Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh

I’ve just been to the new de Young Museum in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park to see the soon-closing exhibit Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh. The exhibit closes here 5 February, moving to The Met in New York (21 March-9 July) and finally the Kimball Art Museum in Fort Worth (27 August-10 December 2006). Rather than a strict focus on Hatshepsut, the artifacts included in the exhibit date to the early Eighteenth Dynasty in general, down into the sole reign of Thutmose III, with a majority of non-royal items. There were some huge statues, at least twice life-size, included, but the vast majority of items were small, and therefore difficult to enjoy or even to see due to the crush of the crowd (never go to the museum on the weekend!). The catalog is quite fine, and nearly a steal at under $30 for the softcover (only $35 for the hardcover), which you can, for now, purchase online here (in the past, Fine Art Museums of San Francisco website links to such have been temporary, so I don’t expect this link to be valid for too much longer). In any case, if you have a chance to see the exhibit in SF, New York, or Fort Worth, it’s well worth the effort if you can avoid the crush. There are items in the catalog that I didn’t see at all in the museum due to the number of people in the way. I’ll probably make a morning visit during the week, which I had intended to do last week, but it was too busy a week. Note to all potential patrons of any museum: when you want to know the least crowded time to go, ask a docent sometime, and then go only at their recommended times. Again: never go to a major museum on the weekend if you actually intend on having a remotely pleasant visit. I should’ve known better. Still, I did have a very nice rainy day’s walk through Golden Gate Park, which is almost always nice.

Since the de Young just reopened in November (the original museum was severely damaged in the 1989 earthquake, closed in 2000, torn down, and this new museum constructed), part of the interest for me today was in seeing the new museum, as I was rather fond of the old building, never having thought it so ugly as some say it was. Well, it’s different, of course, and will take some getting used to, like any new building. I don’t think the new tower is ever going to grow on me, as it resembles too strongly an air traffic control tower. The exterior of the museum is sheathed in beaten copper, which, now that it’s taking on a patina, is actually quite nice (by all accounts it was quite ugly when new and shiny). The landscaping is still in progress, and as it was raining today with just a little too much wind as I was leaving, a stroll through the sculpture garden was not on my list, but it looks like a nice thing for more pleasant weather. Unfortunately, across the way from the de Young, the California Academy of Sciences is now closed and being reconstructed, with a re-opening date of “late 2008,” so there’s going to be construction going on for a while right there.

Anyhow, if you have a chance, see the Hatshepsut exhibit. It’s well worth your time, just for the indescribable serenity of line and form that Egyptian art possesses and the calm that this distinctively beautiful tradition of art instills.

❧

❧

Daniel 2 and the Empires

Typically Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image of the statue in Daniel 2 has been looked at in a four kingdom framework, beginning with the neo-Babylonian, followed by the Median, the Persian, and then the Greek empires (see John Collins’ excursus on The Four Kingdoms in his Hermeneia commentary, pp 166-170). The problem with this interpretation is that it is based not upon the understanding of history held by the author of Daniel, but on that of Greek sources, in which the schema is the Assyrian empire followed by the Median, followed by the Persian, followed by the Greek. The Greek evidence is interesting, but irrelevant. We have examples of the historical understanding of the author of Daniel from other parts of the book, namely chapters 7 and 11, which in conjunction with chapter 2, indicate a different solution to the interpretation of the procession of empire as depicted by the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

Firstly, in chapter 7, we have a creature with ten horns, three of which are plucked out and replaced by another horn. Here are the historical characters involved here:
          1.) Seleucus I Nicator 305-281
          2.) Antiochus I Soter 281-261
          3.) Antiochus II Theos 261-246
          4.) Seleucus II Callinicus 246-226
          5.) Seleucus III Soter Ceraunos 226-223
          6.) Antiochus III the Great 223-187
          7.) Seleucus IV Philopator 187-175
1/      8.) Antiochus, younger son of Sel.IV
                 (killed by Antiochus IV)
2/     9.) Demetrius I, prisoner in Rome, displaced by Ant.IV
3/    10.) Heliodorus killed Sel.IV and thought to rule through
                his son Antiochus (8, above); H. was killed by Ant.IV
          Little horn: Antiochus IV Epiphanes 175-164
Notice that the three horns (indicated by 1/, 2/, 3/) represented three persons, two of whom were killed and one of whom was kept from the throne for a time, by the “little horn” Antiochus IV Epiphanes. We see here that the author is quite well informed not only of the regicide and attempted usurpation by Heliodorus at the Seleucid court, but quite succinctly summarized the intrigues at this point in Seleucid history with his uprooted horns metaphor.

Daniel 11 presents us with quite a nice summary of relations between the Seleucids and Ptolemids. The below identifies the various personages:
11.1: First year of Darius the Mede=first year of Cyrus the Great
11.2: Three more kings: Cambyses (530-522), Bardiya (522), Darius I (521-486); fourth king: Xerxes (486-465) [the rest of the Achaemenids are ignored, as they are irrelevant]
11.3: Mighty king: Alexander (336-323); split to the four winds: the Diadochoi
11.5-6a: King of the South: Ptolemy I Soter (323-282); Commander: Seleucus I Nicator (312-281) [Notice that Antiochus I Soter is passed over here]
11.6b: King of South: Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246); King of North: Antiochus II Theos (261-246)
11.7: Woman’s offspring: Ptolemy III Euergetes (246-221); King of North: Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225)
11.10: Sons: Seleucus III Soter (225-223) and Antiochus III
11.11: King of North: Antiochus III the Great(223-187); King of South: Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204)
11.14: King of South: Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-180)
11.17: Woman: Cleopatra
11.18: Commander: Lucius Cornelius Scipio
11.20: One to arise: Seleucus IV Philopator (187-175); official: Heliodorus
11.21: contemptible person: Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164)
11.30: ships of Kittim: under the command of the Roman Popilius Laenas
Following the flow of chapter 11 and focusing on those who are depicted explicitly as ruling, we end up with twelve rulers total depicted here, six from the Seleucids and six from the Ptolemids, interestingly enough, which are depicted as either strong or weak.

Taking the information above, I suggest the following interpretation of the Nebuchadnezzar dream statue in Daniel 2:
Head of gold: Nebuchadnezzar [the rest of the neo-Babylonians are ignored]
Chest/arms of Silver: The Medes and Persians, as there are two arms
Belly/thighs of bronze: Alexander the Great, who strode across west and east
Iron legs: Ptolemy I Soter and Seleucus I Nicator, one per leg
Feet of mixed clay and iron: Specifically I think the imagery is related to the ten toes, some of which are intended to be iron and some clay:
One foot, Kings of the South:
     Ptolemy II Philadelphus: clay
     Ptolemy III Euergetes: iron
     Ptolemy IV Philopator: iron
     Ptolemy V Epiphanes: clay
     Ptolemy VI Philometor: clay
The other foot, Kings of the North:
     Antiochus II Theos: clay
     Seleucus II Callinicus: clay
     Antiochus III the Great: iron
     Seleucus IV Philopator: clay
     Antiochus IV Epiphanes: iron

There are several implications here. Firstly, this interpretation, which fits so well with the evidence, would indicate that the materials in Daniel chapter 2 and chapter 11 are obviously related and belong to the same time period. Secondly, we find important evidence concerning the different mindset regarding history held by the author of these depictions: when one or another ruler is omitted, this shows us that the historical information is being selectively utilized in order to fit the particular prophetic structure being depicted. Thirdly, and I think most interestingly, the depiction of sometimes kings and sometimes empires in the image (see 2.38) shows that the consistency which we expect as moderns (which has previously always led us to read all the elements as empires) was not something shared by the ancients. Lastly, the sophistication of detail in combining the utilization of the various metals and clay with the various body parts of the image as a presentation of unfolding history and the quality of kings is, so far as I know, unique. It is certainly quite striking.

❧

Beautiful Bookmarks

If you’re someone who loves books, thoroughly enjoys the act of reading, and would like to honor that pastime with accoutrements of a bit more quality than perhaps you have in the past, consider treating yourself to these woven silk bookmarks. Each is in the traditional style of a rug from long ago and far away.

Not only will they add a level of dignity to your act of reading, much more than a torn slip from the newspaper or the envelope of an old bill would do, they also make very well-appreciated gifts. One friend of mine uses hers in her Bible, where the intricate patterns peeking out from between the pages are enhanced by the beautiful glow from the gold of those gilt-edged pages themselves. Another friend’s five year old daughter treasures hers, using it to mark her place in her nighttime storybook.

It’s much more pleasing to see these little fringed beauties gently drooping from out of the books rather than the rigidly jutting dog-eared paper stock bookmarks that come gratis from the booksellers’ counters, a torn corner of notebook paper, a used bus transfer or train ticket, or any of the other detritus that I’ve used in the past to mark my place in a book. With reading being such an integral part of the process of learning, it deserves a better than occasional amount of respect.

Treat yourself! You won’t regret it!

❧

Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!

Let us regard the biblical account itself as a conceptual model of Israel’s genesis. It is as if the Israelites themselves formulated an articulate portrayal of their distant past, much as modern scholarship does. Such a paradigm for a description of Israel’s emergence is feasible. This projection embedded within the biblical text has certain clear advantages over modern speculation: being much closer to the actual events—by thousands of years—and being a product of the locale itself, it inherently draws upon a much greater intimacy with the land, its topography, demography, military situation, ecology, and the like.

Such a working hypothesis enables us to avoid the extremes which have all too often left their imprint upon modern historiography in our field. By conceding that the biblical tradition could be a reflective, “theorizing” account—rather than strictly factual, “Wie es eigentlich gewesen” (Ranke)—we sidestep the pitfall of neofundamentalism. And by spurning the view of Israel’s proto-history as a deliberately fabricated tradition, we keep from being swept into the other, radical—and now more fashionable—extreme. This paves the way, on an operative plane, to a dialectical approach to the biblical text, one which retains the option that the tradition represents an admixture of ancient, reliable, historical components and late, untrustworthy, anachronistic elements.

This excellent pair of paragraphs is found on pages 13-14 of Malamat’s History of Biblical Israel. His terminology of reflection is earlier described on pages 9-10: “Rudimentary ancient descriptions were recontemplated in the current intellectual and theological terms, yielding new appraisals and motivations for past events.” That sounds an awful lot like modern historiography, doesn’t it?

My only quibble in the extended quote above, comes with the statement at the very end: “late, untrustworthy, anachronistic elements.” An anachronistic element isn’t necessarily untrustworthy, but simply misplaced. Typically, anachronisms are recognized precisely because of reliable testimony placing them in an age that is later than the period described in the text. This marks an anachronism as, actually, a trustworthy witness of its own age.

❧

More Yehuda Amichai

לו 

כָּל עֶרֶב מוֹצִיא אֱלהִים אֶת סְחוֹרוֹתָיו
הַמַּבְרִיקוֹת מֵחַלּוֹן הָרַאֲוָה
מַעֲשֵׂי מֶרְכָּבָה, לוּחוֹת בְּרִית, פְּנִינִים יָפוֹת
צְלָבִים וּפַעֲמוֹנִים זוֹהֲרִים
וּמַחֲזִיר אוֹתָם לְתוֹך אַרְגָּזִים אֲפֵלִים
בִּפְנִים וְסוֹגֵר אֶת הַתְּרִיס: “שׁוּב
“לא בָּא אַף נָבִיא אֶחָד לִקנוֹת

36

Every night God takes his glittering
merchandise out of his showcase—
holy chariots, tables of law, fancy beads,
crosses and bells—
and puts them back into dark boxes
inside and pulls down the shutters: “Again,
not one prophet has come to buy”

❧

In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel

I’ve just finished reading In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, edited by John Day. For a fine-grained review of the book with summaries of the articles, see Joe Cathey’s review at RBL. These are just a few comments from off the top of my head.

Firstly, I have to admit that I was just a tad, a tiny little bit, disappointed by this book. Perhaps I was, entirely unrealistically I admit, expecting a bit more consistency than I should expect from a series of reworked papers originally delivered in a conference. This is a subject that really should be dealt with in detail, and which would benefit from the kind of consistency in approach that is really only possible in a work written by one author. That evenness of approach is lacking here, but, of course, is only to be expected due to the origins of the papers. If one of the authors of the works contained herein were to write such a book, based on the performances contained in this one, I would nominate, second, and inaugurate John Day for the duty.

In any case, I did find several of the chapters/papers to be especially outstanding in content as well as presentation: those of Ernest Nicholson “Current ‘Revisionism’ and the Literature of the Old Testament”, John Day “How Many Pre-Exilic Psalms are there?”, and W. G. Lambert “Mesopotamian Sources and Pre-Exilic Israel.” Day’s chapter is the prize of the book, I think. It is succint, well-argued, and, perhaps most importantly, not overburdened by too much unnecessary recapitulation of the secondary literature, a common problem in this book. Others that stand out in the Not-As-Stellar-But-Still-Pretty-Nifty Category were Graham Davies “Was there an Exodus?”, William Dever “Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: the Question of the United Monarchy”, and Katherine Dell “How much Wisdom Literature has its Roots in the Pre-Exilic Period?”

And then there are the rest of the articles, of which I only want to deal with a few in any detail. André Lemaire “Hebrew and West Semitic Inscriptions and Pre-Exilic Israel” suffers from the inclusion of non-provenanced materials from the antiquities market as “evidence.” That’s just tacky. Terry Fenton “Hebrew Poetic Structure as a Basis for Dating” suffers from a non-poet’s approach to poetry: fit the material into the appropriate pattern, everything else is extraneous. B. A. Mastin “Yahweh’s Asherah, Inclusive Monotheism and the Question of Dating” suffers from trying to avoid the explicit connotation in the pronominal suffix attached to Asherah in the Kuntillet `Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom marking it as a noun, not a name. Gary Knoppers “In Search of Post-Exilic Israel: Samaria After the Fall of the Northern Kingdom” is a mixed bag, describing the mass depopulation of most of the northern kingdom, but somehow also trying to ameliorate it for some unknown and unstated reason. Perhaps most egregiously, Bernard Levinson “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John van Seters” takes 54 pages to say “no”. I suppose it’s rather a pet peeve of mine that we are on occasion subjected to the odious original of a thing and then recapitulation of it ad nauseam whenever a response addresses it. Once is enough!

Overall however, the volume is certainly valuable, and I’m glad I’ve read it. I’ve found much of it to be of value, though definitely not as much as I expected. I recommend it to anyone interested or involved in the “maximalist” versus “minimalist” controversy. This book weighs in, a welterweight, in the maximalist corner.

A consistent drawback I’ve noticed shared by this volume with others is that unusual theories, in this case of extraordinarily, unrealistically late datings of the biblical texts, are given validation by interaction, even by refutation. Stupid ideas stupidly posed should rather be ignored. Has anyone taken the time to write a refutation of Velikovsky’s fantasies? Why should some of these other equally unlikely peculiarities be priveleged with response? It’s a waste of preciously valuable time, and original, creative research is thereby left undone because of this dead-ending of attention on second-rate foolishness. It would be refreshing to see the main tendency in biblical studies in general return to study of the primary texts involved, that is, the actual biblical books, rather than an absurd fascination with secondary/tertiary/quaternary texts. The two are not to be equated.

❧

Pseudepigraphic Music

The Hillard Ensemble recording of the Orlando de Lassus works Missa pro defunctis and Prophetiae Sibyllarum is in print again.

The Prophetiae Sibyllarum includes selections from the oracles of the Sibyls of Persia, Libya, Delphi, Cimmeria, Samos, Cumae, the Hellespont, Phrygia, Europe, Tibur, Erythraea, and Agrippa. It is de Lassus’ only experiment in extreme chromaticism, a quite striking and rather esoteric work, an oddly haunting blend “of pagan hysteria and Christian epigram,” as the booklet says. The Latin text of the oracles used by de Lassus first appeared in a Venetian printing of 1481, so their relation to the OT Pseudepigrapha Greek Sibylline Oracles is tenuous at best. Still, it’s fun to have a recording of such an unusual subject!

The Missa pro defunctis is, of course, another fine example of the polyphony for which de Lassus is so justly renowned.

If anyone knows of other recordings of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, let me know. It would be fun to put together a collection of such.

❧

St. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho Podcast!

Every once in a while I do a search for mentions of my stuff online, and I found that Mr. and Mrs. James Rennie of Dead White Guys have recorded my public domain text of St. Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew as a podcast! (He’s Justin and she’s everyone else.) The actual podcast files are also archived (or whatever they call it for podcasts!) in various other places, like here where I first ran into it. There are a number of readings of various other Church Fathers as well.

How cool is that?! It’s a joy to hear. Also, hearing it read, I think I have a little more work to put into it to make it better for reading, but it does remarkably well in its current edition. What a fun resource!

He even pronounces my somewhat odd last name as I do: edge-km, not -comb, like the thing you fix your hair with. The -comb(e)/-cumbe ending comes from the Old Celtic kumbos, according to the OED, which means valley. We’re supposed to be in the Domesday Book somewhere, though I’ve never looked it up. A couple of old family houses are a medieval one here and an eighteenth century one here. The family apparently came to the Colonies before they got uppity; though I don’t know the details, some others in the family have written all that up. There’s also a Mount Edgecumbe in Alaska, an Edgecombe County in North Carolina, and a city Edgecomb on Maine. Neat, huh? Now, back to the subject!

❧

Walking the Bible

I’m pleasantly surprised to find myself enjoying PBS’s Walking the Bible. Rather than the typical assortment of discordantly talking heads paired with sonorous narrative and anachronistic dramatizations or stock footage, host Bruce Feiler (author of a book also named Walking the Bible and some others) is producing here a new kind of first person biblical travelogue, and it is entirely refreshing. There are gems here: from Turkey’s Mount Ararat, where a tight-lipped Kurdish mountain guide refuses to divulge the secrets of the mountain, to a leisurely row across Egypt’s Lake Timsah in a boat whose fisherman explains that they call a certain fish “the Moses fish” because, when the waters of the sea were split, the fish were split and so on one side they are grey and one side white. Delightful!

Feiler is a fine host, peppering the program with biblical readings and not uninformed scholarly explanations and conjectures, yet still giving the upper hand to the story in its relation to faith. Such an approach is perfectly in keeping with the goals of this blog and its companion email list. So, I recommend to folks that they catch it on their local PBS station, or if you’re outside of the US, purchase the DVD (available here). Either way, it’s informative, fun, and commercial free! And while it appears that there are only three episodes, the overall quality is quite enough to compensate for the lack of quantity.

❧