6.1 israelites

1. 6.1 Israelites BOT612: Old Testament Backgrounds

2. Introduction "Politically speaking Israel played a minor role in the history of the ancient Near East. Its diminutive territory, no more than one hundred miles from north to south, and fifty miles form east to west, allowed it no great political ambition. But in the history of religion its contribution was unique. The Old Testament stands as a monument to the religious genius of this people, and remains the major source of information concerning the rise and fall of the Israelite nation." [Schwantes, 156]

3. Patriarchs �The 480 years of 1 Kgs 6.1 has its lower end fixed at the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, for which a date of 967 B.C. seems probable. This figure, and the 430 years of Ex 12.40, together places the descent into Egypt at about 1877 B.C. This date should not be considered exact, since some small leeway must be allowed for the dating of Solomon�s reign, and the figures of 430 and 480 may themselves be round estimates.� [Bimson, J. J. "Archaelogical Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs," Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, eds. D. J. Wiseman & A.R.Millard, pp. 85-6]

5. Patriarchs �This dating scheme places Abraham's life almost entirely before 200 B.C., and therefore in MB I: part of Isaac's life, before his move form Beer-lahai-roi to Gerear (cf. 25.11 and 26.1), is also allowed to fall within MB I, before the depopulation of the Negeb. It is tempting to speculate that the famine which drove Isaac from the southern Negeb to Gerar was part of the change in conditions which led to the depopulation of the Negeb as a whole at the end of MB I. Jacob's life after his return from the household of Laban falls satisfactorily within MB II.� [Bimson, 86]

6. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 1. �The practice of granting a birthright, that is, additional privileges to an eldest son, is mentioned several times in the patriarchal narratives (Gen 25.5-6; 25.32-34; 43.33; 49.3-4; cf. 48.13-20) and was widespread in the ANE . . . . The double portion, well known in texts from the Old Babylonian to the Neo-Babylonian period, is clearly found in the OT only in Deut 21.15-17.� [Selman, M. J. "Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age," Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, eds. Millard & Wiseman, pp. 135]

7. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 2. �In Gen 25.23, the Hebrew term for the eldest son is not the usual reko=r but rab, which is used here only in this sense. The cognate Akkadian word, rabu=, is also used by itself of the eldest son, but so far has turned up only in tablets of the mid-second millennium, from Nuzi, Alalah, Ugarit, and Middle Assyria. Since the texts from Babylonia and those of the Neo-Assyrian period use different terminology, such as aplu(m) rabu(m) (�eldest heir�) or maru(m) rabu(m) (�eldest son�), it appears that this biblical datum has some chronological significance.� [Selman, 135]

8. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 3. �The alteration of a man�s inheritance prospects was never subject to a father's arbitrary decision, whether it involved the loss of the birthright privilege or total disinheritance, but was brought about in every case by serious offences against one�s own family. Thus Reuben�s sexual offences against his father�s concubine (Gen 35.22; 49.3-4) can be linked with behaviour of similar gravity elsewhere, such as taking legal action against one�s parents, the usurping of a father�s authority, or the despising of one�s parents.� [Selman, 135-136]

9. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 4. �A man�s ability to sell inherited property is documented at different periods in the ANE, though at the present time no clear case is known of an eldest son who, like Esau, sold either his inheritance or his rights to an inheritance.� [Selman, 136] 5. �While the inheritance relationship between Abraham and Eliezer may find its explanation in Prv 17.2, the examples of adoption of slaves, and the specific case of the OB letter from Larsa (where it is suggested that a man without sons could adopt his own slave), are also very apposite to this situation. it is precisely the custom of the adoption of one�s slave that is found only in the Larsa letter and in Gen 15.� [Selman, 136]

10. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 6. �The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by their grandfather (Gen 48.5) may be compared with a similar adoption of a grandson at Ugarit. Furthermore, the phrase, �they are mine� (Gen 48.5) is almost identical to the usual ANE term adoption formulae, as found for instance in the Laws of Hammurapi para. 170.� [Selman, 136] 7. �The custom of bearing �upon the knees� has frequently been interpreted as an adoption rite.... The practice is mentioned five times in the OT, of which three references occur in the patriarchal narratives [Gen 30.3; 48.12; 50.23; Job 3.11-12; Isa 66.12] A study of all these reveals no clear connection with adoption, however, an impression which is confirmed

11. Customs and the Patriarchal Age by similar references in two Hurrian myths and several Neo-Assyrian blessings. Rather, both the biblical and extrabiblical passages have associations with birth, name-giving, breast-feeding, and fondling of a child, and seem to indicate some kind of recognized welcome or acceptance of a newborn child into the family which could be carried out by parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents.� [Selman, 136-7] 8. �The gift of a female slave as part of a dowry, a practice mentioned three times in the patriarchal narratives, is well known in the ANE at various periods. If the marriage proved to be infertile, the husband normally took matters into his own hands,

12. Customs and the Patriarchal Age but on certain occasions, the wife was able to present one of her slavegirls, sometimes specially purchased, to her husband to produce children for their own marriage. The parallels to the biblical references (Gen 16.1-4; 30.1-13) for this rare custom are found so far in the Hammurapi Laws, and in single instances from Nuzi and Nimrud. In each case, the authority over the children resulting from this union belonged not to the slavegirl who bore them but to the chief wife.� [Selman, 137]

13. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 9. �A father�s prohibition forbidding his prospective son-in-law to take a second wife in place of his daughter is found regularly in marriage contracts, as well as in Laban�s covenant with his son-in-law Jacob (Gen 31.50).� [Selman, 138] 10. �Since the function of Bethuel in the arrangement of his daughter�s marriage is rather ambiguous (Gen 24), one should not the several instances in the Old and Neo-Babylonian periods where a marriage was arranged by the bride�s brother, either by himself or together with their mother.� [Selman, 138]

14. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 11. �The description of adultery as a �great sin� by the Philistine king Abimelek (Gen 20.9; cf. 26.10) is known also at Ugarit and in Egyptian marriage contracts of the first millennium B.C.� [Selman, 138] 12. �Certain oral statements were accompanied by recognized rituals and ceremonials which functioned as legal safeguards. These included the grasping or correct placing of the right hand, and actions of this kind may be seen as the legal background of Jacob�s adoption and blessing of his grandson (Gen 48).� [Selman, 138]

15. Customs and the Patriarchal Age 13. �The use of the phrase (a4kal kesep in the complaint of Laban�s daughters may be compared with the Akkadian equivalent (kaspa aka4lu), which is used five times in marriage contracts at Nuzi for the withholding of a dowry which was normally taken from the husband's marriage payment.� [Selman, 138]

16. Patriarchal Age: Critical Scholarship 1. �...while the stories may reflect a rural and pastoral setting, they do not suggest a pre-settlement form of nomadic life.� [Van Seters, �Patriarchs,� IDBSup, 646] 2. �The presence in the patriarchal stories of such features as camels and Philistines has been regarded in the past as an anachronism which �updated� the original stories. But these features would appear to be far more numerous than could be covered by such an explanation. They call into question the whole scholarly search for parallels with the second millennium and suggest instead that the traditions were largely molded by and for the social and religious community of a later date, including the

17. Patriarchal Age: Critical Scholarship period of the Exile.� [Van Seters, �Patriarchs,� IDBSup, 647]

18. Dating the Exodus Period 1. First half of 13th Century: 1.1 "Among Biblical scholars and archaeologist it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230-1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the GAD is 1550-1200 B.C." [Bimson & Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," BAR, (Sept/Oct, 1987), 40] 1.2 "But while the exact dates can be set for neither events [exodus/conquest], we may be fairly certain that the exodus took place no earlier than the thirteenth century....If

19. Dating the Exodus Period Hebrews labored at Avaris, then they must have been in Egypt at least in the reign of Sethos I (ca. 1305-1290), and probably of Ramesses II (ca 1290-1224), under whom the rebuilding of that city was accomplished. On the other hand, if the destruction of various Palestinian cities late in the thirteenth century is to be connected with the Israelites conquest, as many have believed, the exodus from Egypt must have taken place perhaps a generation before that." [Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed., 123]

20. Dating the Exodus Period 2. Arguments for 13th Century: 2.1 �The Israel stele of Merneptah indicates that Merneptah encountered Israel in Palestine in his fifth year, ca. 1220.� [La Sor & Hubbard & Bush, Old Testament Survey, 125-126] 2.2 Ex 1.11�s store cities of Pithom and Raamses fit into Rameses II�s building program, therefore ca. 1300. 2.3 Edom and Moab (Num 3-20:14-21) did not exist until ca. 1300. Also the sites of Lachish, Bethel, Hazor, Tell Beit Mirsim and Tell el-Hesi�s destruction seems to call for a 1300 date.

21. Dating the Exodus Period 2.4 Egyptian documents of Merneptah and Rameses II period provide historical parallels, like �Apiru as slave. 2.5 Joseph setting then becomes the Hyksos period.

22. Dating the Exodus Period 2.5 �According to Gen 15:13, the time spent in Egypt, viewed in prospect, would be 400 years, or according to Exod 12.40, in retrospect, 430 years. Thus, if the Exodus occurred in the first half of the thirteenth century, the descent into Egypt would have taken place during the first half of the seventeenth century - in the Hyksos period. The principal objection on biblical grounds is that this date does not fit the 480 years that 1 Kgs 6.1 gives between the Exodus and the foundation of Solomon�s temple ca. 970. This calculation would place the Exodus in the mid-fifteenth century. However, the OT, as an ancient Near Eastern book, does not necessarily

23. Dating the Exodus Period use numbers in the same way as modern chronology. Thus, the 480 years can be understood as an �aggregate� or �round number,� probably based on the total of twelve generations of 40 years each.� [La Sor & Hubbard & Bush, Old Testament Survey, 127]

24. Dating the Exodus Period 3. Chronology from within the Book of Exodus: 3.1 The latest event mentioned in the book is Exod 40.1, 7 where the tabernacle is erected in the wilderness. This was on "the new moon of the first month of the second year following the departure. 3.2 "The other end of the chronological spectrum remains unclear. This is due to the book's silence about the interval between the death of Joseph and the accession of the tyrannical pharaoh, and about the duration of the slavery. On these points there are divergent traditions.

25. Dating the Exodus Period A comprehensive figure of 430 years is given in MT Exod 12.40-41, but LXX and Sam. Pent. include in this number also the length of stay in Canaan. According to Gen 15.13, the predetermined period of slavery was to be 400 years, which is said to cover four generations (Gen 15.16). This last tradition coordinates with the genealogy of Moses, who was the great-grandson of Levi, son of Jacob (Exod 6.1, 16, 18, 20) and more or less agrees with the notice that Joseph's great-grandson Jair, together with his sons, participated in Joshua's wars of conquest and the settlement of Canaan (Gen 50.23; Num 32.39-41; Deut 3.14; Josh 13.1;

26. Dating the Exodus Period 17.1). The genealogies, therefore, leave room for no more than about a century or so for the entire Egyptian episode." [Sarna, "Exodus, Book of," ABD, II, 690] 3.3 "Moses himself must have been born, of course, after the onset of Egyptian oppression, and he was eighty years of age at the time of the Exodus (Exod 2.1; 7.7; Deut 34.7). This means that the enslavement of Israel lasted that long at least. On the other hand, it would have required many more generations than two or three for a mere seventy souls and their families to have proliferated security of Egypt (Exod 1.5, 7, 9-10). At any rate, 19.1 and 40.17

27. Dating the Exodus Period show that the bulk of the book encompasses a period of just about one year." [Sarna, "Exodus, Book of," ABD, II, 690-691] 4. The Bimson/Livingston Redating: 4.1 "Move the date of the conquest back about 200 years, to shortly before 1400 B.C. Although this conflicts with the GAD for Israel's emergence in Canaan, it is in fact the date implied by the Bible itself. In 1 Kgs 6.1, we are told that Solomon began building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign and that this was 480 years after the Exodus. Solomon's reign can be dated with considerable confidence to

28. Dating the Exodus Period about 971-931 B.C., so the fourth year of his reign would be 967 B.C. According to the Biblical chronology, this would place the Exodus 480 years earlier - about 1447 B.C., or say 1450 B.C. for convenience. If we allow 40 years for the desert wanderings before the Israelite conquest of Canaan, we arrive at a date of about 1410-1400 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan. This is almost 200 years earlier than the GAD of 1230-1220 B.C." [Bimson & Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," BAR, (Sept/Oct, 1987), 42]

29. Dating the Exodus Period 4.2 "...the reference to "Pithom and Raamses" in Ex 1.11 cannot be used to date the Exodus to the 13th century B.C. Rather, the archaeological evidence makes best sense if Exodus 1.11 refers to the beginning of the Israelites' enslavement (in about the 18th century B.C.), and not to the time of the Exodus." [Bimson & Livingston, 34] 4.3 "We would suggest a change in the date for the end of the period archaeologists designate Middle Bronze II (MBII). We would move the end of MBII down by over a century from 1550 B.C. to around 1420 B.C." [Bimson & Livingston, 45]

30. Dating the Exodus Period 5. K. A. Kitchen's Objection to Bimson & Livingston's Redating: 5.1 �However, this too simple solution is ruled out by the combined weight of all the other biblical data plus additional information from external data. So the interval from Exodus comes out not at 480 years but as over 553 years (by three unknown amounts), if we trouble to go carefully through all the known biblical figures for this period. It is evident that the 480 years cannot cover fully the 553 + X years. At best, it could be a selection from them, or else it is a schematic figure (12 X 40 years, or

31. Dating the Exodus Period similar). But again, on other evidence to be considered, a date of ca. 1519 BC (966+553) and earlier is even less realistic for the Exodus.� [Kitchen, �Exodus, The,� ABD, II, 702] 5.2 �From Egyptian data, a bottom date for the Exodus can also be set. In his 5th year, 1209 BC, Merneptah (Rameses II�s successor) mentions four entities recently subdued in Canaan: Ascalon, Gexer, Yenoam, and Israel; by the hieroglyphic determinatives, clearly three territorial city-states and a people, respectively. The disposition of related reliefs at Karnak would confirm (in conjunction with the �Israel Stela�) the location of earliest Israel in that

32. Dating the Exodus Period area later known as Ephraim and (W) Manasseh, Hence, the Exodus, the sojourn in the wilderness, and the entry into Canaan can reasonably be limited to within ca. 1279-1209 BC, a maximum of 70 years; or if within about 1260-1220 BC, very nearly 300 years before the 4th years of Solomon (966 BC).� [Kitchen, �Exodus, The,� ABD, II, 702]

33. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus [Sarna, "Exodus, Book of," ABD, II, 697-8] 1. "The descent of the Israelite shepherds into Egypt in the days of Joseph in order to escape famine finds an analogy in Papyrus Anastasi VI, in which a frontier official reports on the passage of Edomite Bedouin tribes from Asia into the delta of Egypt 'to keep them and their cattle alive.'(ANET, 259)" 2. "The title 'pharaoh,' uniformly used for the king of Egypt, points to the development that took place during the late 18th Dynasty when the term, meaning 'The Great House' and originally applied to the royal palace, came to be employed as a metonymy for the reigning monarch."

34. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 3. "The conscription of Israelites for work on state projects (Ex 1.1-10 correlates with the tradition preserved by Diodorus Siculus (1.56) that Rameses II preferred to conscript foreigners rather than Egyptians for his vast building program." 4. "The Israelites are said to have built the cities of Pithom and Raamses (Ex 1.11). The first is the Egyptian P(r)'ltm, 'House of (the god) Atum,' and the second is P(r)R'mss, 'House of Rameses, built Rameses II in the eastern delta of the Nile. Egyptian texts extol the beauty and glory of this city (ANET, 470-471; cf. Gen 47.5-6, 11)."

36. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 5. "The Israelites were also subjected to hard work in the fields (Ex 1.14). The Egyptian texts known as the 'Satire on the Trades' emphasizes the harsh conditions under which agricultural laborers worked (ANET, 433; AEL 1:187-88; 2:170)." 6. "The making of bricks proved to be an especially onerous imposition on the Israelites (Ex 1.14; 5.7-8, 13-14). Alluvial mud supplied by the river Nile and shaped into bricks was the common building material in Egypt, other than for monumental architecture. Ordinary private dwellings as well as administrative building were mainly constructed of bricks and often reached a height of about 60 feet. it is estimated that the pyramids

37. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus of Sesostris III at Dahshur required about 24.5 million bricks. The massive building program of Rameses II would have necessitated the manufacture of enormous quantities of bricks (Spencer 1979). Surviving records from the time of this pharaoh describe how a quota of 2000 bricks was assigned to each of a gang of forty men and how that target was rarely reached (Kitchen 1976). The aforementioned 'Satire on the Trade' describes the hardship endured by the brickmakers (ANET, 433)."

38. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus "The small building contractor carries mud... He is dirtier than vines or pigs, from treading under his mud. His clothes are stiff with clay; his leather belt is going to ruin. Entering into the wind, he is miserable. His lamp goes out, though (still) in good condition. He pounds with his feet; he crushes with his own self, muddying the court of every house, when the water of the streets has flooded." [ANET, 433]

39. Brick Making

40. Brick Making

41. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 7. "The midwives play a prominent role in the early phase of the oppression (Ex 1.15-21). The craft was evidently held in high esteem in Egypt, for in one Egyptian tale it was practiced by three goddesses (AEL 1:220). The name Shiphrah held by one of the Hebrew midwives has turned up as belonging to an Asiatic woman in a list of slaves attached to an Egyptian household (Albright 195:229, no. 233)." 8. "Mention of the birth stool (Ex 1.16) appears to be connected with the Egyptian custom of women experiencing parturition in a crouching or sitting position. The Egyptian hieroglyph for birth is a kneeling woman, and one text explicitly refers to 'sitting on bricks like a woman in labor' (ANET, 381)."

42. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 9. "The story of the birth of Moses and his exposure in the Nile (Ex 2.1-10) reflects the widespread motif of the abandoned hero, known from the ANE and the classical world. A local Egyptian analogy exists in the story of the concealment of Horus from Seth." 10. "The name of Moses (Ex 2.10) is of Egyptian origin and appears as a frequent element in proper name, usually with the addition of a divine element (cf. Ahmose, Ramose, Ptahmose, Thutmose), and sometimes without it (EHI, 329)."

43. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 11. "Although not explicitly stated, it may be inferred from Ex 2.10 that Moses grew up and was educated in Egyptian court circles. Evidence exists for the presence of foreign students, especially Semites, in the royal schools in the Ramesside period." 12. "The promised land is described for the first time as 'a land flowing with milk and honey' (Ex 3.8). This matches the description of the land found in the Egyptian tale of Sinuhe (ANET, 18-23, and the Annals of Thutmoses III (ANET, 237-38; Fensham 1966)

44. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 13. "The request of Moses to allow the Israelites a three-day release from their corvee labors in order to celebrate a religious festival (Ex 3.18; 5.1-3; 8.22-25) follows established precedent as attested by extant records kept by the supervisors of labor gangs (Erman 1971:124; Kitchen 1975:156-57)." 14. "The exceptional role of wonder-working in the early Exodus narrative (Ex 4.2-5, 6-9; 7.8-12, 22; 8.3, 14-15) must be viewed in the light of the extraordinary place of magic as an essential part of daily life at all levels of Egyptian society. The feat of turning rod into a snake finds analogy in the popular tale 'King Cheops (Khufu) and the

45. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus Magicians' (Erman 1966:36-38). As a matter of fact, the snake as stiff as a rod is still practiced in Egypt and has been well documented in modern times (Mannix 1960:32). The specific selection of this trick in order to impress both the Israelites and the pharaoh and his court may have been conditioned by the ceremonial insignia of Egyptian monarchs. The rod, or scepter, was emblematic of royalty, power, and authority, and the uraeus, or stylized representation of the sacred cobra, was worn on the forehead by the pharaohs as a symbol of imperial authority."

46. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus 15. "The turning of water into blood (Ex 4.9; 7.17-22) is mentioned in Egyptian compositions. 'The admonitions of an Egyptian Sage' (ANET, 441), and the story of 'Setne Khamwas and Si-osire' (AEL 3:148) both refer to it." 16. "The ninth plague, darkness (Ex 10.21-23), may be compared with mention of a similar phenomenon in the 'Prophecies of Neferti' (ANET, 445) 17. "Finally, the ten plagues are described as 'judgments on the gods of Egypt' (Ex 12.12; cf. Num 33.4; Jer 46.25), a verdict early interpreted to mean that they were a mockery of Egyptian

47. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus paganism (12.23-27; 16.1-14; cf. Ex 10.2; Jud. 48.5). Some of the plagues can be so explained if taken in a context of Egyptian religious beliefs. The Nile, the vital artery of the land, was personified as the god Hapi, and its annual inundation was regarded as a manifestation of Osiris. The first two plagues centered on the river and could certainly have been understood by the Egyptians as nullifying the powers of these two deities. The plague of frogs could well have been taken as mocking the frog goddess Heqt, who was fancied as assisting women in labor and who was the consort of Khnum, the one who fashioned human beings out of clay. The plague of darkness

48. Egyptian Coloration of Exodus represented the defeat of the sun god Re, symbol of cosmic order. To the Egyptian mind, it would have evoked the powerful cosmogonic myth in which the monster Apophis, symbolic of darkness and the embodiment of all that is terrible, daily vied for victory over Re."

49. Conquest Three Models: Nomadic Infiltration Military Conquest Peasant Revolt

50. Nomadic Infiltration 1. This model was first developed by scholars such as Alt and Noth, and later modified by Weippert. It posits that the early Israelites were nomads or semi-nomads in a process of gradual sedentarization in the sparsely inhabited hill country. The settlement was a two-stage process. They first entered the land in the process of changing pastures. Slowly they began to settle permanently in the sparsely populated parts of the country and extended their territory as occasion offered. The whole process began by peaceful means without the use of force.

51. Nomadic Infiltration As the settlers increased in numbers, they gradually moved into the lowlands and came into conflict with the Canaanite urban centers. This model views Joshua 1-12 as etiologically generated traditions with little historical value. Some cities such as Hazor and Bethel were destroyed by the Israelites as they moved into the lowlands, but the bulk of Joshua 1-12 is fictional. 2. "This model emphasizes the uncoordinated movements of Israelites into Canaan from different directions and at different times. If there was such an exodus event, only a fraction of later Israel was involved."

52. Nomadic Infiltration An early wave into the central western highlands by Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Gad. These tribes were later displaced and declined in importance. The penetration of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin. This became the nucleus of the conquest story of Joshua 1-12. Those who had experienced an exodus from Egypt would have been among these groups. Another group entering from the south through the Negev, probably from Kadesh. These group of tribes eventually consolidated in the form of Judah.

53. Nomadic Infiltration 3. This model is based on an evolutionary assumption that nomads frequently penetrate into settled areas. First, it is in conjunction with seasonal movements, but gradually they take up more permanent settlement in unoccupied areas or seize land by force. This model has been used to suggest a continuity between the Israelites and the Apiru who appear to be social outcasts and outlaws throughout the ANE.

54. Nomadic Infiltration 4. Weippert further identifies the early Israelites with the Shasu known from Egyptian texts and reliefs dating from 1500-1150. They were nomads who lived in tents and raised small cattle. The heart of their land was originally in southern Edom, but ranged as far as southern Lebanon and Syria. He claims that internal and external population pressures of the thirteenth century led to such stress that the traditional nomadic economies were insufficient to feed the Shasu population. They migrated to the Transjordan and also colonized the interior of Palestine. Moreover, the

55. Nomadic Infiltration overpopulation forced them to convert from a pastoral economy to systematic agriculture.

56. Criticism: Nomadic Infiltration 1. First, the model's inability to demonstrate that Israel originated from outside the land. All evidence indicates that the early Israelites resembled their Canaanite neighbors in appearance and material culture. If the Israelites are depicted on the reliefs of Merneptah's battle scenes, then the Israelites are portrayed the same as the Canaanites in appearance. The Egyptian reliefs indicate the Shasu were distinct from the Canaanites in appearance.

57. Criticism: Nomadic Infiltration 2. Second, the model presents an inadequate understanding of nomadism. Pastoral nomadism can no longer viewed as an evolutionary interval between hunting and gathering and plant cultivation societies. It is rather a marginal specialization of animal husbandry. No evidence of overpopulation, and "land hunger" is more characteristic of peasants than nomads. The relationship between agriculturist and pastoralist was symbiotic. During the summer the pastoralist needs the stubble of the harvested fields for their flock, and the agriculturist in turn

58. Criticism: Nomadic Infiltration received manure to fertilize the fields for the next planting. Early Israel appears to have practiced both pastoralism and agriculture. 3. Third, the biblical traditions view the desert as hostile and alien where Israel needed God's assistance, not an idealized past. 4. Fourth, this model was formulated before much archaeological work had been done in the hill country. The model does not adequately reflect the archaeology that has been done since.

59. Military Conquest 1. This model was created in response to the nomadic infiltration model. Its main proponents are Albright, Wright, Bright, and Lapp. For them archaeology has vindicated the essential historicity of the narratives in Joshua 1-12 by demonstrating that numerous cities stated in the text to have been destroyed do in fact provide evidence of massive destruction. Although Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Arad pose problems because they provide no evidence of occupation at the time, the overwhelming evidence for the many other cities is decisive.

60. Military Conquest Moreover, the destruction levels are followed by poor unfortified occupations. There is also a large number of sites with new occupation or occupation that followed centuries of abandonment. All this indicates a large group of uncultured foreigners-in other words, our nomad pastoralists-rapidly moving into Palestine in which the conflict with the Canaanites was primarily political.

61. Criticism: Military Conquest 1. This model has been challenged on its very assumption that archaeology could be used to verify the biblical texts, for archaeological data is inherently ambiguous. A destroyed city does not indicate the agents of destruction. Why must it have been the Israelites? Why not the Egyptians or the Sea Peoples, or even an accidental fire? Massive destruction occurred in areas where Canaanites subsequently remained dominant and Israelites showed little interest in settling. There application of archaeology to Joshua 1-12 is selective. The evidence is mute for most of the text,

62. Criticism: Military Conquest and it is embarrassing with regard to Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, and Arad. Also added to list could be Kadesh-barnea, Hormah, Heshbon, Dibon, and Hebron. Archaeology presents chronological problems in that not all the cities were destroyed during the same time period. 2. This model insists that the material culture of early Israel would be intrusive into the Canaanite culture. But antecedents to the Israelite culture cannot be found outside Palestine. Instead, their culture is identical to the Canaanite culture: four room house,

63. Criticism: Military Conquest collared rim jars, hewed cisterns-all of these have Late Bronze Age antecedents in Palestine. 3. This model has been inconsistent and imprecise in conceptualizing Canaan, Israel and their mutual antagonism: Israel is usually viewed as a nation-state in contrast to the city-states of Canaan. Prior to the settlement of the hill country Israel had no territorial definition. Prior to central administration of the kingdom of David, Israel's poor,unfortified towns and villages attest to neither centralized political control nor

64. Criticism: Military Conquest extraction and redistribution of a significant economic surplus. The nation-state is not a viable category for examining the history of Israel during this period.

65. Peasant Revolt 1. This model was first put forward by Mendenhall. The Amarna letters-which refer to the internal struggles in Palestine caused by the Apiru and the biblical events represent the same political process: namely, the withdrawal of large population groups from an obligation to existing political regimes, and therefore, the renunciation of any protection from these sources. There was no statistically important invasion of Palestine; no displacement of population; no genocide; no large scale driving out of the population, Canaanite city-states.

66. Peasant Revolt This model suggests internal turmoil reminiscent of the Apiru during the period of Akhenaton. But in thirteenth century Palestine the catalyst for this movement was the exodus group: A group of slave-labor captives who escaped from Egypt and made a covenant with Yahweh at Sinai. This exodus group espoused an ideology attractive to those who were oppressed in Canaan and who immediately joined them. 2. This model has been subsequently amended by numerous scholars, but most influentially by Norman Gottwald.

67. Peasant Revolt Mendenhall's "withdrawal of large population groups" was not physically nor geographically, but politically and subjectively. However, the geographical aspect should not be downplayed. Many of the biblical texts suggest that the people of Israel were notable to conquer the cities of the plains until David's time. Therefore, early Israel had geographically removed itself from the Canaanite city-states by retreating into the wooded hill country. The early Israelite settlements were in fact opening this previously uninhabited frontier. Credit should be given to several technological improvements-iron, rock terraces, lined cisterns-which made this

68. Peasant Revolt achievement possible. Moreover, it should be recognized that such frontiers attract the socially disenfranchised.

69. Criticism: Peasant Revolt 1. This model has failed to demonstrate the existence of a true peasant's revolt in ancient Israel. In their development of this model, they have imposed modern idiosyncratic, especially Marxist, ideologies on ancient Israel. 2. This model has been accused of applying a poor understanding of anthropological and sociological theory, particularly doctrinaire and outdated theories of cultural evolution. 3. This model also lacks an awareness of Israelite geography, the status of current archaeological research, and a clear understanding of the Apiru.

70. Criticism: Peasant Revolt This model overemphasizes the uniqueness of the Israelite phenomenon. The early highland villages of Israel are identical to other highland villages outside of the land. They are not connected to Israel's religious experience. They do not represent an "egalitarian" society. Technological innovations are given undue credit for the settlement process.

71. Monarchy 1. Early Attempts at Kingship 1.1 "The Israelite tribes prized their autonomy. When faced with military threats from Canaanite city-states such as Hazor (Judges 4-5) or from bedouin raiders such as the Midianites (Judges 6-8), the Israelite tribes depended on military leaders who emerged in response to specific crises. It was in the aftermath of such a crisis (1 Samuel 8-10) that the first attempts at establishing a permanent form of leadership took place." 1.2 Gideon (Jdg 8.22-23); Abimelech (Jdg 9); Ammonite threat (1 Sam 11) � Saul (1 Sam 13-14; 31).

72. Monarchy 2. David (1000-961): 2.1 Abner � Ishbaal (2 Sam 2.8), while David at Hebron (2 Sam 2.1-4, 11). 2.2 Abner (2 Sam 3:26-27) & Ishbaal (2 Sam 4:1-7) killed. 2.3 David becomes King of a dual kingdom (2 Sam 5:1-5). 2.4 Establishing a capitol at Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6-12) & bring in the Ark (2 Sam 6) 2.5 Battles: Philistines (2 Sam 5:17-25); Transjordanian kingdoms; Arameans and extended Israel's frontier to the Euphrates (2 Sam 10:15-19); Edom (2 Sam 8:12).

73. Monarchy 3. Solomon (961-922) 3.1 Succession Narratives: 2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2 (Adonijah; 1 Kgs 1.5-8) 3.2 "He protected the borders of his kingdom by peaceful relations with neighboring kings (1 Kgs 3:1; 5:1-6; 11:1-3)." 3.3 Building Projects: Temple; Palaces; Megiddo, Gezer, and Hazor (1 Kgs 9:15-19). 3.4 Taxation & Forced labor; ceded twenty cities in Galilee to Tyre to ease his financial problems (1 Kgs 9:10-13).

74. Monarchy 4. Collapse of the David-Solomon Empire: 4.1 Rehoboam rejected at Shechem (1 Kgs 12:16), while Jeroboam is chosen and established his capitol in Shechem (1 Kgs 12:25). 4.2 The Nature of the two kingdoms: South - stable dynasty, but poor economically with only about 200,000 people. North � Politically unstable, with 9 coups d'etas out of 19 kings in 200 years. A population of 800,000 with much natural resources. 4.3 Social stratification develops in both kingdoms.

75. Monarchy 5. Period of Conflict (922-876) 5.1 Jeroboam I (922-901) � Dan & Bethel, Levites (1 Kgs 12:26-32). 5.2 Egypt invaded the territories of the two kingdoms (1 Kgs 14:25-28). Rehoboam builds frontier fortifications (2 Chr 11:5-12). 5.3 South: Abijah (915-913); Asa (913-873) � Aramean support against North. 5.4 Nadab (901-900), coup = Baasha (900-887); Elah, assassinated (877-876); Zimri (876); Omri (876-89)

76. Monarchy 6. Period of Cooperation (876-842): 6.1 Omride Dynasty: 6.1.1 Omri � Propserity; "He sealed the alliance with the marriage of his son Ahab with Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon. Omri ended 50 years of fruitless conflict with Judah by giving his daughter Athaliah in marriage to Jehoram, the heir to the throne of the S kingdom." 6.1.2 Ahab (869-850): Battle of Qarqar; Baalism 6.1.3 Ahaziah (850-849); Jehoram (849-842)

77. Monarchy 6. Period of Cooperation (876-842): 6.2 Jehoshaphat (873-849) - Prosperous 6.3 Jehoram (849-842) � executed members of his family and court (2 Chr 21:4). Edom rebelled causing Judah to lose its control of the King's Highway. 6.4 Ahaziah (842)

78. Monarchy 7. Revolution & Its Aftermath (842-786) 7.1 Jehu (842-814) Lost treaty with Tyre & Judah To avoid Arameans, he rushed into a treaty relationship with the neo-Assyrian empire under Shalmaneser III. Problems with Hazael, king of Aram 7.2 Jehoahaz (815-801) 7.3 Joash (801-786) 7.4 Judah: Athaliah (842-837); Jehoash (837-800); Amaziah (800-783)

79. Monarchy 8. Period of Prosperity (786-746) 8.1 Jeroboam II (786-721): "The rejuvenation of the N kingdom that began with Joash reached its apex during the forty-year reign of Jeroboam II. Both Joash and Jeroboam were able rulers and their combined 56 years on the throne were a time of territorial expansion and economic success." 8.2 Judah: Azariah/Uzziah (783-742) 8.3 Jotham (742-735)

80. Monarchy 9. The Fall of Israel (746-721) 9.1 Ahaz (735-715) 9.2 Israel: Zechariah (746-745), assassinated after 6 months. 9.3 Shallum (745) deposed after 1 month 9.4 Menahem (745-738) became a vassal of the Assyrians who required that he pay a heavy tribute to keep his throne (2 Kgs 15:19-20). 9.5 Pekahiah (738-737) continued the policy of submitting to the Assyrians, but is therefore assassinated by Pekah.

81. Monarchy 9.6 Pekah (737-732) "Pekah put aside old animosities and joined Aram in an anti-Assyrian coalition. They tried to enlist Judah but failed. The coalition collapsed before Assyrian military power." He is then assassinated by Hoshea. 9.7 Hoshea (732-722): "Hoshea did not remain a compliant vassal to Assyria . . . . Upon hearing of Tiglath-Pileser's death in 724, Hoshea began negotiations with Egypt to secure its support for a revolt against Assyria. When Hoshea made his move, Shalmaneser V, the new Assyrian monarch, easily swept Israel's army aside. After a three year siege, the Assyrians destroyed Samaria,

82. Monarchy incorporated what remained of the N kingdom into the Assyrian provincial system, and exiled many of Israel's leading citizens. By 721, the Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist as an independent nation."