het” (Job 38: 7) asook in die Lied van Debora hoedat die sterre aan die geveg deelgeneem het: “Uit die hemel het die sterre geveg, uit hul bane het hulle teen Sisera geveg” (Rigt. 5: 20 – vgl. ook Dan. 8: 10, 11).
Hierdie konsepte was nie uniek aan Israel nie. Dit is konsepte wat wyd oor die antieke Midde-Ooste voorgekom het. Net soos in Israel, is El ook onder die Kanaäniete as die vader van die gode gereken. Ook daar is die gode van die son, maan en sterre onderskei en is hulle “Seuns van God (El)” genoem.[66] Ons vind hierdie konsepte ook in antieke Sumerië, waar die God An as die vader van die gode gereken is. Die God An kom feitlik presies met die Ugaritiese El ooreen.
Die goderaad
El-Elyon was nie alleen die vader van die gode nie; die gode het ook op sy berg byeengekom. Hierdie berg is die “godeberg” of “berg van samekoms” genoem omdat die gode daar vergader het (Eseg. 28: 16; Jes. 14: 13). Ons lees dat hierdie berg in die uithoeke van die noorde te vinde was: “En jy het in jou hart gesê: Ek wil opklim in die hemel, my troon verhef bo die sterre van God en sit op die berg van samekoms in die uithoeke van die noorde. Ek wil klim bo die hoogtes van die wolke, my gelykstel met die Allerhoogste (Elyon)” (Jes. 14: 13,14).
Ons lees nie alleen dat die gode op die godeberg byeengekom het nie; ons lees ook dat hulle saam raad gehou het. Daarom word daar ook in die Hebreeuse literatuur na hierdie samekoms van die gode as die godevergadering of goderaad verwys. Ons lees in Psalm 82: “God staan in die vergadering van die gode; Hy hou gerig te midde van die gode” (Ps. 82: 2). Hier word God (Elohim) [67] uitgebeeld waar Hy regspraak lewer in die goderaad. Ons lees ook in Psalm 89: “Wie is soos die HERE (Jahweh) onder die Seuns van God (sien die vroeëre bespreking), ’n God grootliks gedug in die raad van die heiliges (i.e. heilige wesens)” (Ps. 89: 7, 8). Die goderaad was duidelik ’n baie belangrike konsep in die Hebreeuse tradisie.
Ons vind ’n besondere mooi beskrywing van die goderaad in 1 Konings 22: 19-22. In hierdie geval lees ons hoedat die profeet Miga self in die gees in die goderaad teenwoordig is en die bespreking in die raad dophou. Ons lees: “En die HERE (Jahweh) het gesê: Wie sal Agab oorhaal, dat hy kan optrek en val by Ramot in Gilead? En die een het so gesê, en die ander weer so. Toe kom die gees vorentoe en gaan voor die aangesig van die HERE (Jahweh) staan en sê: Ek sal hom oorhaal. En die HERE (Jahweh) vra hom: Waarmee? En hy sê: Ek sal uitgaan en ’n leuengees word in die mond van al die profete. En Hy sê: Jy sal oorhaal, ja, jy sal ook oorwin; gaan uit en doen so.” In hierdie geval word daar na die betrokke lid van die raad as “die gees” verwys – dit staan in kontras met die ouer tradisie toe die lede van die raad “gode” genoem is.
Die konsep van die godeberg, waar die goderaad byeenkom, was nie uniek tot die Israelitiese tradisie nie. Dit het wyd oor die antieke Midde-Ooste voorgekom. Die Kanaäniete sowel as die Sumeriërs het dieselfde konsep gehuldig. Ons vind in die Kanaänitiese tradisie, net soos in die Hebreeuse tradisie, dat die gode op El se berg byeengekom het. Ook in Mesopotamië was daar ’n baie ou tradisie dat die gode eens op An, die vader van die gode, se berg vergader het.[68] In latere tye het Enlil egter daar in die plek van sy vader An koning van die gode geword en het hulle rondom hom byeengekom.
Waar was die godeberg?
Dit is duidelik dat die konsep van die godeberg baie oud is. In die vroegste tradisies is dit die berg van die vader van die gode, waar al sy “kinders”, die Seuns (of kinders) van God, vergader het. Verder staan die verskillende tradisies nie los van mekaar nie; inteendeel, daar is ’n duidelike kontinuïteit in hierdie tradisie wat baie ver in die geskiedenis teruggaan.
Die vroegste verwysings na hierdie berg kom in die Sumeriese literatuur voor. Hiervolgens is die godeberg “Hursag” genoem, wat “groot/hoof/oudste berg” beteken [69]. Die berg was iewers in die noorde te vinde en is oënskynlik met een of ander berg in die noordelike Zagrosgebergtes verbind [70]. As dit in die gebied van Aratta geleë was, kan ons dit dalk met een van die hoë berge in die gebied van Urartu vereenselwig (sien die bespreking in Hoofstuk 2).
Sien plaat 12 op bladsy 122 vir 'n foto van die berg Sahand, agter in die Zagros-gebergtes en naby die Urmia-meer in die noorde van die hedendaagse Iran. Was dit dalk die godeberg in die noorde?
In latere weergawes van die Gilgamesh-heldeverhaal verskuif die ligging van hierdie berg na die weste en word dit iewers in die Westelike Sederberge, wat na die Amanusgebergtes verwys, geplaas [71]. Ons lees hoedat die helde van hierdie heldeverhaal uiteindelik na ’n lang tog die berg te siene gekry het: “They were gazing at the Cedar Mountain, the dwelling of the gods, the trone-dais of the goddesses” [72].
Hierdie Westelike godeberg is waarskynlik presies dieselfde godeberg wat deur die Kanaäniete erken is. Hulle het een van die hoogste pieke in die Amanus, Berg Haman, met die godeberg van El vereenselwig. Hierdie berg is “Hursanu” genoem [73] – duidelik afgelei van die Sumeriese naam “Hursag”. As hierdie berg regoor die Midde-Ooste as godeberg erken is, dan verwag ons dat die godemitologie wat met hierdie berg vereenselwig is, ook grotendeels sou ooreenstem.
Die Sion-godeberg
Dit is moontlik dat die heilige berg in Jerusalem reeds in die tyd van Abraham of selfs vroeër as ’n plaaslike weergawe van die godeberg erken is. As sodanig was dit ’n aardse weergawe van die kosmiese godeberg waar God regeer. Volgens die Genesis-verhaal is El-Elyon, die vader van die gode wat op die godeberg byeenkom (vgl. die bogenoemde bespreking), reeds in die tyd van Melgisedek daar – waarskynlik op dieselfde berg – in Jerusalem (wat toe nog Salem genoem is) vereer. Ons vind dan ook dat die benaming van El-Elyon se berg as “berg van samekoms in die uithoeke van die noorde” (Jes. 14: 13, 14), ook op hierdie berg, wat later Sion genoem is (Ps. 9: 11; 74: 2; 76: 2 ens.), van toepassing gemaak is soos ons lees:
“[D]ie berg Sion, in die uithoeke van die noorde …” (Ps. 48: 3, letterlik vertaal.[74])
Volgens die Genesis-verhaal het Abraham self ook vir El as El-Elyon vereer. Ons kan dit sien in die verhaal van die oorwinning oor die Elamiete waar Melgisedek, die priester van El-Elyon, vir hom as priester opgetree het (Gen. 14: 17-24). Hy het self ook na die berg van El-Elyon gegaan – dit is as ons aanvaar dat die berg waar hy vir Isak moes gaan offer dieselfde berg in Jerusalem is waar Melgisedek die priester-koning was. Dit maak sin dat hy daarheen sou gaan omdat Melgisedek vroeër as sy priester opgetree het. Hierdie berg word dan ook “berg van die HERE” (Gen. 22: 14) genoem.
Wie was El-Elyon?
As El-Elyon reeds in daardie vroeë tyd deur die Abrahamse familie op die godeberg in Salem as die plaaslike weergawe van die vader van die gode vereer is, dan is dit heel moontlik dat hulle Hom as die eweknie van die Sumeriese vader van die gode beskou het. Vanweë hul afkoms uit Sumerië sou hulle Hom ook onder sy Sumeriese naam An ken. Wat Elyon betref, is dit opvallend dat Hy nie alleen soos An as die vader van die gode beskou is nie, maar dat die betekenis van die naam Elyon, naamlik “Allerhoogste”, feitlik presies met die naam van die God An ooreenkom (sien hieronder).
Soos ek vroeër genoem het, is die wigskrifsimbool wat gebruik is om An se naam te skryf ook gebruik om...
(einde van die aanhaling uit hoofstuk 5 van Op soek na Abraham en sy God)
Notas in die aangehaalde teks
60. In die Ou Afrikaanse vertaling word die Godsnaam Yahweh as HERE geskryf.
61. Hierdie terminologie sal vir baie Christene vreemd klink omdat dit nie baie in die Bybel voorkom nie. As hulle aan “gode” dink, dan dink hulle dadelik aan afgode. Dit is egter nie wat die term hier beteken nie. Dit is gewoon die antieke manier om na “hemelse wesens” te verwys, waarvan sommige goed was en andere gevalle geraak het. In latere tye het hierdie term in die Hebreeuse tradisie in onbruik verval en is daar van engele gepraat – waarvan sommige ook goed en ander gevalle was. Latere variante van die Septuaginta vertaal dan ook die uitdrukking “Seuns van God” in Gen. 6: 2 as “engele”.
62. Die tekste is in 1947 daar ontdek.
63. Ons vind ook later dat daar in die Hebreeuse literatuur melding gemaak word van sekere “vorste” wat oor volke soos die Perse en Grieke geheers het (Dan. 10: 20). Hier is die benaming “god” (vir die gode van die ander volke) met “vors” (duidelik ’n engel) vervang.
64. Mullen 1980:191
65. Die betekenis van die woord “El” (God) is ook “Magtige”.
66. Mullen 1980:195-196
67. Dit is die mees algemene Hebreeuse woord vir God.
68. Jacobsen 1987:280
69. George 2003:466
70. Falkowitz 1983:108
71. George 2003:93
72. George 2003:603
73. Mullen 1980:130
74. Mullen 1980:154
Die aanhaling is uit hoofstuk 5 van Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale, deur Dr Willie Mc Loud (uitgewer: Griffel, 2012).
Lees ook: Abraham en sy God - Inleiding
Hoofstuk 1: Abraham is die skakel
Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com
Monday, 17 September 2012
Sakkie Spangenberg en Modernisme
Sedert die begin van die jaar vind daar 'n gesprek oor die wetenskaplikheid van sogenaamde "Bybelwetenskap" in die tydskrif Markplein plaas. In 'n brief aan Markplein (Junie 2012) het ek aangevoer dat Bybelwetenskap in effek 'n "pseudo-wetenskap" is. Sakkie Spangenberg het toe in 'n brief daarop gereageer (Julie 2012). My reaksie op sy skrywe verskyn in die nuutste uitgawe van Markplein (September 2012). Ek plaas dit ook hier op my blog.
Willie McLoud reageer in sy brief op Sakkie Spangenberg se artikel wat in die Julie uitgawe van Markplein verskyn het en waarin hy verduidelik het hoe die Bybelwetenskap werk.
Willie McLoud reageer in sy brief op Sakkie Spangenberg se artikel wat in die Julie uitgawe van Markplein verskyn het en waarin hy verduidelik het hoe die Bybelwetenskap werk.
Ek wil graag op Sakkie Spangenberg se reaksie op my brief in Markplein (5/2012) reageer. Volgens Sakkie het ek 'n broertjie dood" aan die woord "Bybelwetenskaplike". Dit lyk vir my so al of Sakkie my met hierdie opmerking soos 'n lastige vlieg probeer afskud. Hy ignoreer my problematiek en gaan gewoon voort om te bevestig dat "vakspesialiste" soos hy weet wat hulle doen. So asof ander mense geen reg het om vrae te vra nie. So asof net hy en ander "Bybelwetenskaplikes" die reg het om uiteindelik uitsprake oor die "wetenskaplikheid" van hul studieveld te maak. Na my mening gaan dit hier oor die wortel van die problematiek wat die huidige godsdienstige gesprek in Suid-Afrika raak. In Afrikaans word die woord "wetenskaplik" in 'n baie wye sin gebruik - dit kan 'n empiriese wetenskap maar ook hermeneutiese dissiplines soos teksstudies insluit. Hierdie vaagheid in die omskrywing van die woord "wetenskap" gaan terug na die tyd van modernisme toe verskeie dissiplines (soos teksstudies) in hul poging om as "wetenskappe" erken te word, nog empiries-wetenskaplike benaderings nagestreef het. My aanklag is dat dit die vakgebied ten diepste gekompromitteer en uiteindelik ook gediskrediteer het, juis omdat die dissipline vanuit sulke positivistiese wortels gegroei het. Ek maak die aantuiging dat die verwerping van die historisiteit van alle wondergebeure in die Bybel juis die gevolg is van hierdie benadering wat deur die jare in die studie van die Bybelse teks gevolg is.
My betoog is dat ons nie alleen tussen die ou pre-moderne en die latere moderne paradigma moet onderskei soos Sakkie noem nie, maar ook tussen die moderne en postmoderne paradigma. Alhoewel ek nie by die postmoderne paradigma inkoop nie, stel ons situering in die postmoderne era ons in staat om die moderne paradigma sinvol te kritiseer. Dit lyk vir my so al of Sakkie nog in die raamwerk van die moderne (waarby ek modernistiese bedoel) paradigma opereer (Diek se artikels in Markplein toon dieselfde inslag). Dit blyk vir hom moeilik te wees om te aanvaar dat ons vandag vir verskeie narratiewe kan ruimte maak en dat "wetenskaplikes" soos hy wat in hul vakdissiplinêre paradigma vasgevang is (soos die wetenskapsfilosoof Hans Kuhn uitgewys het) dit uit die aard van die saak moeilik vind om te aanvaar dat ander narratiewe ook geldig kan wees. Oor sy summiere verwerping van die moontlikheid dat prominente Bybel figure soos Abraham werklik kon lewe, kan ek net na die werk van Martin Bernal verwys (veral bekend vir sy boek "Black Athena"), wat toon dat die "hiperkritiese" en "beterweterige" houding van geleerdes nie aan die feit verander dat diegene wat die tekste geskryf het baie nader aan daardie gebeure gelewe het nie (in direkte kontinuïteit van daardie vroeë tradisie). Hulle was in sekere opsigte in 'n baie beter posisie as ons om oor daardie geskiedenis te oordeel. Ons weet vandag (in die postmoderne tyd) dat hipotese-toetsing in teksstudies altyd voorlopige data insluit (dit is nie in empiriese eksperimentering of gekontroleerde ondersoek gegrond nie) en dat Bybelse geleerdes in effek nooit in 'n posisie sal wees om te weet of hulle enigsins "reg" is nie. Soos reeds genoem, vind alle hipotese-toetsing verder in die raamwerk van die "wetenskaplike" tekskritiek paradigma plaas wat onherroeplik deur sy modernistiese wortels gekompromitteer is.
Vir enige "oop gesprek" is dit belangrik dat die gespreksgenote regtig probeer om na mekaar te luister. Ek is nie seker of Sakkie (en Diek) regtig "hoor" wat ek sê nie. My siening is in my boek Op soek na Abraham en sy God (Griffel) beskikbaar.
Willie McLoud
My vorige skrywes aan Markplein is ook op hierdie blog gepos (www.wmcloud.blogspot.com) en kan gelees word deur op die sleutelwoord "Markplein" regs op die blog te klik. 'n Belangrike artikel oor Bybelwetenskap getiteld "Om te glo of nie te glo nie..." het in Pomp 12 verskyn en verskyn onder die lys van populêre artikels regs op hierdie blog.
Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com
My betoog is dat ons nie alleen tussen die ou pre-moderne en die latere moderne paradigma moet onderskei soos Sakkie noem nie, maar ook tussen die moderne en postmoderne paradigma. Alhoewel ek nie by die postmoderne paradigma inkoop nie, stel ons situering in die postmoderne era ons in staat om die moderne paradigma sinvol te kritiseer. Dit lyk vir my so al of Sakkie nog in die raamwerk van die moderne (waarby ek modernistiese bedoel) paradigma opereer (Diek se artikels in Markplein toon dieselfde inslag). Dit blyk vir hom moeilik te wees om te aanvaar dat ons vandag vir verskeie narratiewe kan ruimte maak en dat "wetenskaplikes" soos hy wat in hul vakdissiplinêre paradigma vasgevang is (soos die wetenskapsfilosoof Hans Kuhn uitgewys het) dit uit die aard van die saak moeilik vind om te aanvaar dat ander narratiewe ook geldig kan wees. Oor sy summiere verwerping van die moontlikheid dat prominente Bybel figure soos Abraham werklik kon lewe, kan ek net na die werk van Martin Bernal verwys (veral bekend vir sy boek "Black Athena"), wat toon dat die "hiperkritiese" en "beterweterige" houding van geleerdes nie aan die feit verander dat diegene wat die tekste geskryf het baie nader aan daardie gebeure gelewe het nie (in direkte kontinuïteit van daardie vroeë tradisie). Hulle was in sekere opsigte in 'n baie beter posisie as ons om oor daardie geskiedenis te oordeel. Ons weet vandag (in die postmoderne tyd) dat hipotese-toetsing in teksstudies altyd voorlopige data insluit (dit is nie in empiriese eksperimentering of gekontroleerde ondersoek gegrond nie) en dat Bybelse geleerdes in effek nooit in 'n posisie sal wees om te weet of hulle enigsins "reg" is nie. Soos reeds genoem, vind alle hipotese-toetsing verder in die raamwerk van die "wetenskaplike" tekskritiek paradigma plaas wat onherroeplik deur sy modernistiese wortels gekompromitteer is.
Vir enige "oop gesprek" is dit belangrik dat die gespreksgenote regtig probeer om na mekaar te luister. Ek is nie seker of Sakkie (en Diek) regtig "hoor" wat ek sê nie. My siening is in my boek Op soek na Abraham en sy God (Griffel) beskikbaar.
Willie McLoud
My vorige skrywes aan Markplein is ook op hierdie blog gepos (www.wmcloud.blogspot.com) en kan gelees word deur op die sleutelwoord "Markplein" regs op die blog te klik. 'n Belangrike artikel oor Bybelwetenskap getiteld "Om te glo of nie te glo nie..." het in Pomp 12 verskyn en verskyn onder die lys van populêre artikels regs op hierdie blog.
Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com
Monday, 3 September 2012
Abraham is die skakel
Is daar enige bewyse dat Abraham 'n historiese figuur was soos wat in die Genesis verhaal vertel word? Dit is die tema van hoofstuk 1 van my nuwe boek oor Abraham en sy God wat hier gepos word.
“En Tera het sy seun Abram geneem en Lot, die seun van Haran, sy kleinseun, en Sarai, sy skoondogter, die vrou van sy seun Abram, en dié het saam met hulle uit Ur van die Chaldeërs getrek om na die land Kanaän te gaan” (Gen. 11: 31).
Ons studie begin by Abraham (eers Abram genoem). Volgens die Bybel was Abraham een van die belangrikste voorouers van Israel. God het hom geroep terwyl hy nog in die stad Ur in die suidelike Sumeriese vlaktes gewoon het (Gen. 11: 28, 12: 1, 15: 7; Hand. 7: 2). Alhoewel die Bybel nie daaroor uitbrei nie, kry ’n mens die indruk dat sy familie toe alreeds vir baie jare daar woonagtig was. Die Bybel verwys na dié stad as Ur “van die Chaldeërs” – wat aandui watter Ur ter sprake is. Die Chaldeërs is ’n ander naam vir die Neo-Babiloniërs en die uitdrukking word sporadies vanaf die tiende eeu v.C. vir die gebied suid van die stad Babel gebruik.
Ur is ’n baie ou Mesopotamiese stad wat naby die mond van die Eufraatrivier by die Persiese Golf geleë was. Die seevlak het sedertdien gedaal en die ruïnes van Ur (Tell el-Huqayyar) lê vandag redelik ver van die see. Dit was ’n baie belangrike Sumeriese stad wat tot so laat as die laaste deel van die derde millennium v.C. (±2000 v.C.) nog die sentrum van die Sumeriese kultuur was. In daardie tyd was dit die hoofstad van die konings van die Derde Dinastie van Ur (Ur III) – die laaste Sumeriese heersers wat oor Mesopotamië sou regeer.
Volgens die Bybel het Abraham saam met ’n aantal van sy familielede uit Ur na die land Kanaän geïmmigreer. Hulle het al met die Eufraatrivier op tot by die stad Haran getrek en vandaar suidwaarts na Kanaän. Abraham verteenwoordig dus ’n baie belangrike skakel tussen die antieke Sumeriese beskawing en die latere Israel. As
ons oorblyfsels van die Sumeriese tradisie in die Israelitiese literatuur waarneem, dan moet ons die moontlikheid oorweeg dat dit ten minste gedeeltelik deur Abraham na Sumerië teruggaan – dit is nou as ons die Abrahamse verhaal ernstig kan opneem …
’n Historiese Abraham?
As ons die geskiedkundigheid van die Abraham-verhaal wil ondersoek, moet ons eers weet wanneer hy sou lewe. Om ’n datum vir Abraham vas te stel, word twee belangrike jaartellings in die Bybel gebruik, naamlik die tydsduur van Abraham se koms na Kanaän tot Israel se uittog uit Egipte (Eks. 12: 40) asook die tydsduur van die uittog tot die bou van die tempel (1 Kon. 6: 1).
Volgens die Joodse geskiedskrywer, Josefus (Antiquities of the Jews, XV: 2), wat kort ná die tyd van Christus geskryf het, het Abraham 430 jaar voor die uittog uit Egipte in Kanaän aangekom. Ons vind hierdie selfde inligting in die Nuwe Testament (Gal. 3: 16, 17) waar Paulus (soos baie ander Nuwe Testamentiese skrywers) uit die Septuaginta, die Griekse vertaling van die Bybel wat uit die tyd voor Christus dateer, aanhaal. Ons lees in die Septuaginta: “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years” (Eks. 12: 40). Ons Bybel (in al die vertalings) laat die gedeelte weg wat ek in kursief geplaas het [5]. Verder was die tydsduur van die uittog tot die vierde jaar van koning Salomo, toe hy met die bou van die tempel begin het, 480 jaar (1 Kon. 6: 1). Dit verskil weereens van die Septuaginta wat die getal jare as 440 aangee. As ons die huidige aanvaarde datum vir die vierde regeringsjaar van Salomo as 967 v.C. neem, dan het Abraham volgens die Septuaginta in 1837 v.C. van Haran na Kanaän getrek. Volgens ons Bybel was dit heelwat vroeër.
Aangesien Abraham nie ’n bekende koning uit die antieke tyd is nie, is die kans dat daar enige argeologiese bewys vir sy bestaan oorgebly het ontsettend klein. Wat ons wel kan doen, is om te kyk of die milieu waarbinne die Bybel hom plaas, inpas by die raamwerk van daardie tyd. Daar is verskeie studies wat op aspekte soos die politieke, kulturele en sosiale omgewing fokus en toon dat die beskrywings in die Bybel heel goed met ander data uit daardie tyd korreleer. Ek wil gewoon op die belangrikste gebeure in Abraham se lewe fokus en kyk of daar onafhanklike getuienis daarvoor bestaan.
Die Elamitiese inval in Kanaän
Die belangrikste gebeurtenis wat Abraham in die raamwerk van die wyer Midde-Oosterse wêreld plaas, is die Elamitiese inval wat in sy tyd sou plaasvind. Elam was in die suidweste van hedendaagse Iran, oos van Mesopotamië, geleë. Volgens Genesis 14 het ’n koalisie van magte onder die aanvoering van die Elamitiese koning, Kedor-Laómer, ’n inval in die omgewing van die Dooie See geloods. Abraham het toe saam met ’n aantal Amoritiese vorste die plunderaars agternagesit en hulle verslaan.
Is daar enige buite-Bybelse bronne wat van so ’n gebeurtenis melding maak? Volgens Mesopotamiese tekste was daar net een geleentheid waarop die magte van ’n Elamitiese heerser in die vroeg-tweede millennium v.C. tot bo in Sirië opgetrek het. Dit was in 1822 v.C. (volgens die sogenaamde hoë kronologie) toe Siwepalar-
huppak, die koning van Elam (1826-1799 v.C.), probeer het om sy gesag oor die hele Mesopotamië af te dwing. Suidelike Mesopotamië het op daardie stadium onder sy beheer geval en bekende heersers van daardie tyd, soos Hammurabi van Babilon en Zimri-Lim van Mari, het hom as “vader” aangespreek. Hierdie inval het egter daartoe gelei dat die Elamiete uit Mesopotamië verdryf is [6].
As hierdie die inval is waarna die Bybel verwys – en daar is geen ander inval wat ter sprake kan wees nie – dan was daar ’n groep onder die Elamitiese invallers wat vanuit Sirië ’n inval in die Dooie See-gebied geloods het. Dit was dan hierdie groep wat deur Abraham en sy bondgenote verslaan is. Wat die datum van die inval
betref, korreleer dit ook goed met die datum in die Septuaginta (wat toon dat die Septuaginta die korrekte datering bevat). Hiervolgens sou Abraham in 1837 v.C. uit Haran na Kanaän vertrek en 15 jaar later by hierdie geveg betrokke wees.
Daar is ook ’n ooreenkoms tussen die naam van die Elamitiese heerser wat volgens die Bybel agter die inval gesit het, naamlik Kedor-Laómer, en Kudu-zulus, die broer van die Elamitiese koning. Kedor kan duidelik ’n vervorming van Kudu wees en Laómer is moontlik ’n bynaam. Kudu-zulus was koning van die Elamitiese stad Susa en het onder die oorhoofse gesag van sy broer Siwe-palar-huppak gestaan. Sy dienaars was vroeër ook betrokke by invalle na die Weste. Hulle het byvoorbeeld die stad Esnunna in Mesopotamië geplunder waarna Kudu-zulus daar gaan woon het.
Ons vind dus dat Kudu-zulus die direkte leier van die westelike Elamitiese magte was en dat sy dienaars plundertogte soos dié waarna daar in Genesis 14 verwys word, onderneem het. Daar is dus ’n baie goeie korrelasie tussen die Bybelse en buite-Bybelse beskrywings van daardie tydsomstandighede. Soos die Bybel noem, is die Elamiete ook ná hierdie inval uit die land verdryf.
Abraham in Egipte
’n Ander belangrike gebeurtenis in die Abrahamse verhaal, is dat hy oënskynlik kort na sy aankoms in Kanaän, verder na Egipte afgereis het omdat daar ’n hongersnood in die land was (Gen. 12). Dit plaas Abraham ook in die Egiptiese konteks. Sy koms na Egipte het nie ongesiens verbygegaan nie omdat sy vrou Sara (toe nog Sarai genoem) baie mooi was en sy die aandag van die Egiptiese vorste getrek het.
Aangesien Abraham bang was dat hulle hom vir sy vrou om die lewe sou bring, het hy voorgegee dat sy sy suster was. Sy is dus in die farao se paleis opgeneem, terwyl Abraham met geskenke oorlaai is. Die farao het egter uitgevind dat sy Abraham se vrou was en hulle is uit Egipte verdryf. Is daar enige bewys van Abraham se besoek aan Egipte? Daar is getuienis wat moontlik met Abraham se besoek verband hou. By Beni Hasan in Egipte is daar ’n uitbeelding in die graf van ’n plaaslike goewerneur, ene Khnumhotep II, wat ’n groep Semiete voorstel wat oënskynlik van Kanaän na Egipte gereis het. Die leier van die groep word genoem as Abi-shai/r, ’n Amoritiese vorm van die naam Abraham [7].
Is hierdie ’n uitbeelding van Abraham se besoek aan Egipte? Volgens die Bybel was Abraham wel ’n vername persoon wat so ’n uitbeelding sou regverdig – hy word byvoorbeeld ’n “vors (magtige prins)” genoem (Gen. 28: 6). Sy koms na Egipte het ook opspraak verwek. Alhoewel die naam ook elders voorkom, is dit duidelik moontlik dat hierdie ’n uitbeelding van Abraham se besoek aan Egipte kan wees – as dit in die regte tyd val.
Die groot vraag is dus of hierdie uitbeelding in die tyd val toe Abraham Egipte besoek het. Ons is gelukkig in die sin dat die besoek in die genoemde Beni Hasan-uitbeelding redelik goed gedateer kan word. Dit het in die sesde jaar van koning Senuseret II se regering plaasgevind. Die regering van hierdie koning kan met behulp van ’n astronomiese waarneming van die heliese opkoms van die ster Sirius wat in die tyd van sy opvolger Senuseret III gemaak is, redelik akkuraat bereken word. Daarvolgens het hy van 1844-1837 v.C. regeer.8 Dit beteken dat die besoek van Abi-shai/r (Abraham), in Senuseret II se sesde regeringsjaar, in 1838 v.C. sou plaasvind.
Indien die Bybelse Abraham direk van Haran na Egipte gereis het, dan sou hy so vroeg as 1837 v.C. daar aankom. As ons in gedagte hou hoe lank terug hierdie dinge plaasgevind het, en die foutgrens waarbinne so ’n datering gedoen word in ag neem, dan kan daar eintlik nie enige wesenlike twyfel bestaan dat hierdie na dieselfde gebeurtenis verwys nie. As ons verder al die ooreenkomste in ag neem – dat beide groepe Semiete van Kanaän was, met Abi-shai/r (Abraham) as leier, wat ’n vermelding in Egipte regverdig – dan is die kans inderdaad baie klein dat verskillende gebeure ter sprake is. Ons kan dus aanvaar dat dit waarskynlik Abraham se besoek is wat by Beni Hasan uitgebeeld word.
Ons vind dus dat daar heelwat buite-Bybelse gegewens is wat korrespondeer met die Bybelse weergawe van gebeure. Daar was ’n tyd toe navorsers ’n positiwistiese benadering gevolg het – of te wel, “bring eers al die bewyse voor ons iets aanvaar” – maar die akademiese klimaat het verander en daar is vandag ’n begrip vir die feit dat daar baie dinge is wat ons nie weet of ooit sal weet nie. Die bevestiging dat daar inderdaad in Abraham se tyd ’n Elamitiese inval in Sirië plaasgevind het, wys net weer dat ’n mens nie te gou moet wees om die geskiedskrywing in die Bybel te betwyfel nie. Saam met die uitbeelding in die Beni Hasan-graf, is dit nogal sterk getuienis dat die Abrahamse verhaal in die Bybel ernstig opgeneem kan word.
Die bevestiging dat daar ’n Elamitiese inval in Abraham se tyd plaasgevind het en dat die Beni Hasan-uitbeelding mooi met Abraham se besoek aan Egipte korreleer, toon dat ons wel die Abrahamse verhaal in Genesis as geskiedkundig kan beskou – ten spyte van die konsensus onder baie geleerdes dat die patriargale verhale in Genesis nie as geskiedenis gelees kan word nie. So was daar in baie kringe ook vroeër ’n konsensus dat die vroeë monargiese verhale (soos dié van koning Dawid) nie as geskiedenis gelees moet word nie – dit was totdat die mid-negende-eeuse Tel Dan Stela in 1993/4 ontdek is waarin daar eksplisiet na die “Huis van Dawid” verwys word.
Ons kan na my mening aanvaar dat so ’n voorvader van Israel genaamd Abraham gelewe het en dat sommige oorblyfsels van die Sumeriese tradisie wat in Genesis (en elders in die Hebreeuse Bybel) aangetref word, met sy koms uit daardie wêrelddeel verband hou.
Bronverwysings
[5] Die Masoretiese teks (die standaard Hebreeuse teks wat vir ons Bybelvertalings gebruik is) verskil op verskeie plekke van die Hebreeuse Vorlage-teks, wat in die paar eeue v.C. vir die Griekse vertaling van die Ou Testament (die Septuaginta genoem) gebruik is. Soms is die Septuaginta se teks beter – die heel oudste teks van die Bybel wat by Qumran onder die Dooie See-rolle gevind is en nog in ’n paleo-Hebreeuse skrif geskryf is, stem byvoorbeeld eerder met die Vorlage as met die Masoretiese teks ooreen (Hengel 2002: 84). Die Nuwe Testamentiese skrywers gebruik (anders as hedendaagse Christene) meestal ’n teks wat met die Septuaginta ooreenkom. Die rede vir verskille tussen tekste het gedeeltelik daarmee te doen dat die vroegste tekste nie altyd vir die latere geslagte duidelik was nie. Dit kan baie mooi gesien word in die vroegste bestaande Hebreeuse teks (alhoewel nie van die Bybel nie) wat in 2008 naby Jerusalem ontdek is. Dit dateer uit die tyd van koning Dawid en is in ’n paleo-Kanaänitiese skrif geskryf. Dit sou nie vir latere generasies maklik wees om die teks te lees nie (vgl. 1 Kron. 4: 22).
[6] Van de Mieroop 2005:17
[7] Hoffmeier 2008:42
[8] Dit veronderstel dat die waarneming by Elephantine in die suide van Egipte gemaak is. Die berekening is deur Krauss gedoen (Rohl 1995: 390). Na my mening gee hierdie Sotiese datering (i.e. gebaseer op Sirius se heliese opkoms) saam met die hoë kronologie in Mesopotamië die beste resultate vir ’n geïntegreerde datering van alle periodes in die wyer Midde-Ooste.
Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com).
Aangehaal uit sy boek Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale (Griffel).
Lees ook: Abraham en sy God; Inleiding
“En Tera het sy seun Abram geneem en Lot, die seun van Haran, sy kleinseun, en Sarai, sy skoondogter, die vrou van sy seun Abram, en dié het saam met hulle uit Ur van die Chaldeërs getrek om na die land Kanaän te gaan” (Gen. 11: 31).
Ons studie begin by Abraham (eers Abram genoem). Volgens die Bybel was Abraham een van die belangrikste voorouers van Israel. God het hom geroep terwyl hy nog in die stad Ur in die suidelike Sumeriese vlaktes gewoon het (Gen. 11: 28, 12: 1, 15: 7; Hand. 7: 2). Alhoewel die Bybel nie daaroor uitbrei nie, kry ’n mens die indruk dat sy familie toe alreeds vir baie jare daar woonagtig was. Die Bybel verwys na dié stad as Ur “van die Chaldeërs” – wat aandui watter Ur ter sprake is. Die Chaldeërs is ’n ander naam vir die Neo-Babiloniërs en die uitdrukking word sporadies vanaf die tiende eeu v.C. vir die gebied suid van die stad Babel gebruik.
Ur is ’n baie ou Mesopotamiese stad wat naby die mond van die Eufraatrivier by die Persiese Golf geleë was. Die seevlak het sedertdien gedaal en die ruïnes van Ur (Tell el-Huqayyar) lê vandag redelik ver van die see. Dit was ’n baie belangrike Sumeriese stad wat tot so laat as die laaste deel van die derde millennium v.C. (±2000 v.C.) nog die sentrum van die Sumeriese kultuur was. In daardie tyd was dit die hoofstad van die konings van die Derde Dinastie van Ur (Ur III) – die laaste Sumeriese heersers wat oor Mesopotamië sou regeer.
Volgens die Bybel het Abraham saam met ’n aantal van sy familielede uit Ur na die land Kanaän geïmmigreer. Hulle het al met die Eufraatrivier op tot by die stad Haran getrek en vandaar suidwaarts na Kanaän. Abraham verteenwoordig dus ’n baie belangrike skakel tussen die antieke Sumeriese beskawing en die latere Israel. As
ons oorblyfsels van die Sumeriese tradisie in die Israelitiese literatuur waarneem, dan moet ons die moontlikheid oorweeg dat dit ten minste gedeeltelik deur Abraham na Sumerië teruggaan – dit is nou as ons die Abrahamse verhaal ernstig kan opneem …
’n Historiese Abraham?
As ons die geskiedkundigheid van die Abraham-verhaal wil ondersoek, moet ons eers weet wanneer hy sou lewe. Om ’n datum vir Abraham vas te stel, word twee belangrike jaartellings in die Bybel gebruik, naamlik die tydsduur van Abraham se koms na Kanaän tot Israel se uittog uit Egipte (Eks. 12: 40) asook die tydsduur van die uittog tot die bou van die tempel (1 Kon. 6: 1).
Volgens die Joodse geskiedskrywer, Josefus (Antiquities of the Jews, XV: 2), wat kort ná die tyd van Christus geskryf het, het Abraham 430 jaar voor die uittog uit Egipte in Kanaän aangekom. Ons vind hierdie selfde inligting in die Nuwe Testament (Gal. 3: 16, 17) waar Paulus (soos baie ander Nuwe Testamentiese skrywers) uit die Septuaginta, die Griekse vertaling van die Bybel wat uit die tyd voor Christus dateer, aanhaal. Ons lees in die Septuaginta: “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years” (Eks. 12: 40). Ons Bybel (in al die vertalings) laat die gedeelte weg wat ek in kursief geplaas het [5]. Verder was die tydsduur van die uittog tot die vierde jaar van koning Salomo, toe hy met die bou van die tempel begin het, 480 jaar (1 Kon. 6: 1). Dit verskil weereens van die Septuaginta wat die getal jare as 440 aangee. As ons die huidige aanvaarde datum vir die vierde regeringsjaar van Salomo as 967 v.C. neem, dan het Abraham volgens die Septuaginta in 1837 v.C. van Haran na Kanaän getrek. Volgens ons Bybel was dit heelwat vroeër.
Aangesien Abraham nie ’n bekende koning uit die antieke tyd is nie, is die kans dat daar enige argeologiese bewys vir sy bestaan oorgebly het ontsettend klein. Wat ons wel kan doen, is om te kyk of die milieu waarbinne die Bybel hom plaas, inpas by die raamwerk van daardie tyd. Daar is verskeie studies wat op aspekte soos die politieke, kulturele en sosiale omgewing fokus en toon dat die beskrywings in die Bybel heel goed met ander data uit daardie tyd korreleer. Ek wil gewoon op die belangrikste gebeure in Abraham se lewe fokus en kyk of daar onafhanklike getuienis daarvoor bestaan.
Die Elamitiese inval in Kanaän
Die belangrikste gebeurtenis wat Abraham in die raamwerk van die wyer Midde-Oosterse wêreld plaas, is die Elamitiese inval wat in sy tyd sou plaasvind. Elam was in die suidweste van hedendaagse Iran, oos van Mesopotamië, geleë. Volgens Genesis 14 het ’n koalisie van magte onder die aanvoering van die Elamitiese koning, Kedor-Laómer, ’n inval in die omgewing van die Dooie See geloods. Abraham het toe saam met ’n aantal Amoritiese vorste die plunderaars agternagesit en hulle verslaan.
Is daar enige buite-Bybelse bronne wat van so ’n gebeurtenis melding maak? Volgens Mesopotamiese tekste was daar net een geleentheid waarop die magte van ’n Elamitiese heerser in die vroeg-tweede millennium v.C. tot bo in Sirië opgetrek het. Dit was in 1822 v.C. (volgens die sogenaamde hoë kronologie) toe Siwepalar-
huppak, die koning van Elam (1826-1799 v.C.), probeer het om sy gesag oor die hele Mesopotamië af te dwing. Suidelike Mesopotamië het op daardie stadium onder sy beheer geval en bekende heersers van daardie tyd, soos Hammurabi van Babilon en Zimri-Lim van Mari, het hom as “vader” aangespreek. Hierdie inval het egter daartoe gelei dat die Elamiete uit Mesopotamië verdryf is [6].
As hierdie die inval is waarna die Bybel verwys – en daar is geen ander inval wat ter sprake kan wees nie – dan was daar ’n groep onder die Elamitiese invallers wat vanuit Sirië ’n inval in die Dooie See-gebied geloods het. Dit was dan hierdie groep wat deur Abraham en sy bondgenote verslaan is. Wat die datum van die inval
betref, korreleer dit ook goed met die datum in die Septuaginta (wat toon dat die Septuaginta die korrekte datering bevat). Hiervolgens sou Abraham in 1837 v.C. uit Haran na Kanaän vertrek en 15 jaar later by hierdie geveg betrokke wees.
Daar is ook ’n ooreenkoms tussen die naam van die Elamitiese heerser wat volgens die Bybel agter die inval gesit het, naamlik Kedor-Laómer, en Kudu-zulus, die broer van die Elamitiese koning. Kedor kan duidelik ’n vervorming van Kudu wees en Laómer is moontlik ’n bynaam. Kudu-zulus was koning van die Elamitiese stad Susa en het onder die oorhoofse gesag van sy broer Siwe-palar-huppak gestaan. Sy dienaars was vroeër ook betrokke by invalle na die Weste. Hulle het byvoorbeeld die stad Esnunna in Mesopotamië geplunder waarna Kudu-zulus daar gaan woon het.
Ons vind dus dat Kudu-zulus die direkte leier van die westelike Elamitiese magte was en dat sy dienaars plundertogte soos dié waarna daar in Genesis 14 verwys word, onderneem het. Daar is dus ’n baie goeie korrelasie tussen die Bybelse en buite-Bybelse beskrywings van daardie tydsomstandighede. Soos die Bybel noem, is die Elamiete ook ná hierdie inval uit die land verdryf.
Abraham in Egipte
’n Ander belangrike gebeurtenis in die Abrahamse verhaal, is dat hy oënskynlik kort na sy aankoms in Kanaän, verder na Egipte afgereis het omdat daar ’n hongersnood in die land was (Gen. 12). Dit plaas Abraham ook in die Egiptiese konteks. Sy koms na Egipte het nie ongesiens verbygegaan nie omdat sy vrou Sara (toe nog Sarai genoem) baie mooi was en sy die aandag van die Egiptiese vorste getrek het.
Aangesien Abraham bang was dat hulle hom vir sy vrou om die lewe sou bring, het hy voorgegee dat sy sy suster was. Sy is dus in die farao se paleis opgeneem, terwyl Abraham met geskenke oorlaai is. Die farao het egter uitgevind dat sy Abraham se vrou was en hulle is uit Egipte verdryf. Is daar enige bewys van Abraham se besoek aan Egipte? Daar is getuienis wat moontlik met Abraham se besoek verband hou. By Beni Hasan in Egipte is daar ’n uitbeelding in die graf van ’n plaaslike goewerneur, ene Khnumhotep II, wat ’n groep Semiete voorstel wat oënskynlik van Kanaän na Egipte gereis het. Die leier van die groep word genoem as Abi-shai/r, ’n Amoritiese vorm van die naam Abraham [7].
Is hierdie ’n uitbeelding van Abraham se besoek aan Egipte? Volgens die Bybel was Abraham wel ’n vername persoon wat so ’n uitbeelding sou regverdig – hy word byvoorbeeld ’n “vors (magtige prins)” genoem (Gen. 28: 6). Sy koms na Egipte het ook opspraak verwek. Alhoewel die naam ook elders voorkom, is dit duidelik moontlik dat hierdie ’n uitbeelding van Abraham se besoek aan Egipte kan wees – as dit in die regte tyd val.
Die groot vraag is dus of hierdie uitbeelding in die tyd val toe Abraham Egipte besoek het. Ons is gelukkig in die sin dat die besoek in die genoemde Beni Hasan-uitbeelding redelik goed gedateer kan word. Dit het in die sesde jaar van koning Senuseret II se regering plaasgevind. Die regering van hierdie koning kan met behulp van ’n astronomiese waarneming van die heliese opkoms van die ster Sirius wat in die tyd van sy opvolger Senuseret III gemaak is, redelik akkuraat bereken word. Daarvolgens het hy van 1844-1837 v.C. regeer.8 Dit beteken dat die besoek van Abi-shai/r (Abraham), in Senuseret II se sesde regeringsjaar, in 1838 v.C. sou plaasvind.
Indien die Bybelse Abraham direk van Haran na Egipte gereis het, dan sou hy so vroeg as 1837 v.C. daar aankom. As ons in gedagte hou hoe lank terug hierdie dinge plaasgevind het, en die foutgrens waarbinne so ’n datering gedoen word in ag neem, dan kan daar eintlik nie enige wesenlike twyfel bestaan dat hierdie na dieselfde gebeurtenis verwys nie. As ons verder al die ooreenkomste in ag neem – dat beide groepe Semiete van Kanaän was, met Abi-shai/r (Abraham) as leier, wat ’n vermelding in Egipte regverdig – dan is die kans inderdaad baie klein dat verskillende gebeure ter sprake is. Ons kan dus aanvaar dat dit waarskynlik Abraham se besoek is wat by Beni Hasan uitgebeeld word.
Ons vind dus dat daar heelwat buite-Bybelse gegewens is wat korrespondeer met die Bybelse weergawe van gebeure. Daar was ’n tyd toe navorsers ’n positiwistiese benadering gevolg het – of te wel, “bring eers al die bewyse voor ons iets aanvaar” – maar die akademiese klimaat het verander en daar is vandag ’n begrip vir die feit dat daar baie dinge is wat ons nie weet of ooit sal weet nie. Die bevestiging dat daar inderdaad in Abraham se tyd ’n Elamitiese inval in Sirië plaasgevind het, wys net weer dat ’n mens nie te gou moet wees om die geskiedskrywing in die Bybel te betwyfel nie. Saam met die uitbeelding in die Beni Hasan-graf, is dit nogal sterk getuienis dat die Abrahamse verhaal in die Bybel ernstig opgeneem kan word.
Die bevestiging dat daar ’n Elamitiese inval in Abraham se tyd plaasgevind het en dat die Beni Hasan-uitbeelding mooi met Abraham se besoek aan Egipte korreleer, toon dat ons wel die Abrahamse verhaal in Genesis as geskiedkundig kan beskou – ten spyte van die konsensus onder baie geleerdes dat die patriargale verhale in Genesis nie as geskiedenis gelees kan word nie. So was daar in baie kringe ook vroeër ’n konsensus dat die vroeë monargiese verhale (soos dié van koning Dawid) nie as geskiedenis gelees moet word nie – dit was totdat die mid-negende-eeuse Tel Dan Stela in 1993/4 ontdek is waarin daar eksplisiet na die “Huis van Dawid” verwys word.
Ons kan na my mening aanvaar dat so ’n voorvader van Israel genaamd Abraham gelewe het en dat sommige oorblyfsels van die Sumeriese tradisie wat in Genesis (en elders in die Hebreeuse Bybel) aangetref word, met sy koms uit daardie wêrelddeel verband hou.
Bronverwysings
[5] Die Masoretiese teks (die standaard Hebreeuse teks wat vir ons Bybelvertalings gebruik is) verskil op verskeie plekke van die Hebreeuse Vorlage-teks, wat in die paar eeue v.C. vir die Griekse vertaling van die Ou Testament (die Septuaginta genoem) gebruik is. Soms is die Septuaginta se teks beter – die heel oudste teks van die Bybel wat by Qumran onder die Dooie See-rolle gevind is en nog in ’n paleo-Hebreeuse skrif geskryf is, stem byvoorbeeld eerder met die Vorlage as met die Masoretiese teks ooreen (Hengel 2002: 84). Die Nuwe Testamentiese skrywers gebruik (anders as hedendaagse Christene) meestal ’n teks wat met die Septuaginta ooreenkom. Die rede vir verskille tussen tekste het gedeeltelik daarmee te doen dat die vroegste tekste nie altyd vir die latere geslagte duidelik was nie. Dit kan baie mooi gesien word in die vroegste bestaande Hebreeuse teks (alhoewel nie van die Bybel nie) wat in 2008 naby Jerusalem ontdek is. Dit dateer uit die tyd van koning Dawid en is in ’n paleo-Kanaänitiese skrif geskryf. Dit sou nie vir latere generasies maklik wees om die teks te lees nie (vgl. 1 Kron. 4: 22).
[6] Van de Mieroop 2005:17
[7] Hoffmeier 2008:42
[8] Dit veronderstel dat die waarneming by Elephantine in die suide van Egipte gemaak is. Die berekening is deur Krauss gedoen (Rohl 1995: 390). Na my mening gee hierdie Sotiese datering (i.e. gebaseer op Sirius se heliese opkoms) saam met die hoë kronologie in Mesopotamië die beste resultate vir ’n geïntegreerde datering van alle periodes in die wyer Midde-Ooste.
Skrywer: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com).
Aangehaal uit sy boek Op soek na Abraham en sy God, 'n studie oor die historisiteit van die Genesis-verhale (Griffel).
Lees ook: Abraham en sy God; Inleiding
Sunday, 19 August 2012
A critique of archaeology as a science
"[O]ne of the most interesting things about archaeological material, is you get the same object, you get three archaeologists, you come up with three different interpretations based on that" - Vance Watrous
This essay is a critical evaluation of archaeology as a science. In what sense is archaeology a science? How does it compare with the other families of sciences? Is it an empirical science or does it belong to the hermeneutic disciplines? I look at archaeology as it is practised, with special attention to methodology, interpretation of the archaeological record and the role of historical texts. Also discussed is its relationship with other hermeneutic disciplines (especially textual studies) and how this impacts on the archaeological endeavour. The eventual aim is to establish the limits of the archaeological reach.
Archaeology was born during the modern era - just like all the other well-known disciplines. During the modern epoch, all "disciplines" strove towards respectability - to be recognized as disciplined sciences. The ideal was to be objective, to reach final results, to establish truths. There was an optimism that humans will eventually be able to obtain certain and final knowledge. This perspective has, however, changed. During the last half-century philosophers of science have levelled severe criticism against the possibility of obtaining final results and in our present post-modern era, it is recognized that these goals are for the most part unreachable. Although all sciences will always be "disciplined", using a strict methodology, with various techniques and methods, their ability to obtain final results are limited. This is also true of archaeology.
Although I am not an archaeologist myself, I have a live interest in this field of study (I come from a philosophy of science background). In my reading, I find that many researchers still operate in the modernist frame of mind - trying to establish certain "truths". It seems that a debris of positivism is still silently present in their midst. This brings the question to mind: What type of science is archaeology? and what are the limits of its reach? Although there are many good articles by philosophers of archaeology that focus on these matters, these philosophers can obviously not remove themselves from the scientific "paradigm" of which they are part (Kuhn 1962). This could easily result in a tempered criticism, where the (unconscious) objective is to defend the basic tenability of the status quo. I recognize that my own critique is just another perspective, but I believe that it could be of value as an external critique of archaeology as a science.
In this short essay, I focus on those aspects of archaeology that I see as critical to the evaluation of archaeology as a science. These include methodology (with special reference to inductive and deductive methods), interpretation of the archaeological record as well as the role of historical texts. I elucidate my arguments with examples from archaeological experience over the last few decades. These include material related to various excavations and finds, mostly from the ancient Middle East (since this is where my own interest lies). Throughout the discussion, I compare archaeology with the various families of sciences, namely the natural and social sciences, as well as hermeneutics.
Methodology
In the effort to establish archaeology as a scientific discipline, archaeologists use the tools that are traditionally associated with both the empiricist and the rationalist approaches to science, namely inductive and deductive methods. Inductive methods start from the empirical data and try to establish generalized laws. Deductive methods start from theoretical hypotheses and test this against the data. Although researchers try to use one or the other method, in practice it is very difficult to keep these methods apart. The one feeds into the other and the other way round. Data is used to formulate hypothetical models which are tested and then (using the information) revised to establish better models.
The only science that uses purely deductive methods is physics. In physics, it does happen that the mathematical equations that are deductively derived, produce new insights that do not originate with any data. A good example is the Dirac equation which predicted the existence of antimatter. Mathematically constructed deductive theories are powerful in the sense that they give precise predictions and allow for the possibility of falsification (which go much further than mere "verification"). The science philosopher Karl Popper recommended this "falsifiability" in physics (Popper 1957). But most other philosophers of science recognize that this could not be established as a general rule to define a science.
During the modern epoch, and even today, many researchers view deductive and inductive methods as tools that would eventually establish what reality is like. Many researchers held to the correspondence theory of truth and believed that with better and better models, the essence of reality will eventually be laid bare. This optimism was punctured when physicists came up with two different theories describing the same reality, namely Einstein's general gravitational theory and quantum physics. Although both theories could in a remarkable way predict the correct outcome, they describe reality very differently (Pine 2006). One could view these as complementary theories modelling the same reality. But this implies that, although reality exists, we do not know - and would probably never know - what it truly is like. There is absolutely no way to establish whether any model describes reality as it really is. A similar situation exists in the social sciences, where the two complementary theories of behaviourism and psychoanalysis are used to describe the complex reality of human behaviour.
Although archaeology uses these same methods, there is obviously no corresponding existent (historical) "reality" against which models could be tested. The process of time has destroyed the historical reality that once existed. Even in cases where a city was suddenly destroyed and the artefacts are well preserved (as in the case of Pompey), the archaeological record is incomplete. All archaeological records are incomplete. What are the implications of this? It implies that archaeologists are stuck with an incomplete "reality" - the historical situation or "reality" does not exist anymore. There is an unbridgeable distance between the historical reality and the archaeological reality which is present in the archaeological record. From this, we can deduce that no historical "reality" exists (comparable to the existent but unknowable reality underlying nature) against which theoretical models could be tested.
Various models could be produced, all of them corresponding to the same archaeological data, but with nobody knowing which model (if any) corresponds to the historical situation. The fact that a model is confirmed by the data says nothing; it only confirms that an archaeological correlate for the model has been found. It does not in any way establish that the model corresponds to the real historical situation on the ground. In this case, the models are not complementary, they are competitive. And it is impossible to decide which one (if any) is correct (We find the same problem in other related disciplines. In textual studies, for example, the real textual histories of many ancient texts are forever lost and no amount of hypotheses and testing could ever reproduce it - see below).
To illustrate this problem I can mention the difficulty of distinguishing between trade, emulation, and migration in the archaeological record. Even with lots of data, it often happens that archaeologists cannot decide among themselves which model (or combinations thereof) is applicable. Archaeologists of different backgrounds adhere to different models to explain the same data. A few examples will suffice. Some believe that there is abundant evidence that people from Mesopotamia migrated to Egypt during the period of the Uruk expansion (Redford 1992:24); others believe the data only shows emulation by a local elite (Wilkinson 2002:241, 245). Some use a model of migration to explain the cultural change at the beginning of the Bronze Age in Cyprus (Frankel 2000), others apply a model of emulation by an emerging elite to the same data (Knapp 1993a). Some believe that the cultural change in the coastal areas of southern Palestine at the beginning of the Iron Age prove the arrival of the Philistines (Dothan 1995); others believe the change was due to trade (Vanschoonwinkel 1999). The list is endless, so to speak. Bernard Knapp said with reference to the Minoan "colonies": "[T]here is no way to settle it one way or the other" (Knapp 1992).
Some archaeologists are quite straightforward in their assessment of this problem. David Anthony, for example, writes the following about the tendency to prefer models of trade or emulation over migration: "Migration has been demonized and has mystified Western archaeologists since the rise of ‘New Archaeology’ in the late 1960’s… Several writers have noted that the rise and fall of the popularity of migration and diffusion in western archaeology seems closely linked to the prevailing milieu in politics, national interests and intellectual trends” (Anthony 1997:21). It seems that we can conclude that it is not only "scientific study" that decides which model is accepted; things like political correctness, national interests and what is trending, play an important role. One can hope that the incorporation of other disciplines like genetic studies will eventually lead to more substantial results, but the applicability thereof is often restricted by the lack of relevant data.
One can compare the archaeological study of historical data with the study of the origins of the universe. The universe still exists and scientists study light that originated during the early stages after it came into existence. Although it is impossible to establish exactly how the universe originated, scientists were able to show that the astronomical data corresponds well with the predictions of the Big Bang model - allowing them to eliminate the competing model of a static universe. Although the biological sciences to some extent share the problem of incomplete historical data, it can be assumed that the laws of nature that gave birth to the species are still valid. From this one can propose that eventually, the biological sciences would also be able to "predict" (as we find in physics) and gain a better understanding of the processes involved. At this stage, there are (at least) two competing models of evolution, namely the synthetic model and the punctuated equilibrium model.
Interpreting the archaeological record
As in the case of the empirical sciences, data collection forms a central part of the archaeological endeavour. But does this imply that archaeology is an empirical science? Although archaeologists carefully prepare their digs, using all sorts of techniques to establish a good definition of the excavation, the dice is always loaded against them. Although data constitutes "evidence", one cannot compare it with any experiment in the natural sciences or controlled study in the social sciences.
There are two reasons for this. In the first place, the dig is a non-repeatable experience. Although it could be compared with similar excavations elsewhere, it could never be the same. The fact that it is a one-off experience implies that it is after all also a personal (individually and socially) experience for those involved - it is not necessarily so that other archaeologists would have arrived at the same conclusions. One can mention many examples of different interpretations of the same archaeological excavations and data. Vance Watrous's observation says it all: "[O]ne of the most interesting things about archaeological material, is you get the same object, you get three archaeologists, you come up with three different interpretations based on that" (Watrous 1998).
The other aspect in which archaeological excavation differs from any controlled experiment is that one can never know if the accessible data is a representative sample. In most cases, it obviously is not. Any conclusions drawn from the data are therefore open to criticism. In the days of positivism, it was often assumed that no "evidence" is proof that such evidence does not exist. But this is just plain wrong. Since it can never be shown that archaeological data is representative of any particular historical situation, how can any scientific conclusions be drawn from it? It is not only possible but inevitable, that evidence has disappeared with time or that it has been severely damaged or reduced.
Many examples could be given to illustrate the non-representative nature of archaeological data. Giorgio Buchner found one small precision balance in the refuse of a metal workshop, together with a miscast bronze fibula and a few related items, as the only possible evidence for Strabo's statement that goldware production was one of the main activities of the early Iron Age Euboean settlement off the Italian coast (Buchner 1979). A while ago it was reported that the organic layer (probably due to a tsunami) covering archaeological remains from 6000 years ago in the Burren More in North Clare in Ireland, dissipated when exposed to air. The same is true for papyrus and other materials. This again shows what I have demonstrated above (although this time from the inductive side), namely that archaeologists are stuck with an incomplete record of historical "reality", which severely restricts their ability to establish which model corresponds to the historical situation.
Although archaeology involves "experience", archaeologists do not conduct "experiments". Excavations are neither repeatable nor representative. Archaeology is therefore not an empirical science. Even if we accept that excavations are empirical in nature, this is not enough to establish archaeology as an empirical science. This was recognized decades ago by philosophers of science. Even when archaeological excavations are conducted in a carefully controlled manner, the archaeological record is always open to different interpretations. Although interpretation cannot be excluded from any data (even in physics there exist various interpretations of quantum physics), in archaeology interpretation is not grounded in empirical experimentation.
What was proposed, is that the archaeological record should be viewed as text (Schiffer 1985) or at least as having symbolic meaning (Guarinello 2005). As with textual studies, archaeology is essentially an interpretative (hermeneutic) discipline. Various interpretations of a "text" are always possible and no single interpretation could be established as the right one. Bernard Knapp wrote in this regard: "Archaeologists of different backgrounds, however, read such 'facts' in different ways and assigned alternative meanings to the same material. In other words, the archaeological record, as 'text', has its own autonomy and is open to multiple interpretations on the part of its readers" (Knapp 1993b). Seen from this angle, it makes sense that theoretical models, which are in fact nothing but sophisticated perspectives, will always be competitive even if it incorporates some complementary aspects.
But is the analogy of the archaeological record with texts really a good one? Although it captures the fact that the interpretation of archaeological data is unequivocally perspectivist, it does place that record on the same level as texts. Is that really the case? What distinguishes texts is the information contained therein - information about historical events and situations. This is exactly what non-textual archaeological data lacks. Although such data could give some basic information, for example of catastrophic events (both natural and human-produced), this information is severely restricted because its relation to known history is not explicitly given. For the most part, non-textual data merely gives partial access to background information, for example about material culture.
The enormous difference between texts and non-textual data in its ability to provide information could be easily illustrated. The presence of foreign communities, for example, is very difficult to establish solely from the archaeological data. The Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia would have been "invisible", had it not been for the discovered tablets. Malcolm Weiner said in this regard: “As Machfeld Mellink, James Mellaart and others have observed, had the tablets not survived little else would suggest the existence of an Assyrian colony since the colonists adopted local architecture and pottery. The situation with regard to Karum Kanesh is not unique. Tablets tell us of many Assyrian trading colonies in Anatolia. At other major excavated sites as Bögazkoy and Alishar, again only the tablets give any clear indication of the presence of an Assyrian trading colony… It is clear that there are differing views among specialists as to whether an Assyrian custom can be detected at Kültepe… I think it would be very difficult to identify something which is specifically Assyrian without the tablets” (Weiner 1984:17, 26). The same can be said about the Ugarit tablets which changed the whole academic perspective on Canaanite culture.
There is, however, a certain type of information that only archaeological data, and more specifically organic material, could provide. This is information about the age of the data. For many archaeologists, this unique ability of archaeological data to accurately date structures and catastrophic events provide the scientific respectability that the data could otherwise lack. For this, they are dependent on other disciplines, for example, dendrochronology. But how scientific are the statistical techniques used for this dating? Contra the general opinion among archaeologists, this is not a rigid statistical science.
In his book A Slice through Time the dendrochronologist M.G.L. Baillie acknowledges that the master chronologies "are not 100% matches" and that the application of the technique is based on subjective judgement: “The practised dendrochronologist is looking for matches that he/she is willing to accept, based on experience, as correct matches between long ring patterns”. In his review of this book, Ron Tappy wrote: "This subjective intuitive aspect of dendrochronology might easily fail to satisfy the tolerances and significance levels expected by statisticians... Recognition of this subjective human element and the inconclusiveness of many of the case studies introduced in the course of the book dampen somewhat one’s appreciation for the purportedly absolute precision of the science. Various factors, such as the loss of the outermost layers of unconsolidated sapwood from a collective sample, seem to compromise the accuracy of the overall method” (Tappy 2001:215). Clearly, dendrochronology is not as "scientific" as is often assumed.
Dating archaeological layers have other problems as well. Sometimes the dendrochronologically derived dates for samples from the same archaeological layer differ substantially. So, for example, the grain and charcoal samples taken under well-controlled circumstances from the destruction signifying the end of layer 6 at Tell Brak (this is the period just before the Naram-Sin palace) gave dates of 2023 BC and 2662 BC respectively (Oates 1985:144) Archaeologists normally assign the reign of the Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin somewhere in the middle between these dates.
Another problem is that the presence of organic material does not necessarily determine the age of the structures in which it is found. The structures could have been in use for long periods before the people used those products. Even when organic materials form part of the structures, it could have been incorporated during repairs or rebuilding. Pottery does provide a basis for relative dating, but in many cases, such finds are insufficient to clearly establish the period to which the associated structures date.
The role of historical texts
Archaeology shows the most promise when artefacts and texts are found together. When texts are inscribed on structures, as is often found in Egypt, the possibility of obtaining substantial information about historical events is the best. This is probably one of the most important reasons why Egyptian archaeology is generally viewed as secure (if only for the main dynastic periods). When the texts are found in well-preserved layers, the prospects are also good. When the provenance of the texts is, however, unknown or when other historical texts are used in the interpretation of the archaeological data, the situation is much more complicated. But even in the best of cases, both the archaeological artefacts and the texts (or the combination thereof) are open to various interpretations.
Furthermore, the overall interpretation of the situation involves other archaeological data and historical texts. Although archaeology has considerably enlarged our knowledge of the past through the continuous production of new artefacts, the practice of archaeology always includes historical texts, except for the early periods. This implies that archaeology is an empiric-hermeneutic discipline which is (as far as texts are involved) very much dependent on other hermeneutic disciplines.
The historical texts used in archaeology are also studied in disciplines like philology, history, literature, religious and textual studies etc. These fields have their own particular ways in which they deal with texts. Of special importance is the reliability of the historical information contained in these texts. This depends on many factors, one of which is the textual history of the texts. All historical texts have a certain textual history, how it came into being. Texts like the Bible are typically compiled from other older texts and traditions and then edited and copied in the process of being handed down.
So how is this textual history determined? Theoretical models are constructed, using methods typical of these fields of study, like source criticism. These disciplines, however, face the same barrier found in archaeological excavation - the real textual history is lost. Given the impossibility of substantially (empirically) verifying many of the assumptions used and the fact that new information could always upset the carefully constructed models, there is no hope of ever arriving at the real textual history. The data used to test such hypotheses is always provisional; their verification does not establish facts. Even if one allows for the possibility that the real textual history could be reconstructed (which I do not), it is still impossible to know if it has been achieved. This implies that many possible interpretations present themselves, resulting in the formulation of various perspectives. The hermeneutic disciplines can therefore also do no better than developing (ever) competing perspectives.
In their effort (especially during the modern epoch) to get these disciplines recognized as sciences, scholars have historically adopted a "critical" approach towards the information in historical texts. This included the use of the rationality criterion, assuming that we can rationally determine the likelihood that historical events have taken place. But this assumes that human behaviour is always rational, which it is not. Some confirmed historical events are very unlikely to have happened - but it did. There is absolutely no way to rationally determine the historicity of events.
Furthermore, this approach assumes that without supporting evidence, the information could not be trusted. In practice, this often leads to a positivist rejection of textual information that has not been verified. But on what basis is this verification done? On the basis that archaeology provides sufficient evidence to decide what should be accepted as reliable information. But archaeology is not an empirical science, dendrochronology is not a rigid statistical science and all archaeological data is provisional in the sense that there is always the possibility that new data will be found that could (even dramatically) alter the picture.
There are many examples where textual information that was at some stage distrusted, was later confirmed by new evidence. A few will do. There was a time when the historicity of the "Great Rebellion" against Naram-Sin (and even his foreign conquests) was doubted (Cooper 1993). The discovery of a school text from the period of Naram-Sin himself, however, confirmed that this event did in fact happen. Joan Westenholz commented: “This fragment of a student’s poor exercise is the only extant proof that literary works were composed on the theme of contemporary historical events. The triumph of Naram-Sin over the rebellious city states was probably celebrated in pomp and circumstance… In the city of Esnunna… a teacher made this subject the topic of an assignment of a written composition for a student” (Westenholz 1997:223).
Another example concerns the Biblical figure of David, whose historicity was widely dismissed in scholarly circles before the discovery of the ninth century Tell Dan Stella on which his name appears. In this case, some scholars were so convinced of their case, that they initially rejected the discovery as fraudulent. It is interesting to note that both the Akkadian Empire (which was remembered as the greatest empire ever to have ruled over Mesopotamia) and the Davidic kingdom share the same lack of physical evidence from the original period. Mario Liverani writes the following about the Akkadian Empire: "If we didn't know from the texts that the Akkad empire really existed, we would not be able to postulate it from the changes in settlement pattern, nor from the evolution of material culture" (Liverani 1993). The opposite is also true - in traditional circles (which are largely excluded from the "scientific" endeavour) the information in the texts is often accepted too uncritically.
The fact that disciplines like textual studies are grounded in the modernist-positivist methodologies of the past, which had and still have a great impact on the development of thereof, seriously undermines its credibility. The use of such approaches in the practice of those disciplines (which in my experience is very much alive, for example, in textual studies) is a matter of serious concern. This is all the more problematic since archaeology has a relationship of reciprocal dependence on those disciplines. These disciplines are dependent on archaeology to interpret the archaeological data that is used in the interpretation of texts; archaeology is dependent on their analysis of historical texts to interpret the data.
Clearly, both the archaeological data as well as the texts are open to widely different and conflicting interpretations. No wonder that the formulation of coherent narratives using the interpretations developed in the various disciplines has in the past lead to heated debates. In this regard, the different views on the destruction of Ebla (during the Akkadian period), on the Troyan War, on various Biblical traditions and on many other issues can be called to mind. Scholars who give more credence to the archaeological data, typically follow a "minimalist" approach, whereas scholars who give more credence to the texts, typically follow a maximalist approach. Between these, many approaches are possible. The simple fact is, however, that none of these will ever be able to arrive at any final conclusions. In most cases, one cannot even accept that the narratives proposed by the academic community are a "true" approximation to the historical events.
Conclusion
In this essay, I posited a critique of archaeology as a science. Archaeology is not an empirical science similar to the natural and social sciences. Although there are some researchers - especially those who were educated during the final days of the modernist epoch - who are deeply influenced by positivist ideas and who sometimes give the impression that they regard archaeology in those terms, this is obviously not the case. Although archaeology mine and analyze data under controlled circumstances, this could not be compared with repeatable experiments in the natural sciences or controlled studies in the social sciences. Archaeology is much more restricted in its reach.
One can never go beyond a perspectivist view on any historical situation. Archaeology could be described as an empiric-hermeneutic discipline. A distinction should, however, be made between hermeneutics as the interpretation of texts in combination with other data, and hermeneutics as the interpretation of non-textual artefacts. The archaeology of the pre-textual age is not "hermeneutic" in the traditional sense. I have shown that non-textual data should not be given the same status as texts.
Although archaeology is primarily concerned with physical excavation, it involves many other disciplines. Many of those disciplines are concerned with texts and are also open to widely different interpretations. The process of determining the trustworthiness of information in texts is fraught with problems. When one comes to the eventual formulation of coherent narratives that incorporate both archaeological data and texts, one could never go beyond the practical limits of incomplete and under-represented data and information.
The result is a range of ever competing narratives, which can never arrive at the "truth". So, of what use is archaeology then? Although archaeology cannot provide final answers, it does increase our knowledge. Its ability to produce new data allows us to construct more sophisticated narratives than ever before - but nothing beyond narratives. In the final instance, archaeology contributes to our enjoyment of life in the same way that literature, art and religion does. It enables us to live the "good life".
References
Anthony, David W. 1997. Prehistoric Migration as Social Process. In Chapman, J. and Hamerow, H. (eds.), Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation, BAR International Series 664. Oxford: Archaeopress, Oxford.
Buchner, G. 1979. Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection. In Ridgway, D and Ridgeway, F.R. (eds.), Italy before the Romans, The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan periods. London: Academic Press.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 1993. Paradigm and propaganda. The dynasty of Akkade in the 21st Century. In Mario Livernai (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire: structure, ideology and traditions. Padova: Sargon srl.
Dothan, Trude. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Aegean Affinities of the Sea Peoples’ (Philistines’) Settlement in Canaan in Iron Age I. In Gitin, S. (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel. Archaeological Institute of America.
Frankel, David. 2000. Migration and ethnicity in prehistoric Cyprus: Technological Proof of Migration. European Journal of Archaeology 3:167-187.
Guarinello, N. L. 2005. Archaeology and the Meanings of Material Culture. In Pedro Paulo Funari, Andres Zarankin and Emily Stovel (eds.). Global Archaeological Theory. Contextual Voices and Contemporary Thoughts. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1992. Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist 55(3):112-128.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993a. Social complexity: incipience, emergence and development on pre-historic Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292:85-106.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993b. Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth. World Archaeology 24(3):332-347.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Liverani, M. 1993. Akkad: An Introduction, in Mario Livernai (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire: structure, ideology and traditions. Padova: Sargon srl.
Oates, Joan. 1985. Tell Brak and Chronology: The Third Millennium. Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4:137-144.
Patrik, Linda E. 1985. Is There an Archaeological Record? In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Academic, New York.
Pine, R.C. 2006. Science and the human prospect. Internet: http//home. Honolulu.Hawaii.edu/pine/book1-2.htm/
Popper, K. 1957. Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report, in C. A. Mace (ed.). British in Mid-Century. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Redford, Donald B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University.
Tappy, Ron E. 2001. Book Reviews: A Slice through Time: Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M. G. L. Baillie. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60(3):215-218.
Wilkinson, Toby A. H. 2002. Uruk into Egypt: imports and imitations. In J. N. Posgate (ed.). Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Wiltshire: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1999. Between the Aegean and the Levant: the Philistines. In Tsetskhladze, G. R. (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East. Leiden: Brill, Leiden.
Watrous, L. Vance. 1998. Egypt and Crete in the Early Middle Bronze Age: A Case of Trade and Cultural Diffusion. In Cline, E. H. and Harris-Cline, D. (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Liège: Université de Liège.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Wiener, Malcolm H. 1984. Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: The tale of the conical cups. In Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy, Myth and Reality. Stockholm.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com
Read also: A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline
Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective
Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective
This essay is a critical evaluation of archaeology as a science. In what sense is archaeology a science? How does it compare with the other families of sciences? Is it an empirical science or does it belong to the hermeneutic disciplines? I look at archaeology as it is practised, with special attention to methodology, interpretation of the archaeological record and the role of historical texts. Also discussed is its relationship with other hermeneutic disciplines (especially textual studies) and how this impacts on the archaeological endeavour. The eventual aim is to establish the limits of the archaeological reach.
Archaeology was born during the modern era - just like all the other well-known disciplines. During the modern epoch, all "disciplines" strove towards respectability - to be recognized as disciplined sciences. The ideal was to be objective, to reach final results, to establish truths. There was an optimism that humans will eventually be able to obtain certain and final knowledge. This perspective has, however, changed. During the last half-century philosophers of science have levelled severe criticism against the possibility of obtaining final results and in our present post-modern era, it is recognized that these goals are for the most part unreachable. Although all sciences will always be "disciplined", using a strict methodology, with various techniques and methods, their ability to obtain final results are limited. This is also true of archaeology.
Although I am not an archaeologist myself, I have a live interest in this field of study (I come from a philosophy of science background). In my reading, I find that many researchers still operate in the modernist frame of mind - trying to establish certain "truths". It seems that a debris of positivism is still silently present in their midst. This brings the question to mind: What type of science is archaeology? and what are the limits of its reach? Although there are many good articles by philosophers of archaeology that focus on these matters, these philosophers can obviously not remove themselves from the scientific "paradigm" of which they are part (Kuhn 1962). This could easily result in a tempered criticism, where the (unconscious) objective is to defend the basic tenability of the status quo. I recognize that my own critique is just another perspective, but I believe that it could be of value as an external critique of archaeology as a science.
In this short essay, I focus on those aspects of archaeology that I see as critical to the evaluation of archaeology as a science. These include methodology (with special reference to inductive and deductive methods), interpretation of the archaeological record as well as the role of historical texts. I elucidate my arguments with examples from archaeological experience over the last few decades. These include material related to various excavations and finds, mostly from the ancient Middle East (since this is where my own interest lies). Throughout the discussion, I compare archaeology with the various families of sciences, namely the natural and social sciences, as well as hermeneutics.
Methodology
In the effort to establish archaeology as a scientific discipline, archaeologists use the tools that are traditionally associated with both the empiricist and the rationalist approaches to science, namely inductive and deductive methods. Inductive methods start from the empirical data and try to establish generalized laws. Deductive methods start from theoretical hypotheses and test this against the data. Although researchers try to use one or the other method, in practice it is very difficult to keep these methods apart. The one feeds into the other and the other way round. Data is used to formulate hypothetical models which are tested and then (using the information) revised to establish better models.
The only science that uses purely deductive methods is physics. In physics, it does happen that the mathematical equations that are deductively derived, produce new insights that do not originate with any data. A good example is the Dirac equation which predicted the existence of antimatter. Mathematically constructed deductive theories are powerful in the sense that they give precise predictions and allow for the possibility of falsification (which go much further than mere "verification"). The science philosopher Karl Popper recommended this "falsifiability" in physics (Popper 1957). But most other philosophers of science recognize that this could not be established as a general rule to define a science.
During the modern epoch, and even today, many researchers view deductive and inductive methods as tools that would eventually establish what reality is like. Many researchers held to the correspondence theory of truth and believed that with better and better models, the essence of reality will eventually be laid bare. This optimism was punctured when physicists came up with two different theories describing the same reality, namely Einstein's general gravitational theory and quantum physics. Although both theories could in a remarkable way predict the correct outcome, they describe reality very differently (Pine 2006). One could view these as complementary theories modelling the same reality. But this implies that, although reality exists, we do not know - and would probably never know - what it truly is like. There is absolutely no way to establish whether any model describes reality as it really is. A similar situation exists in the social sciences, where the two complementary theories of behaviourism and psychoanalysis are used to describe the complex reality of human behaviour.
Although archaeology uses these same methods, there is obviously no corresponding existent (historical) "reality" against which models could be tested. The process of time has destroyed the historical reality that once existed. Even in cases where a city was suddenly destroyed and the artefacts are well preserved (as in the case of Pompey), the archaeological record is incomplete. All archaeological records are incomplete. What are the implications of this? It implies that archaeologists are stuck with an incomplete "reality" - the historical situation or "reality" does not exist anymore. There is an unbridgeable distance between the historical reality and the archaeological reality which is present in the archaeological record. From this, we can deduce that no historical "reality" exists (comparable to the existent but unknowable reality underlying nature) against which theoretical models could be tested.
Various models could be produced, all of them corresponding to the same archaeological data, but with nobody knowing which model (if any) corresponds to the historical situation. The fact that a model is confirmed by the data says nothing; it only confirms that an archaeological correlate for the model has been found. It does not in any way establish that the model corresponds to the real historical situation on the ground. In this case, the models are not complementary, they are competitive. And it is impossible to decide which one (if any) is correct (We find the same problem in other related disciplines. In textual studies, for example, the real textual histories of many ancient texts are forever lost and no amount of hypotheses and testing could ever reproduce it - see below).
To illustrate this problem I can mention the difficulty of distinguishing between trade, emulation, and migration in the archaeological record. Even with lots of data, it often happens that archaeologists cannot decide among themselves which model (or combinations thereof) is applicable. Archaeologists of different backgrounds adhere to different models to explain the same data. A few examples will suffice. Some believe that there is abundant evidence that people from Mesopotamia migrated to Egypt during the period of the Uruk expansion (Redford 1992:24); others believe the data only shows emulation by a local elite (Wilkinson 2002:241, 245). Some use a model of migration to explain the cultural change at the beginning of the Bronze Age in Cyprus (Frankel 2000), others apply a model of emulation by an emerging elite to the same data (Knapp 1993a). Some believe that the cultural change in the coastal areas of southern Palestine at the beginning of the Iron Age prove the arrival of the Philistines (Dothan 1995); others believe the change was due to trade (Vanschoonwinkel 1999). The list is endless, so to speak. Bernard Knapp said with reference to the Minoan "colonies": "[T]here is no way to settle it one way or the other" (Knapp 1992).
Some archaeologists are quite straightforward in their assessment of this problem. David Anthony, for example, writes the following about the tendency to prefer models of trade or emulation over migration: "Migration has been demonized and has mystified Western archaeologists since the rise of ‘New Archaeology’ in the late 1960’s… Several writers have noted that the rise and fall of the popularity of migration and diffusion in western archaeology seems closely linked to the prevailing milieu in politics, national interests and intellectual trends” (Anthony 1997:21). It seems that we can conclude that it is not only "scientific study" that decides which model is accepted; things like political correctness, national interests and what is trending, play an important role. One can hope that the incorporation of other disciplines like genetic studies will eventually lead to more substantial results, but the applicability thereof is often restricted by the lack of relevant data.
One can compare the archaeological study of historical data with the study of the origins of the universe. The universe still exists and scientists study light that originated during the early stages after it came into existence. Although it is impossible to establish exactly how the universe originated, scientists were able to show that the astronomical data corresponds well with the predictions of the Big Bang model - allowing them to eliminate the competing model of a static universe. Although the biological sciences to some extent share the problem of incomplete historical data, it can be assumed that the laws of nature that gave birth to the species are still valid. From this one can propose that eventually, the biological sciences would also be able to "predict" (as we find in physics) and gain a better understanding of the processes involved. At this stage, there are (at least) two competing models of evolution, namely the synthetic model and the punctuated equilibrium model.
Interpreting the archaeological record
As in the case of the empirical sciences, data collection forms a central part of the archaeological endeavour. But does this imply that archaeology is an empirical science? Although archaeologists carefully prepare their digs, using all sorts of techniques to establish a good definition of the excavation, the dice is always loaded against them. Although data constitutes "evidence", one cannot compare it with any experiment in the natural sciences or controlled study in the social sciences.
There are two reasons for this. In the first place, the dig is a non-repeatable experience. Although it could be compared with similar excavations elsewhere, it could never be the same. The fact that it is a one-off experience implies that it is after all also a personal (individually and socially) experience for those involved - it is not necessarily so that other archaeologists would have arrived at the same conclusions. One can mention many examples of different interpretations of the same archaeological excavations and data. Vance Watrous's observation says it all: "[O]ne of the most interesting things about archaeological material, is you get the same object, you get three archaeologists, you come up with three different interpretations based on that" (Watrous 1998).
The other aspect in which archaeological excavation differs from any controlled experiment is that one can never know if the accessible data is a representative sample. In most cases, it obviously is not. Any conclusions drawn from the data are therefore open to criticism. In the days of positivism, it was often assumed that no "evidence" is proof that such evidence does not exist. But this is just plain wrong. Since it can never be shown that archaeological data is representative of any particular historical situation, how can any scientific conclusions be drawn from it? It is not only possible but inevitable, that evidence has disappeared with time or that it has been severely damaged or reduced.
Many examples could be given to illustrate the non-representative nature of archaeological data. Giorgio Buchner found one small precision balance in the refuse of a metal workshop, together with a miscast bronze fibula and a few related items, as the only possible evidence for Strabo's statement that goldware production was one of the main activities of the early Iron Age Euboean settlement off the Italian coast (Buchner 1979). A while ago it was reported that the organic layer (probably due to a tsunami) covering archaeological remains from 6000 years ago in the Burren More in North Clare in Ireland, dissipated when exposed to air. The same is true for papyrus and other materials. This again shows what I have demonstrated above (although this time from the inductive side), namely that archaeologists are stuck with an incomplete record of historical "reality", which severely restricts their ability to establish which model corresponds to the historical situation.
Although archaeology involves "experience", archaeologists do not conduct "experiments". Excavations are neither repeatable nor representative. Archaeology is therefore not an empirical science. Even if we accept that excavations are empirical in nature, this is not enough to establish archaeology as an empirical science. This was recognized decades ago by philosophers of science. Even when archaeological excavations are conducted in a carefully controlled manner, the archaeological record is always open to different interpretations. Although interpretation cannot be excluded from any data (even in physics there exist various interpretations of quantum physics), in archaeology interpretation is not grounded in empirical experimentation.
What was proposed, is that the archaeological record should be viewed as text (Schiffer 1985) or at least as having symbolic meaning (Guarinello 2005). As with textual studies, archaeology is essentially an interpretative (hermeneutic) discipline. Various interpretations of a "text" are always possible and no single interpretation could be established as the right one. Bernard Knapp wrote in this regard: "Archaeologists of different backgrounds, however, read such 'facts' in different ways and assigned alternative meanings to the same material. In other words, the archaeological record, as 'text', has its own autonomy and is open to multiple interpretations on the part of its readers" (Knapp 1993b). Seen from this angle, it makes sense that theoretical models, which are in fact nothing but sophisticated perspectives, will always be competitive even if it incorporates some complementary aspects.
But is the analogy of the archaeological record with texts really a good one? Although it captures the fact that the interpretation of archaeological data is unequivocally perspectivist, it does place that record on the same level as texts. Is that really the case? What distinguishes texts is the information contained therein - information about historical events and situations. This is exactly what non-textual archaeological data lacks. Although such data could give some basic information, for example of catastrophic events (both natural and human-produced), this information is severely restricted because its relation to known history is not explicitly given. For the most part, non-textual data merely gives partial access to background information, for example about material culture.
The enormous difference between texts and non-textual data in its ability to provide information could be easily illustrated. The presence of foreign communities, for example, is very difficult to establish solely from the archaeological data. The Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia would have been "invisible", had it not been for the discovered tablets. Malcolm Weiner said in this regard: “As Machfeld Mellink, James Mellaart and others have observed, had the tablets not survived little else would suggest the existence of an Assyrian colony since the colonists adopted local architecture and pottery. The situation with regard to Karum Kanesh is not unique. Tablets tell us of many Assyrian trading colonies in Anatolia. At other major excavated sites as Bögazkoy and Alishar, again only the tablets give any clear indication of the presence of an Assyrian trading colony… It is clear that there are differing views among specialists as to whether an Assyrian custom can be detected at Kültepe… I think it would be very difficult to identify something which is specifically Assyrian without the tablets” (Weiner 1984:17, 26). The same can be said about the Ugarit tablets which changed the whole academic perspective on Canaanite culture.
There is, however, a certain type of information that only archaeological data, and more specifically organic material, could provide. This is information about the age of the data. For many archaeologists, this unique ability of archaeological data to accurately date structures and catastrophic events provide the scientific respectability that the data could otherwise lack. For this, they are dependent on other disciplines, for example, dendrochronology. But how scientific are the statistical techniques used for this dating? Contra the general opinion among archaeologists, this is not a rigid statistical science.
In his book A Slice through Time the dendrochronologist M.G.L. Baillie acknowledges that the master chronologies "are not 100% matches" and that the application of the technique is based on subjective judgement: “The practised dendrochronologist is looking for matches that he/she is willing to accept, based on experience, as correct matches between long ring patterns”. In his review of this book, Ron Tappy wrote: "This subjective intuitive aspect of dendrochronology might easily fail to satisfy the tolerances and significance levels expected by statisticians... Recognition of this subjective human element and the inconclusiveness of many of the case studies introduced in the course of the book dampen somewhat one’s appreciation for the purportedly absolute precision of the science. Various factors, such as the loss of the outermost layers of unconsolidated sapwood from a collective sample, seem to compromise the accuracy of the overall method” (Tappy 2001:215). Clearly, dendrochronology is not as "scientific" as is often assumed.
Dating archaeological layers have other problems as well. Sometimes the dendrochronologically derived dates for samples from the same archaeological layer differ substantially. So, for example, the grain and charcoal samples taken under well-controlled circumstances from the destruction signifying the end of layer 6 at Tell Brak (this is the period just before the Naram-Sin palace) gave dates of 2023 BC and 2662 BC respectively (Oates 1985:144) Archaeologists normally assign the reign of the Akkadian ruler Naram-Sin somewhere in the middle between these dates.
Another problem is that the presence of organic material does not necessarily determine the age of the structures in which it is found. The structures could have been in use for long periods before the people used those products. Even when organic materials form part of the structures, it could have been incorporated during repairs or rebuilding. Pottery does provide a basis for relative dating, but in many cases, such finds are insufficient to clearly establish the period to which the associated structures date.
The role of historical texts
Archaeology shows the most promise when artefacts and texts are found together. When texts are inscribed on structures, as is often found in Egypt, the possibility of obtaining substantial information about historical events is the best. This is probably one of the most important reasons why Egyptian archaeology is generally viewed as secure (if only for the main dynastic periods). When the texts are found in well-preserved layers, the prospects are also good. When the provenance of the texts is, however, unknown or when other historical texts are used in the interpretation of the archaeological data, the situation is much more complicated. But even in the best of cases, both the archaeological artefacts and the texts (or the combination thereof) are open to various interpretations.
Furthermore, the overall interpretation of the situation involves other archaeological data and historical texts. Although archaeology has considerably enlarged our knowledge of the past through the continuous production of new artefacts, the practice of archaeology always includes historical texts, except for the early periods. This implies that archaeology is an empiric-hermeneutic discipline which is (as far as texts are involved) very much dependent on other hermeneutic disciplines.
The historical texts used in archaeology are also studied in disciplines like philology, history, literature, religious and textual studies etc. These fields have their own particular ways in which they deal with texts. Of special importance is the reliability of the historical information contained in these texts. This depends on many factors, one of which is the textual history of the texts. All historical texts have a certain textual history, how it came into being. Texts like the Bible are typically compiled from other older texts and traditions and then edited and copied in the process of being handed down.
So how is this textual history determined? Theoretical models are constructed, using methods typical of these fields of study, like source criticism. These disciplines, however, face the same barrier found in archaeological excavation - the real textual history is lost. Given the impossibility of substantially (empirically) verifying many of the assumptions used and the fact that new information could always upset the carefully constructed models, there is no hope of ever arriving at the real textual history. The data used to test such hypotheses is always provisional; their verification does not establish facts. Even if one allows for the possibility that the real textual history could be reconstructed (which I do not), it is still impossible to know if it has been achieved. This implies that many possible interpretations present themselves, resulting in the formulation of various perspectives. The hermeneutic disciplines can therefore also do no better than developing (ever) competing perspectives.
In their effort (especially during the modern epoch) to get these disciplines recognized as sciences, scholars have historically adopted a "critical" approach towards the information in historical texts. This included the use of the rationality criterion, assuming that we can rationally determine the likelihood that historical events have taken place. But this assumes that human behaviour is always rational, which it is not. Some confirmed historical events are very unlikely to have happened - but it did. There is absolutely no way to rationally determine the historicity of events.
Furthermore, this approach assumes that without supporting evidence, the information could not be trusted. In practice, this often leads to a positivist rejection of textual information that has not been verified. But on what basis is this verification done? On the basis that archaeology provides sufficient evidence to decide what should be accepted as reliable information. But archaeology is not an empirical science, dendrochronology is not a rigid statistical science and all archaeological data is provisional in the sense that there is always the possibility that new data will be found that could (even dramatically) alter the picture.
There are many examples where textual information that was at some stage distrusted, was later confirmed by new evidence. A few will do. There was a time when the historicity of the "Great Rebellion" against Naram-Sin (and even his foreign conquests) was doubted (Cooper 1993). The discovery of a school text from the period of Naram-Sin himself, however, confirmed that this event did in fact happen. Joan Westenholz commented: “This fragment of a student’s poor exercise is the only extant proof that literary works were composed on the theme of contemporary historical events. The triumph of Naram-Sin over the rebellious city states was probably celebrated in pomp and circumstance… In the city of Esnunna… a teacher made this subject the topic of an assignment of a written composition for a student” (Westenholz 1997:223).
Another example concerns the Biblical figure of David, whose historicity was widely dismissed in scholarly circles before the discovery of the ninth century Tell Dan Stella on which his name appears. In this case, some scholars were so convinced of their case, that they initially rejected the discovery as fraudulent. It is interesting to note that both the Akkadian Empire (which was remembered as the greatest empire ever to have ruled over Mesopotamia) and the Davidic kingdom share the same lack of physical evidence from the original period. Mario Liverani writes the following about the Akkadian Empire: "If we didn't know from the texts that the Akkad empire really existed, we would not be able to postulate it from the changes in settlement pattern, nor from the evolution of material culture" (Liverani 1993). The opposite is also true - in traditional circles (which are largely excluded from the "scientific" endeavour) the information in the texts is often accepted too uncritically.
The fact that disciplines like textual studies are grounded in the modernist-positivist methodologies of the past, which had and still have a great impact on the development of thereof, seriously undermines its credibility. The use of such approaches in the practice of those disciplines (which in my experience is very much alive, for example, in textual studies) is a matter of serious concern. This is all the more problematic since archaeology has a relationship of reciprocal dependence on those disciplines. These disciplines are dependent on archaeology to interpret the archaeological data that is used in the interpretation of texts; archaeology is dependent on their analysis of historical texts to interpret the data.
Clearly, both the archaeological data as well as the texts are open to widely different and conflicting interpretations. No wonder that the formulation of coherent narratives using the interpretations developed in the various disciplines has in the past lead to heated debates. In this regard, the different views on the destruction of Ebla (during the Akkadian period), on the Troyan War, on various Biblical traditions and on many other issues can be called to mind. Scholars who give more credence to the archaeological data, typically follow a "minimalist" approach, whereas scholars who give more credence to the texts, typically follow a maximalist approach. Between these, many approaches are possible. The simple fact is, however, that none of these will ever be able to arrive at any final conclusions. In most cases, one cannot even accept that the narratives proposed by the academic community are a "true" approximation to the historical events.
Conclusion
In this essay, I posited a critique of archaeology as a science. Archaeology is not an empirical science similar to the natural and social sciences. Although there are some researchers - especially those who were educated during the final days of the modernist epoch - who are deeply influenced by positivist ideas and who sometimes give the impression that they regard archaeology in those terms, this is obviously not the case. Although archaeology mine and analyze data under controlled circumstances, this could not be compared with repeatable experiments in the natural sciences or controlled studies in the social sciences. Archaeology is much more restricted in its reach.
One can never go beyond a perspectivist view on any historical situation. Archaeology could be described as an empiric-hermeneutic discipline. A distinction should, however, be made between hermeneutics as the interpretation of texts in combination with other data, and hermeneutics as the interpretation of non-textual artefacts. The archaeology of the pre-textual age is not "hermeneutic" in the traditional sense. I have shown that non-textual data should not be given the same status as texts.
Although archaeology is primarily concerned with physical excavation, it involves many other disciplines. Many of those disciplines are concerned with texts and are also open to widely different interpretations. The process of determining the trustworthiness of information in texts is fraught with problems. When one comes to the eventual formulation of coherent narratives that incorporate both archaeological data and texts, one could never go beyond the practical limits of incomplete and under-represented data and information.
The result is a range of ever competing narratives, which can never arrive at the "truth". So, of what use is archaeology then? Although archaeology cannot provide final answers, it does increase our knowledge. Its ability to produce new data allows us to construct more sophisticated narratives than ever before - but nothing beyond narratives. In the final instance, archaeology contributes to our enjoyment of life in the same way that literature, art and religion does. It enables us to live the "good life".
References
Anthony, David W. 1997. Prehistoric Migration as Social Process. In Chapman, J. and Hamerow, H. (eds.), Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation, BAR International Series 664. Oxford: Archaeopress, Oxford.
Buchner, G. 1979. Early Orientalizing: Aspects of the Euboean Connection. In Ridgway, D and Ridgeway, F.R. (eds.), Italy before the Romans, The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan periods. London: Academic Press.
Cooper, Jerrold S. 1993. Paradigm and propaganda. The dynasty of Akkade in the 21st Century. In Mario Livernai (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire: structure, ideology and traditions. Padova: Sargon srl.
Dothan, Trude. 1995. Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Aegean Affinities of the Sea Peoples’ (Philistines’) Settlement in Canaan in Iron Age I. In Gitin, S. (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel. Archaeological Institute of America.
Frankel, David. 2000. Migration and ethnicity in prehistoric Cyprus: Technological Proof of Migration. European Journal of Archaeology 3:167-187.
Guarinello, N. L. 2005. Archaeology and the Meanings of Material Culture. In Pedro Paulo Funari, Andres Zarankin and Emily Stovel (eds.). Global Archaeological Theory. Contextual Voices and Contemporary Thoughts. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1992. Bronze Age Mediterranean Island Cultures and the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist 55(3):112-128.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993a. Social complexity: incipience, emergence and development on pre-historic Cyprus. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 292:85-106.
Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993b. Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth. World Archaeology 24(3):332-347.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Liverani, M. 1993. Akkad: An Introduction, in Mario Livernai (ed.). Akkad. The First World Empire: structure, ideology and traditions. Padova: Sargon srl.
Oates, Joan. 1985. Tell Brak and Chronology: The Third Millennium. Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4:137-144.
Patrik, Linda E. 1985. Is There an Archaeological Record? In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Academic, New York.
Pine, R.C. 2006. Science and the human prospect. Internet: http//home. Honolulu.Hawaii.edu/pine/book1-2.htm/
Popper, K. 1957. Philosophy of Science: A Personal Report, in C. A. Mace (ed.). British in Mid-Century. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Redford, Donald B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University.
Tappy, Ron E. 2001. Book Reviews: A Slice through Time: Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M. G. L. Baillie. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60(3):215-218.
Wilkinson, Toby A. H. 2002. Uruk into Egypt: imports and imitations. In J. N. Posgate (ed.). Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Wiltshire: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Vanschoonwinkel, J. 1999. Between the Aegean and the Levant: the Philistines. In Tsetskhladze, G. R. (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East. Leiden: Brill, Leiden.
Watrous, L. Vance. 1998. Egypt and Crete in the Early Middle Bronze Age: A Case of Trade and Cultural Diffusion. In Cline, E. H. and Harris-Cline, D. (eds.), The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium, Liège: Université de Liège.
Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1997. Legends of the Kings of Akkade. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Wiener, Malcolm H. 1984. Crete and the Cyclades in LM I: The tale of the conical cups. In Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy, Myth and Reality. Stockholm.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud on www.wmcloud.blogspot.com
Read also: A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline
Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective
Part 2: Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)