The Bible and Hellenism: Greek Influence on Jewish and Early Christian Lit.

[Laura]

I don't have the Amarna letters. The excepts of the Amarna letters translation I quoted are from two books where they are cited en passant. The only reference to a boy and a girl I found on the net is here:

Behold, one chariot, two horses, one male servant, one female servant, out of the booty from the land of Hatti I have sent you. And as a gift for my brother, five chariots (and) five teams of horses I have sent you. And as a gift for Kelu-Heba, my sister, one set of gold pins, one set of gold earrings, one gold idol, and one container of "sweet oil." I have sent her.

Not sure if it relates.

Well, that sounds like it only in my translation it describes the two as a "boy and girl". What strikes me as curious is that this was a gift of "war booty", so to say, and thus, one wonders what was so extraordinary about a boy and girl, or even "two servants", that would make them a worthy gift to a king that Tushratta was trying to butter up so that he would help him out in his military adventures??? After all, usually, war booty included a lot of captives who were made slaves so what was so special about these two that they became gifts to a king of Egypt?

It's funny because I've thought of Ay and Nefertiti being brother and sister, both appearing out of nowhere, and probably having given birth to Tutankhaten and Smenkhkare?

Well, Ay and Nefertiti really look like brother and sister if you look at their busts. But I don't think they gave birth to Tut and Smenk. It seems to me possible Smenk was the son of Amenophis III but more likely that both he and Tut were the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. A number of Egyptologists believe so as well and have seriously criticized Zahi Hawass claims that Tut was the son of Amenophis III or Akhenaten and a sister.

One thing that is known is that Akhenaten married one of his father's wives, who was the sister of Tushratta, after the death of Amenophis III - and basically took over the harem. BUT, Akhenaten and Nefertiti appear together before the death of Amenophis. So, it seems to me that Akhenaten could have been so enamored of the "beautiful woman who has come" (from elsewhere), that he asked his father to give her to him for a wife.

If Ay were her brother and was, as a result of her new position, raised to important positions, it actually would fit a combination of the Joseph and Abraham stories.

Because the stories really don't have to be exact - probably aren't.

The only thing for sure is that whatever happened along that time was so distressing and distasteful to the Egyptian hierarchy that their names and very existence were obliterated for a very long time which makes it curious as to why the OT records a tale that is even remotely close to the possible story of Nefertiti and Ay. There must have been something that was passed down as a memory and different characters combined or separated from the events in various ways.

Edit: I rejected the idea of Ay being equivalent to Abraham because his tomb has been found in the valley of the kings. However, I just found this remark:

The tomb also contained little in the way of funerary equipment debris, with no trace of shabtis or canopic equipment, fragments of whose fragile alabaster chest survived in most other mid-Eighteenth to mid-Nineteenth Dynasty royal tombs. This might all point to the tomb’s not having been used, or to its having been the site of a distinctly perfunctory interment that omitted many items and did not even put the sarcophagus lid in place. On the other hand, that a burial was made is suggested by the presence of a gilt copper rosette (probably the adornment of a funerary pall) and various wooden fragments from funerary statuettes, together with some Eighteenth Dynasty pottery.

Curious..

Not necessary to reject him for that reason. He could still be the seed-historical character of the OT story though, in real life, he may not have done all that was claimed for him by the OT writers. Keep in mind that they used characters rather freely, giving them lives and adventures modeled on Greek stories for the most part.

King David, for example: it is known that a David existed, but he was definitely NOT the great king of a united Israel-Judea; he was more likely to have been a "robber baron" type leader. At the most, a sort of "kinglet". But, his name and some of his adventures were preserved, like Robin Hood, and then he was recast as a king and the father of the great Solomon whose name was probably appropriated along with a whole series of attributes and doings.

Interestingly, mixed up with David is the story of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite who was then sent off to war to get killed so David could have here. Again, there is a bit of reflection of the Nefertiti/Ay/Akhenaten story. The seduction of another man's wife, that man being a general (Ay was a general).

Then, there is the Joseph tale, sort of telling it from another side: the wife of Potiphar had the hot for Joseph and tried to seduce HIM, and when he so righteously rejected her advances, she accused him of rape and he was put in prison. One wonders if there is a bit of something to that story as well, or if it is totally taken from other tales current at the time?


Some have conjectured that Ay was the son of Yuya who is thought to have been Syrian. Yuya could also have been partly the model for the Joseph figure. After all, Jews are thought to be simply Syrians on steroids.

Of course, Horemheb must figure in here somehow because it was he who came back and instituted the damnatio memoriae on Ay. Moses, of course, as a spinoff of this little group of dramatis personae also, spent many years away (in Midian), and then came back to save his people. Horemheb spent many years on campaign and then, came back to sort things out.

So, it's all very curious that elements of the Biblical stories appear to be historical references that have been scattered like bread crumbs through the text, one bit given to this character, and another to someone else.

 

[goyacobol]

Another real treat is the paper by Yaakov S. Kupitz. He comes across as a really sweet guy who is so happy that he is proficient in both ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. He puts that ability to very good use and teaches the reader a bit about how Hebrew has some very interesting loan words from Greek - even in the "ancient variety". Now how did that happen?

I am wondering if it may be related to what the Cs meant by "Greek enforcers". Time travel would probably help out with the "ancient variety" too.

Q: (L) Who wrote the book of Matthew?

A: Greek enforcers.

Q: (L) What are Greek enforcers?

A: Like your FBI.

Q: (L) Who wrote the book of Mark?

A: Same.

Q: (L) Luke and John?

A: Same?

Q: (L) Acts?

A: Same?

Q: (L) Are any books of the New Testament written by who they claim to be written by?

A: No. Remember this is 70% propaganda.

Q: (L) Is 30% then the truth or the actual teachings?

A: Close. Enough you must decipher from instinct through meditation.

 

[goyacobol]

I see @mkrnhr noticed the "Greek enforcers" may be a way to interpret the Bernd Diebner quote "Hellenistic project" too.

In the introductory chapter to "The Bible and Hellenism" there is one sentence written en passant saying "...and Bernd Diebner first suggested that the Hebrew Bible as a whole had been a Hellenistic project" which sounds as it referred to the "Greek enforcers" although it could be completely unrelated.