Hi Stormdancer,
Sorry for the delay, I have been meaning to reply for about a week now, but with work and other things I haven't had the chance.
I have given a very very brief outline of what I think about the questions you asked, if you would like to discuss them in more detail then let me know and we can examine one at a time. I was going to give a detailed answer here but I had around 30 pages typed up in Word so I thought I better condense things a little.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
Who were they?
It is difficult to say exactly who the Israelites were, the only real clues we have are in the Bible. To find out who the Israelites were would require us to do what any historian should do, examine the sources and decide what evidence is credible and usable for answering our question. What are the sources for reconstructing the origins of ancient Israel? Well, if we examine the evidence from archaeology we would have no reason to assume that the people known as Israel appeared on the scene in ancient Palestine. In fact, by using the name ‘Israel’ in association with the Iron Age means to draw on the other main source of evidence, the written sources. The written sources relevant for dealing with ancient Israel fall into two categories, materials of various kinds collected in the Hebrew Bible and certain nonbiblical documents (e.g. royal inscriptions). Most of the nonbiblical documents may be considered first-hand evidence in that they were written soon after the events which they report. Unfortunately, they provide only occasional references to Israel, and without prompting from the Hebrew Bible these references would not tell us much. (Miller, J Maxwell,
Is it Possible to Write a History of Israel without the Hebrew Bible? in Edelman Diana V,
The fabric of History (JSOT) Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield 1991. p.94)
Without prompting from the Hebrew Bible, for example, no one would ever have read the hieroglyphic name on the Merneptah Stele as ‘Israel’ and to distinguish it as the same ‘Israel’ of the Moabite and Assyrian version of the name that do not turn up until 350 years later. Historians probably would make a connection between ‘Omri king of Israel’ of the Mesha Inscription, ‘Jehu mar Humri’ in three of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions, and the references to the ‘land of bit-Humria’ in Tiglath-pileser's records. But I don’t think they would read ‘Ahab of Sir-‘i-la-a-a’ in Shalmaneser's Monolith Inscription as ‘Ahab the Israelite’ or recognise that Samaria, which also turns up occasionally in other Assyrian contexts, was the capital of ‘Omri land’ rather than some other place. Even if they did, the general impression gained would have to be that Israel was a small kingdom, located somewhere in the vicinity of Damascus or the Phoenician coast, apparently founded by one Omri during the first half of the ninth century and surviving to the latter half of the eighth century. (Miller p.94)
If we relied solely on the archaeological data, we would not be thinking of Israel in terms of Early Iron Age settlement patterns in the central Palestinian hill country because there is nothing at all ‘about the potsherds or wall lines that cries out ‘Israelite’ (Miller p.97). Instead, the search would focus on Iron Age II, or on southern Lebanon or perhaps even Galilee, and would involve widely conflicting views regarding the location of Samaria.
The reason, the sole reason, why we are focussing on things like settlement patterns, pastoral nomads, and economic and technological models is really down to the fact that in the past we have relied far too much on the Hebrew Bible, and the Hebrew Bible has let us down time and time again. Although we are beginning to focus on the archaeological evidence, or the extrabiblical sources, or a combination of the two, it is still the Hebrew Bible that dictates the parameters of the ongoing discussion regarding the origin and early history of Israel. Any time historians, archaeologists, sociologists, or whoever speak of Israelite tribes in the central Palestinian hill country at the beginning of Iron Age I, or about the united monarchy, or about two contemporary kingdoms emerging from this early monarchy, they are presupposing information that comes from, and only from, the Hebrew Bible (Miller p.95).
In my opinion, the Hebrew Bible has undoubtedly hindered the progress or archaeologist and anthropologists who have been trying to reconstruct Israel’s past. But we have to be realistic, without the Hebrew Bible no one would even dream that Israel was ever in Egypt, or wandered the Sinai and camped at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years, we would not, even for a second, consider that there had ever been a unified conquest of Palestine in the late 13th century BCE. These ‘historical’ events come only from the Bible, no one else even noticed a thing.
I find this lack of evidence very hard to believe, look t the sort of things spoken about in the Bible in relation to Israel’s involvement with Egypt, there are some pretty epic events there, yet there is only one mention of an ‘Israel’ in all of the surviving Egyptian records, and this reference does not provide anything to support Israel in Egypt. Also, surrounding countries are suspiciously silent about Israel’s existence. It is unusual that Israel is only mentioned once in Egyptian sources, since Israel was allegedly a neighbour of ancient Egypt’s and all other Canaanite inhabitants are well attested in many Egyptian texts (El Amarna and Mari for example). Also, these other Canaanite ‘neighbours’ of Israel show little or no interest in the word ‘Israel’ either. When they do mention Israelite kings, mainly in the neo-Assyrian writings, the almost never call them Israelite kings, they invariably call them by the dynastic name of ‘bit humri’, which meant ‘The House of [king] Omri’.
Even when using the Hebrew Bible it is difficult to identify who the Israelite were as the information can sometimes be confusing. The Bible identifies the Israelites as an ethnic group that descended from the 12 sons of a man called Jacob, each son being the head of a tribe. Jacob’s fathering of twelve sons who each father a tribe is clearly an eponymic legend. Anthropologists have discovered that eponymic legends are common in many ancient societies. The ethnic identity of a group is defined by telling a story of kinship. Normally, the story does not really reflect a biological reality it reflects a social or political unity. When groups of people enter into relationship with one another, they begin to cooperate for agricultural purposes, mutual defence, and so on, they sometimes express their alliance by telling a tale of kinship. The primary function of this kind of story is to create and sustain a sense of community identity. Most of these stories are creative inventions. The kinships are invented strictly for the purpose of community identity, not because the people involved are actually related biologically. But the story is not a ‘lie’ since members who tell the story know that it is an invention.
Ancient Israel was more than likely not an ethnic group that descended from one man and his wife, it was more likely a loose collection a people who could identify with each other through a common purpose, political or social, and they then had this eponymic legend to unite the group. The biological relationships recorded by the Bible authors were not the principal part of most Bible stories, the artificial genealogies in the Bible prove this, for example Zerubbabel who is the son of Shealtiel in Ezra 3.2, but he becomes the son of Pediah in I Chronicles 3.19. Another example is in the New Testament, in which the family tree of Joseph, father of Jesus, is traced from David's son Solomon in Mt. 1.1-17, but is traced from David’s son Nathan in Luke. 3.23-38 which results in many of the names conflicting in the two genealogies (Christians perform wonderful textual gymnastics to deny this of course).
Another problem with identifying an ethnic group that came to be known as Israel is the different ways in which the Bible makes use of the term ‘tribes of Israel’, this shows that the biblical authors were aware of the fluid nature of social and political relationships. Biblical writers often speak of 12 tribes of Israel, but the exact names of those 12 tribes change from passage to passage. Sometimes Israel includes a tribe called Levi (e.g. Deut. 27:13), other times Levi is not listed as a tribe. In order to preserve the number 12, the tribe of Joseph is eliminated each lime that Levi is missing, and they are replaced by two other tribes. Ephraim and Manasseh, the two ‘sons’ of Joseph (e.g. Num. 1.5-15). It gets even more complicated, however. Sometimes there are fewer than 12 tribes and their names do not correspond to the traditional names: Judges 5 lists only 10 tribes, and includes the ‘tribes’ of Machir and Gilead. Missing from the list are the more famous tribes of Judah and Joseph, as well as the tribes of Manasseh, Simeon, Levi and Gad. Evidently, biblical writers recognised that the concept of ‘sons’ of Israel was a metaphor for a complex and ever-changing process of social and political affiliation.
‘Israel’, then, is primarily a social or political term, though its exact meaning seems to have shifted over time. Early in the Iron Age Israel seems to have been a term of political affiliation among loosely related tribal groups, as in Judges 5. Later, Israel became the label for a monarchy, the Kingdom of Israel, which ruled over portions of Palestine's Cisjordan Highlands. After that kingdom was destroyed by the Neo-Assyrians in the eighth century BCE, Israel seems to have become an alternate name for another monarchy, the Kingdom of Judah in the southern Cisjordan Highlands.
Where did they come from?
It would depend on when we believe ‘Israel’ began. One very large difficulty here is that there is no telling exactly when ‘Israel’ came into distinct existence in Palestine (Halpern B, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan. Scholars Press, Chico California, 1983. p.81). I would say that the Exodus account in the Hebrew Bible suggests that all Israel came out of Egypt. Technically, Israel should have begun with Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, as it is from his 12 sons that the Israel that came out of Egypt descended. We should also remember that the Israelites should be identified separate from the Hebrews, although all Israelites were Hebrews, not all Hebrews were Israelites.
This claim that Israel came out of Egypt has some very serious problems, I don’t wish to labour the point but there are no references to the Israelites in any surviving Egyptian literature nor are there any references or artefacts from archaeology that indicate the Israelites were ever in Egypt.
I also think a very very important point is that the Hebrew Bible itself is totally ignorant to the fact that Egypt had a very large presence in Palestine, the Bible never mentions Egypt as being in Palestine. Also, the small villages of the central highlands that have been allocated to the Israelites show no signs at all that the inhabitants were ever in Egypt.
According to the latest archaeological and anthropological data they came from within Canaanite society. There is no sign of a break in the material culture of the central highlands, all the pottery types of the late bronze age/early Iron age that have been found in these settlements have also been found in the Canaanite city states. What is more, any apparently new elements that were once believed to have entered Palestine along with the Israelites, for example, the four roomed house, water cisterns and rim collared jars, have since been found in other areas of Palestine, and also in areas that have no association with the Israelites.
Finally, the conquest narrative presented in the Bible is totally and utterly rejected by the archaeological evidence, so many of the cities that were said to be conquered by Joshua’s armies have been found to have been uninhabited when the Bible says that conquest happened. Bill Dever has concluded that only 2 out of the 19 sites that have possible identifications with the Joshua narratives (Hazor and Bethel) actually have evidence of destruction levels in the 13th century BCE (
Israel, History of (Archaeology and the ‘Conquest’), The anchor Bible Dictionary 1992).
So I would say that we do not know for certain where the Israelites came from, but it looks highly likely that the emerged from within Palestine itself.
Who was their God?
Regarding their God, it really isn’t a cut and dry case of the Israelites always being worshippers of YWHW, most Christians that I know appear to think that Israel has always worshipped Yahweh, this is not the case.
Equating YHWH only with the Israelites is a mistake that many people make, but it has to be remembered that not all YHWH worshipers were Israelites. There really is no essential association between the people called ‘Israel’ and a God whose personal name is YHWH. The Bible itself is evidence that the Israelites had not always worshipped YHWH. The Book of Exodus tells us that the patriarchs worshipped El Shaddai (6:3) and that YWHW worship only began with Moses. This is a fairly common theme among religious groups that have combined several gods into a single God. The names of each original God become the multiple names of the one God, Hinduism is another example of this. The authors of the early books of the Bible were obviously aware that a multiplicity of gods had been combined into the one entity, and that the YHWH element was a latecomer to the Israelite faith.
The word Israel is a theophoric name, ‘yisra-‘el’ and demonstrates that the early Israelites did not worship YHWH. There have been different interpretations of what ‘Israel’ means, ‘El strives’ or ‘El is just’ or ‘Struggle with El’ are a few that come to mind. The important thing here is that the divine element of Israel is ‘El’ and not ‘YWHW’.
If the name had been Yahwistic rather than Elistic it would be written yisra-yahu. In English it would have been Israiah (K L Noll,
Canaan and Israel in Antiquity Sheffield Academic Press, London 2001).
It seems that the bible retains a memory that Israel’s God was called El Shaddai and later He became known as YWHW, it is up to the individual if they want to believe that these are two names for the same God or are two different gods. There is evidence to support both views. El is of course the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, but El is also a general Semitic word for ‘god’. Most people that I have spoke to like to take the use of ‘El’ in the general sense of the word, i.e, El means ‘God’ and YWHW is his name, but I don’t think it is as straightforward as this, for example, we have references in the Hebrew Bible at Genesis 33:20 and 46:3 to
’el’elohe yisra’el which accurately translates as ‘El, the God of Israel’ (Bright John, A History of Israel, SCM Press 1972 edition). So, again, it is up top the individual what they want to believe, but I think there is good evidence to support the belief that the Patriarchs worshipped ‘El’ in various forms and that the worship of Yahweh by ‘Israel’ was a fairly late development.
I think there is some circumstantial evidence to support a theory that the Israelites brought YHWH worship from Sinai into Palestine, although any nomadic or semi nomadic Canaanite group may have done this. There are a series of geographical locations associated with YHWH in biblical poetry that places the YWHW to the south and east of ‘historical’ Israel and Judah. Based on this observation and others, some scholars believe that somehow the worship of Yahweh, had its origin south and east of Israel and Judah in the region which today includes the northern part of Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan and Israel.
Here are some verses that provide evidence that YWHW was only associated with a certain region of the ancient near east. Of course, in those days each region had its own god, so YHWH was not different from any other god.
Deuteronomy 33:2
He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.
Judges 5:4-5
"O LORD , when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water.
The mountains quaked before the LORD , the One of Sinai, before the LORD , the God of Israel.
Habakkuk 3:3
God came from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth.
I think the Bible itself supports the view that YWHW arrived in Palestine from the south east because the primary site of theophany for Yahweh is Mount Sinai. Not only is YWHW associated with this area in the oldest poetic texts (see the examples above) but in Exodus 19, which is fairly late addition to the text, YWHW is still associated with Sinai. This is very interesting because there was a tendency to try and move YWHW’s principle theophany to Mount Zion in Jerusalem. According ot the Zion tradition, Solomon’s Temple was YWHW’s dwelling place forever:
1 Kings 8:13
I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever.
Kyle McCarter writes:
Why, then, didn't Mt. Zion displace Sinai altogether? The only explanation I know is that the old Sinai tradition was so venerable and well known, that it was so persistent and authentic, that it couldn't be suppressed. ( in Shanks
The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington 1992, p.128)
Another indication that Yahwism originated south and east of Judah is the Midianite tradition. In the Exodus story Moses flees from Egypt into the wilderness and has his meeting with Yahweh. The tradition was that the first encounter between Yahweh and the Israelites was in Midian, Midian being the name used in the Exodus story for this same region. This takes place in Exodus 2 and 3, where Moses marries the daughter of a man named Jethro. Jethro is a Midianite priest, and at one point (Exodus 18:11) Jethro says that Yahweh is the greatest of the gods. Exodus 6 shows that according to one part of the biblical tradition the God of Israel revealed his name Yahweh for the first time in Midian. In other words, even the Bible itself suggests that, in one sense, Yahwism originated south and east of Judah. (McCarter p.129)
I would say then that there is a good indication that Yahwism originated in the south east, whether it arrived in Palestine with the Israelites of the Hebrew Bible there is no way to tell. That Canaanites regularly followed nomadic pastoral routes through the south east and into Egypt is well supported in non-biblical texts, it is possible that some of these groups brought the idea back to Palestine with them.
Was there an Exodus?
No.
But to elaborate, although the Exodus, as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, is not supported by archaeological and textual evidence, I believe that there are little ‘snippets’ in the myth that do reflect accurate history. As Dever says though, we have to weed these ‘kernels of history’ out from among the fictional ‘history’ of the Hebrew Bible.
The problem for me is that the Exodus account is severely lacking in support, the epic claims made by Hebrew Bible should have left some ‘fingerprints’ in the archaeological record, but they have left none.
I also agree with Dever when he says ..
’And with the new models of indigenous Canaanite origins for early Israel, there is neither place nor need for an Exodus from Egypt’ (Dever W.
Is there any archaeological evidence for the Exodus? in Frerichs E S and Lesko L H
Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 1997).
If we take the information in the Bible that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years then there is a surprisingly meagre amount of Egyptian references in the Exodus account. Moses is clearly a part of an Egyptian name, goodness knows what the first half of Moses name would have been, but there are also other Egyptian names such as Hophni, Phineas, Shiprah and Puah. I find it surprising that the main Egyptian character, the pharaoh, is not identified, you would think that such an important figure would be clearly identified by the author of the narrative but we have to guess who it is that ruled Egypt at the time of the alleged event. So we can start of a list of historical kernels by saying that some of the names given in the Bible’s Exodus account are Egyptian, and this could suggest that there is some truth in it.
Although precise references to the enslavement in Egypt are very rare, the names of the cities in Exodus 1:11, Pithom and Rameses, have been identified by archaeology as being located at Tell el-Maskhuta or Tell el-Retabe, and Tell el’Dab’a respectively. There are clear problems with supporting what the Bible says about these cities, but these cities do show a substantial Canaanite or Asiatic presence in the so-called patriarchal period and that he two were rebuilt in the Ramesside period (Dever p.71). The mention of these cities does lend some support to the theory that at least some of the elements of the Exodus myth stemmed from ancient Egypt. The one certain thing about the rare Egyptian evidence is that it points undisputedly to the 13th century BCE and proves the biblical dating of the mid 15th century impossible.
Although there is certainly no direct extra-biblical source that supports the Israelite enslavement in Egypt or the Exodus but there are other pieces of circumstantial evidence. For example, there is the papyrus Leiden 348, a decree from an Egyptian official about the construction work at the city of Rameses that states:
Distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the ‘Apiru
The long time held view that the ‘Apiru were indeed the Hebrews has been rejected as the term ‘Apiru refers to a social strata rather than an ethnic group. But, it is possible that some of the Hebrews could have been ‘Apiru, but we still cannot prove a link between the Hebrews and the Israelites by using this text. The name Hebrew designates a much broader ethnicity than the name ‘Israelite’ anyway. The Israelites would all have been Hebrews but not all Hebrews would be Israelites, and not all Hebrews would have been ‘Apiru, and since the ‘Apiru were comprised of a wide range of ethnic groups, it is quite possible that some Israelites were ‘Apiru. Although this is not proof that Israelites were used for building these cities, it is circumstantial evidence, it is extremely questionable though, but possible nonetheless. Therefore the next ‘kernel’ of history is the mention of the two cities in Exodus 1:11, which may lend a hint of historiography to the event.
Another historical kernel of the Exodus is contained in Exodus 13:17-18
When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt. So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea.
This passage about the journey of the Israelites through Sinai may be better understood if we take into account the military road that the Egyptians constructed along the coast of northern Sinai, the biblical way of the Philistines. This route was fortified with a tight network of strongholds by Seti I early in the 13th century BCE, and remained under strict control of the Egyptians throughout that century. The fortification line provides a strong historical reason for the Israelites not taking the shortest route to Palestine, if they did indeed leave Egypt then they would have had to make the detour into the desert in order to avoid Egyptian strongholds.
There is particularly good support for this from the Papyri Anastasi (purchased as early as 1839), which were originally used as schoolboys’ copy books of model letters. Some of them reveal the tight control of the Egyptian authorities over their eastern frontier in the last decades of the 13th century BCE. These letters prove that there were strong controls over who could enter or leave Egypt, no one was allowed to do wither without a special permit.
Papyrus Anastasi III records daily crossings of individuals in either direction in the time of Merneptah.
Anastasi VI illustrates the passage into Egypt of an entire tribe coming down from Edom during a drought. This report is reminiscent of several patriarchal episodes concerning Abraham and Jacob, who were also said to have descended into Egypt because of a drought.
But most exciting for our purpose is Papyrus Anastasi V,11 dating to the end of the XlXth Dynasty (the end of the 13th century), which reports the escape of two slaves or servants from the royal residence at Pi-Ramesses, on the western edge of Wadi Tumilat. The fugitives flee into the Sinai wilderness by way of the fortified border. The author of the letter, a high-ranking Egyptian military commander, had been ordered by the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the runaways were captured and returned to Egypt:
Another matter, to wit: I was sent forth from the broad-halls of the palacelife, prosperity, health!in the third month of the third season, day 9, at the time of evening, following after these two slaves. Now when I reached the enclosure-wall of Tjeku on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10, they told [me] they were saying to the south that they had passed by on the 3rd month of the third season, day 10. (xx 1) [Now] when [I ] reached the fortress, they told me that the scout had come from the desert [saying that] they had passed the walled place north of the Migdol of Seti Mer-ne-Ptahlife, prosperity health!Beloved like Seth.
When my letter reaches you, write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? What people are after them? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them.
[May your health] be good!
Although this could provide another historical snippet of truth, for me the papyri Anastasi actually place the Bible version of Israel’s origins firmly into the category of fiction. Firstly, they show that no one could enter or leave Egypt without permission, and these incidents were all recorded, nothing in the Anastasi corpus mentions anything to do with an ‘Israel’. It is also rather unusual that there is a record of just two slaves escaping from Egypt, yet they failed to notice a group of several million Israelites escaping from Egypt.
The Tell el-Amarna letters also cast great shadows on the biblical narrative as well. These letters (as well as other evidence) inform us that Palestine was merely a province of Egypt when the Conquest attributed to Joshua allegedly happened, yet there is also no mention of Israel in these texts. We are also presented with the absurdity here of the Israelites escaping from Egypt and then battling to settle into another part of Egypt!
I think that the circumstantial evidence, that I have outlined very briefly, is very poor considering what effects the biblical events should have had on surrounding cultures, and the effects that it would have had on the archaeological record. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the debate over Israel’s origins would find fatal flaws with this circumstantial evidence. So I think it is safe to conclude that there was no Exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible, there may have been a mini-Exodus but we have no direct evidence of that either.
I would argue that it is more than likely that the events that make up the enslavement, Exodus, and conquest were legends passed down from generation to generation, they may at one time not have even been interconnected but became ‘cut and pasted’ together by a redactor after the exile.
I really think that the Exodus and Conquest narratives will eventually be recognised by everyone for what they are, ancient folk tales that were designed to give a nation a claim to live in a land that has been fought over by many nations for a very long time. What I find upsetting is that the Israelites probably do have a legitimate claim to the land, not because the Bible says so, but because they originally came from Palestine anyway, and they have been slaughtering their fellow Palestinians because they have taken some absurd ancient fairytales far too seriously.
It is a tragedy what has happened, and is happening in Palestine, and the blame sits squarely at the feet of the Bible.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2