Deciphering the Biblical Text – 4

Ancient Israel and the Land of Canaan

 The earliest settlements in the central hill country were elliptical sites reminiscent of the Bedouin desert encampments. The Israelites shifted from tents to stone walls, but the “city planning” was the same, an outer circle of dwellings with a large open area inside for the protection of the flocks at nighttime. Only with the passage of time did Israel shift from these elliptical sites to more urban-type settlements, as the process of acculturation to a sedentary lifestyle took hold.

At the same time, however, it must be admitted that the conquest tradition in the Bible is a very strong one. It is hard to imagine that Israel did not have to fight at all upon its arrival in Canaan. Though the terrain was sparsely populated, we can assume that on occasion the Israelites needed to obtain territory by military conquest. Moreover, the lack of archaeological evidence to substantiate the biblical record is not a hindrance to accepting the basic outline preserved in the Bible. Comparative analysis reveals that in other instances well-documented historical conquests also cannot be substantiated by archaeological fieldwork. [1]
 
Given the two methods of achieving territorial advantage, peaceful settlement and military conquest, it is only natural that Israelite authors would choose the latter to glorify in their poetic and prose compositions. This will explain why the national epic preserved in the Bible emphasizes the military approach, even if these battles represent less than the whole truth about the emergence of Israel in Canaan. [2]

To return to the chronological discussion: it is noteworthy that never does the Bible refer to an encounter between the Israelites and the Egyptians in the land of Canaan. Egypt had ruled Canaan, with garrisons stationed there, for most of the 18th and 19th Dynasties. Had Israel arrived in Canaan at anytime prior to 1200 BCE, it is difficult to imagine that they would not have encountered the Egyptian military. The Bible’s silence in this regard bolsters the view expressed above that the Israelites left Egypt under the reign of Rameses III, that is, during the 20th Dynasty, and arrived in Canaan c. 1150 BCE, after the glory years of the Egyptian Empire. [3] Again, there is reference to the presence of Philistines already, and this would assume a  twelfth-century setting.

Actually, the Bible may refer to Egypt in Canaan, but in a most interesting and subtle way. Three biblical passages (Exodus 23: 28, Deuteronomy 7: 20, Josh 24: 12) refer quite enigmatically to God’s having sent forth the Tsara’ah – ?ir’?h (????) “hornet” before the Israelites to drive out the population of Canaan. John Garstang was the first to suggest that Tsara’ah- ?ir’?h is a reference to Egypt, [4]  and this interpretation has been revived by more recent scholars. [5]  This view is based on the fact that the hieroglyph for the king of Lower Egypt was either a bee or a hornet (depending on one’s view of the depicted insect), which the biblical authors then utilized as a symbol for the Pharaoh and for Egypt. The aforementioned presence of Egyptian troops in Canaan, with some mighty military campaigns during the New Kingdom period, would have weakened both the moral resolve and the fighting capabilities of the Canaanites. Under such circumstances, the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan was accomplished with greater ease.

An additional item of interest in this regard is the toponym ma‘yan mê neptôa, literally “the spring of the waters of Nephtoah,” but more accurately “the spring of Merneptah,” mentioned in Joshuah 15: 9, 18: 15, as marking the border between Benjamin and, Judah (modern-day Lifta, three miles west of Jerusalem). [6] Here we have sure evidence that Merneptah campaigned not only in Canaan in general, but in the very area settled by the Israelites at an early stage.

The picture presented to this point represents only a part of the whole. We have followed the main biblical tradition and have commented on its various components with collateral evidence from Egyptian documents and archaeological fieldwork. But the picture is much more complicated. At the outset, We stated that Israel was comprised of peoples of diverse origins, though until now the nation has been treated as rather homogeneous. The evidence for diversity comes from different sources.

At the very time when we assume that the Israelites, that is, the desert or Shasu component thereof, were in Egypt, enslaved under Rameses II, there is evidence that the tribe of Asher was resident in Canaan. P. Anastasi I, dated by most authorities to the reign of Rameses II, is a satirical letter written by the master scribe Hori addressed to a second scribe named Amenemopet, in which the former chastises the latter for his ignorance regarding the topography of Canaan. In the course of his “tour” of the land, Hori mentions Rehob and Megiddo and soon thereafter states: “Your name becomes like Qadjardy chief of Asher, when the hyena(?) found him in the baka–tree” (lines 23: 6-7).[7]  Not everyone agrees that the Egyptian writing ’a2-sa-ru2 refers to Asher, but this is by far the most probable interpretation. First, the tribal allotment of Asher, [8]  as described in Joshuah 19: 24-31 is in this very area and includes (apparently) two cities named Rehob (vv. 28, 30). Second, the tree written as bi-ka-’i recalls the biblical phrase in Psalms 84: 7 ‘?meq habb?k?’ “valley of the baka–tree”  (thus the traditional interpretation), a northern locale, perhaps to be associated with the city of Baka, located in the Galilee, mentioned by Josephus (Jewish Wars 3: 39). [9] Accordingly, if Asher was resident in northern Canaan during the time of Rameses II, it could not have participated in the events experienced by the desert component of the nation that would emerge as Israel. This is a crucial piece of information for us, and allows us to presume that other elements of the people of Israel were similarly resident in Canaan throughout this period. We can only speculate what must have transpired. The desert folk entered the land of Canaan, and in time elements within Canaan itself came to align themselves with the newly arrived people. What factors would have led to such an alignment we cannot determine. Most likely they were socio-economic, but one cannot rule out the religious factor. Possibly Israel’s unique worship of a single god who manifests himself in human history and who protects the underprivileged rung a resonant chord with others in the area.

At a later time we see the same process more clearly. The best example is Jerusalem, which was incorporated into Israel by King David c. 1000 BCE. The city was not destroyed, the population was not killed; rather, the residents simply became part of the nation of Israel. This fact would be remembered centuries later when the prophet Ezekiel would address the city with the words, “Your origin and your birthplace is from the land of the Canaanites, your father was an Amorite and your mother was a Hittite” (Ezekiel 16: 3).

A second tribe of Israel whose origins can be traced is Dan. Here we return to the Sea Peoples invasion of Egypt. Among the allies of the Philistines who attacked Egypt during the reign of Rameses III was a group called the Danuna. Most scholars agree that this group is to be equated with the people known as Danaoi in Greek, Adanawana in Luwian, and dnnym in Phoenician (the latter two from the Karatepe bilingual inscription). As noted above, when the Sea Peoples were repulsed by the Egyptians, they were forced to find a new home on the coast of Canaan. Thus, the Philistines settled on the southern coast, and the Egyptian tale of Wenamon (c. 1100  BCE.) informs us that the Tjeker (another member of the coalition) settled in Dor. The experience of the Danuna must have been similar, and there is good reason to identify them with the tribe of Dan known from the Bible. [10]

Several lines of evidence converge to argue in favor of this position. First, the original territory ascribed to Dan in Joshua 19: 40-46 is on the coast, adjacent to Philistine territory. Second, Judges 5: 17 “and Dan, why do you dwell in ships” connects the tribe to a maritime life. Third, the greatest of Danite heroes, Samson, has intimate relations with the Philistines (Judges 14-16). Fourth, Genesis 49: 16 “Dan shall judge his people like one of the tribes of Israel” implies that until this point Dan is not a tribe of Israel and is in the process of joining the tribal league. Fifth, notwithstanding the allotment granted Dan in the Book of Joshua, Judg 18: 1 states that “the tribe of Dan was seeking for itself a land grant in which to dwell, because a land grant had not fallen to it until this day among the tribes of Israel.” Sixth, and finally, of all the tribes of Israel, Dan has the least developed genealogy. In fact, Genesis 46: 23, Numbers 26: 42, and 1 Chronicles 7: 12 each record only one name (either Hushim or Shuham).

The conclusion to be drawn is that Dan originates with the Sea Peoples Danuna group that reached the land of Canaan by sea at approximately the same time (or slightly earlier ) that the main Israelite group reached Canaan by land. The experience of the Sea Peoples groups will be similar to some extent, but will be different once they settled on the Canaanite coast. For whereas the Philistines in time became the archenemy of the Israelites, [11]  the Danites elected to join the Israelite coalition. Again, as with Asher above, we cannot determine for what reasons Dan chose this course. Though in this case it might have been the common enemy, the Philistines, that led Dan to join Israel. For while the Philistines and the Danuna may have been allies during the Sea Peoples attack against Egypt, such cordial relations may have ended once this common enterprise ceased. [12] From passages such as Genesis 49: 16, Judges 18: 1, and the evidence of genealogies (or lack thereof), it would appear that Dan was the last of the tribes to join what eventually became the twelve tribes of Israel.

NOTES:

[1] See most importantly Isserlin (1983).
[2] Compare the American epic treatment of “How the West was won,” even if, in some cases, open territory was peacefully settled.
[3] On the Egyptian rule over Canaan, see Weinstein (1981).
[4]  Garstang (1931) 258-60.
[5]  Yadin (1979) 67-68, and Borowski (1983).
[6]  See Rendsburg (1981).
[7]  For translation and original text, see Gardiner (1911) 25*, 70.
[8]  For a survey of opinions, see Fischer-Elfert (1986) 199-200.
[9]  On the Egyptian word, see Hoch (1994) 112-13. On Ps 84: 7 and the Josephus passage, see Goulder (1982) 40 and Rendsburg (1990b) 52-53.
[10]  Suggested originally by Gordon (1963) 21, and developed by Yadin (1965).
[11] As long as the Philistines remained in the coastal plain and as long as the main body of Israelites dwelled in the hill country, the two groups could live without hostility. But when both groups began to expand and to contend over the foothills that separate the two concentrations, enmity was the result.
[12] How often this is true in the history of the modern Middle East! The most recent example: Jordan, one of the few Arab countries to side with Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, now allies itself with the United States and Israel.