Tell el Amarna and the Bible

The officials of Akhetaton were for the most part new appointments of the king, and many seem to have been chosen from among commoners who were sympathetic with Akhenaton’s program. The mayor of the city bore the revealing name, “Akhenaton created me.” Other officials include a captain of police, an overseer of the treasury, the king’s standard bearer, the commander of the army, overseers of the royal harem, the chief physician, and priests of the various temples. Eye, who had been a counselor of Akhenaton from boyhood, bore the impressive title, “Superintendent of the King’s Horses,” implying a responsibility for the chariots of the royal army. Second only to Akhenaton himself was the vizier, a man named Nakht. A royal butler, Parennufe, was one of the few officials who had served Akhenaton earlier in Thebes.

The Rock Tombs

The third north-south street was the East Road, located nearest to the desert and the rock tombs. As the earlier Pharaohs in Thebes prepared tombs for themselves in the nearby Valley of the Kings, so Akhenaton and his courtiers cut rock tombs into the hillside east of Akhetaton. There are twenty-five of these tombs with decorated walls honoring Aton and his son, Akhenaton. Davies in his Rock Tombs of El Amarna says,

The scenes in the tombs of El-’Amarna, though abundant and detailed, yield us very limited information concerning men and things in Akhetaten. Taken together, they only reveal one personality, one family, one home, one career, and one mode of worship. This is the figure, family, palace and occupations of the king, and the worship of the sun—which also was his, and perhaps, in strictness, of no one else. Into whatever tomb we enter, as soon as the threshold is past we might fancy ourselves in the royal sepulchre. The king’s figure, family, and retinue dominate everything. It is his wife and children, his family affection, his house and treasures which are here portrayed in detail, and it is with difficulty sometimes that we discover among the crowd of courtiers the official whose tomb it is, distinguished by a little hieroglyphic label.[6]

The family tomb which Akhenaton built in the eastern desert, four miles from the city, was used for the burial of his daughter, the princess Meketaton. Most of the rock tombs, however, were never occupied. Within a short time of the death of Akhenaton, his capital was abandoned and Thebes again became the center of government. Everything of value was removed from Akhetaton—even the wooden pillars of the houses! The very stones of the Aton temple were dragged away to be used in the reconstruction of temples desecrated in the days of Akhenaton’s reform movement. Thus the priests of Amon had their revenge.

IV
ATONISM

Akhenaton thought of himself as the apostle of Atonism, and he exhibited a mystical devotion to his god. Yet Akhenaton was not the founder of the Aton cult, which may be traced to antecedents in Egypt’s earliest religious traditions.[7] The Sinuhe story, recounting the death of Amenemhet I (ca. 1960 B.C.), states that the deceased Pharaoh ascended to heaven and was united to the disk of the sun (itn). While this may mean only that the sun disk was the abode of deity, it suggests the possibility that the Aton (sun disk) might itself become an object of worship.

Ancient Egyptian Religion

The Egyptian religion of historical times represents a fusion of previously independent local gods. Each town was devoted to a particular deity, many of whom were represented in the form of animals. The cat goddess Bast was honored at Bubastis; the cobra-headed Edjo, at Buto; the ibis Thoth, at Hermopolis Magna; and the jackal god Wepwawet, at Lycopolis. Animal deities were frequently given the bodies and limbs of humans.

The sun and the Nile River were the two important factors in the life of all Egyptians, and gods associated with these phenomena tended to transcend Egyptian provincialism and become truly national in scope. The priests at Heliopolis, near ancient Memphis, were devoted to the worship of the sun god under his ancient name Re. Heliopolis (“city of the sun”) is the Greek form of a name that appears in the Old Testament in transliteration from the Egyptian as On (cf. Gen. 41:45ff.) and as Hebrew, Beth-Shemesh, “House of the sun” (Jer. 43:13). Joseph was married to an Egyptian girl named Asenath, “she belongs to (the goddess) Neith,” the daughter of a priest named Potiphera (“He whom Re has given”) who ministered at the shrine to the sun god at On, or Heliopolis (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20).

Re as the sun god came to be associated with other deities. As Re-Atum he came to be regarded as a manifestation of Atum, the creator. As god of the horizon, Re took the compound name Re-Harakhti. Such compounds as Sobek-Re and Khnum-Re indicate the tendency to identify local deities with the more universal Re. Beginning with the Fifth Dynasty (ca. 2500 B.C.) each Pharaoh bore the title “Son of Re” as part of his name, further enhancing the name and reputation of the sun god. Until the Egyptian New Kingdom (ca. 1600-1100 B.C.), when Amon of Thebes became the principal god of Egypt, the priests of Re at Heliopolis shared with the priests of Ptah in nearby Memphis the position of highest influence and wealth in the religious life of the country.

As creator god, Re was symbolized by the falcon and the scarab. The sun’s daily journey across the sky reminded the devout Egyptian of Re’s first appearance as the originator of life. Re, himself, was self-created according to the Book of the Dead. In Middle Kingdom times (ca. 2000-1600 B.C.), Thebes became the Egyptian capital and its patron deity Amon was identified with the sun god and assumed the compound name “Amon-Re, king of the gods.” Thus a purely local god, through identification with Re, became the national god. As local gods became identified with one another, or with more universal gods, we may observe a tendency in the direction of monotheism.

Aton Worship

The worship of Aton appears as early as the reign of Thutmose IV (ca. 1414-1406 B.C.), who issued a commemorative scarab stating that the Pharaoh fought “with the Aton before him,” and that he campaigned abroad, “to make the foreigners to be like the (Egyptian) people, in order to serve the Aton forever.”[8]

Aton occupied an important place in the Egyptian pantheon during the reign of Akhenaton’s father, Amenhotep III. A stele of the king’s architects, Hori and Suti, describes the sun god as the deity who holds sway over all peoples and lands. A hymn speaks of Amon as “Aton of the day, creator of mortals and maker of life.” The royal barge of Amenhotep III and his wife Tiy bore the name, “Aton gleams.” Other gods were worshiped, and Amon was still in his place of honor, but Aton had come to the fore—perhaps in a context of rivalry between the priests of Heliopolis and Thebes—and the stage was set for the impending battle.

In the earliest period of Akhenaton’s reign, Aton was the preferred god, but Amon was still granted homage. There was actually little that was original in the religious life of those earliest years, although there was much that might give concern to the Amon priests. Although there had been an earlier Aton temple in Thebes, it was Akhenaton who slowly moved from a position in which Aton was the favored god to one in which Aton was the only god tolerated. While there had been tendencies toward monotheism before, and Aton worship was not new, it was Akhenaton who finally made the break with the Amon priests at Thebes. With inexorable logic he changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton, closed the Amon temples, and erased the name of Amon from monuments and inscriptions. While Amon was the particular object of his disfavor, Akhenaton declared war on all the “thousand gods of Egypt,” and sought to remove the very word “gods” from the monuments.

The Triumph of Aton

Aton became the only object of worship tolerated by the Pharaoh, and his domain was extended beyond the boundaries of Egypt. Not only was the Egyptian capital moved to a city dedicated to Aton, but other cities were dedicated to him in Nubia and in Asia. The Hymn to the Aton expresses the same type of universalism, envisioning Aton (the sun) as the god who blesses all people everywhere. While the Nile might have served as a god to unite all Egyptians, the sun was a deity who might unite all men in a common brotherhood. This, at any rate, seems to have been Akhenaton’s dream.

There remained, however, illogical elements in the monotheism of Akhenaton. The Pharaoh himself was still a god, and Akhenaton had no doubt that he was the divine son of Aton. While Akhenaton and the royal family paid homage to Aton, others stood in awe before the Pharaoh. There were elements in the Amarna faith which militated against this, particularly the realism which enabled the citizens of Akhetaton to caricature their king, but the concept of a divine Pharaoh persisted in the Aton cult.

No image represented Aton in human shape, as the “thousand gods” of Egypt had been represented. Instead, worship was directed toward the disk of the sun which exerts a life-giving influence through its rays which produce a brilliance and warmth that no man can fail to experience. The symbol of the god Aton was a solar disk from which rays of light descended, terminating in human hands, some of which hold the Egyptian sign of life (ankh). In this symbolism, the sun graciously bestows life upon the worshiper of Aton. Sometimes the royal uraeus, symbol of kingship, hangs from the sun disk, and often it rises from the bottom of the disk toward the center. Aton is thus depicted as ruler as well as deity of all upon whom he shines.

While the Aton temple was not basically different from other shrines of ancient Egypt, it boasted no image and conducted its most solemn rites in the open, under the direct rays of the sun. This formed a distinct contrast to the cult of Amon who was called “the hidden one,” and who had his shrine in the innermost and darkest part of the temple. If Amonism stressed the mysterious in religion, Atonism spoke of the deity’s nearness and presence in the affairs of daily life. Atonism had no dark courts or mysterious rites. Its ritual was quite simple, with hymns sung by the temple choir and the presentation of gifts of meat and drink by worshipers. The odors of perfume and the presence of flowers added aesthetic qualities to the simple acts of worship. On the occasion of royal visits, which must have been quite frequent, the king personally consecrated the offerings.

Atonism never became the popular faith of Egypt, but it did spread beyond the confines of Akhetaton. Memphis had an Aton temple, and Aton reliefs have been found at Heliopolis. Modern students of religion sometimes charge that the Aton faith was devoid of ethical content, but this is an argument from silence. All of its literary remains consist of devotional literature—hymns extolling the glories of Aton and tomb inscriptions which describe the piety of his faithful worshipers. Whether or not Atonism was self consciously pacifist in orientation may be debated. A universal faith minimizes the differences among men, and Akhenaton’s failure to intervene in the affairs of his Asiatic subjects may indicate that he hoped that a peaceful policy would resolve international tensions. Perhaps we should conclude that Akhenaton chose to devote himself to religious matters, and that the chaos in Asia was a result of neglect rather than self-conscious policy.

The Amarna tomb inscriptions give extravagant praise to Aton and his son, the Pharaoh:

How prosperous is he who hears thy doctrine of life and is sated with beholding thee, and unceasingly his eyes look upon Aton every day.

Thou art my great servant who hears my doctrine. My heart is content with every commission thou performest and I give thee the office in order that thou mayest eat the victuals of Pharaoh, the lord in the house of Aton.[9]

Moses and Aton

Since Akhenaton’s worship of Aton as “sole god” is earlier than the date commonly ascribed to Moses (ca. 1280 B.C.), historians have puzzled over possible relationships between the monotheism of Akhenaton and the Biblical concept of one God. Sigmund Freud in his Moses and Monotheism sought to trace the Hebrew-Christian faith to the Amarna revolt of Akhenaton.

The principal reason for associating Moses with Atonism is the fact of his birth and education in Egypt. The Scriptures assert, however, that the religious impetus of Moses did not come from Egyptian sources, which he completely disavowed (cf. Exod. 18:10-11). It was in the wilderness that Moses had the religious experiences which prepared him to become the leader of the Exodus (Exod. 3:1-6). Jethro, Moses’ Midianite father-in-law, worshiped Yahweh (Exod. 18:10-12) and Moses may have learned much from him. Yahwism and the religion of Egypt were completely and self-consciously opposed to one another. Israel firmly believed that Yahweh, their God, had defeated Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt in the experience of the Exodus.

The Death of Aton

Within a generation after the death of Akhenaton, Atonism was dead, and its leading exponent was contemptuously called, “that criminal of Akhetaton.” The religion never had a popular base, and that disintegration of the empire might effectively be charged to the displeasure of Amon at his neglect. The government was moved back to Thebes, and Akhenaton’s son-in-law, Tutankhaton (“the living image of Aton”), became Tutankhamon (“the living image of Amon”). The cycle was now complete. Thebes and Amon had been restored to their former place of supremacy, the monuments erected by Akhenaton were defaced and the Aton temple was removed stone by stone. By the time of Moses, Akhetaton was abandoned completely, and Atonism had been forgotten.

V
THE HYMN TO THE ATON

Our most important source for knowledge of the Aton cult is found in the tombs of the nobles east of Akhetaton. These tombs include reliefs bearing hymns in praise to Aton and to his son, Akhenaton. Either the Pharaoh composed them himself, or they were composed by courtiers who had completely assimilated the religious convictions which were basic to his reforms. The so-called long hymn to Aton not only extols the glories of the god of Akhenaton, but it also contains expressions which have become a part of Egyptian, and even Hebrew devotional literature. The Long Hymn was inscribed on the walls of the tomb prepared for the priest and courtier Eye who had known Akhenaton from his youth.[10] James H. Breasted suggested that it was an excerpt from the ritual of the Aton temple.[11]

The Splendor and Power of Aton

Nighttime

Daytime

The Creation: Man

The Creation: Animal Life

Aton’s Glory in Creation

Aton Waters the Earth

Aton: Lord of the Seasons

Aton’s Providence

The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Nefer-kheperu-Re, Wa-en-Re, son of Re, living in truth, lord of Diadems, Akhenaton, whose life is long; and for the Chief Royal Wife, Nefer-neferu-Aton, Nofertiti whom he loves, may she live and flourish for ever and ever.

Although the Hymn to the Aton clearly grants a favored position to Egypt, Aton is pictured as holding sway over all peoples, for the sun brings light and heat to men of every nation. This universalism finds a modern counterpart in the hymn of Joseph Addison (1712):

Parallels between the Hymn to the Aton and Psalm 104 suggest that the poetic expressions of the hymn became a part of the literary heritage of the Near East. Although Atonism as a religion died a short time after the death of its chief apostle, Akhenaton, poetic utterances used in praise to Aton could readily be incorporated into other Egyptian devotional literature and, eventually, find an echo in the literature of other lands. While many of the similarities between Psalm 104 and Akhenaton’s Hymn could arise from independent contemplation of the movements of the sun on the part of people with no contact whatever, the numerous contacts between Israel and Egypt at least suggest that devotional language as well as proverbs (cf. I Kings 4:30) were common knowledge among the two peoples.

The two compositions are basically different, however, in that the Biblical psalmist acknowledges Yahweh, the God of creation and providence, as a spiritual being associated with natural phenomena only as their creator, whereas Aton, Akhenaton’s “sole god” is identified with the disk of the sun. While Akhenaton seems to have spiritualized the Egyptian sun worship, he never divorced himself completely from it. Biblical monotheism asserts that the One God made “lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:15). The Hymn of the Aton reaches a high point in the devotional literature of Egypt, but its monotheism was radically different from that presented on the pages of Scripture.

VI
THE AFFAIRS OF EMPIRE

The Amarna tablets enable us to see evidences of the decline of Egyptian power and prestige during the latter years of the reign of Amenhotep III and throughout the reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton). About forty of them record correspondence between the rulers of Egypt and the rulers of the major powers of the Amarna Age. We find letters from the Kassite kings Kadashman-Enlil I and Bumaburiash II of Babylon, from Ashuruballit I of Assyria, from Tushratta of Mitanni, from the Hittite king Suppiluliumas, and from an unnamed king of Alashia (Cyprus).

The Kings of Mitanni

In upper Mesopotamia, Egypt had an ally in Mitanni, a kingdom comprised largely of Hurrians (Biblical Horites), with an Indo-Aryan ruling class. The Mitannian kingdom was established about 1500 B.C. and at the height of its power reached from Nuzi and Arrapkha in Assyria to Alalakh in Syria. Its capital, Wassukkanni, was on the upper Habur River. A major threat both to Mitanni and, ultimately, to Egypt, came from the rising Hittite Empire with its capital at Hatusa (modern Bogazkoy) on the great bend of the Halys River in Asia Minor. Babylon had suffered an eclipse since the empire of Hammurabi and during the Amarna age it was ruled by a mountain people known as Kassites. Assyria, north of Babylon, had been subject to Mitanni until the Hittite conquest of Mitanni gave the Assyrians an opportunity to free themselves and develop an independent state.

The kings of Mitanni sent daughters to grace the harems of the Pharaohs of Egypt, and desired gold in exchange. The Amarna tablets include seven letters from Tushratta of Mitanni to Amenhotep III, one to his widow Queen Tiy, and three to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton). In a typical communication he writes to Amenhotep III:

Let my brother send gold in very great quantity, without measure—that is what my brother should send me—and let my brother send more gold than (he sent) to my father, for in my brother’s land gold is as plentiful as dust. May the gods so direct that, although now gold is so plentiful in my brother’s land, he may have gold ten times more plentiful than now. Let not the gold which I desire trouble the heart of my brother, and let not my brother grieve my heart. So let my brother send me gold, without measure, in very great quantity.[28]

Although Tushratta’s lust for gold may not have been appreciated in Thebes, Egypt valued her Mitannian allies who served as a check on the ambitious Hittites, thereby helping Egypt maintain control over Syria and Palestine. Not only were princesses from Mitanni welcome in Egypt, but the Mitannian gods might be of help to the Egyptians. During the illness of Amenhotep III, Tushratta sent a statue of the goddess Ishtar from Nineveh to bless the ailing Pharaoh:

Thus saith Ishtar, mistress of all the lands, “To Egypt, to the land which I love I will go; I will return.” Verily I have now sent her, and she is gone. Indeed in the time of my father the mistress (Ishtar) went to that land, and inasmuch as she was revered when she formerly resided there, so now may my brother tenfold more than formerly honor her. May my brother honor her and joyfully send her back, and may she return. May Ishtar, mistress of heaven, protect my brother and me one hundred thousand years, and may our lady give to us both great joy.[29]

Tushratta looked to Egypt for help against Suppiluliumas and the emerging Hittite Empire, but neither gold nor troops came. Akhenaton was singing the praises of Aton in Akhetaton when the Hittites succeeded in entering and sacking the Mitannian capital (ca. 1370 B.C.) and Tushratta was slain by one of his own sons. The former king’s exiled brother and rival, Artatama, seems to have seized control in the confusion that followed. Tushratta’s son Mattiwaza (who may have been his father’s murderer) fled to the Hittites, and Shutarna, son of Artatama, sought the friendship of the Assyrians in his bid for the throne.

Emerging Assyria

The Mitannian Empire was at an end. Mattiwaza gained Hittite support and took the throne of Mitanni with the aid of Suppiluliumas’ army. He remained a vassal of the Hittites, however, and his marriage to a daughter of Suppiluliumas further strengthened Hittite power in Mitanni. At the same time Ashuruballit of Assyria took advantage of the situation to seize the portion of Mitanni nearest to him. Assyria had been controlled alternately by Mitanni from the west and by Babylon from the south, but Ashuruballit determined to head an independent state.

To strengthen his position, Ashuruballit sent messengers to Akhenaton with a present of two white horses and a silver chariot. The letter accompanying these gifts[30] asks nothing in return, but a second letter[31] mentions a new palace that Ashuruballit is building, with the suggestion, “If thou art very friendly disposed, then send much gold.”

Evidently the Assyrian embassy was received with courtesy in the court of Akhenaton, for Burnaburiash of Babylon was unhappy at the thought that Egypt would deal with a people who had been subject to Babylon. In anger he dispatched a letter:

To Niphururia (i.e., Akhenaton), king of Egypt, say. Thus says Burnaburiash, king of Karduniash (i.e., Babylon), brother. I am well. May it be well with you, your house, your wives, your sons, your land, your chief men, your horses, your chariots. Since my fathers and your fathers established friendly relations with one another they sent rich presents to one another, and they refused not any good request one of the other. Now my brother has sent (only) two minas of gold as a present. But now, if gold is plentiful send me as much as your fathers, but if it is scarce send half of what your fathers did. Why did you send (only) two minas of gold. Now, since my work on the House of God is great, and I have undertaken its accomplishment vigorously, send much gold. And you, whatsover you desire from my land, write and it shall be brought to you. In the time of Kurigalzu, my father, the Canaanites as one man wrote to him saying, “We will go against the border of the land (i.e., Egypt), and we will stage an invasion, and we will make an alliance with you.” But my father wrote to them saying, “Cease speaking of an alliance with me. If you are hostile against the king of Egypt, my brother, and ally yourself with another, I will come and will plunder you for he is in alliance with me.” My father did not listen to them for the sake of your father. Now, concerning the Assyrians, my subjects, have I not written to you? If you love me you will not do business with them. Let them accomplish nothing. As a present I have sent to you three minas of beautiful lapis-lazuli, and five span of horses for five wooden chariots.[32]

The Hittite Challenge

The Egyptians, however, did not give serious attention to their Asian Empire until the reigns of Seti I (1318-1299 B.C.) and Rameses II (1299-1232 B.C.). During the half century following the fall of Mitanni the Hittites met no serious opposition in their desire to control the whole of northern Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean coastal region of Syria. Not only was a daughter of Suppiluliumas married to the ruler of the vassal kingdom of Mitanni, but a son, Telepinus, was installed as ruler of Aleppo in Syria. The Amorites who had been vassals to Egypt were glad to welcome Hittite aid in establishing their independence. North Syria, or Amurru, became a hotbed of anti-Egyptian feeling, and Amorite princes served as unconscious pawns of Suppiluliumas in weakening Egyptian control in the area and preparing the way for Hittite domination.

Most of the Amarna letters were written by princes of city states in Syria, Phoenicia, and Canaan who acknowledged sovereignty but expressed the fear that rival princes or alien peoples might gain the upper hand. Some of the letters represent factional disputes among leaders both of whom protest their loyalty to Egypt. Among the rulers in Syria and Palestine we find letters from Akizzi of Qatna, Abdi-Ashirta and his son Aziru of Amurru (i.e., the Amorites), Rib-Addi of Byblos, Ammunira of Beirut, Zimrida of Sidon, Abimilki of Tyre, and Abdi-Khepa of Jerusalem. Other letters were sent from Hazor, Akko, Megiddo, Gezer, Ashelon, and Lachish. In some instances minor Egyptian officials wrote the letters.

Rib-Addi of Byblos

Rib-Addi of Byblos was threatened by Abdi-Ashirta and his son Aziru, Amorite rulers who followed the Hittite “party line” in seeking to remove northern Syria from the Egyptian sphere of influence. Gebal, or Gubla, was the ancient name of Byblos, a city which carried on commerce with Egypt as early as 3000 B.C. Excavations have produced a cylinder from the Thinite period of Egyptian history when the earliest Pharaohs occupied the throne. Vases discovered at Byblos bear the names of ancient Pharaohs including Mycerinus (twenty-seventh century B.C.), Unis and Pepi (twenty-fourth century B.C.). From the port of Byblos, Egypt imported cedars and spruce for use in building ships. Ships of Byblos also carried jars of oil, spices, wine, and leather.

Although Rib-Addi wished to continue to serve as a loyal vassal of Egypt, the chaos of the political situation pressed heavily upon him. The Amarna collection includes fifty-three letters which he addressed to Amenhotep II and Akhenaton warning them of the difficulty of the situation. In one of them he notes:

Abdi-Ashirta has written to the warriors, “Assemble yourselves in the house of Ninib, and we will fall upon Byblos.”... Thus have they formed a conspiracy with one another, and thus have I great fear that there is no man to rescue me out of their hand. Like birds that lie in a net, so am I in Byblos. Why do you hold yourself back in respect to your land? Behold, thus I have written to the palace, and you have paid no attention to my word.... What shall I do in my solitude? Behold, thus I ask day and night.[33]

Abdi-Ashirta and his son Aziru also wrote letters to Egypt affirming their loyalty. Two of them were addressed by Aziru to Dudu, an officer of the Egyptian court with a Semitic name. Evidently Dudu occupied a place in the court of Akhenaton comparable to that which Joseph occupied some years before (Gen. 41:37-57). Aziru wrote:

To Dudu, my lord, my father.

So says Aziru, your son your servant:

At the feet of my father I will fall down. May my father be well. Dudu, behold I have performed the wish of the king, my lord, and whatever may be the wish of the king, my lord, let him write and I will perform it. Further: Behold, you are there, my father, and whatever is the wish of Dudu, my father, write, and I will indeed perform it. Behold you are my father and my lord, and I am your son. The lands of Amurru are your lands, and my house is your house, and all your wish, write, and indeed I will perform your wish. And indeed you are sitting before the king, my lord. Enemies have spoken slanderous words to my father before the king, my lord. But do not admit them. May you sit before the king, my lord, when I arise, and do not admit against me slanderous words. I am a servant of the king, my lord, and I will never depart from the words of the king, my lord, and from the words of Dudu my father. But if the king, my lord, does not love me but hates me, what shall I then say?[34]

There can be no doubt that Rib-Addi, and not Aziru, was truly loyal to Egypt, for Aziru had made an alliance with Egypt’s enemies, the Hittites. Writing to the Egyptian Pharaoh, Rib-Addi complained:

I have written to the king, my lord: “They have taken all my cities. The son of Abdi-Ashirta is their lord. Byblos is the only city that belongs to me.” And have I not sent my messenger to the king, my lord? But you did not send soldiers, and you did not permit my messenger to leave.... Send him with auxiliaries. If the king hates his city, then I will abandon it, and if he permits me, an old man, to depart, then send your man that he may protect it. Why was nothing given to me from the palace? I have heard of the Hati people (i.e. the Hittites) that they burn the lands with fire. I have repeatedly written but no answer has come to me. All lands of the king, my lord, are conquered, and my lord holds himself back from them, and behold, now they bring soldiers from the Hati lands to conquer Byblos. Therefore care for thy city.[35]

Rib-Addi stood alone in defending Byblos, but the force of the enemy proved too much. He fled to Beirut where he found refuge in the palace of its prince, Ammunira, with whom he was related by marriage. Byblos fell, but Rib-Addi still hoped for aid from Egypt to win it back. From Beirut he wrote:

If the king holds back in respect to the city, all the cities of Canaan (Kinahni) will be lost to him.... But let the king, my lord, quickly send archers that they may take the city at once.[36]

Finally Egypt did act. Aziru was apprehended and taken to Egypt where he was evidently detained for some time. A son of Aziru addressed a letter to the Egyptian official Dudu begging him for his father’s release:

Aziru is your servant. Do not detain him there. Send him back quickly that he may protect the lands of the king, our Lord.

He goes on to mention “the Sudu people” who were taking advantage of Aziru’s absence to further their own ends:

And all lands and all Sudu-people have said, “Aziru does not come from Egypt.” And now the Sudu steal out of the lands and exalt themselves against me, saying, “Your father dwells in Egypt, so we will make hostility with you.”[37]

We do not know what happened to Rib-Addi. By his own testimony he was an old man, but whether he died of natural causes or was a casualty in the battles of his generation we do not know. There seems to be a poetic justice in the fate of Aziru. As he had terrorized the Phoenician countryside, so his Amorite lands were terrorized by other tribes which were seeking a place for themselves in a time of general chaos. While Suppiluliumas backed Aziru, the Hittites were really only using him as a pawn to weaken Egyptian control in Asia and prepare the way for Hittite domination.

Lab‘ayu of Shechem

The troublemaker in the region around Shechem was a man named Lab‘ayu who, in league with the ‘Apiru people, sought to control the central hill country of Canaan. Like Aziru, farther north, Lab‘ayu sent letters to Egypt affirming his loyalty:

Behold, I am a faithful servant of the king, and I have not committed a crime, and I have not sinned, and I do not refuse my tribute, and I do not refuse the demand of my deputy. Behold, I have been slandered and evil entreated but the king, my lord, has not made known to me my crime.[38]

Biridya of Megiddo, however, saw things differently:

To the king, my lord and my sun, say: Thus says Biridya, the faithful servant of the king. At the feet of the king, my lord and my sun, seven and seven times I fall. Let the king know that ever since the archers returned, Lab‘ayu has carried on hostilities against me, and we are not able to pluck the wool, and we are not able to go outside the gate in the presence of Lab‘ayu since he has learned that you have not given archers, and now his face is set to take Megiddo, but let the king protect his city lest Lab‘ayu seize it. Indeed, the city is destroyed by death from pestilence and disease. Let the king give one hundred garrison troops lest Lab‘ayu seize it. Verily there is no other purpose in Lab‘ayu. He seeks to destroy Megiddo.[39]

Biridya succeeded in capturing Lab‘ayu, and plans were made to send him to Egypt. He was turned over to Zurata of Akko, an ally of Biridya, who was to send him to Egypt by ship. Zurata, however, accepted a bribe and released Lab‘ayu.[40] His freedom was brief for Lab‘ayu was murdered before he could reach home, but lawlessness continued as the sons of Lab‘ayu continued to terrorize the countryside.[41]

Abdi-Khepa of Jerusalem

At least seven letters were addressed to the Pharaoh by Abdi-Khepa of Jerusalem, asking help in resisting the encroachments of a people known as ‘Apiru. He notes:

As sure as there is a ship in the midst of the sea, the mighty arm of the king conquers. Nahrim and Kapasi, but now the ‘Apiru are taking the cities of the king. There is not a single governor remaining to the king, my lord. All have perished.[42]

Abdi-Khepa tends to classify all his enemies as ‘Apiru, a word which in such contexts is practically synonymous with outlaw, or bandit. Things are so bad, Abdi-Khepa states, that the tribute which he sent to Egypt was captured by these marauders on the plain of Ajalon.[43] This may have happened, but reports concerning Abdi-Khepa himself suggest that it would not have been beneath his dignity to concoct such a story to avoid paying tribute.

A neighboring king, Suwardata, thought to have been ruler of Hebron, complained:

And the king, my lord, should know that Abdi-Khepa has taken my city out of my hand. Further, let the king, my lord, ask if I have taken a man, or even an ox or an ass from him.... Further, Lab‘ayu who had taken our cities is dead, but verily Abdi-Khepa is another Lab‘ayu and he takes our cities.[44]

On other occasions, however, Suwardata and Abdi-Khepa were allied against a common foe, the ‘Apiru. Suwardata wrote:

The king, my lord, should know that the ‘Apiru have arisen in the land which the god of the king, my lord, has given me, and they have attacked it, and the king my lord, should know that all my brothers have abandoned me. I and Abdi-Khepa alone are left to fight against the ‘Apiru, and Zurata, the prince of Akko, and Indurata the prince of Achsaph, were the ones who hastened to my help.[45]

Amarna Age Palestine

The petty kings in Canaan were permitted their own armed forces comprising chariots, owned by the aristocracy, and footmen drawn from the peasant classes. Egypt did not interfere in local rivalries as long as her revenues continued to come and her commissioners were able to carry on the royal projects. When a local ruler had a grievance against his fellows, he could plead his case showing that the interests of Egypt would be best served by enabling him to defeat his rivals. This usually meant a request for troops—particularly bowmen. Egypt tolerated the perpetual squabbles of her subject states, and it may even have been a policy to allow such quarrels rather than to permit one state to gain enough power that it could forge an empire of its own.

Many of the strongholds held by the rulers of Canaanite city states had been fortified in Hyksos times. Egyptian control, however, was maintained through commissioners appointed by the Pharaoh to collect taxes and supervise the compulsory labor groups which worked on roads, tended the Lebanon forest preserves, or worked in the Valley of Esdraelon where wheat was grown for the royal court. Under strong Pharaohs, the interests of the Empire were carefully guarded, but the Amarna Age was a period during which Egyptian prestige was in eclipse and local rivalries became increasingly bitter. Only in extreme instances did Egypt interfere, and then it was usually too late to rectify matters.

A brief letter from Biridya of Megiddo indicates that forced labor (corvée) was expected of the subject states. Many, however, sensing the loss in Egyptian power failed to provide laborers for the royal projects:

To the king, my lord and my sun, say: Thus Biridya, the true servant of the king, my lord and my sun, seven times and seven times I fall. Let the king be informed concerning his servant and concerning his city. Behold I am working in the town of Shunama, and I bring men of the corvée, but behold the governors who are with me do not as I do; they do not work in the town of Shunama; and they do not bring men for the corvée, but I alone bring men for the corvée from the town of Yapu. They come from Shunama and likewise from the town of Nuribda. So let the king be informed concerning his city.[46]

The ‘Apiru

The identity of the ‘Apiru (also written in cuneiform SA GAZ) has puzzled scholars since the discovery of the Amarna tablets. Some categorically affirmed that the ‘Apiru are identical with the Biblical Hebrews, or Israelites, and that the Amarna tablets reflect the Canaanite version of events described in the Biblical book of Joshua.[47] Most scholars now agree that the ‘Apiru cannot be identified with the Biblical Hebrews, although many suggest that the peoples are related. A strong argument against identification comes from the fact that ‘Apiru appear in a wide variety of places of which there is no hint in the Biblical narrative. They appear in Sumer during the Ur III dynasty (ca. 2050 B.C.), in Larsa during the reigns of Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin (ca. 1770-1698 B.C.), in Hammurabi’s Babylon (ca. 1728-1686 B.C.), in Mari during the reign of Zimri Lim (ca. 1730-1700 B.C.). They are mentioned in the large bodies of texts from Nuzi, Ugarit, and Bogazkoy. None of these references bear any relationship to the people of Israel.

In the Mari tablets the ‘Apiru are described as a semi-nomadic people settled in the area between the Habur and the Balikh rivers, north of the Euphrates. The tablets from Alalakh mention that King Idrimi lived seven years among ‘Apiru soldiers. Studies in the personal names of individuals designated ‘Apiru in the Amarna and the Nuzi tablets have shown that they do not belong to any one ethnic group, although West Semitic names are most common in the Amarna texts.

There is considerable evidence that the ‘Apiru were regarded as a social rather than an ethnic group. At Bogazkoy they are listed among the social classes and appear to have been classified between freemen and slaves. Wherever they appear they have one common trait—they are beyond the jurisdiction of the established authority. They frequently appear as a landless people who enter into dependent status as agricultural workers or soldiers in exchange for maintenance. The ‘Apiru of the Amarna tablets are never described as invaders. They are people within the land who occupy areas not controlled by the larger towns. In a time of weak central government they sought to profit from the general confusion by challenging the city-states. Whatever their ethnic origins, they were doubtless joined by a variety of peoples from the oppressed elements of the population. To the rulers of Canaan, the ‘Apiru were lawless bandits, a menace to society. Although ‘Apiru is a much more inclusive term than Israel, the citizens of the city-states of Canaan probably thought of Joshua’s army much as they regarded the ‘Apiru of the Amarna Age.

Although the place names of the Amarna texts are parallel to those of the Old Testament, the personal names are totally different. In Joshua we read of Adoni-zedek, not Abdi-Khepa, as king of Jerusalem, and a number of other kings are named for the period of the conquest (cf. Josh. 10:3). Meredith G. Kline, who holds to the early date of the Exodus (1440 B.C.) has suggested that the conquest of Canaan by Joshua precedes the Amarna Age and that the ‘Apiru of the Amarna letters may actually be the forces of Cushan Rishathaim, Israel’s first oppressor during the time of the Judges. He concludes that the ‘Apiru are not to be associated with Israel, but rather must be regarded as oppressors—the first of a series of such oppressors described in the Book of Judges.[48]

Most contemporary scholars date the conquest of Canaan after the Amarna Age, suggesting some time around 1280 B.C., as the probable date of the Exodus.[49] This would place the Amarna Age in the period between Joseph and Moses. Aside from the fact that Israel was in Egypt during this time, and that they lost the favored position which they enjoyed in the days of Joseph, Scripture passes over this period with complete silence.

While we may not be able to pinpoint the exact chronology, the description of events in Canaan during the Amarna Age lends perspective to Biblical history during the years before the Monarchy. Local and tribal loyalties were more meaningful than imperial government, and centralized government was looked upon with suspicion (cf. Judg. 9:7-15).