Looking from the Far East of EdenThe Psalmist says: "Behold, how good and pleasant it is /when brothers dwell in unity!" (Ps.133,1), and it is reassuring to see so many different peoples and nations neatly presented according to their geographical and historical relationships in the so-called Table of Nations (Gen.10), a list of the descendants of Noah's family, the survivors of the Flood.Indeed, the "Table ", full of colors and tones, alluringly leads us to imagine that even those of us from the Far East of Eden might also find a touch of our own roots in it.In fact, however, we find that the world of the "Table " is undeniably limited only to Semitic, Hamitic, and Japheto-Indo-European peoples(1).True, art and science have no borders, but it is also the case that when I am abroad, often people, good people, come and politely ask me what causes us to engage in Biblical and the Ancient Near Eastern studies, which, they maintain, are deeply related to the "Western", Judeo-Christian culture -a good question, indeed, but it is admittedly a shock to, at the very entrance of the Biblical world, find yourself somewhat alienated and forced to realize that you are a stranger.Well, then, what are we to do?Where are we?Who am I? Should we be pessimistic?Not at all, friends.For the self-searching "Where are we?" or "Who am I?" not only echoes throughout the Bible, but is the very source and motif for the creation of the whole of Biblical literature, yes, even its narratives of the pre-Flood pre-historical age (cf.Gen. 3,9)(2) where one is not yet faced with the Sem-Ham-Japhet complex and presumably could feel safer.All people, whether we realize it or not, find it alluring to go back to the historically less strained primeval womb called "Before" whether in the form of "Before Abraham" (Kikawada and Quinn 1985), "Before the Flood" (Hess and Tsumura 1994) or even "Before the Bible" (Gordon 1962).

The excavations of Waseda University expedition on the hill at North Saqqara revealed important finds, especially from the New Kingdom. The most significant are the remains of a monument which may have been Khaemwaset's ka-house'.

Christian monasticism, which appeared in Late Antiquity, is worthy of attention by historians not only because of its importance for the subsequent history, but also because the appearance and development of this ascetical movement can be said to characterize the period.Here, however, some preliminary reflections seem necessary: what, for example, should we imagine when we use the term 'monasticism' or 'monk', and when did monasticism thus defined appear in history?Such a reflection on terms, which was for a long time neglected, appears to have emerged in recent scholarship.The aim of this paper is to present the author's view about the problems.1. Earlier view Among earlier scholars, K. Heussi offers the most noteworthy discussion of the terms.Working exclusively with ecclesiastical and monastic sources, Heussi divides the forms of Christian asceticism into the following four types: 1. asceticism inside the community, 2. the earliest form of monasticism, or reclusion (a.individual hermits who live outside the village, b. groups of hermits outside the village), 3. intensified form of reclusion, or reclusion in the desert, 4. cenobitism or monasteries.Heussi then applied the term 'monk' to those whose modes of life belong to types 2, 3, or 4.(2)Heussi's definition of the earliest monks (type 2) is supported by the description in chapter 3 of the Vita Antonii: it says that, when Antony began his life of seclusion, "there were not yet many monasteries in Egypt, and no monk