An Alternative View of Biblical History, Part 1 - Israelite Origins - The Deuteronomic reformation

More from my private notes

The following are my notes on things I learned from religious studies classes, books, and LDS apologetics. FYI, apparently this is too long to go through email, so if you get it in your inbox you may need to read it online to see the entire thing.

Please note that I am not promoting this as a true or correct view of history. Some views put forward are speculative, and I do not theologically endorse them. The views presented below most assuredly do not represent the beliefs or views of the Orthodox Church. I alone am responsible for this collection of material.

Context

The material put together here was done over time in a way that fits with and supports traditional LDS theology via an alternative view of biblical history. Some of this comes from my religious studies classes (including a Mormonism class), and some comes from LDS Scholars and other non-LDS Scholars like DR. Margaret Barker and DR. Francesca Stavrakopoulou (an atheist biblical scholar who did a series for the BBC years back called The Bible’s Buried Secrets,) and a book called The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright (which is a good and very accessible, non-technical, overview of the current state of religious studies thinking for the general public.)

There are no doubt some controversial, even speculative, ideas and conclusions from these sources in the following sets of information. Some of it is now supported by archaeological evidence and much more of it is now mainstream than it was when I first started delving into it. I do think that at least some of these ideas help make the Bible make more sense, and it certainly allows LDS Scripture / theology to claim an ancient antecedent - which is why LDS scholars have more or less supported this type of work.

Disclaimer and Setting some Context

The ideas below are not taught or endorsed by the official Orthodox or LDS Church’s in any way. I’m sure both would consider much of it erroneous if not Heretical. At the time I compiled this (2000-2008-ish), this was not a mainstream consensus—although there seems to be a greater acceptance of some of these views in the larger Religious Studies world—as these ideas seem to be largely supported by archaeology, particularly finds from Ugarit.

If you have not taken Religious Studies at a university then it should be said that Religious Studies scholars tend to treat the bible as an unreliable narrator of history due to manipulation and alteration over time for socio-political purposes, along with an understanding that cultural exchange between different groups of people in contact with each other invariably creates a transmission of ideas that may be adopted and syncretized into belief systems, or reacted to in a hostile manner. Religious Studies professionals (as opposed to bible studies scholars) will generally try to square textual, cultural, historical, and archaeological evidence together to form a picture of what likely “really” happened. It is out of this mindset that you get pursuits like trying to find the “historical” Jesus. i.e. how to create a secular, Supra-mundane, non-supernatural, picture and explanation of Christ.

This information is being published for General Interest. It has taken much time to do as some of the links to sources I had before no longer exist on the internet, and much information has been updated in the last 20 years.Please note that I have not gone through to update everything so some things may be outdated.

Origins of Israel and regional norms.

• The name Israel is composed of the verb (sara) and the noun (El.) El here means god. Sara means to strive or persevere. So the name Israel or Isra-El means to strive with God.

• The original kingdom of Israel was a Cannanite kingdom with a northern capital based at Samaria. They worship the “most-high” God El (yes the El that is in the name Isra-EL) long before Yahweh appears on the scene. The earliest list of Israel’s tribes does not include the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin). Israel appears to have been a largely Caananite civilization - at least, that seems to be congruent with the archaeological evidence. This civilization and it’s religion was part of and related to the religious and cultural milieu that was part of the larger near eastern region.

• In the near East during the late Bronze Age/early iron age, each city-state had their own patron God. A State God is responsible for the care and well-being of the people in that State. If the God is happy, things go well, if the God is unhappy, disaster strikes. In the mindset of people at the time it is likely that they would have viewed any changes in their circumstances in these terms.

• The earliest evidence of the name Israel is an Egyptian stele from 1219 BCE. It refers to a people, not a place, and does not mention Yahweh. The reference is likely to a group of people in northern Canaan, probably the highlands of Ephraim.

Three models have been put forth to explain the appearance of Israel in the western highlands of the southern Levant: conquest (i.e. the model put forth in the old-testament - which has been completely discredited), pastoral sedentarization, and social revolt. All of these models attempt to reconcile archaeological data with the textual evidence; but a fourth model, which takes into account the dissolution of the Egyptian empire at the end of the Late Bronze Age, provides a more satisfying explanation for what must have been a widespread, complex, and lengthy process. Even so, the various events and forces that gave rise to formative Israel are far from the straightforward history that many assume in the Bible. What we find instead in the Bible is a constructed history whereby later Israel both remembered [i.e. invented] and [conveniently] forgot essential dimensions of itself. In doing so, Israel was able to enshrine and reshape its past to create official memories of a culture and formulate a new vision for the future. It is generally acknowledged that the evidence for an historical Exodus as described in the Hebrew Bible is meager [i.e. does not exist.] While this does not exclude the possibility of genuine memories of Asiatic slaves escaping from Ramesside Egypt, in its present form, the Exodus account is part of an extensive foundation narrative whose purpose is to explain the origins of the Israelite nation extending all the way back to creation. Given the theological shape of this narrative, it is important to look more broadly if we want to better understand the historical circumstances that gave rise to Israel in the central hill country of “the western levant.”

Robert Mullins - Azusa Pacific University - The Emergence of Israel in Retrospect

• A current line of thinking posits that around 1000 BCE a group of nomadic peoples called the Shasu (Judah and Benjamin) and the Israelite (Caananite kingdom - i.e. the other 10 tribes) peoples merge to form the early Israelite kingdom of the Bible. This is essentially a Caananite kingdom - with the Canaanite center in Samaria and the Shasu center at Jerusalem. They each have different beliefs, religions and cultures, but over time, some elements become syncretic (i.e. beliefs from one merge into the beliefs of the other.)

• From day one, there are ongoing political, cultural, and religious tensions between the north and the south. I get the sense that the southern tribes were very racist and intolerant towards “outsiders” (i.e., extremely xenophobic.) including their new countrymen.

• The capital of the north is Samaria (i.e. they are the Samaritans), and the capital of the Shasu South is Jerusalem. The Shasu were migrants who settled in previously abandoned southern lands of the Caananite kingdom (likely abandoned due to famine or war.) They were likely initially viewed as outsiders (maybe even squatters) and it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that they were viewed with distrust or hostility, given that they had a different culture and worshipped a different God, YHWH. The Egyptians in their records generally considered the Shasu to be troublemakers and raiders and typically repelled or expelled them.

  • If you follow this line of reasoning, Israelites are Canaanites. The later rhetoric against Canaanites comes from ‘southern’ Israel, i.e. the very xenophobic Shasu tribes, not the Ephraimic tribes of the north. A critical reading even of the Old Testament makes it clear that the two population centers were rival kingdoms rather than a single unified kingdom, particularly after they each sided with different regional powers to conquer/destroy the other. The North’s alliance with the Assyrians may have been seen as a way for the Israelites to finally rid themselves of what they considered the Southern pesky interlopers and troublemakers. While the South’s alliance with Egypt was probably motivated by a desire to conqueror the entire land and northern kingdom for themselves - given that they would not have had the strength to do so themselves as their population numbers seem to have been spare.

• Within this near eastern culture there were some political and social norms and customs that we see the effects of in the Bible. For any political or economic alliance made with another kingdom it was customary for an exchange of daughters or other women as wives, and exchange of religious worship. This means that the foreign kingdom (with which you have formed an alliance) would build a temple or place of worship of their god within your country and you would have done the same for you God in the other kingdom’s capital.

  • Thus foreign wives are accepted and places of worship are created. The intention being to cement the alliance with familiar, cultural and religious ties between the two kingdoms.

Background Material from Archaeology in Egypt

• There are separate texts that mention Yahweh, which also refers to a place in southern Canaan, and it is strictly in the context of the land of the Shasu.

  • The Shasu were nomads who had a history of antagonism with Egypt. One ancient Egyptian relief even shows people labeled as Shasu as being brought in as captives by Egyptian soldiers. 

  • The term Shasu occurs fairly frequently among ancient Egyptian designations for types of foreign peoples in the New Kingdom Period (1550–1070 BC). It is generally accepted that the term Shasu means nomads or Bedouin people, referring primarily to the nomadic proto-Semitic peoples of what we would today call the areas of Syria-Palestine¹. There are two hieroglyphic references in Egyptian New Kingdom Period texts to an area called "the land of the Shasu of Yahweh." Except for the Old Testament, these are the oldest references found in any ancient texts to the God Yahweh.

  • The "Shasu of Yahweh" inscription in Egypt refers to a nomadic group who worshipped a God named Yahweh. This group was likely not the Israelites but rather another group of nomads in the region who also worshipped a God called YHWH. If they had been a reference to a people from an established kingdom they would not have been called Shasu and the reference would be phrased differently as the Egyptians had different language for official neighbors.

  • The general consensus appears to be that "Yhw" is the Hebrew God Yahweh, possibly vocalized as "Yaho" or "Yehue". Interestingly, when the Elephantine papyri were discovered, scholars found many references to the "Temple of Yahu" and there is no doubt that this temple was dedicated to Yahweh by Jewish mercenaries² in the pay of the Persians.³

  • One picture is that the Shasu passed through three stages in their settling of southern Canaan. In the first stage they were still a nomadic people, in the second stage they were less nomadic but still rural and pastoral, only in the third stage did they become a fully-fledge state. If we are correct in suggesting that the Exodus took place at the end of the Early Bronze Age, then the first stage of the Middle Bronze shows clear evidence that the cities [in this area] were deserted and the people were nomads, occasionally camping among the ruins of former Canaanite cities. Even when the Shasu had settled down in Canaan proper, some of the Canaanite peoples residing on the east side of the Jordan were likely still largely nomadic. That area was good grazing land, and disputes over this land likely caused great conflict.

  • By 1000 BCE the Shasu and Israelite peoples attempt to merge to form the Israelite kingdom, but there is constant political, cultural and religious tension between the north and the south. I get the sense that the southern tribes (Judah, Benjamin) were very intolerant towards the northerners. The capital of the north is Samaria (i.e. they are the Samaritans - yes the same ones depicted in the New Testament - the way they are hated by the Jews speaks volumes about their relationship.) The capital of the Shasu in the South is Jerusalem. We see this tension between the two groups play out in the Old Testament

    • If you follow this line of reasoning, the Israelites are Canaanites. The later rhetoric against Canaanites comes from ‘southern’ Israel, i.e. the very xenophobic Shasu tribes, not the Ephraimic tribes of the north. The dominant Old Testament narrative seems to have been a result of a creative writing or rewriting of scripture.

    • Note that at this time the capital city of Israel is Samaria, not Jerusalem.

    • Being that the Old Testament is written by the Jews, it is very revisionist, but you also see a pattern. All of the Northern Kings are frequently described as being Wicked - or unremarkable. All of the Southern Kings are wonderful - even if they did the same things the Northern Kings were accused of doing.

Below is the Conclusion from a paper by Rober Mullins, PhD dept. of Biblical and Religious Studies, at APU. Robert A. Mullins, PhD spent many years in Israel. His specialties include the fields of archaeology, history, geography, and biblical studies to better understand the world of the Ancient Near East. Mullins has worked on several archaeological excavations, most notably at Beth-Shean (1 Samuel 31:10; 1 Kings 4:12) and Tel Rehov in the Jordan Valley. His publications over the years include entries in the Anchor Bible Dictionary and Encyclopedia Judaica. His latest work is Atlas of the Biblical World (Fortress Press), coauthored with Mark V. Hoffmann. Other publications include “The Late Bronze Age” with Eli Yannai in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors (Israel Exploration Society, 2015) and Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Volume II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R (Israel Exploration Society, 2008), written and coedited with project director Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mullins is on the Board of Trustees for the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), and on the editorial board of Antiguo Oriente, published by the Catholic University of Argentina. His public speaking engagements have included seminars for the Biblical Archaeology Society and for the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. As part of his passion to excite students about the world of the Bible, Mullins has led student trips to Israel, and is codirecting the archaeological excavations of Abel Beth Maacah, a biblical site located 4.5 miles west of Tel Dan and 1.2 miles south of Metulla on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon.

There is a complex interaction of events taking place during the Late Bronze (~1200BC) to Iron I transition. Perhaps the Hebrew Bible retained some of this memory; not only by those who relocated from the lowlands into the highlands, but also by outsiders from Transjordan who came into conflict with the indigenous population. The latter may be memorialized in the book of Joshua and in the competing religious visions of the god Yahweh, who will take over the land from the indigenous population who worshipped El, Baal and Astarte (Ashera). The former may be echoed in the book of Judges, in a person like Gideon from the tribe of Manasseh, who is cast as a Yahwist, but had no problem with an altar to Baal alongside an Asherah pole (Judg 6:25). When Gideon destroys the cultic furniture in response to Yahweh’s command, the villagers are so angry that they are ready to kill him (Judges 6:28–30). Perhaps these beliefs were held so deeply because the religion of Canaan was the only religion they knew. Later on, during the Davidic monarchy, when Yahwistic names (rather than those of El or Baal) appear more commonly as a theophoric element, Yahwism gains ascendency. Still, many Israelites never abandoned their traditional beliefs or had any difficulty integrating them with a belief in Yahweh.

At some point it became important for Yahwists to distinguish themselves from the traditional religion of Canaan. Perhaps this is why Israel eventually “forgot” the Canaanite part of its identity. This process began in the pre-exilic period but was not fully realized until post-exilic times when Jewish theologians “reworked” [Lee - i.e. creatively edited out] the earlier traditions. As a result, they were able to create “official memories” of the past [Lee - i.e. rewrite the past in a way that suited their ideological, religious and political goals. Propaganda is seems was alive and well.] and to articulate a new vision for the future.

The_Emergence_of_Israel_in_Retrospect - Dr. Robert A. Mullins

(AFAIK - this is becoming or has become the consensus view of the origins of Israel. i.e. notes in italics above are my insertions.)

• http://diggings.co.uk/pages/rese/arts/other/2011/shasu.htm