Archaeological data are our primary source for the history and culture of Syria-Palestine in the Late Bronze Age. Supplemented by some textual material, they inform us that population and settlement density declined in the area, a number of important cities were abandoned or shrank in size, and marginal areas were deserted. Southern Transjordan, Galilee, and the central hill country became sparsely populated; the few major cities in these areas, such as Shechem and Jerusalem, lay much farther apart than did lowland cities. The population that did exist was highly heterogeneous, and along with the settled occupants of the city-states it included such disruptive stateless elements as the Apiru and Shasu. Substantial destructions and the partial abandonment of major sites dominate the archaeological record of the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the fifteenth centuries BCE. The remainder of the fifteenth century gives evidence of severe population disruptions, likely triggered by mass deportations carried out by Thutmose III and his successors. Then, in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE, archaeology in Syria-Palestine reveals a heightened Mediterranean trade; evidently superpower confrontations were not permitted to disrupt international commerce. From the Amarna period in the fourteenth century to the end of the thirteenth, archaeological evidence of Egyptian presence in Palestine grows much stronger. Fortified Egyptian citadels have been found in northern Sinai and Palestine; so-called Egyptian residencies are known in a number of cities; and Egyptian or Egyptian-inspired temples appear in several sites, notably Bethshan.
The Late Bronze Age ended with the death or exhaustion of all the major participants in its power struggles. International trade and cosmopolitanism declined sharply, as did the standard of living throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Many of the fortified cities, the centers of urban Canaanite culture, were destroyed. Out of the wreckage of the Late Bronze Age empires arose a changed world marked by a new political pattern. In the early Iron Age, new settlements were smaller, and located in areas only sparsely populated during the Late Bronze Age. A series of small nation-states grounded in ethnic affiliations developed; in southern Canaan, these included Philistia, Israel, Ammon, Moab, and Edom.
Given the omnipresence of the powerful Egyptian empire in Late Bronze Age Palestine, even during the Amarna period, it is difficult to understand Egypt’s minimal role in the biblical account of the Exodus. After the Israelites leave Egypt, the Egyptians disappear from the narrative. If the Exodus occurred in the sixteenth or fifteenth centuries BCE, events prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy would have played out in the middle of Egyptian imperial might. Yet not a trace of Egyptian hegemony appears in the Bible. If, on the other hand, the Exodus occurred in the thirteenth century BCE, just prior to the dissolution of Egyptian power, the absence of Egypt from the Exodus account is understandable.
Conclusion
A study of the Exodus narrative raises many questions about the historicity and historical setting of the Exodus events, but provides few definitive answers. The biblical text has its own inner logic and consistency, largely divorced from the concerns of secular history. Over time, various hands shaped and edited the biblical narrative, combining and blending different sources and literary categories according to theological truths rather than historical imperatives. Historiographic methods alone can never do full justice to the spiritually informed biblical material; conversely, the Bible, never intended to function primarily as a historical document, cannot meet modern canons of historical accuracy and reliability. There is, in fact, remarkably little of proven or provable historical worth or reliability in the biblical Exodus narrative, and no reliable independent witnesses attest to the historicity or date of the Exodus events.
To some, the lack of a secure historical grounding for the biblical Exodus narrative merely reflects its nonhistorical nature. According to this view, there was no historical Exodus and the story is to be interpreted as a legend or myth of origins. To others, still in the majority among scholars, the ultimate historicity of the Exodus narrative is indisputable. The details of the story may have become clouded or obscured through the transmission process, but a historical core is mandated by that major tenet of faith that permeates the Bible: God acts in history.
It is most likely that the Israelite settlement of Palestine occurred in the period beginning about 1200 BCE. Archaeologically, socially, politically, economically, and militarily, the twelfth century makes the most sense as the context of the conquest/settlement and of the judges, even if the historical and archaeological records do not match the biblical exactly. Granting the essential historicity of the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings, and assuming that the conquest/settlement followed directly, then the Exodus itself must have occurred in the thirteenth century BCE, a date that accords with our knowledge of contemporary sociopolitical and settlement patterns in the broader region.
Another alternative may be suggested tentatively, since it involves dislocation of the biblical text. If one posits initially separate Exodus and conquest/settlement traditions, then no longer must the Exodus events occur immediately prior to the conquest/settlement. By this scenario, the descent, sojourn, and Exodus in the biblical narrative could reflect Hyksos occupation and rule over Egypt, the Exodus would date to the sixteenth century BCE, and the Exodus account would have a clear historical core. A fifteenth-century date is also possible, although one must discard adherence to the biblical narrative as the major criterion for evaluation, since separating the Exodus and conquest does violence to the narrative’s theological design. If one assumes more generally that the Exodus reflects an encapsulation and telescoping of Egyptian imperial power, then the events could be dated at any time in the Late Bronze Age.
Some future historical or archaeological discovery may provide concrete, indisputable evidence for the historicity of the biblical Exodus. Until then, however, the details of the biblical Exodus narrative and even its ultimate historicity will continue to be debated. Admittedly, we cannot prove that the Exodus took place; but we also cannot prove that it did not. As with so much else in the Bible, belief or disbelief in the historicity of the Exodus narrative becomes a matter of faith.
Select Bibliography
Baines, John, and Jaromír Málek. Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt. Rev. ed. New York: Facts on File, 2000. A lavishly illustrated, invaluable introduction, with detailed discussions of geography, history, sites, and daily life.
Dothan, Trude, and Moshe Dothan. People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan, 1992. A personal, popular account by two Israeli archaeologists of their decades of research into the Philistines and related archaeological discoveries at a number of important sites.
Frerichs, Ernest S., and Leonard H. Lesko, eds. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Six papers by well-known scholars provide a useful overview of recent thinking on the Exodus and Israelite settlement, with extensive bibliographies.
Friedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit, 1987. A readable and thorough account of the history and development of the Documentary Hypothesis intended for a general audience.
Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. A detailed examination of the biblical account of the Exodus incorporating recent textual, historical, and archaeological scholarship, which concludes that the main points of the narratives are plausible.
Johnstone, William. Exodus. Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1990. An excellent, concise introduction to the book of Exodus outlining major thematic, historical, literary, and religious concerns.
Leonard, Albert, Jr. “Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: The Late Bronze Age.” Biblical Archaeologist 52 (1989): 4—39. A useful summary of Late Bronze Age archaeological finds in the southern Levant correlated with New Kingdom Egyptian history.
Merrillees, Robert S. “Political Conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze
Age.” Biblical Archaeologist 40 (1986): 42–50. A general summary of historical events, with particular emphasis on the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE.
Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael D. Coogan, eds. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. An invaluable one-volume reference resource. See especially the articles by Michael D. Coogan on “Exodus, The” and by John I Durham on “Exodus, The Book of.”
Perevolotsky, Aviram, and Israel Finkelstein. “The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective.” Biblical Archaeology Review 11, no. 4 (July-August 1985): 27–41. An illuminating discussion of the relationship between Exodus traditions and the rise of monasticism in Sinai, as well as of the ecology of the region.
Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. An impressive overview of interrelationships between Egypt and the Levant from prehistory to the early sixth century BCE. The general reader must be cautious, however, as some of the author’s views are disputed.
Sandars, N. K. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean 1250–1150 B.C. Rev. ed. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985. A classic review of the major issues concerning the Sea Peoples and the evidence for understanding their origins and actions.
Stiebing, William H. Out of the Desert? Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1989. A general overview and evaluation of the archaeological and textual evidence for and the main historical theories about the Exodus and conquest.
Time-Life Books. Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile. Alexandria, Va.: Time-Life Books, 1993. A nicely done, well-illustrated popular overview of the life and times of Rameses II, with an excellent bibliography.
CHAPTER THREE
Forging an Identity
The Emergence of Ancient Israel
LAWRENCE E. STAGER
Shortly after 1200 BCE the once great Hittite empire in Anatolia and the Mycenaean empire in mainland Greece—the Trojans and the Achaeans, to use the language of Homeric epic—collapsed, releasing different centrifugal forces. Within the Mycenaean and Hittite worlds an internal process of fragmentation and ruralization began, leading to what archaeologists often call a “dark age.” This in turn triggered mass migrations by sea to the already crowded coastlands of the Levant and Cyprus, sending repercussions into the interior of Canaan as well. The Philistines were one group taking part in these migrations. Not long before, another group had appeared in the land of Canaan, although by a process that is much more disputed. This group called itself Israel, and according to the biblical story it also had arrived from a foreign land—escaping slavery in Egypt, crossing a body of water, and eventually entering Canaan from the east. This chapter focuses on reconstructing the early history of these two new groups, the Philistines and the Israelites, in the land of Canaan, insofar as the textual and archaeological evidence permits such a synthesis.
The Egyptians maintained some control over parts of Canaan until just after the death of Rameses III in 1153 BCE. By the first half of the twelfth century, Canaan had become a virtual mosaic of cultures, including Canaanites, Egyptians, Israelites, and the mysterious “Sea Peoples,” of whom the Philistines are the best known. The settlement process in highland Israel began a generation or two before the Sea Peoples arrived on the coast. An event of such magnitude must have had powerful repercussions on the indigenous Canaanite population as it was being squeezed out of the plains. Some of these displaced inhabitants probably entered the frontier communities located in the highlands east and west of the Rift Valley—the polities of early Israel, Moab, Ammon, and perhaps Edom. The displacement and migration of the tribe of Dan from the central coast to the far north is symptomatic of the ripple effects of this event.
Early Written and Iconographic Sources
The Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah (1213–1203 BCE) provides the earliest nonbiblical reference to ancient Israel, in a short poem appended to a much longer prose account of his self-proclaimed victory over the Libyans and their allies, the Sea Peoples. The victory stela (now usually known as the “Israel Stela”) was erected in 1209 in Merneptah’s funerary temple at Thebes. The relevant part of the victory ode reads:
The princes are prostrate, saying “Shalom” [Peace]!
Not one is raising his head among the Nine Bows.
Now that Libya [Tehenu] has come to ruin,
Hatti is pacified.
The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe;
Ashkelon has been overcome;
Gezer has been captured;
Yanoam is made nonexistent;
Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.
The leading adversaries of the Egyptians—three city-states, or kingdoms, designated by their capitals (Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam), and a people known as Israel—lie within the larger geographical framework of Canaan and Hurru. The latter, bereft of her spouse, has become a “widow” because of Egypt. Ironically, Merneptah’s premature proclamation of the demise of Israel is the first reference in history to this polity, which survived for another six hundred years as a “nation,” first as a confederation of tribes and later as a monarchy (1025–586 BCE).
Within the larger territorial framework of Canaan, the Egyptians use the determinative for a fortified city-state to designate the smaller kingdoms of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam; Israel is correctly distinguished as a rural or tribal entity by the determinative for “people.” In Egyptian the names of foreign countries, provinces, and cities are treated syntactically as feminine. But Israel, with the “people” determinative, is a masculine collective, probably indicating its identity with an eponymous patriarchal ancestor. Clearly the Egyptians regarded Israel as a different kind of polity from the other three, although all were apparently equal adversaries, if not part of an organized anti-Egyptian Canaanite coalition. The campaign against Canaan proceeds from the southwest to the northeast, Ashkelon to Gezer, and then farther north to Yanoam, somewhere near the Sea of Galilee.
Where was this early Israel located, and what was its settlement pattern and social structure? The people determinative can be used of tribally organized pastoralist or agriculturalist groups, with or without territorial boundaries. The Egyptian designation could apply equally well to an unsettled or to a settled group or confederation organized along tribal lines. This early entity must have had sufficient military strength to stand on par with the three other city-states, or kingdoms.
When the rebellion of Canaanites and Israelites against Egypt is placed in broader perspective, it appears that this was just one of many trouble spots that threatened Egyptian control and order in the late thirteenth and early twelfth centuries BCE. The first wave of Sea Peoples (which did not include the Philistines), allied with the Libyans, lapped right up to the shores of Egypt itself during Merneptah’s reign. Three decades later a second wave of Sea Peoples (including the Philistines) threatened the Nile Delta and carved out coastal kingdoms in Canaan at the expense of the Egyptian empire under Rameses III.
In this larger context of disorder in the eastern Mediterranean it is abundantly clear from the Merneptah Stela that Israel was a political-ethnic entity of sufficient importance to the Egyptians to warrant mention alongside the three Canaanite city-states. Indeed, this event of about 1200 BCE was the nearest thing to a real revolution in Canaan—and it was against the Egyptians.
An elegant and precise pictorial complement to the victory hymn of Merneptah has recently been identified in four battle reliefs at Karnak. Formerly attributed to Rameses II but now assigned with confidence to Merneptah, these reliefs depict the three city-states (Ashkelon is mentioned by name in the reliefs) and the “people” Israel.
In the Merneptah reliefs, the Israelites are not depicted as Shasu, but wear the same clothing and have the same hairstyles as the Canaanites, who are defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam. This new ev
idence does not, of course, settle the perennial question concerning the “origins” of Late Bronze Age Israel, that is, whether it consisted predominantly of pastoralists, peasants, new immigrants, or all three. But it does undermine the older notion that the Israelites were only the Shasu known by a new name, who settled down in agricultural villages about 1200 BCE.
Another victory ode, this time from the early Israelites themselves, is preserved in Judges 5 and is known as the Song of Deborah. George Foot Moore considered the poem the “only contemporaneous monument of Hebrew history” before the United Monarchy. It probably dates from the twelfth century BCE. As a celebration of victory over the Canaanite coalition at the battle of Kishon, the poem is a masterpiece of Semitic literature. As a historical document, it is important for the self-portrayal and self-understanding of early Israel that the poet provides.
The Oxford History of the Biblical World Page 16