Bezalel and Kothar-wa-Ḫasis
by
Damien
F. Mackey
“Reading Exodus’ description of Bezalel from a
somewhat more historical-critical orientation than that of his predecessors,
the early Jewish 20th century scholar Umberto (Rabbi Moshe David)
Cassuto, in his commentary to the Book of Exodus, emphasized the similarities
between Bezalel’s attributes and descriptions of the Ugaritic, artisan deity
Kothar-wa-Ḫasis”.
Introduction
The Ras Shamra (Ugarit) series of tablets has been
wrongly dated by historians and chronologists to c. 1550-1200 BC, which is some
500-600 years earlier than the series ought to have been dated. This is a
situation common also to the El Amarna [EA] archive, dated to the 1400’s BC
instead of to the 800’s BC, approximately. Dr. I. Velikovsky had discussed the chronological
anomalies in both cases, in his Ages in
Chaos, 1952 and Oedipus and Akhnaton,
1960.
In relation to the Old Testament, we have EA’s
pharaoh, Akhnaton, thought to have pre-dated King David by some centuries, and
hence the conclusion must be that his Sun Hymn, so like Psalm 104 in many
places, must have been the inspiration for the biblical text.
And so we read, for instance (http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/04/psalm-104-the-great-hymn-to-the-aten-2.html):
Today’s topic comes from Douglas A. Knight and
Amy Jill Levine’s excellent book, The
Meaning of the Bible.
On the wall of a 14th century BCE tomb in Egypt
archaeologists found a beautiful hymn to the god Aten. The Aten’s claim to fame
is that he is sole God of a monotheistic [sic] belief espoused by Pharaoh
Akhenaten (1352-1336) in an era when most Egyptians believed in many gods.
What’s curious about the Great Hymn to the Aten
is that it closely mirrors Psalm 104 in our Bible as a song of praise to the
creator, though written hundreds of years before any of the Bible [sic]. Psalm
104, of course, is addressed not to the Aten but to YHWH, the god of the
Hebrews. Here are some parallels highlighted by Knight and Levine’s book:
O Sole God beside whom there is none! – to Aten
O YHWH my God you are very great. – to YHWH
How many are your deeds … You made the earth as you
wished, you alone, All peoples, herds, and flocks. – to Aten
O YHWH, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you
have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. to YHWH
When you set in western lightland, Earth is in
darkness as if in death – to Aten
You make darkness, and it is night, when all the
animals of the forest come creeping out. – to YHWH
Every lion comes from its den – to Aten
The young lions roar for their prey .. when the sun
rises, they withdraw, and lie down in their dens. – to YHWH
When you have dawned they live, When you set they die;
– to Aten
When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you
take away their breath, they die – to YHWH
You set every man in his place, You supply their
needs; Everyone has his food. – to Aten
These all look to you to give them their food in due
season. – to YHWH
The entire land sets out to work – to Aten People go
out to their work and to their labor until the evening – to YHWH
The fish in the river dart before you, Your rays are
in the midst of the sea. – to Aten
Yonder is the sea, great and wide, creeping things
innumerable are there – to YHWH
Birds fly from their nests, Their wings greeting your
ka – to Aten
By the streams the birds of the air have their
habitation; they sing among the branches – to YHWH
He makes waves on the mountain like the sea, To drench
their fields and their towns. – to Aten
You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow
between the hills … The trees of YHWH are watered abundantly – to YHWH
[End of quote]
This is quite the common view.
Revisionists, however, view it entirely the other
way around – that King David had, in fact, pre-dated Akhnaton and EA by more
than a century, and so could not have been influenced in his religious ideas by
the curious pharaoh. Rather, it was Israel that was culturally influencing the nations
of that time.
Ugarit
(Ras Shamra)
The same sort of artificial “Dark Age” archaeological
gap that the likes of Peter James et al.
had discerned in the conventional Hittite history (Centuries of Darkness, 1990), Dr. Velikovsky had already - four decades
earlier - shown to have been the case with the Ugarit-Cyprus connection. And so
we read (https://www.varchive.org/schorr/ugarit.htm):
In the published volume of Ages
in Chaos, Velikovsky made a strong case for challenging Ugarit’s
conventional dates.1 He pointed out
many 500-year problems in the literary texts uncovered at the site, and shows
the difficulty relating to vaulted Cypriote tombs constructed in the style of
those from Ugarit but set 500 years later. For those who have not read or were
not already convinced by the material presented by Velikovsky for Ras
Shamra-Ugarit, perhaps a couple of additional problems will suffice.
Let us again look at the
vaulted tombs of Cyprus. Velikovsky has already mentioned some of these,
especially the 7th-century example from Trachonas. The island of Cyprus has an
“astonishing” number of these tombs2 which divide
neatly into two series: those assigned to 1550-1200 B.C., and those beginning
in 950 B.C. And continuing for some time.3 The first group
of vaulted tombs (at Enkomi) corresponds closely in date and style to the
Ugaritic tombs, and the type is thought to have come from Syria to Cyprus.4
The second group of Cypriote tombs corresponds to both the Ugaritic and earlier
Cypriote examples, but a 250-year gap separates the inception of the second
group from the end of the Bronze Age tombs. More important than the 250-year
period when no tombs were built in Syria or Cyprus to connect the later tombs
to the earlier ones, is the fact that the earliest tombs of each group (i.e.,
those of 1550 and 950 B.C.), separated by 600 years, are most similar.5
The Cypriote vaulted tombs
from 950-600 B.C. seem to undergo the same development as the Enkomi and
Ugaritic tombs with 600 years separating the corresponding phases. It has been
postulated that the later tombs somehow copied the earlier Cypriote or Syrian
ones, but the tombs presumably copied must have been buried and invisible for
some 600 years.6
Similar tombs are found in
Jerusalem, Asia Minor, and Urartu of the 9th-7th centuries, and again it is
thought that they originated in 9th-7th-century Syro-Phoenicia.7 But the only
tombs of this type in that region, notably the ones from Ugarit, are placed
centuries earlier.
Leaving behind the regions
bordering Syro-Phoenicia, we shall travel briefly to an actual Punic colony. In
the 9th or 8th century B.C.,8 a group of
Phoenicians sailed to North Africa and founded Carthage. One of the oldest
archaeological discoveries from the site is a late 8th-century B.C. built tomb
“closely related” to the Ugaritic tombs in architectural plan. 9 It is a
“faithful miniature rendering” of the Syrian tombs both in design and,
apparently, in arrangements for religious rites.10 It would
hardly be surprising for 8th-century Phoenician colonists to bring over a current
tomb type and burial customs from their motherland. The only similar tomb type
and burial customs that their motherland can produce, however, are put 500
years earlier. By the accepted scheme, the colonists’ ancestors would have been
very familiar with these matters, but by the 8th century B.C., the Ugaritic
tombs must have been buried over, invisible, and forgotten. 11
How did these tombs of Ugarit
serve as models for Cypriots, Israelites, Urartians, Anatolian peoples, and
Phoenician colonists, if contemporaneity is denied, and they went out of use
and were thus forgotten 500-600 years earlier?
The final items we will
examine from Ugarit are a gold bowl and a gold plate, both beautifully
decorated. Stratigraphically, they belong shortly before the destruction of the
city during the Amarna period, and are thus assigned a date somewhere between
1450-1365 B.C.12
Stylistically, as well, they belong to the Mitannian-Amarna period and show
scenes reminiscent of late 18th Dynasty Egypt, notably the time of King
Tutankhamen. 13 Both
stratigraphically and stylistically, then, a late 18th Dynasty date is
necessitated. Since Velikovsky lowers that date by over 500 years, how are the
gold bowls affected?
These two pieces are called
“remarkable antecedents of the use of the frieze of animals on metal bowls” of
Phoenician workmanship, firmly dated to the 9th-7th centuries B.C.14
What is more “remarkable” than the Ugaritic examples’ manufacture and burial
over 500 years before the “later” series began, is the subject matter of the
two items. Extraordinary conservatism was attributed to the Phoenicians, since
the later group faithfully reproduced similar scenes and arrangement of the
decoration,15 after a lapse
of 500 years.
The chariot scene on the
14th-century gold plate is compared to similar scenes of the 9th-century
Neo-Hittites and of the Assyrian King Assurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.).16
The elongated gallop of the horse is seen to be quite similar to depictions on
Assyrian reliefs, but Assyrian influence “is chronologically impossible, all
the Assyrian monuments presently known where horses are depicted at gallop
being about half a millennium later than our plate” (174). The gold bowl (Fig.
7) with its combination of Aegean, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Levantine motifs
is “an excellent example of Phoenician syncretism, half a millennium before
Phoenicians in the proper sense are known”.17
Surely, it was thought, these
golden objects, remarkably foreshadowing by 500 years similar metal bowls and
similar scenes, “may be claimed as ancestors of the series of ‘Phoenician’
bowls of the ninth-seventh centuries B.C.”18 How can they
be ancestors if they were buried and unseen for 500 years before the later
series began, and the art was lost over those 500 years?
If metal bowls reproduced
similar scenes in similar arrangements for 500 years, that would indeed
be “extraordinary conservatism.” That 9th-7th-century Phoenicians should
imitate so closely 14th-century bowls they never saw, after a 500-year gap,
is merely “extraordinary.”
When their date is reduced by
half a millennium, these bowls fit beautifully into the later series. If one
keeps high dates for the Mitannians and the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, then this is
yet another mystery to add to our list.
References
5. Ibid., pp.
52-53. See also A. Westholm, “Amathus,” in E. Gjerstad, et al.. The Swedish
Cyprus Expedition (henceforth SCE) II (Stockholm: 1935), p. 140, and
E. Sjöqvist, “Enkomi” SCE I (Stockholm: 1934), pp. 570-73.
6. E. Gjerstad, SCE IV.2 (Stockholm: 1948), p. 239;
V. Karageorghis, Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis I (Salamis,
vol. 3) [Nicosia: 1967], p. 123.
7. D. Ussishkin, “The Necropolis from the Time of the
Kingdom of Judah at Silwan, Jerusalem,” The Biblical Archaeologist 33
(1970): 45-46.
8. The foundation date was disputed in antiquity. Most
ancient estimates fell within the range of 846-7 51 B.C. Of particular interest
for our purposes is the fact that a number of ancient authors stated that
Carthage was founded before the Trojan War.
9. G. C. and C. Picard, The Life and Death of
Carthage, trans. from the French by D. Collon (London: 1968), p. 47.
10. Ibid., p.
52, and see C. Picard, “Installations Cultuelles Retrouveés au Tophet de
Salammbo,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 42 (1967): 189-99.
11. Picard, “Installations,” sees close relations between
the Ras Shamra and Carthage tombs but recognizes the chronological difficulty.
His suggestion, pp. 197-98, that this tomb type came from Cyprus does not help
matters. The Carthaginian settlers were primarily Syro-Phoenicians, not
Cypriots. Besides, he seems not to realize that the type did not survive
in Cyprus from Bronze Age times (contra, p. 197). Like the Carthaginian example,
it “came back” after a mysterious chronological gap. Even if we make the
Carthage example depend on Cyprus, not Syria, we are still left with the puzzle
of how and why the Cypriots copied, yet did not copy, the 600-year extinct
tombs of Ras Shamra or Enkomi.
12. C. F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica II (Paris: 1949),
pp. 5, 47. See H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient
(Baltimore: 1963), p. 150 for their assignment to the Mitannian period, p. 140
for his dates for that period; D. E. Strong, Greek and Roman Gold and Silver
Plate (Glasgow: 1966), p. 53.
14. P. Dikaios, “Fifteen Iron Age Vases,” Report of the
Department of Antiquities of Cyprus, 1937-1939 (Nicosia: 1951): 137. 1 72.
Schaeffer, Ugaritica II, p. 47.
16. Schaeffer, Ugaritica II, pp. 22-23: “Une
influence de ce coté est chronologique-ment impossible, tous les monuments
assyriens actuellement connus où figurent des chevaux au galop étant
postérieurs de près d’un demi-millénaire à notre patère.”
[End of quote]
The conventional upside-down chronology for Ugarit
has, as with EA, led to the inevitable – but wrong – conclusion that the pagan
culture had influenced the supposedly later biblical writings.
The following is a typical example of this mind-set
(https://www.britannica.com/place/Ugarit):
Ras Shamra texts and the Bible
Many texts discovered at Ugarit, including the “Legend of
Keret,” the “Aqhat Epic” (or “Legend of Danel”), the “Myth of Baal-Aliyan,” and the “Death of Baal,” reveal an Old
Canaanite mythology. A tablet names the Ugaritic pantheon with Babylonian
equivalents; El, Asherah of the Sea, and Baal were the main deities. These texts not only constitute a literature of high standing and great
originality but also have an important bearing on biblical studies. It is now
evident that the patriarchal stories in the Hebrew Bible were not merely transmitted orally but
were based on written documents of Canaanite origin, the discovery of which at
Ugarit has led to a new appraisal of the Hebrew Bible.
[End of quote]
For a complete reversal of
this view, though, see my:
Identity of the 'Daniel' in Ezekiel 14 and 28
With this new, revised, approach in mind, there may
well be need further to re-assess Cassuto’s interpretation - following upon his
most helpful comparisons between Bezalel and Ugaritic Kothar-wa-Ḫasis - of “the biblical material as a
critique of Canaanite legends and polytheism.[15]”.
Rather, I suggest, the Canaanite legends ought to be viewed as later, corrupt, polytheistic
versions of the sublime Hebrew originals.
 |
Baal Bronze figurine, 14th-12th centuries, Ras
Shamra (ancient Ugarit)
|
Rabbi Jeremy S. Morrison
discusses Cassuto’s paralleling of Bezalel and Kothar-wa-Ḫasis in the following terrific article:
http://thetorah.com/bezalel-and-the-impotence-of-foreign-deities/
Bezalel Ben Uri and the
Impotence of Foreign Deities
Impotence of Foreign Deities
Introduction – Bezalel’s Special Attributes
In this week’s parasha, Vayakhel, we encounter one of the
Torah’s most enigmatic characters: Bezalel, the artisan and architect who
oversees the building of the Tabernacle. Our portion describes Bezalel as
filled with divine spirit (ruach elohim), and endowed with wisdom (chochmah),
discernment or technical know-how (tevunah) and with knowledge of every
kind of work (u’v’da’at u’vchol melachah).[1] The product that
Bezalel makes further highlights his special characteristics. As the
constructor of the Tabernacle, a dwelling place for Yhwh, Bezalel builds
a house that is unique from all other human-built houses. Scholars
stress the superlative nature of the Book of Exodus’s description of him:
Bezalel has “the gift of originality” and he possesses “all the requisite
qualities [of wisdom, discernment and knowledge] in supernatural measure.”[2]
There is indeed something “supernatural” about Bezalel, and the unique
and surpassing description of this character provokes compelling questions: Who
is Bezalel? Why does Exodus describe him in this manner? And what is his
relationship with God?
Human Creativity in the Bible
Biblical Creative Tensions
Within the Bible, creativity is frequently a realm in which God is in conflict with humans. In biblical texts, humans are denied originality [sic]. Knowledge that is generated independently by the human mind, and not installed there by God, “must be at best wrong, at worst possibly antagonistic to God.”[3] The Bible also expresses suspicion regarding human artisanship, particularly metalworking, which often leads to the construction of idols. [4] Bezalel, designated as both a metal worker (Exod. 36:32) and as a thinker “of thoughts or plans” (Exod. 36:35) would seem to embody the “creative tensions” that concern the writers of the Bible. And yet, the description of Bezalel in Vayakhel is not infused with tension; rather, he is presented as an elevated, masterful artisan, skilled in a variety of creative processes, and capable of instructing others.[5]
Yhwh’s Relationship with Bezalel
The absence of tension between God and this particular artisan
highlights the special character of their relationship, which is further
indicated by the opening verse of the description. As Moses states
(35:30) to the Israelites: “See, Yhwh has called by name Bezalel, the
son of Uri.”
The description of Bezalel in this week’s portion is a repetition of a
previous depiction of Bezalel given by God to Moses. There (Exodus 31: 1- 5),
the first person account lends a greater sense of intimacy to the relationship
between Yhwh and Bezalel. God declares to Moses (Exod.
31:2), “I have called, by name, Bezalel.” God “calls” someone “by name”
in only two other verses in the Bible: when God proclaims God’s own name (in
Exod. 33:19) and also when God “calls” Israel “by name” (Isa. 43:1). In each of
these contexts, the phrase indicates a distinctive relationship with the
individual (Bezalel) or the people (Israel) that God is calling.
The meaning of Bezalel ben Uri’s name –“In the shadow of El, the son of
my light”–lends credence to the notion of a special relationship between God
and Bezalel. Furthermore, Moses’/God’s declaration (Exod. 35:30/Exod. 31:2)
that God has “filled” Bezalel with the “breath/wind/spirit of God” (ruach
elohim) places this artisan in a select category of biblical personages
upon whom the “spirit/breath/wind of God” comes, including, Joseph, Saul,
Ezekiel and Daniel.[6]
The description in Vayakhel, when taken together with the meaning
of the name Bezalel, suggests, as Mark S. Smith has written, “an unusual
intimacy between God and this otherwise shadowy figure.”[7]
Explaining Bezalel’s Unique Abilities
Since the early centuries of the Common Era, commentators have noted
Bezalel’s unique qualities and have raised questions as to his identity.
This is clearly reflected, for example, in the later exegetical collection of
midrashic collection on the book of Exodus, Shemot Rabbah (40:2), describes
Bezalel as having been chosen by God at the beginning of time.[8]
Removing the Supernatural Description
Perhaps out of concern that the superlative nature of the description in
Exodus was motivating comparisons between Bezalel and Greco-Roman gods,
Josephus, in his Antiquities (1st Century, CE), took pains to
recast Bezalel’s commissioning by God and removes God’s calling (kara)
of Bezalel:
“[Moses] appointed construction supervisors for the works…their
names…were these: Basaelos, son of Ouri of the tribe of Ioudas, grandson of
Mariamme the sister of the general and Elibazos, son of Isamachos, of the tribe
of Dan (Antiquities 3.104-5).”[9]
Whereas in the Bible, God chooses the architects for the building, in
the Antiquities (3.104) Moses selects the architects “in accordance with
the instruction of God,” thereby transforming Bezalel from a uniquely gifted
craftsman to a humanly chosen member of a team of architects.[10] Perhaps he did so out of
concern that the superlative nature of the description in Exodus motivated
comparisons between Bezalel and Greco-Roman gods.[11]
Bezalel the Master Sage
The medieval commentator, Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164) (Exod. 31:3),
notes that Bezalel, had great skill, knew all sorts of hidden mysteries…and
understood mathematics, biology, physics, and metaphysics far beyond anyone
else of his generation.[12]
According to ibn Ezra, Bezalal was simply a master scholar.
Bezalel the Ancestor of Artisans
The Protestant 20th Century German scholar Martin Noth, in A
History of Pentateuchal Traditions, explains the illustrious description of
Bezalel by positing that Bezalel was an ancestor of a distinguished family
living during the Second Temple Period.[13] Similarly, Ronald E. Clements suggests that
Bezalel and Oholiab are ancestors of artisan guilds.[14]
The Israelite Kothar
Reading Exodus’ description of Bezalel from a somewhat more
historical-critical orientation than that of his predecessors, the early Jewish
20th century scholar Umberto (Rabbi Moshe David) Cassuto, in his
commentary to the Book of Exodus, emphasized the similarities between Bezalel’s
attributes and descriptions of the Ugaritic, artisan deity Kothar-wa-Ḫasis. In the Ba(al and Anat cycle, Yamm
(the god of the sea) commissions Kothar-wa-Ḫasis to build him a palace. When Ba(al
and Anat defeat Yamm, however, Kothar-wa-Ḫasis ends up building the palace for Ba(al.
Cassuto sees Bezalal as an alternative to Kothar-wa-Ḫasis, and he interprets the biblical material as a
critique of Canaanite legends and polytheism.[15]
The parallels between Bezalel and Kothar wa-Ḫasis should not be taken lightly. Scholars have observed
striking similarities between the portrayal of Bezalel and the descriptions of
this Ugaritic deity, which are found in the Ugaritic creation myth, the Ba(al
and Anat Cycle.[16] Like Bezalel, Kothar–wa-Ḫasis’s skill set encompasses all crafts and he, like,
Bezalel, builds a house for a deity, the Canaanite god of creation, Ba(al
– Hadad.
Additionally, epithets for Kothar-wa-Ḫasis are analogous to elements of the description
of Bezalel.[17] The Ugaritic deity is known
as the “Wise One” (Ḫss)
(corresponding to chochmah); Kothar wa-Hasis is called “the deft one”
(Ugaritic: ḫrš yd) a name that corresponds
to Bezalel’s being able to carve or craft (cheresh) stone, wood, or
metal.
….
[1] For the complete description of Bezalel in this week’s portion see Ex. 35:30 – 35.
[2] See Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans.
W.Jacob; Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1997), 842; and W. Propp, Exodus 19-40: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible; New
York, Doubleday, 2006), 488.
[3] See Michael Carasik, Theologies of the Mind in Biblical Israel
(New York: Peter Lang, 2006), p. 221.
[4] This orientation towards human thinking and creativity is summarized
in the Priestly statement: “The Lord saw… how every plan devised by [man’s]
mind nothing but evil all the time (Gen. 6:5).” For other examples of the
Bible’s pejorative orientation towards human creativity, see Isa. 65:2; Jer.
4:14; Jer. 18:12; Psa. 94:11; and Prov. 19:21.
[5] See Exod. 35:34.
[6] firstshould be rewritten to match the text}}Other biblical
characters who experience God’s ruach include: Joseph (Gen. 41:38),
Balaam (Num. 24:2), Saul (1 Sam. 10:10; 11:6; 16:5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 11:24),
Daniel (5:11,14) and Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20).
[7] See M. Smith, Kothar wa-Ḫasis, the Ugaritic
Craftsman God (Dissertation; Yale University, 1985), 100.
[8] ומה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא הביא לו ספרו של אדם הראשון והראה לו כל הדורות שהן עתידין לעמוד מבראשית עד תחיית המתים, דור ודור ומלכיו, דור ודור ומנהיגיו, דור ודור ונביאיו, אמר לו כל אחד ואחד התקנתיו מאותה שעה, וכן בצלאל מאותה שעה התקנתיו, הוי ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל.
[9] See Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary: Judean
Antiquities 1–4, tr. L. Feldman, ed. S. Mason (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999),
257–8.
[10] See Steven Fine, “‘See, I Have Called by the Renowned Name
of Bezalel, Son of Uri…’: Josephus’ Portrayal of the Biblical ‘Architect’
,” In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah: in honor of
Professor Louis H. Feldman, edited by Steven (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 29 –
30.
[11] See Fine, p. 30.
[12] והנה בצלאל היה מלא כל חכמה בחשבון, ומדות, וערכים, ומלאכת שמים וחכמת התולדת, וסוד הנשמה. והיה לו יתרון על כל אנשי דורו,
[13] See Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions
(trans. Bernhard W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey, 1972), 188.,
[14] See Ronald E. Clements, Exodus: The Cambridge Bible
Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972), 199.
[15] See Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus
(trans. I Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1974), 402.
[16] See KTU 1.1 III; KTU 1.2 IV; KTU 1.4 V-VIII.
[17] See Smith, Kothar wa-Ḫasis, 51-100.
….
Comments