The early history of the HebrewsSayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry)
History
The early history of the Hebrews
Sayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry)
Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.; Jews -- History -- To 953 B.C.
However this may be, the question with which we started remains
unanswered. We are still unable to define with exactness who the Hebrews
were. The origin and first use of the name are still a matter of doubt.
We must be content with the fact that it came to be applied—if not
exclusively, at all events predominantly—to the people of Israel in
their dealings with their foreign neighbours. It may be that this
special application of it was first fixed by the Philistines. In any
case it was a name which was accepted by the Israelites themselves, and
gradually became synonymous with all that was specifically Israelitish.
Even the old ‘language of Canaan,’ as it is still called by Isaiah (xix.
18), became ‘the Hebrew language’ of modern lexicographers. For us of
to-day the history of the Hebrew people means the history of the
descendants of Israel. It is with ‘Abram the Hebrew’ that the history
begins. Future ages looked back upon him as the ancestor of the Hebrew
race, ‘the rock’ from whence it was ‘hewn.’ He had come from the far
East, from ‘Ur of the Casdim’ or Babylonians. His younger brother Haran
had died ‘in the land of his nativity’; with his elder brother Nahor and
himself, his father Terah had migrated westward, to Harran in
Mesopotamia. There Terah had died, and there Abram had received the call
which led him to journey still further onwards into the land of Canaan.
He was already married. Already in Babylonia he had made Sarai his wife,
who is also said to have been his step-sister; while the wife, Milcah,
whom his brother Nahor had taken to himself, was his niece. A time came
when both Abram and Sarai took new names in token of the covenant they
had made with God. Abram became Abraham, and Sarai became Sarah.
Upon these beginnings of Hebrew history light has been thrown by the
decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions. The site of ‘Ur of the
Chaldees’ has been found. Geographers are no longer dependent on Arab
legends or vague coincidencies with classical names. Ur was one of the
most ancient and prosperous of Babylonian cities. The very name meant
‘the city’; it was, in fact, the capital of a district, and its kings at
one time had claimed sway over the rest of Chaldæa. Alone among the
great cities of Babylonia, it stood on the western bank of the Euphrates
in close contact with the nomad tribes of Semitic Arabia. More than any
other of the Babylonian towns it was thus able to influence and be
influenced by the Semites of the west; it was an outpost of Babylonian
culture, and its position made it a centre of trade.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account