The oxford illustrated history of the holy land h.g.m. williamson et al. - Own the complete ebook wi

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you

Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

The Oxford History of the Holy Land 1st Edition Robert G. Hoyland

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-holy-land-1stedition-robert-g-hoyland/

ebookmass.com

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Renaissance Campbell

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-of-therenaissance-campbell/

ebookmass.com

The Oxford Illustrated History Of The Book James Raven

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-illustrated-history-of-thebook-james-raven/ ebookmass.com

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Palgrave Macmillan

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-palgrave-dictionary-ofeconomics-palgrave-macmillan/ ebookmass.com

Ancient Women Writers of Greece and Rome Bartolo Natoli

https://ebookmass.com/product/ancient-women-writers-of-greece-androme-bartolo-natoli/

ebookmass.com

Fodor's Essential Scandinavia: The Best of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland 3rd Edition Michelle Arrouas

https://ebookmass.com/product/fodors-essential-scandinavia-the-bestof-norway-sweden-denmark-finland-and-iceland-3rd-edition-michellearrouas/

ebookmass.com

Savage Prince (The Caraksay Brotherhood Book 2) Ashe Barker

https://ebookmass.com/product/savage-prince-the-caraksay-brotherhoodbook-2-ashe-barker/

ebookmass.com

Examples & Explanations for Civil Procedure (Examples & Explanations Series) 8th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/examples-explanations-for-civilprocedure-examples-explanations-series-8th-edition-ebook-pdf/

ebookmass.com

The Downfall Series Box Set (Books 1 – 3) Edie Baylis

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-downfall-series-box-setbooks-1-3-edie-baylis/

ebookmass.com

Attraction (A Temptation Series Prequel) Leigh

https://ebookmass.com/product/attraction-a-temptation-series-prequelleigh/

ebookmass.com

THEOXFORDILLUSTRATEDHISTORYOFTHE

HOLYLAND

The  historianswhocontributedto TheOxfordIllustratedHistoryofthe HolyLand arealldistinguishedauthoritiesintheir field.Theyare:

,YaleDivinitySchool

,Bar-IlanUniversity

,writerandjournalist

,UniversityofHull

.  ,DenverSeminary  ,UniversityofEdinburgh

,NewYorkUniversity

,UniversityofBamberg

,ÉcolePratiquedesHautesÉtudes

,HebrewUniversityofJerusalem

,WesternGalileeCollege

,CardiffUniversity

,Bar-IlanUniversity

,TrinitySchoolforMinistry

,UniversityofOxford

THEOXFORDILLUSTRATED

HISTORYOFTHE HOLYLAND

Editedby ROBERTG.HOYLAND H.G.M.WILLIAMSON

GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,   , UnitedKingdom

OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries

©OxfordUniversityPress  Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin  Impression: 

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove

Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer

PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress  MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY ,UnitedStatesofAmerica BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable

LibraryofCongressControlNumber: 

PrintedinItalyby L.E.G.O.S.p.A. LavisTN

CONTENTS

ListofMaps

Introduction

.TheBirthofIsrael

AvrahamFaust

.IronAge:TribestoMonarchy

LesterL.Grabbe

.IsraelandJudah, c.

AndréLemaire

.BabylonianExileandRestoration, 

H.G.M.Williamson

.TheHellenisticandRomanEra

JohnJ.Collins

.AChristianHolyLand, 

KonstantinKlein

.TheComingofIslam

MilkaLevy-Rubin

.TheHolyLandintheCrusaderandAyyubidPeriods,  –

CaroleHillenbrand

.TheHolyLandfromtheMamlukSultanatetothe OttomanEmpire,

NimrodLuz

.FromNapoleontoAllenby:TheHolyLandand theWiderMiddleEast

RobertFisk .Pilgrimage

PeterWalkerwithRobertG.Hoyland

.SacredSpacesandHolyPlaces

RichardS.HessandDenysPringle

.ScriptureandtheHolyLand

AdamSilverstein

FurtherReading

Index

PictureAcknowledgements

LISTOFMAPS

 MapoftheHolyLandintheearliestIsraeliteperiod

 TheHolyLandintheperiodoftheIsraelitemonarchies

 ThecitiesoftheDecapolis

 MapoftheHolyLandunderRomanoccupationinthe

rst century

 MapofthelateantiqueHolyLandandneighbouringregions

 MapoftheCrusaderstatesinPalestine,Syria,andAnatolia

 Locationofsacredspacesandholyplaces

Introduction

I  anaide-memoirefollowingtheFirstWorldWar,theBritishPrimeMinister DavidLloydGeorgewrotetohisFrenchoppositenumberGeorgesClémenceauthat Palestinewastobe ‘definedinaccordancewithitsancientboundariesofDanto Beersheba’.LloydGeorgehadbeensteepedintheBiblefromhischildhood,sothatit isunderstandable,ifpoliticallyastonishing,thatheshouldhaveallowedhisinstinctive memorytoinfluencehisapproachtomodernpoliticalrealities.

Differentnamesandgeographicaldefinitionsbedevilthehistoryofthispartof theworldandnonecandojusticetothesweepofwhatwehavesetouttodescribe inthepresentvolume.Preciselyforthatreasonwehavedeliberatelychosenthetitle HolyLand,afamiliarnamewhichhasneverfeaturedonanymapworthitssalt.Itserves toindicatethatourintentionhereisfarfrompolitical andthatisonegoodreason whywehavecalledahaltinourhistoricalsurveyatjustthepointwhereLloydGeorge wasclarifyinghisthoughtsonthepost-warsettlement.Butjustaswehavestopped shortofthemodernera,sowehavenotincludedanythingaboutthethousandsof yearsofoccupationwhichprecededthebiblicalperiod.TheCarmelCaves,for instance,haveyieldedevidenceofsomeoftheearliesthumanoccupationknown worldwide,atestimonytothegeographicalcentralityoftheregionasalinkbetween AfricaandEurope.Jerichohasoftenbeencalledtheword’s firstcity,andarchaeology hasrevealedmuchabouthumanoccupationthroughoutthemillenniasincethen.

TheHolyLand,however,conjuresupanapproachtoterritorywhichismore cultural,andspecificallyreligious,thanpolitical,howevercloselyintertwinedthe twowereuntilrelativelyrecently.Thismodeststripoflandsawthebirthoftwo worldreligions,JudaismandChristianity,andwasofcentralsignificancetoathird fromitsearliestdays,Islam.ItissoberingtorecallthatJerusalemhasbeentakenby militaryforcebyadherentsofeachofthesethreereligions;noothercityanywhereisof suchcentralreligiousimportancetoeach.Itwasthereforeinevitablethatweshould beginourhistorywithAbraham,whomeachreligionreveres.Itisworthreflectingthat accordingtoourtextsheownednopropertyinthislandapartfromatomb,however, andthathehadonlylimitedengagementwiththeresidentpopulation.

Theexpression ‘HolyLand’ itselfoccurs first,andthenonlyonce,intheHebrew Bible,atZechariah :: ‘TheLordwillinheritJudahashisportionintheholyland,and willagainchooseJerusalem’.ThesewordswerewrittenquitelateintheOldTestament/

HebrewBibleperiod,afterthereturnoftheJudeansfromtheirexileinBabylonfrom   onwards.Theareawasnolongerindependentatthistimebutdividedbetween severalprovincesinthemightyPersianEmpire.Neitherherenorelsewhereareprecise geographicaldivisionssupplied.WeareusedtoreferringtotheHolyLandinthemuch earlierperiodasCanaan,butthattoodidnotexistasasingleentity;itcompriseda numberofminorindependentcity-statesundertheoverarchinghegemonyofEgypt. ThencametheIsraelites,andweeventuallyhavetwokingdomsduringthe firsthalfof the firstmillennium  IsraelinthenorthernpartandJudah(includingJerusalem) inthesouth.Buttothewest,alongpartoftheMediterraneancoast,therewerethe Philistines,sothateventhentheterritorywasnotunited.Andinthatperiod thenearestwecometotheexpression ‘HolyLand’ refersinitiallytoanareaoutside thelandofIsraelaltogether,namelyGod’s ‘holyabode’ onMountSinaiinExodus :, echoingthe ‘holyground’ whereMosesencounteredGodintheburningbushat Exodus :.FromthereweapproachourmorefamiliarusagewhenPsalm : remindstheworshippersintheJerusalemtemplethatGod ‘broughtthemtohis holyborder,themountainthathisrighthandhadwon’ . Still,thisisthinpickingsforwhatbecamesoinfluentialanameinlatercenturies. ItoccursafewtimesinearlyapocryphalJewishwritingsafterthecloseoftheOld Testamentperiodandthenmorefrequentlyinthelaterrabbinicsources.Itiscompletelyabsent,however,fromthefoundationdocumentsoftheChristianfaithinthe NewTestament,anditdidnotbecomecommonChristianparlance(as TerraSancta) untiltheMiddleAges,nodoubtreflectingtheattitudeofEuropeanCrusadersand pilgrims.Accordingly,itsuseformapshastendedtoberestrictedtothoseincludedin Bibles,wherethenameisusedanachronisticallyandwithoutproperregardforeither ancientormodernpoliticalrealities.MedievalMuslimstooksomeinterestintheterm becauseitappearsintheQur’an,whereMosesisrecordedasinstructingtheIsraelitesto ‘entertheholyland,whichGodhasordainedforyou’,thoughscholarswereatodds overthedefinitionofthisterm.ThelegalscholarMuhammadal-Tabari(d. ),for example,saysheknowsoffourmainpossibilities: ‘MountSinaianditsenvirons’ , ‘Jericho’ , ‘al-Sham’ (whichcorrespondsroughlytoourterm ‘TheLevant’),and ‘Palestine andpartofJordan’.Yetthetermdidnotenjoycirculationoutsideacademiccircles; rather,attentionwaspaidtospecificcitiesandsites,especiallyJerusalem(simplycalled al-Quds, ‘holiness’ , orBaytal-Maqdis, ‘houseofsanctity’)andtheTempleMount. It fitswiththisspasmodicwitnessfromantiquitythattheregionisnotcarefully defined;inthebiblicalreferencecitedaboveitseemstoberestrictedtoJudah,atiny partofwhatweusuallymeanbytheterm.Insubsequentcenturiesitsimplicit definitionwillhavevariedaccordingtotheprevailingpoliticalandadministrative circumstances.AswiththevaryingdefinitionsoftheextentofthelandintheHebrew Bible,sosubsequentlythevariousregionswithinthesouthernLevantmaybeincluded orexcludedasappropriate.Whileabasicworkingdefinitioncouldbethelandbetween theJordanriverontheeastandtheMediterraneanonthewest,andbetweentheSinai desertinthesouthandtheHermonrangeinthenorth,theterritorytotheeastofthe

Jordanwassometimesanintegralpartofthelandaswell,whileatothertimesareasin thenorthorthewestwereeffectivelyexcluded.Aseditorswehavedeliberatelyallowed ourcontributorsfreedomtoconcentrateonthenaturalgeographicalandnational bordersthatsuittheirperiodofstudymostappropriately(seeMap ).Equally,itshould beadded,attentiontosomeregionsquiteapartfromtheHolyLanditselfhassometimesbeenimperativeinordertounderstandwhatwasgoingonthere(Babyloninthe biblicalperiod,EuropeatthetimeoftheCrusades,andTurkeyduringtheOttoman period,forinstance);toexcludesuchmaterialcouldnotbejustified.

Twospecialfeaturesmarkthis IllustratedHistory fromsomeothersandsodeserve comment.First,inadditiontotheexpectedhistoricalsurvey(which,incidentally,covers some  years,sothatitcannotalwaysenterintogreatdetail),wehaveincludedthree chaptersonthemeswhichtranscendspecificperiodsofhistorybutwhich,intheir differentways,areimportanttoeachofthethreemajorreligionsandwhich,furthermore,contributetothenotionofaHolyLand:pilgrimage,sacredspace,andScripture. Thesearehugetopics,ofcourse,andsocaneffectivelyonlybeintroducedhere,but withoutincludingthemweshouldnotbeabletodojusticetosomeofthemajor underlyingmotivesandvalueswhichdrovethesignificantpoliticalactors.

Second,itislikelythat,fortheearlyperiodatleast,mostreaders’ knowledgewill derivefromtheBible,andformanythisremainsaninspiredsourceforreligiousbelief andpractice.OurgreatlyincreasedknowledgeoftheancientworldbothfromarchaeologicaldiscoveriesandfromnewlydiscoveredtextsofancientIsrael’sneighbours showsthatwehavetotreadcarefullywhenassessingtheBiblefromapurelyhistorical pointofview.Itisfarfromourintentiontocauseanyoffenceordeliberatelyto challengepersonalbeliefs,sowehaveaskedallourauthorstowritewithconsideration towardsthoseforwhomastrictlyhistoricalapproachmaybeunfamiliar.Thefact remains,however,thattheseancienttextswerenotwrittenaccordingtothemethods orstandardsofmodernhistoriansandtheirpurposewasreligious,moral,ordidactic, usingatthesametimeallthestylisticskillstheycouldbringtotheirtask.Wedonot believethattheresultsofmodernhistoricalresearchareinanywayincompatiblewith thecontinuinguseoftheBibleasscripture.Nevertheless,itseemsonlyrighttowarn readersinadvancethatthe ‘story’ ofancienthistorymaynotalwayscoincidewith inheritedpreconceptions.Ourhopeisthatallmayneverthelesslearnfrom,aswellas enjoy,thissummaryofcurrentunderstanding,andthatthroughsuchunderstanding appreciationofwhateachofthefaithshadtooffermaybedeepenedwithoutthe hostilefragmentationwhichhascharacterizedmuchofthehistorywetracehereand whichstill,sadly,isprevalentinthemodernworld.

TheBirthofIsrael

ThebeginningofIsrael:thebiblicalnarrative

T  well-knownbiblicalstoryofIsrael’sbirthandemergenceisthestoryofafamily, andhowitbecameapeople.AbrahamlefthishomeinMesopotamiaandemigratedto Canaan.Thisiswherehelivedwithhiswife,Sarah,andhischildrenIsaacandIshmael. Hisgrandchild(Isaac’sson) Jacob andhisgreat-grandchildrenwentdowntoEgypt, asanextendedfamilyoralineage(hamulah).Theystayedthereforafewgenerations, multiplied,werethenenslaved,andeventuallyleftintheepicstoryoftheExodus,led byMoses.AfterfortyyearsofwanderingintheSinaidesert,they finallyenteredCanaan undertheleadershipofJoshua,andconqueredit.Joshua’scampaignbeganwiththe conquestofJericho,wheretheIsraelites,throughthehelpofalocalharlotbythename ofRahab,conqueredthecityafterencirclingitforsevendays,blowingrams’ horns untilthecitywallsmiraculouslycrumbled.Thiswasfollowedbytheeventualconquest ofthecityof ‘Ai,andJoshua’scampaignsagainstcoalitionsofkingsinthesouthern andnorthernpartsofCanaan.Followingtheconquest,thelandwasdividedbetween thevarioustribes,namedafterJacob’sdescendants.Despiteafewside-storiesthat interruptits flow(likethestoryofJudahandTamarinGenesis ),thestoryisvery clear,andthenarrative flowsquitesmoothly.

Problemswiththenarrative

Still,thestoryisnotcompletelyuniform,anditincludessomeintriguingfeatures. Thus,althoughAbrahamcontinuedtolivefor fifteenyearsafterJacob’sbirth,thestory nevermentionsthemmeeting,andwhileIsaac,Abraham’ssonandJacob’sfather,is mentionedinconnectionwithboth figures,AbrahamandJacobneverinteract. Anotherfeaturethatraisessomeeyebrowsliesintheapparentcontradictionbetween theaccountoftheconquestinthebookofJoshua,andthedescriptionofthelandthat wasnotconquered(inboththebooksofJoshuaandJudges).Thus,citieslikeGezer, Megiddo,andTa’anach,areexplicitlymentionedasbeingconqueredbyJoshua(Josh. :, ),butalsoappearinthedescriptionoftheremaininglandthatwasnot

. MapoftheHolyLandintheearliestIsraeliteperiod

conquered(Judg. :, ).Thesearebuttwoexamplesoutofmany,andtosuch inconsistenciesonehastoaddthegrowingdiscrepanciesbetweentheavailable historicalandarchaeologicalinformationwepossessandsomepartsofthebiblical narrative.Thus,asweshallseebelowunderthesection ‘Archaeologicalbackground’ , duringmuchoftheperioddiscussed,CanaanwasunderEgyptianrule,butthisisnot acknowledgedinthebiblicalstories.Andwhilesuchdiscrepancies,ormissingdata, mightbeexplainedonewayoranother,thereareevenmoredirectcontradictions betweenthebiblicalnarrativeandthehistoricalandarchaeologicaldataatour disposal;forexample,citiesthatarementionedintheconqueststoriesintheBible (like ‘Ai)didnotinfactexistatthetimewhenthestoriesaresupposedtohavetaken place(wewilldiscussthechronologyinmoredetailbelowunder ‘ Chronological framework’ ).Suchdiscrepanciesgraduallyerodedthehistoricalvalidityofthetexts. Thegrowingunderstanding(beginningcenturiesago,ofcourse)thatthetextswere writtendownmanyyearsaftertheeventstheyweresupposedtodescribetookplace, thattheywentthroughalongprocessoftransmission,andthattheywereextensivelyeditedforvarious(mainlytheological)purposes,onlyexacerbatedthetexts ’ reliabilityproblem,castingmoredoubtsonthehistoricityoflargeportionsofthe well-knownnarratives.

Otherelementsinthestoriesseemtobemoreinlinewithwhatisknownonthebasis ofmodernresearch,andtheprocessoftheIsraelitesettlementinthemoremountainous partsofthecountry,ratherthaninthevalleysandplains,canbeidentifiedarchaeologically(perhapsinaccordancewiththeinformationsuppliedinJoshua :–; :;and throughoutthebookofJudges,wherethemountainousregionsarethecoreofthe Israelitesettlement).ThenameIsraelisattestedinanEgyptianvictorystela,datedtothis period(late thcentury  ).Otherelementsofthenarrativearetoalargeextentbeyond therealmofmodernscholarship.Thus,whilethebackgroundthatisreflectedinthe storiesaboutthePatriarchsandMatriarchscanbe(andis)debated,theirexistence,and thehistoricityofthestoriesabouttheseindividualsandtheirsmallfamilies,islargely outsidethescopeofscholarship.Afterall,wecannotexpectto finddocumentsor artefactsrelatedtoindividuals,orevenafamily,afteralmost  years,andaswe shallseebelowunder ‘TheIsraelitesettlement:assessingtheevidence’,eventheexact backgroundbehindthestoriescontinuestoeludescholars.

Itseems,therefore,thatwhilesomepartsofthebiblicalnarrative(atleastsomeof itsgeneraloutlines)appeartobeinlinewithmodernresearch,otherpartsare seriouslychallenged(ifnotcompletelyundermined)byit,andsomeelementsofthe storyremainoutsidescholarship’sdomain,orare,atbest,atitsfringes.Consequently, thereisnotmuchagreementamongscholarsaboutanyaspectofIsrael’searly historyorthehistoricityoftheBible.Somescholarsviewthebiblicalnarrativeas mostlyreliabletestimonyforhistory,whileothersdenyanyhistoricalvaluetothe texts,andviewthemasaverylate,literarycreationwhichisofpracticallynousefor thestudyoftheperiodsitpurportedlydescribes.Mostscholarsarelocatedsomewhere alongabroadspectrumbetweenthesetwoextremeviews.

SohowcanweproceedandreconstructthestoryofIsrael’semergenceinCanaan? Itappearsthatacombinationofthevastarchaeologicaldatawepossessandthe (morelimited)historicalinformationatourdisposal,throughaverycarefulandcritical referencetothebiblicalnarratives,canallowustoreconstructIsrael’sdevelopment. Whileverylittlecanbeviewedasaconsensusamongscholars,thischapteraimsto presentaplausiblemiddlegroundbetweenthetwomoreextremeapproaches.Wewill beginourjourneybypresentingthechronologicalframework,andsincethebiblical story,brieflysummarizedabove,isprobablyfamiliar,wewillproceedbydescribing thesituationinCanaaninthesecondmillennium  ,intheperiodswhichareusually knownbythenamesMiddleBronzeAge(roughly /–  ),LateBronze Age(roughly –  ),andIronAgeI(roughly –  ).Wewillthen summarizethedebateregardingtheIsraelitesettlement,andproceedtoofferabroad reconstructionoftheprocessesthroughwhichIsraelemergedinCanaan:wewillreview thegroup’searlydevelopments,untiltheformationofthemonarchyintheIronAgeII (inthe thcentury,accordingtomostscholars;seeChapter ),andwillsuggestsome possibleinsightsintothewaythebiblicalstory asweknowittoday evolved.

Chronologicalframework

Attemptingtosynchronizethearchaeologicalperiodswiththebiblicaleventsand storiesisnotalwaysastraightforwardenterprise.Thedatingofarchaeologicalperiods addressedinthischapter,whilerelyingonsynchronismswithadjacentregions,was developedlargelyindependentlyofthebiblicalnarratives,andstandsonitsown.This statementmightseemsomewhatsurprising,givenhowmuchbiblicalarchaeology developedintheshadowofthebiblicaltexts.Still,althoughnobodywoulddenythat biblicaltextsinfluencedthearchaeologicalinquiryintheHolyLand,scholarswere usuallycritical(atleast,bythestandardsoftheirtime)anddidnotsimplisticallyaccept thebiblicalframework.ThedatingoftheIsraelitesettlementinCanaanisagood exampleofthis.TheIsraelitesettlementisdatedbymostscholars,fromallschoolsof thought,includingthosewhoacceptedthehistoricityoftheconquestnarrativesinthe bookofJoshua,to(roughly) 

 ,anditsbeginningisdatedtothelate thcenturyattheearliest.Asweshallpresentlysee,chronologiesthatarebasedon theBiblealonedatetheconquesttoabout   .This -yeargapsuggeststhat archaeologistsfollowedthearchaeologicaldata,andrejectedthebiblicalchronology whentheyfoundthatthetwodidnotmatch(althoughthisdoesnotnegatethe significanceofthebiblicalchronologyininfluencingthegenerallandscapeofhistorical reconstruction).Nowadays,manyofthedatesaredecidedonthebasisofscientific methods,mainlycarbon  dating,whichsomewhatchangesthetraditionaldatingof someperiods.

Biblicalchronology,ofcourse,relies firstandforemostonthedatessuppliedinthe Bible.Onecancreateachronologicalsequencethatincorporatestheperiodofthe Patriarchs,andeventhedescenttoEgyptandtheslaverythere,andabiblicalchronology

oftheperiodofthemonarchyinIsraelandJudahcanalsoclearlybecompiled.The first part thatofthePatriarchsandtheslaveryinEgypt isofcoursemuchmoreproblematic andreliesonafewsketchyandsometimescontradictorypiecesofinformation,whilethe chronologyoftheperiodofthemonarchyismorereliable.Themostproblematicfeature, however,istheattempttoconnectthetwoparts theperiodofthePatriarchsandthe sojourninEgyptontheonehandandthatofthemonarchyontheother something whichreliesonjustoneverse.  Kings : statesthattheconstructionoftheTempleby Solomonwascompleted  yearsaftertheExodus.SincetheconstructionoftheTemple wasdatedbymanytoaround   (thoughitmightwellhavebeensomewhatlater), thentheExodus,whichendedtheperiodofslaveryinEgypt,shouldhaveoccurredinabout   ,andtheconquestofCanaan(afterfortyyearsinthedesert)atabout   . AndthePatriarchslivedafewhundredyearsearlier(theexacttimeofthePatriarchs dependsonwhichbiblicalversesoneusestocreatethechronology).

Thebiblicalchronology,however,isnotonlysketchy,buteventheavailabledata areproblematiconanumberofcounts.Firstofall,manyofthenumbersthatare mentionedinthetextsseemtypological.Fortyyears,forexample,isusedquiteoften, andseemstodesignatealengthyperiodoftime perhapsageneration ratherthan anexactdurationoftime.Additionally,didthePatriarchs(andotherbiblical figures) reallyliveforsomanyyears  yearsforAbraham,forexample?Orarethenumbers exaggerated?Eventhe  yearsthatsupposedlyseparatedtheExodusfromthe completionofthetempleinJerusalem theonly figurethatconnectsthemorereliable datesofthelatermonarchywiththoseofIsrael’sprehistory seemstypological,anda numberofscholarshavepointedoutthatitmighthavebeenaresultofaschematized countingoftwelvegenerations(offortyyearseach).Thus,amorerealistic figurefor twelvegenerationswouldbe – years,andwoulddatetheExodus,andby extensionthesettlementinCanaan,tothe th,eventhelate thcentury(weshall returntothisissuebelowunder ‘Israel’semergence’).

Theproblematicnatureofthebiblicalchronologyisexemplifiedbythedebateover thedateofthepatriarchalnarratives.Evenscholarswhoconsiderthestoriestoreflecta specifichistoricalbackgroundvarygreatlyindatingthem,andthedatessuppliedcover approximatelyamillennium.Thisgreatvariationispartlytheresultofsomescholars notacceptingthebiblicalsequenceofeventsassuch.Still,manyofthosewhoaccept thebiblicalsequenceofeventsasbroadlyhistoricalsimplyuseitsveryunclearnature tosupporttheperiodinwhichthey findmoreculturalandsocialparallelstothe background whichisreflectedinthestories.Mostofthelatter,however,placethem somewherebetween –  .

WhendiscussingtheExodusandthesettlement,thesituationissomewhatclearer. Asnoted,aliteralreadingofIKings : wouldplacetheExodusinthe thcentury  ,and theconquestofCanaanatthebeginningofthe th,butwehaveseenthatamorecritical readingoftheversewilldirectustothe thcentury  ,andthisseemstobemoreinline withtheexternalevidenceatourdisposal(seethefollowingsection).

Wewillnowbeginourarchaeologicalsurvey,whichsuppliesthebackgroundforIsrael’s emergence,atthebeginningofthe ndmillennium  intheMiddleBronzeAge.

Archaeologicalbackground

DuringtheMiddleBronzeAge(roughly /–  )Canaanexperienced intensiveurbanization,especiallyinthelow-lyingpartsofthecountry,andtoamore limitedextentalsointhehighlands.Manycitiesweresurroundedbymassiveearthworks,whichgavethemoundstheirpresentformandtoalargeextentevencreated theLevantinelandscapeoftoday,whichisdottedbymounds.Thepoliticalstructureof theeraisnotcompletelyclear,butitislikelythatthecountrywasdividedbetween manyindependentorsemi-independentcity-states.Theperiodisregardedasrepresentingademographicpeakintheareamoregenerally,andsomescholarsestimatethe populationasabout , (westoftheJordan).Althoughthe figureisfarfrom certain,andisquestionedonmanygrounds,itdoessuggest,whencomparedwiththe demographicestimatesofotherperiods,theprosperityoftheperiod,somethingalso reflectedinthesettlementremainsuncoveredbyarchaeologists.Therelationswith EgyptduringthetimeoftheMiddleKingdomarenotclear.TheExecrationTextsare groupsoftexts,uncoveredinEgypt,inwhichnamesoflocalrulersinCanaanwere inscribedonbowlsor figurinesandwereapparentlyusedforvoodoo-likepurposes, probablytosecuretheirrulers’ loyaltytoEgypt.Theexistenceofthesetextsmight suggestthattheEgyptiansfeltsomeauthorityovertheregionbutthisisnotcertain.In thelaterpartoftheMiddleBronzeAge(knowninEgyptianhistoryastheSecond IntermediatePeriod)Asian/Canaanitedynasties(knownastheHyksos)ruledover muchoflower(northern)Egypt(theNiledelta),andtheregionwasextensivelysettled byCanaaniteswhomaintainedcloseconnectionswithCanaanitself.

Duringthe thcentury  theHyksoswereoustedandwerereplacedbythe th dynasty(oftenreferredtoasthe ‘Hyksosexpulsion’) anepisodethatalsomarksthe beginningoftheNewKingdomofEgypt.ThistriggeredmanycampaignsintoCanaan, andmanycitiesweredevastatedinthecourseofthecentury.Manyarchaeologists considerthisasthebeginningoftheLateBronzeAge(roughly –  ). Althoughthereismuchcontinuityinculturebetweenthetwoperiods,thesettlement anddemographyweregreatlyaffectedbythecampaigns,anddespitegradualrecovery duringtheLateBronzeAgethecountrydidnotrecoveritsMiddleBronzeAge demographicpeakuntilsomepointintheIronAge.Populationestimatesforthe endoftheLateBronzeAge(i.e.aftertherecoveryfromthenadirofthe thcentury) arebetween ,–,,andalthoughthe figuresareuncertain,thecomparison withtheMiddleBronzeAgeestimateisquitetelling.Settlementswereconcentratedin thelowerpartsofthecountry,andthehighlandswereonlysparselysettled.From atleastthe thcentury,thecountrywasapparentlynominallysubjugatedtoEgypt, andthissituationprevailedthroughthe thdynasty(roughlythe thcentury  ) andwellintothetimeofthe thdynasty(untilthemiddleofthe thcenturyor slightlylater).AspartoftheirruleoverCanaan,theEgyptiansbuiltgarrisonsinafew places(e.g.Gaza,Jaffa,BethShean),andtherestofthecountrywasdividedbetween manycity-states,whichwerevassalsofEgypt.Egyptiansources,andespeciallythe Amarnaletters(thcentury  ),supplyawealthofinformationonthepolitical

andsocialorganizationinCanaanatthetime,andweknowoftheexistenceofmany marginalgroupswhichwereactiveoutsidethesettlements,andwhoseactivityledto severeunrest.Mostnotableamongthesegroupsarethenotorious Habiru,composedof outcastsorexiledpeoplefromvariousbackgrounds,whoseemtohavecausedmuch unrestthroughoutthecountry(suchgroupswerealreadyknowninearlierperiods). ItisacommonaccusationmadebyvassalCanaaniteprincesthattheiropponentsare collaboratingwiththe Habiru.Anothergroup(orgroups)mentionedintheEgyptian sourcesisthatofthe Shasu tribalgroupsofpastoralnomadsthatwereactiveoutside thesettledareasorontheirfringesinbothCisjordan(i.e.westoftheriverJordan)and Transjordan(i.e.eastofit).Towardstheendoftheperiod duringthe thand early thcenturies theEgyptiansapparentlystrengthenedtheirholdoverCanaan. Archaeologically,thisisexpressed,forexample,bytheconstructionoftheso-called Egyptiangovernors’ residencies.

Thematerialcultureoftheperiodreflectstheexistenceofmanysocialgroupsand socialclasses.Importedpotteryisabundant,andsomescholarsrefertoaperiodof internationalism.Decorationonlocalpotteryiscommonandwasprobablyused toconveydifferencesbetweenclassesandgroups.Whilenotmanydwellingshave beenexcavatedintheirentirety,manypublicbuildings,includingpalacesand temples,areknowntoarchaeologists,reflectingthesocialdistinctionsandhierarchy thatcharacterizedthisperiod.Thisisalsoreflectedinburials:hundredsofburials ofvarioustypesareknownfromthisperiod,andthedifferencesbetweenthem wereprobablyalsousedtoconveysocialdifferencesbetweengroups,families,and evenindividuals.

Aseriesofevents,beginninginthelate thcenturyandendingaroundthemiddle ofthe thcentury,markstheendoftheLateBronzeAgeandthetransitiontotheIron Ageintheregion.TheseincludethefalloftheMyceneancivilization,thedemiseof theHittiteempire,thedestructionofvariousmajorcitieslikeUgarit,andeventually Egypt’swithdrawalfromCanaananditspoliticaldecline.AsfarasCanaanisconcerned,theselarge-scalechanges(markingthebeginningoftheIronAge)were accompaniedbyadeclineinmanyoftheurbancentresthatexistedinCanaan mainlyinthelowerpartsofthecountry aswellasbytheemergenceoftwo

AnivoryknifehandlefromMegiddo,depictingCanaanitepalacecourtscenesandreflectingthehighly hierarchicalsocialstructureoftheCanaanitecities.

TheBirthofIsrael

AceramicassemblagefromShiloh,showingtypicalformsoftheearliestIsraelitesettlement.

additionalphenomena:theSeaPeople,mostnotablythePhilistines,whocamefrom somewhereintheAegeanworldoritsfringesandsettledinthesoutherncoastalplain, andtheIsraelitesettlementinthehighlands.

Theterm ‘Israelitesettlement’ referstohundredsofsmallsitesthatwereestablished duringIronAgeI beginningatsomepointinthesecondhalfofthe thcentury in thehighlandsofCanaaninbothCisjordanandTransjordan,andmainlyinthearea northofJerusalem,intheregionofSamaria.Mostofthesettlementswerequitesmall, lessthanonehectareinsize,andwerenotdenselysettled.Manyofthehouseswere longhouses,ofthetypethatlatercrystallizedintothewell-knownfour-roomhouse whichdominatedtheurbanlandscapeofthekingdomsofIsraelandJudahintheIron AgeII(th–thcenturies  ),andtheeconomywasbasedonamixtureofgrazing, growinggrains,andthecultivationofolivesandvines.Thematerialcultureuncovered inthesesiteswasquiterudimentary,andincludedaverylimitedceramicrepertoirethat wascomposedmainlyoflargepithoi(mainlyofthetypeknownasthecollaredrim jar),cookingpots,andbowls.

Abronzebull figurinediscoverednearanopen,culticsiteinnorthernSamaria,subsequently knownasthe ‘BullSite’.Thesimplenatureofthesitere flectsthenatureofthelocalsociety,which probablylackedaspecializedclassofpriests.

Thepotterywassimpleandundecoratedanddidnotincludeimportedpottery,not eventhehighlydecoratedPhilistinepotterythatwasproducedinthenearbysouthern coastalplain,andwhichconstitutednearly  percentoftheassemblageinmany th-centurysitesthere.Hardlyanyburialsareknownfromthesevillages,probably becausethepopulationburiedtheirdeadinsimpleinhumationsintheground.

TheassociationofthesesiteswiththeIsraeliteswasbasednotonlyonthe(rough) temporaland(moreexact)spatialcorrespondencewiththebiblicaltestimonyregardingtheareasinwhichtheIsraelitessettled,butalsoontheclearconnectionsbetween thecultureunearthedinthesesettlementsandthecultureofthekingdomsofIsraeland JudahofIronAgeII,aswellasthereferenceinanEgyptianstelabyaPharaohcalled MerneptahtoanethnicgroupthathecalledIsrael.Thestelaisdatedtothelate thcentury,andalthoughtheexactlocationofthisgroupisnotstated,mostscholars viewitasreferringtothesettlementphenomenondescribedabove,orpartofit.

Thesteleofthelate th-centuryEgyptianPharaohMerneptahwhichcontains theearliestreferencetoIsraeloutsidetheBible.

TheIsraelitesettlement:thegrowingdebate

WhiletheIsraeliteidentityofthesettlerswasnotquestioneduntilrecently,therewasa majordebateontheprocessthroughwhichthesettlementscametobe.AlbrechtAlt,a Germanbiblicalscholar,notedaslongagoas  thatthereisadiscrepancybetween thedescriptionofamilitaryconquestofthe entire country,asdepictedinthemain narrativesinthebookofJoshua,andthesituationonthegroundfollowingthe conquestasdescribedinthenarrativesinthebooksofJudges, – Samuel,and thedescriptionsoftheremaininglandinJoshua :–;Judges :–,inwhichthe Israelitessettledonlypartsofthecountry,mainlyinthehighlands.Moreover,fromthe EgyptiansourcesthatrelatetoLateBronzeAgeCanaanpriortotheappearanceof theIsraelites,itappearsthattheCanaanitecentresofsettlementwereconcentrated inthevalleys,theShephelah(thelow-lyingregionbetweentheJudeanhillcountry andthecoastalplain),andthecoast,whereasthehighlandswereonlysparselysettled priortotheIsraelitesettlement.ComparingtheLateBronzeAgeCanaanitesettlement distributionwiththatofthelaterIsraelitesettlementmadeitclear,arguedAlt,thatthe IsraelitessettledinlesshospitableregionsthatwerelargelydevoidofCanaanite settlementanyway.Thispicture,ofsettlementinsparselypopulatedandinhospitable regions,doesnotcorrespondwithamilitaryconquestinwhichtheconquerors annihilatetheentirecountryandcansettlewherevertheychoose,butratherwitha morepeaceful,andmostlynon-confrontationalprocessinwhichtheIsraelitesoccupiedthesparselysettledregionsofthecountrysimplybecausetheywerenotpopulatedandsowereavailableforsettlement.Alt,therefore,concludedthattheIsraelite settlementwasalong,gradual,andmainlypeacefulprocess,inwhichpastoralgroups crossedtheJordaninsearchofpastorallands,andgraduallysettledintherelatively emptypartsofthecountry.

Whiletheprocesswasmainlypeaceful,itwasaccompaniedbyoccasionalconfrontationsandwars.TowardstheendoftheIronAge,whenIsrael’snationalhistorywas composedinJerusalem(bytheso-calledDeuteronomisticschool,thatwasprobably activefromthe thcentury  onward),thevarioustraditionsthatcommemorated thewarringepisodes(somehistorical,someclearlymoremythicalinorigin)were combinedintothemonumentalhistoryofIsrael.ThisperiodofIsrael’shistorywas situatedbetweentheExodusandtheperiodoftheJudges,andattributedtoalocalhero ofthetribeofEphraim:Joshua.AccordingtoAlt,therefore,theconquestthatis describedinthebookofJoshuaneveractuallyhappened.Duetothewayitreconstructsthesettlementprocess,thisschoolofthoughtisoftencalledthepeaceful infiltrationschool(ortheory).

WilliamF.Albright,sometimesregardedasthedoyenofbiblicalarchaeologyinits goldenagebetweenthetwoWorldWars,stronglyopposedthisview.Heclaimedthat thestoryinJoshuaishistorical,atleastinitsgeneraloutlines,andthattheIsraelite tribesdidconquerCanaanbyforce.Albrightintroducedarchaeologyintothedebate, andarguedthatarchaeologicalinquirycanprovethehistoricityoftheconquest.

AlandscapeinthehillcountryofSamaria,typicalofthekindofterritoryinwhichthenewmaterialcultureof theearliestIsraelitesdeveloped.

HesuggestedthatscholarsshouldexcavateCanaanitecities(mainlythosementioned intheconquestnarratives),andshouldtheLateBronzeAgeoccupationbedevastated towardstheendofthisperiod,itwouldsuggestthattheconquesttraditionsare historical.AlbrightwentontoexcavatethemoundofTellBeitMirsiminthesoutheastern(inner)Shephelah,andwasinvolvedinadditionalprojects,whereevidence forviolentdestructionoftheCanaanitecitiesoftheLateBronzeAgewasindeed unearthed.Inlightofitsacceptanceofthehistoricityofthemainnarrativesinthebook ofJoshua,thisschoolcametobeknownastheunifiedconquestschool(ortheory).

Thedebatebetweenthesetwoschoolscontinuedthroughoutmostofthetwentieth century,moreandmorescholarsjoiningin,with figuresliketheGermanbiblical scholarMartinNothandtheIsraeliarchaeologistYohananAharonitakingtheleading roleinthepeacefulinfiltrationschool,andtheAmericanbiblicalscholarandarchaeologistGeorgeE.Wright,theAmericanbiblicalscholarJohnBright,andtheIsraeli archaeologistYigaelYadintakingtheleadingroleintheunifiedconquestschool. MembersofthelatterschoolstressedthesitesinwhichtheCanaanitecitieswere devastatedanddestroyedaroundtheendoftheLateBronzeAge(e.g.TellBeitMirsim, Hazor,Lachish,Bethel,andmanyothers),whiletheiropponentsemphasizedthesites

Tel ‘Eton,aCanaanitesiteinthefoothillswestofHebron,asexcavatedbytheauthor.

whichdidnotevenexistatthetime(e.g.Arad, ‘Ai,Jericho),andthelargegapbetween thedestructionofsomeofthesitesthatweredestroyed aboutacenturyseparatesthe destructionofHazorandLachish whichdoesnotallowthesedestructionstobe attributedtoasinglecampaign.

Notably,whilethesetwoschoolswerethedominantonesduringmostofthe twentiethcentury,additionaltheoriesdevelopedovertheyears.Inthe s,and mainlyinthe sand s,anewapproachwasdeveloped(mainlybyGeorge MendenhallandNormanGottwald),whichviewedthesettlersasbeingmainlyof Canaanitedescent,andaslocalpeasantswhorebelledagainsttheiroverlords,and fled tothehighlands,wheretheymetasmallgroupofpeoplewhodidcomefromEgypt, andtogethertheyformed ‘liberatedIsrael’.Althoughthisview calledthepeasants’ revoltorsocialrevolution wasnotdirectlysupportedbymanyscholars,itgreatly influencedresearchand,indirectlyatleast,alteredtheacademicdiscourse.

Inthelate sandearly sanevennewerapproachwasdeveloped(separately, andwithsomedifferences)bytheIsraelischolarsIsraelFinkelsteinandShlomo Bunimovitz,whonotedthatwhenviewedinthelongtermthesettlementprocess ofIronAgeIwasonlypartofalargercyclicprocessofsettlementandabandonment inthehighlands.Thisapproach,whichresultedfromthesystematicstudyofthe

discoveriesmadeinthemanyarchaeologicalsurveysconductedinthehighlands, notedthatduringtheEarlyBronzeAge(rdmillennium  )thehighlandswere denselysettled,butthatsettlementdeclineddrasticallyintheIntermediateBronzeAge (late rdmillennium).Large-scalesettlementwasresumedintheearly ndmillennium (MiddleBronzeAge),butthenewsettlementphasepersistedforonlyarelatively shortperiodoftime,andduringtheLateBronzeAge,aswehaveseen,settlementin thehighlandswasagainverysparse.Then,inIronAgeI,large-scalesettlementinthe highlandswasresumed.Identifyingthispattern,itwasargued,putthesettlementwave ofIronAgeIingeneral,andIsrael’semergenceinparticular,withinabroader perspective,sothatitshouldnotbeviewedasauniqueevent,butratheraspart ofthecyclicprocessofsettlementandabandonmentinthehighlands.Moreover, Finkelsteinarguedthatsettlementabandonmentanddecline(asbetweentheMiddle BronzeandtheLateBronzeAges)doesnotmeanthattheinhabitantsdiedorleftthe region,butratherthattheyabandonedtheirsettledwayoflife,andbecameseminomadswithintheverysameregion.Movementalongthesettlement–nomadic spectrumisawell-knownphenomenonintheMiddleEast.Nomadismoccurswhen settlerschangetheirmaineconomicmode,increasetheirherds,leavethepermanent settlementandcometorelymainlyontheirherdsforsubsistence.Whenthepopulations’ livelihoodisbasedonnomadicpastoralism,arguedFinkelstein,theydonotleave manymaterialremains hencetherarityof findsattributedtothiserainthehighlands.SuchphenomenaareknownintheMiddleEastinvariousperiods,evenfor reasonsasmundaneasover-taxationandrecruitmenttothearmy.Thereasonthe MiddleBronzeAgesettlersinthehighlandsmighthaverevertedtoamorenomadic wayoflifedoesnotconcernushere,butaccordingtothenewtheorythepopulation remainedasnomadsinthehighlandsduringthefollowingcenturies,onlytoresettlein thelate thand thcenturies  .Thus,accordingtothisview,thesettlerswerenot outsiders,butratherlocalpastoral-nomadswhosettleddownafterafewhundred yearsofapastorallivelihoodthatdidnotleavemuchbywayofremainsinthe archaeologicalrecordofthehighlands.Duetoitsreferencetolong-termprocesses, andfollowingitsexplicitreferencetotheFrench Annales School,thisapproachis sometimescalledthe ‘longuedurée’ approach,orthe ‘cyclicprocess’ .

Thelasttwoschoolsofthought(the ‘socialrevolution’ andthe ‘longuedurée’ perspectives)viewedthesettlers,ormostofthematleast,as ‘local’ people(whether semi-nomadsorsettledpopulation)wholivedintheregionformanygenerations,and whoforvariousreasonssettleddowninthehighlands(ormovedtherefromthe lowlands,butnotfromoutsideCisjordan).Thisnewtrendtowardsviewingthesettlers as ‘locals’,andnotasanewpopulationcomingfromtheoutside,eventuallyledtothe developmentofanewschool(‘approach’ wouldprobablybeamoreaccurateterm), whichviewedthehighlandsettlersasCanaanites,whoforsomereasonsimplymoved intothehighlandsandestablishednewvillagesthere.Accordingtothislatterviewthe settlerswerenotrevoltingpeasantsnorsettlingnomads,butratheragriculturalists fromthelowlands.Thislastapproachisbestdescribedasevolutionary.