Página inicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquise No Site
Este site usa cookies para fornecer nossos serviços, melhorar o desempenho, para análises e (se não estiver conectado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing, você reconhece que leu e entendeu nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade . Seu uso do site e dos serviços está sujeito a essas políticas e termos.

Resultados do Google Livros

Clique em uma foto para ir ao Google Livros

Carregando...

The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance of Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C.

de Henry T. Aubin

MembrosResenhasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaConversas
652402,564 (3.67)Nenhum(a)
At the turn of the eighth century B.C., a mighty Assyrian army entered Judah and fought its way to the very gates of Jerusalem, poised, the prophet Isaiah warned, to "smash the city as easily as someone hurling a clay pot against the wall." But the assault never came; instead, the Assyrian army turned and fled, an event that has been called the Deliverance of Jerusalem. Whereas biblical accounts attribute the Assyrian retreat to divine intervention, journalist Henry Aubin offers an explanation that is miraculous in its own light: the siege was broken by the arrival of an army from Kushite Egypt--an army, that is, made up of black Africans. These Kushites figured in historical texts, Aubin continues, until the late 19th century, when racist scholars expunged them from the record--a process that, Aubin observes, coincided with the European conquest and colonization of Africa. The Kushite intervention assured the survival of the Hebrew people, Aubin asserts, and it deserves to be acknowledged anew. Well-written and carefully developed, Aubin's argument will doubtless excite discussion.… (mais)
Nenhum(a)
Carregando...

Registre-se no LibraryThing tpara descobrir se gostará deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

Exibindo 2 de 2
The author advances the thesis that the "Great Deliverance" of Jerusalem in 701 BCE came at the hands of a Kushite army defeating Sennacherib's Assyrian forces, creating the space and time for Yahwism and the premise of Zion as His sacred fortress to take hold, and therefore allowing for the development of what would become Judaism, and thus Christianity and Islam.

The author sets the historical scene of the turn of the 8th/7th centuries BCE: how Judah has come to be what it is, the dominance of Assyria, a divided Egypt recently reunited by the Kushites. He spends some time describing who the Kushites are and the significance of what they attempted to accomplish in Egypt. He then considers the primary sources for the events that took place surrounding Sennacherib's 701 invasion: the Assyrian texts; the Biblical witness; a comment from Herodotus.

The author analyzes the various theories regarding what happened: he is very dismissive of the Biblical text's suggestion of a miraculous deliverance and defeat of the army by the angel of YHWH. He points out the paucity of data behind the standard view that the Kushite-Egyptian army was of little consequence and easily dismissed by Sennacherib, despite the Battle of Eltekeh. He questions why Sennacherib did not return to finish what he started.

The author then sets forth the evidence he would suggest for the Kushite-Egyptian army's deliverance of Khor (the Egyptian term for the southern Levant which the author prefers, and for good reason). He utilizes some literary criticism to bracket out the portion of the Biblical text suggesting deliverance by the angel of YHWH and thus comes up with a text that suggests it was the threat of the Kushite army that led Sennacherib to retreat. He points out how Sennacherib was quite warlike and would become famous for his militaristic exploits elsewhere, and wonders why he would not have returned to Khor to finish what he started...unless he had experienced some kind of reversal and had made a treaty that he honored. He spoke of evidence of how Khor and Egypt remained good trading partners in the early 7th century, how the Kushites were able to get cedar wood and other goods from Khor which the Assyrians had previously forbidden to be sent to Egypt, thus indicating on the ground that Egypt was at least an equal partner, if not nominal lord, over Khor. He spoke of the propagandistic nature of Assyrian annals and even the speech of the Rabshakeh, yet even there noted how Sennacherib never claimed hegemony over Gaza, suggesting some Kushite success there. He rehabilitates the reputation of Taharqa (Tirhaka), showing how ancient sources commended his military acumen and success, and how he was able to repel Esarhaddon's first forays into Egypt. And he asks why, once Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal were successful in invading Egypt, they proved especially vengeful in their treatment of the Egyptians and their goods.

The author considered why there had been a lot of interpretive hostility toward Kush, but only in a particular era and its aftereffects: 1880 and following. He provided a history of interpretation of the events surrounding 701 and found both rabbinic and Christian interpreters (especially Calvin) who gave the Kushites much credit for what took place. He traces the shift in thought with Sayce and the development of colonialism: it was as if once the Europeans began to colonize Africa they had to further reduce them in their eyes as savages, and thus Taharqa could only receive commendation if he were more Egyptian, or "white," and less Kushite, or "black."

I read the work with great interest as a Christian committed to the authority of the Word of God with some study in the ancient Near Eastern world. The author has many very important points and his work should certainly be considered in terms of what to think about what happened in 701. But his final thesis proves somewhat lacking.

Many of his arguments are strong and should be conceded as such. The fact that so many are willing to disparage the Kushites and their army based only on the propaganda of the Rabshakeh is distressing and exegetically untenable: the author does well to point out that we certainly don't grant his conceit about YHWH and what YHWH is doing, so why would we grant his conceit about his enemy? Once that piece of evidence is viewed more critically the paucity of evidence that would support a trite dismissal of the Kushite forces is notable.

We do have to come to grips with the cultural chauvinism that led to a desire to dismiss what the Kushites could do. We do well in general to entirely rethink Kush and the Kushite Empire, and come to a great appreciation for it as one of the great empires of the ancient world; after all, it began in the wake of the collapse of the Bronze Age and endured almost as long as the Roman Empire, having repulsed the Egyptians, Persians, and Romans, having outlasted the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks, and undone only by the development of the Axumite empire of Ethiopia to its south. The author does well to express how we ought to de-racialize our view of the ancient world, since it is a 16th/17th century construct: sure, the ancients saw they had black skin, but other features were just as notable, and we have evidence of Kushites living among the populations of Egypt, Israel, even Assyria, and they were not treated as inferior but as one nation among many (their horses were particularly sought).

While the author's handling of some of his data can be questioned, he asks good questions about the holes in the data. He does well to question and challenge the propagandistic nature of the Assyrian annals, and to point out where Sennacherib is making himself look better than he has the right to, and to see the holes in the data and what that might mean. The two-force theory, suggesting the Battle of Eltekeh was a modest setback or a draw between an expeditionary Kushite force and the Assyrians in Khor, followed later by the full Kushite military coming when the Assyrians were spread out and not in a position to fight them, is incredibly speculative and leads to more questions than it would answer. But he does make a plausible story for this kind of situation. Why did Sennacherib not return to Khor to finish what he started? He did not lack the military forces or the opportunity. We can see how he reacts to people who cross him and challenge him with his thorough devastation of Babylon. And we see that his son wasted little time in returning to Khor and advancing onto Egypt. The evidence for Egyptian-Khor trading relations in the wake of 701 is a good tell that the expedition was not the rousing success Sennacherib would have liked to suggest that it was. The best argument for what the author would like to suggest is, in fact, the situation of Khor from 700 until 681: nominal Assyrian control without active Assyrian interference, featuring trading relationships with Egypt at least. Sennacherib would not have agreed to this kind of détente unless the circumstances determined it to be the most prudent way forward.

The author's treatment of the Biblical text, while consistent with modern scholarship, truly does involve a situation where one is sawing off the branch on which one sits. The author admits that people who had a higher view of the text's inspiration could still come to the conclusion that the Kushites played a prominent role in the deliverance of Jerusalem. His argumentation at once requires the integrity of some parts of the Biblical text while dismissing other sections as supernatural fantasy. Anyone who upholds the integrity of the Biblical text will not be able to go as far as the author does in his conclusions.

A few major questions are not well addressed. First of all, why do we have to resort to such speculation? The author suggests the Assyrians and Egyptians would have destroyed Kushite evidence for the campaign's success in their later 7th century invasions. That's quite likely; the ancients were good at destroying the monuments they didn't like. And yet they were not the best at it: we know about all kinds of things that the ancients were trying to suppress, and it's not unreasonable to expect that there be more evidence for this major battle than is currently on offer.

Yet the bigger question would be: why wouldn't the Biblical authors tell us more clearly regarding the prominent role of the Kushites? As the author well demonstrates, the Biblical authors don't have the prejudice against the Kushites that Westerners later would. He persuasively argues that even Isaiah, who has some condemnation in mind for the Kushites, and would denounce Judah for entrusting themselves to the Kushites for deliverance, did not have anything against the Kushites per se; they just weren't the YHWH whom Judah should trust. Yes, the deus ex machina of the angel of YHWH slaughtering the army of the Assyrians is historically unsatisfying; but it is all the more so if there is a very clear military setback of the Assyrians by the Kushites that led to the situation. Isaiah's whole theological premise is that YHWH was using the Assyrian army as the means by which He was judging faithless Judah; would it not have been difficult to consider the Kushite army another instrument of YHWH for deliverance and judgment? Perhaps one would say that it would prove embarrassing for Isaiah's prophetic message, and it was thus suppressed: but why would the text then mention that a Kushite army was indeed on the march, and that it caused Sennacherib consternation?

This same question can be asked of Sennacherib's retreat and his lack of return. The author is at pains to recognize that the Kushite army would have been inferior to the Assyrians in terms of manpower, let alone military technology and experience. Sennacherib would have been aware of this. Sennacherib would have also recognized how overstretched the Kushites were in advancing out of Egypt, the first army to do so in over two centuries. His descendants had no qualms testing and challenging the might of the Kushites - the very same Taharqa who led the Kushites into Khor. Yes, Sennacherib experienced a great setback in 701 at the walls of Jerusalem - but it would seem that the setback would have required a lot more than a suprise attack by the Kushites in which the latter took advantage of the momentary weakness of the former to really fully explain why Sennacherib would prove so willing to let Hezekiah off with a ransom and to not push the situation in Khor the rest of his life.

...which brings us back to the Biblical text as is and the evidence as it exists. Yes, Hezekiah was part of a less than intelligent rebellion against Sennacherib, fomented by the Chaldeans and others. Yes, Sennacherib brought the full force of Assyrian might against Khor. He leveled Phoenician and Philistine resistance and then turned on Judah. He leveled Azekah and Lachish. At some point the Kushite army, whether in whole or in part, advanced forth, perhaps in a way Sennacherib had not planned on. They fought a battle at Eltekeh that led to a modest Assyrian victory or a draw. Perhaps Taharqa was waiting for reinforcements for another push; perhaps this show of force was enough to show Sennacherib that he perhaps had become overextended. But then the disaster: all of a sudden, his army preparing to beseige Jerusalem was destroyed. This would be the event the Biblical authors attributed to an angel of YHWH. It might have been a pandemic virus (perhaps even some kind of hemorragic fever brought up by the Kushites?); it might have been some kind of water-borne condition, since the Jerusalemites had captured all the water and the Assyrians were likely in severe dehydration. Regardless of its origin, it was enough to spook Sennacherib into respecting the spiritual forces at work around Jerusalem. Hezekiah was willing to pay a ransom to allow Sennacherib to save face; Sennacherib retreated to Assyria and would participate in many other military expeditions throughout his empire, but never in Khor. Khor was left in benign neglect: Hezekiah did not press any advantage in Judah and Israel; the Assyrians would have received some tribute; Khor functioned almost without regard to the Assyrians, and participated again in trade with Egypt. Sennacherib was not willing to risk his army in Khor anymore; it would be his son and grandson who would exact revenge against Khor and Egypt, including the imprisonment of Manasseh, but it remains worth noting that the Assyrians never messed with Jerusalem again.

And thus we return to the conceit of the author: the Kushite army allowing for the development of what we know as the Abrahamic religions. Yes, it is hard to overstate the importance of the deliverance of 701 for the development of what would become Second Temple Judaism: it gave Judahites reason to maintain confidence in YHWH over the "gods" of the people around them. But this does not make a lot of theological sense if it were not manifest that it was YHWH indeed who did deliver His people; it would not be a cause celebre, but in fact an embarrassment, if the prophet who said Judah needed to trust in YHWH and not Kush was wrong and it was in fact Kush who was the primary deliverer. The Kushites were intimately involved, and their presence was at least part of the reason Sennacherib had no desire to mess with Khor again; but the Kushites, on their own, make it difficult to fully explain why Sennacherib did not try again, and even more difficult to explain what 701 began to mean theologically for Israel and all who claim its heritage.

This book provides a great corrective to a lot of the conversations surrounding 701. He makes the best argument he can for his position. Its deficiencies show why we cannot be so quick to dismiss the role of YHWH in these events. ( )
  deusvitae | Jan 18, 2021 |
NO OF PAGES: 421 SUB CAT I: History SUB CAT II: Jerusalem SUB CAT III: DESCRIPTION: At the turn of the eighth century B.C., a mighty Assyrian army entered Judah and fought its way to the very gates of Jerusalem, poised, the prophet Isaiah warned, to "smash the city as easily as someone hurling a clay pot against the wall." But the assault never came; instead, the Assyrian army turned and fled, an event that has been called the Deliverance of Jerusalem. Whereas biblical accounts attribute the Assyrian retreat to divine intervention, journalist Henry Aubin offers an explanation that is miraculous in its own light: the siege was broken by the arrival of an army from Kushite Egypt--an army, that is, made up of black Africans. These Kushites figured in historical texts, Aubin continues, until the late 19th century, when racist scholars expunged them from the record--a process that, Aubin observes, coincided with the European conquest and colonization of Africa. The Kushite intervention assured the survival of the Hebrew people, Aubin asserts, and it deserves to be acknowledged anew. Well-written and carefully developed, though based on sometimes-uncertain evidence, Aubin's argument will doubtless excite discussion.NOTES: Purchased through Overstock.com. SUBTITLE: The Alliance Between Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C.
  BeitHallel | Feb 18, 2011 |
Exibindo 2 de 2
sem resenhas | adicionar uma resenha
Você deve entrar para editar os dados de Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Compartilhado.
Título canônico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Lugares importantes
Eventos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Primeiras palavras
Citações
Últimas palavras
Aviso de desambiguação
Editores da Publicação
Autores Resenhistas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Idioma original
CDD/MDS canônico
LCC Canônico

Referências a esta obra em recursos externos.

Wikipédia em inglês (3)

At the turn of the eighth century B.C., a mighty Assyrian army entered Judah and fought its way to the very gates of Jerusalem, poised, the prophet Isaiah warned, to "smash the city as easily as someone hurling a clay pot against the wall." But the assault never came; instead, the Assyrian army turned and fled, an event that has been called the Deliverance of Jerusalem. Whereas biblical accounts attribute the Assyrian retreat to divine intervention, journalist Henry Aubin offers an explanation that is miraculous in its own light: the siege was broken by the arrival of an army from Kushite Egypt--an army, that is, made up of black Africans. These Kushites figured in historical texts, Aubin continues, until the late 19th century, when racist scholars expunged them from the record--a process that, Aubin observes, coincided with the European conquest and colonization of Africa. The Kushite intervention assured the survival of the Hebrew people, Aubin asserts, and it deserves to be acknowledged anew. Well-written and carefully developed, Aubin's argument will doubtless excite discussion.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo em haiku

Current Discussions

Nenhum(a)

Capas populares

Links rápidos

Avaliação

Média: (3.67)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 1
3.5
4 2
4.5
5

É você?

Torne-se um autor do LibraryThing.

 

Sobre | Contato | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blog | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Históricas | Os primeiros revisores | Conhecimento Comum | 203,225,423 livros! | Barra superior: Sempre visível