The Oxford History of the Biblical World (8 page)

Scholars have also observed a number of anachronisms in the stories, another characteristic of oral literature. For example, in Genesis 20 and 26, the king of Gerar is identified as a Philistine ruler. But the Philistines did not occupy the coast of Canaan until the twelfth century
BCE
, long after the events connected with him. Camel caravans are mentioned in Genesis 26 and 37, but camels were probably not used in this way before the beginning of the Iron Age (1200
BCE
), when Israel was already emerging as a nation.

In addition, major elements of the stories can be shown to be artificial by comparing evidence drawn from other parts of the biblical text, as well as from archaeological discoveries. Take, for example, the idea that all of Israel descended from the twelve sons of Jacob. The book of Judges preserves an ancient poem from the late second millennium, usually called the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5.2–31), in a section of which the poet honors those tribes of Israel that joined in battle against a Canaanite coalition and castigates those that held back. Only ten tribes are named, and two of these are not tribes that occur in the canonical list of twelve. Apparently the twelve tribes did not unify as a political entity until the eleventh century, and when a tribe joined the confederation, the tribal name was personalized and the eponym placed in the list of the sons of Jacob/Israel. The other stories about the national origins of Israel’s neighbors (that the Edomites descended from Esau, the Ammonites and Moabites from the offspring of Lot and his two daughters, and so forth) are likewise artificial, and were designed to indicate first-millennium political relationships rather than historical ancestry.

Accurate historical documentation was thus not a defining element in the development and transmission of these stories. Any attempt to make use of this material in reconstructing the prehistory of Israel requires great caution. There are, however, fascinating hints that suggest that genuine memories from the pre- and proto-Israelite periods survive in these stories. For example, the names of the characters in the ancestral narratives seem to be genuinely ancient. They are not names that were popular or characteristic in Israel during the Iron Age (1200–586
BCE
), when the nation took shape and its oral tradition was first written down. Most of Israel’s
personal names incorporate some form of the divine name
Yahweh,
but not a single name in the ancestral stories does. This is particularly significant because two streams of the traditions, the Priestly source and the Elohist, insist that the name
Yahweh
was not known before the time of Moses, that is, before the emergence of Israel. The large number of non-Yahwistic names in the narratives suggests, then, that the ancestral names reflect a genuine pre-Israelite and pre-Yahwistic tradition.

Additionally, some of the stories seem to preserve descriptions of social and legal customs not characteristic of the later period of Israel’s existence. For example, Abraham plants a sacred tamarisk tree at Beer-sheba (Gen. 21.33), and Jacob sets up a standing stone at Bethel (28.18–22); both practices would be prohibited in later Israel (see Exod. 34.13; Deut. 7.5; 12.2–4). Jacob marries both of Laban’s daughters, Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29.16–30), without any issue being made of the situation, even though later Israel forbade marrying two sisters (Lev. 18.18).

One of the most significant elements from the protohistorical period found in these stories is their preservation of aspects of ancestral religion. Although the narratives presuppose that the religion of the ancestors and that of later Israel were the same, several aspects of proto-Israel’s religion as recorded in Genesis differ significantly from Israel’s religion as depicted in the rest of the Bible. We will return to this important subject at the end of this chapter.

But whatever the genuine memories that they preserve, the ancestral stories provide modern historians with few data to reconstruct the historical, cultural, and sociological developments from which eventually the Israelite nation arose. None of the names or events described in Genesis 12–50 appear in any other Near Eastern documents; none of the kings (several of whom are named) or pharaohs (who are never named) can be identified from outside sources. No specific date is provided for any of the characters in the narrative. And, not surprisingly, never do the stories attempt to see the actions of the ancestors from a wider political or cultural perspective. Because of this, a modern account of the history of this region during the second millennium
BCE
virtually never intersects with the stories of the ancestors in Genesis.

To understand the background of Israel’s rise and the cultures that preceded it in the land, we must leave the Bible. Our primary sources instead must be the archaeologists’ discoveries of material remains and inscriptions from sites across the Near East, especially those in Syria-Palestine, These finds have made it possible to reconstruct with some certainty the complicated but fascinating history of this region.

Before examining the history of this region, we should discuss nomenclature briefly. First, the term
Syria-Palestine
designates the area covered by the modern states of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the recently formed Palestinian entity, and Jordan. Although the compound name may seem to suggest that this region existed as a single political and cultural continuum, like Mesopotamia or Egypt, such was not the case. Syria-Palestine was never culturally unified. Rather, it was the home of several distinct, but interrelated, contemporary cultures. The states of northern Syria, for example, developed differently from those on the Mediterranean coast, in southern Syria, and in Palestine. Northern Syria felt the strong influence of Mesopotamian culture and often
looked in that direction for commercial opportunities and political models. This relationship owed largely to northern Syria’s vital economic importance for southern Mesopotamia, which had to import many of its most basic needs, including stone and wood for construction. On the other hand, southern Syria and Palestine, along with the Mediterranean coastal cities, developed differently and in some aspects exhibit Egyptian influence. Each region of Syria-Palestine must be approached individually, so that its own distinctive cultural and political role in the history of the Near East can be delineated.

Second, what do the important geographical and ethnic terms
Canaan
and
Canaanite
mean? They have been used in a number of ways, by both ancient and modern writers, designating various areas and their inhabitants. During the second millennium
BCE
Canaan
was often the name used for western Palestine (the area west of the Jordan River), whose northern boundary fluctuated between southern and central Lebanon. Modern scholars generally use the term in referring to the wider region in Syria-Palestine where a substantial cultural continuum defined as
Canaanite
can be discerned. Encompassing western Palestine, most of Lebanon, and coastal Syria as far north as Ugarit, this more extensive area was never considered a political or cultural unit by its ancient inhabitants. The close relationships among its cultures nevertheless often make this wider designation useful. In this chapter, the term
Canaan
will be used in its ancient sense when it designates a political territory, while
Canaanite
will refer to the culture of the larger region.

As described in the prologue, urban civilization arose in the Near East during the second half of the fourth millennium
BCE
. It appeared first in Mesopotamia and shortly thereafter in Egypt. Syria-Palestine, however, was only peripherally involved in this important development until early in the third millennium, when small fortified cities began to emerge throughout the region.

At present we know more about Palestine during the first half of the third millennium than about Syria, simply because many more southern than northern sites of the period have been excavated and more finds from them have been published. That evidence tells us that Palestine’s population increased in the Early Bronze I period (3300–3100
BCE
), but that not until about 3200 did walled fortifications first appear. During the Early Bronze Age II (3100–2700) and III (2700–2300), Palestine contained several fortified towns ranging in size from 8 to 22 hectares (20 to 55 acres), as well as many small villages scattered throughout the countryside. Early Bronze Age Palestinian civilization reached its climax during the period designated as Early Bronze III, when the population increased, more cities were founded, fortifications reached new levels of size and sophistication, temples and palaces (probably influenced by northern culture) were built, and a northern-oriented trade developed. While commercial links between Egypt and Palestine flourished during the Early Bronze I and II periods, Egypt apparently abandoned its overland route through Palestine early in the Early Bronze III period in favor of the sea route to Byblos in Lebanon, with which it formed a close relationship. The loss of the Egyptian trade may have forced the Palestinian cities to look toward Syria.

So far, no texts (besides a few small Egyptian examples from the Early Bronze I period) have surfaced in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Thus we know little about the political history of this era. Some general conclusions, however, can be drawn. The
presence of substantial temples and palaces in the various towns suggests that Palestine was divided into a number of small city-states, each controlling its adjacent lands and unfortified villages. And although large-scale urbanism did not develop there (as it did in northern Syria), Palestine shared the cultural milieu of the age and was not isolated from it.

In northern Syria, more slender evidence suggests that life in the first half of the third millennium followed the same general pattern. Modest fortified towns developed shortly before 3000, but not major cities like those already flourishing in southern Mesopotamia. Sites that later expanded significantly remained small until 2500
BCE
. For example, Tell Leilan, located on the Upper Habur River plain, during the first half of the third millennium was a town covering no more than 15 hectares (37 acres), a moderate size even by backwater Palestinian standards. Nor does Ebla, an important city located southwest of modern Aleppo, appear to have reached significant size before 2500.

About midway through the millennium, however, a striking change occurred in northern Syria. A number of very large cities suddenly sprang up, cities rivaling in size the major ones of southern Mesopotamia. Tell Leilan expanded from 15 hectares (37 acres) to nearly 100 hectares (247 acres); so did others in the vicinity, such as Tell Hamoukar, 48 kilometers (30 miles) east of Leilan, and Tell Mozan, 45 kilometers (28 miles) west of Leilan. The same expansion occurred toward the east (for example, Tell Taya, 101 hectares [250 acres]), to the west of the Habur (Tell Chuera, 100 hectares [250 acres], and Ebla, 61 hectares [150 acres]), and as far south as Qatna in central Syria (100 hectares [247 acres]). This extraordinary development must be related to the economic situation and suggests that the cities of northern Syria had taken charge of those natural and agricultural resources previously controlled by the cities of southern Mesopotamia and so vital to their interests. This new ascendancy altered the economic and political relationship between Syria and Mesopotamia, creating a new situation that the south apparently did not like—for in it the Syrian cities now were at least equal partners and no longer served as mere conduits through which commodities passed. The economic control that these large cities began to assert in Syria must have been perceived as a threat to Sumer’s international trade. Shortly after 2500
BCE
, there occurred the first known Mesopotamian military campaigns against Subir (the Habur region) and areas farther west, including Armanum and Ebla. In these clashes the rulers of Sumer and Akkad tried to consolidate the control over this area that southern Mesopotamia had once exercised with much greater ease. Rulers such as Eannatum of Lagash, Lugalzaggisi of Uruk, and Sargon and Naram-Sin of Akkad led their armies against the great cities of Syria. The repetitive nature of these invasions implies their lack of enduring success.

Our greatest insight into Syria during the last half of the third millennium
BCE
comes from the ancient city of Ebla, modern Tell Mardikh. Located some 56 kilometers (35 miles) southwest of Aleppo, Ebla is one of only three Syrian cities to have yielded written documents from this period (the others being Mari, discussed below, and Tell Beidar, where seventy tablets were found in 1993).

Tell Mardikh has been under excavation by an Italian team since 1964. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the excavators made a number of significant discoveries relating to Middle Bronze Age Ebla (2000 to 1600
BCE
). But in 1973, Paolo Matthiae,
the director, opened a field along the edge of the acropolis to examine the late-third-millennium stratum of the site, and came down on part of a royal palace. In 1974, 32 cuneiform tablets were found in a room of the palace, all of them economic documents and using the Sumerian script, although occasional words, written syllabically, belonged to a Semitic language. In 1975, a second room with texts (Room 2712) was excavated; it had about 200 tablets, along with some fragments. But it was eclipsed by the discovery of Room 2769, south of the main entry into the palace. Here thousands of tablets and fragments were unearthed in a main archive room. Many had been stored on shelves that had collapsed when the palace was destroyed by fire, so that the tablets lay in rows amid the rubble on the floor. By the end of 1975, there were 17,000 catalogued tablets and fragments, which when put together represented about 2,500 tablets, approximately 2,100 of which were found in the main archive. This number makes Ebla’s one of the largest recovered archives of the third millennium
BCE
from the Near East.