|
from Ha'aretz Magazine,
Friday, October 29, 1999)
Following 70 years of intensive
excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs'
acts are legendary stories, we did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus,
we did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire
of David and Solomon. Those who take an interest have known these facts
for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and doesn't want to hear about
it
This is what archaeologists have
learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were
never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land
in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.
Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and
Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most
a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many
that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite
religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and
not at Mount Sinai.
Most of those who are engaged in
scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and
the history of the Jewish people—and who once went into the field looking
for proof to corroborate the Bible story—now agree that the historic events
relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different
from what that story tells.
What follows is a short account of
the brief history of archaeology, with the emphasis on the crises and the
big bang, so to speak, of the past decade. The critical question of this
archaeological revolution has not yet trickled down into public consciousness,
but it cannot be ignored.
Inventing the Bible Stories
The archaeology of Palestine developed
as a science at a relatively late date, in the late 19th and early 20th
century, in tandem with the archaeology of the imperial cultures of Egypt,
Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome. Those resource-intensive powers were the
first target of the researchers, who were looking for impressive evidence
from the past, usually in the service of the big museums in London, Paris
and Berlin. That stage effectively passed over Palestine, with its fragmented
geographical diversity. The conditions in ancient Palestine were inhospitable
for the development of an extensive kingdom, and certainly no showcase
projects such as the Egyptian shrines or the Mesopotamian palaces could
have been established there. In fact, the archaeology of Palestine was
not engendered at the initiative of museums but arose from religious motives.
The main push behind archaeological
research in Palestine was the country's relationship with the Holy Scriptures.
The first excavators in Jericho and Shechem (Nablus) were biblical researchers
who were looking for the remains of the cities cited in the Bible. Archaeology
assumed momentum with the activity of William Foxwell Albright, who mastered
the archaeology, history and languagess of the Land of Israel and the ancient
Near East. Albright, an American whose father was a priest of Chilean descent,
began excavating in Palestine in the 1920's. His stated approach was that
archaeology was the principal scientific means to refute the critical claims
against the historical veracity of the Bible stories, particularly those
of the Wellhausen school in Germany.
The school of biblical criticism
that developed in Germany beginning in the second half of the 19th century,
of which Julius Wellhausen was a leading figure, challenged the historicity
of the Bible stories and claimed that biblical historiography was formulated,
and in large measure actually 'invented', during the Babylonian exile.
Bible scholars, the Germans in particular, claimed that the history of
the Hebrews, as a consecutive series of events beginning with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and proceeding through the passage to Egypt, the enslavement
and the exodus, and ending with the conquest of the land and the settlement
of the tribes of Israel, was no more than a later reconstruction of events
with a theological purpose.
Albright believed that the Bible
is a historical document, which, although it had gone through several editing
stages, nevertheless basically reflected the ancient reality. He was convinced
that if the ancient remains of Palestine were uncovered, they would furnish
unequivocal proof of the historical truth of the events relating to the
Jewish people in its land.
The biblical archaeology that developed
following Albright and his pupils brought about a series of extensive digs
at the important biblical tells: Megiddo, Lachish, Gezer, Shechem
(Nablus), Jericho, Jerusalem, Ai, Giveon, Beit She'an, Beit Shemesh, Hazor,
Ta'anach and others. The way was straight and clear: every new finding
contributed to the building of a harmonious picture of the past. The archaeologists,
who enthusiastically adopted the biblical approach, set out on a quest
to unearth the 'biblical period': the period of the patriarchs, the Canaanite
cities that were destroyed by the Israelites as they conquered the land,
the boundaries of the 12 tribes, the sites of the settlement period, characterized
by 'settlement pottery', the 'gates of Solomon' at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer,
'Solomon's stables' (or Ahab's), 'King Solomon's mines' at Timna—and there
are some who are still hard at work and have found Mount Sinai (at Mount
Karkoum in the Negev) or Joshua's altar at Mount Ebal.
The Crisis
Slowly, cracks began to appear in
the picture. Paradoxically, a situation was created in which the glut of
findings began to undermine the historical credibility of the biblical
descriptions instead of reinforcing them. A crisis stage is reached when
the theories within the framework of the general thesis are unable to solve
an increasingly large number of anomalies.
The explanations become ponderous
and inelegant, and the pieces do not fit together smoothly. Here are a
few examples of how the harmonious picture collapsed.
• Patriarchal Age: The researchers
found it difficult to reach agreement on which archaeological period matched
the Patriarchal Age. When did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live? When was the
Cave of Machpelah (Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron) bought in order to
serve as the burial place for the patriarchs and the matriarchs? According
to the biblical chronology, Solomon built the Temple 480 years after the
exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). To that we have to add 430 years of the
stay in Egypt (Exodus 12:40) and the vast lifetimes of the patriarchs,
producing a date in the 21st century BCE for Abraham's move to Canaan.
However, no evidence has been unearthed that can sustain this chronology.
Albright argued in the early 1960s in favor of assigning the wanderings
of Abraham to the Middle Bronze Age (22nd -20th centuries BCE). However,
Benjamin Mazar, the father of the Israeli branch of biblical archaeology,
proposed identifying the historic background of the Patriarchal Age a thousand
years later, in the 11th century BCE—which would place it in the 'settlement
period'. Others rejected the historicity of the stories and viewed them
as ancestral legends that were told in the period of the Kingdom of Judea.
In any event, the consensus began to break down.
• The Exodus from Egypt, the
wanderings in the desert and Mount Sinai: The many Egyptian documents that
we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also
silent about the events of the Exodus. Many documents do mention the custom
of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger
and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta. However, this was not a solitary
phenomenon: such events occurred frequently over thousands of years and
were hardly exceptional. Generations of researchers tried to locate Mount
Sinai and the encampments of the tribes in the desert. Despite these intensive
efforts, not even one site has been found that can match the biblical account.
The power of tradition has now led
some researchers to 'discover' Mount Sinai in the northern Hijaz or, as
already mentioned, at Mount Karkoum in the Negev. The central events in
the history of the Israelites are not corroborated in documents external
to the Bible or in archaeological findings. Most historians today agree
that at best, the stay in Egypt and the exodus events occurred among a
few families and that their private story was expanded and 'nationalized'
to fit the needs of theological ideology.
• The conquest: One of the
formative events of the people of Israel in biblical historiography is
the story of how the land was conquered from the Canaanites. Yet extremely
serious difficulties have cropped up precisely in the attempts to locate
the archaeological evidence for this story. Repeated excavations by various
expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described
in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing.
Despite the excavators' efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the
13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed
period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and
of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations
were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho
were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had
been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually
referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by
later redactors.
Biblical scholars suggested a quarter
of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends
and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that
the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times,
the conclusion that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about
the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua was
bolstered.
• The Canaanite cities: The
Bible magnifies the strength and the fortifications of the Canaanite cities
that were conquered by the Israelites: 'great cities with walls sky-high'
(Deuteronomy 9:1). In practice, all the sites that have been uncovered
turned up remains of unfortified settlements, which in most cases consisted
of a few structures or the ruler's palace rather than a genuine city. The
urban culture of Palestine in the Late Bronze Age disintegrated in a process
that lasted hundreds of years and did not stem from military conquest.
Moreover, the biblical description
is unfamiliar with the geopolitical reality in Palestine. Palestine was
under Egyptian rule until the middle of the 12th century BCE. The Egyptians'
administrative centers were located in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She'an. Egyptian
presence has also been discovered in many locations on both sides of the
Jordan River. This striking presence is not mentioned in the biblical account,
and it is clear that it was unknown to the author and his editors. The
archaeological findings blatantly contradict the biblical picture: the
Canaanite cities were not 'great,' were not fortified and did not have
'sky-high walls.' The heroism of the conquerors, the few versus the many
and the assistance of the God who fought for his people are a theological
reconstruction lacking any factual basis.
• Origin of the Israelites:
The conclusions drawn from episodes in the emergence of the people of Israel
in stages, taken together, gave rise to a discussion of the bedrock question:
the identity of the Israelites. If there is no evidence for the exodus
from Egypt and the desert journey, and if the story of the military conquest
of fortified cities has been refuted by archaeology, who, then, were these
Israelites? The archaeological findings did corroborate one important fact:
in the early Iron Age (beginning some time after 1200 BCE), the stage that
is identified with the 'settlement period', hundreds of small settlements
were established in the area of the central hill region of the Land of
Israel, inhabited by farmers who worked the land or raised sheep. If they
did not come from Egypt, what is the origin of these settlers? Israel Finkelstein,
professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, has proposed that these
settlers were the pastoral shepherds who wandered in this hill area throughout
the Late Bronze Age (graves of these people have been found, without settlements).
According to his reconstruction, in the Late Bronze Age (which preceded
the Iron Age) the shepherds maintained a barter economy of meat in exchange
for grains with the inhabitants of the valleys. With the disintegration
of the urban and agricultural system in the lowlands, the nomads were forced
to produce their own grains, and hence the incentive for stable settlements.
The name 'Israel' is mentioned in
a single Egyptian document from the period of Merneptah, king of Egypt,
dating from 1208 BCE: 'Plundered is Canaan with every evil, Ascalon is
taken, Gezer is seized, Yenoam has become as though it never was, Israel
is desolated, its seed is not.' Merneptah refers to the country by its
Canaanite name and mentions several cities
of the kingdom, along with a
non-urban ethnic group. According to this evidence, the term 'Israel' was
given to one of the population groups that resided in Canaan toward the
end of the Late Bronze Age, apparently in the central hill region, in the
area where the Kingdom of Israel would later be established.
A Kingdom With No Name
• The united monarchy: Archaeology
was also the source that brought about a shift regarding the reconstruction
of the reality in the period known as the 'united monarchy' of David and
Solomon. The Bible describes this period as the zenith of the political,
military and economic power of the people of Israel in ancient times. In
the wake of David's conquests, the empire of David and Solomon stretched
from the Euphrates River to Gaza ('For he controlled the whole region west
of the Euphrates, from Tiphsah to Gaza, all the kings west of the Euphrates,'
1 Kings 5:4). The archaeological findings at many sites show that the construction
projects attributed to this period were meager in scope and power.
The three cities of Hazor, Megiddo
and Gezer, which are mentioned among Solomon's construction enterprises,
have been excavated extensively at the appropriate layers. Only about half
of Hazor's upper city was fortified, covering an area of only 30 dunams
(7.5 acres), out of a total area of 700 dunams which was settled in the
Bronze Age. At Gezer there was apparently only a citadel surrounded by
a casemate wall covering a small area, while Megiddo was not fortified
with a wall. The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of
the excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy.
Large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years.
The digs have turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle
Bronze Age and from Iron Age II ( the period of the Kingdom of Judea).
No remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy
(even according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. Given
the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear
that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps
with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital
of an empire as described in the Bible. This small chiefdom is the source
of the title 'Beth David' mentioned in later Aramean and Moabite inscriptions.
The authors of the biblical account knew Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE,
with its wall and the rich culture of which remains have been found in
various parts of the city, and projected this picture back to the age of
the united monarchy. Presumably, Jerusalem acquired its central status
after the destruction of Samaria, its northern rival, in 722 BCE.
The archaeological findings dovetail
well with the conclusions of the critical school of biblical scholarship.
David and Solomon were the rulers of tribal kingdoms that controlled small
areas: the former in Hebron and the latter in Jerusalem. Concurrently,
a separate kingdom began to form in the Samaria hills, which finds expression
in the stories about Saul's kingdom. Israel and Judea were from the outset
two separate, independent kingdoms, and at times were in an adversarial
relationship. Thus, the great united monarchy is an imaginary historiosophic
creation, which was composed during the period of the Kingdom of Judea
at the earliest. Perhaps the most decisive proof of this is that we do
not know the name of this kingdom.
YHWH and his Consort
How many gods, exactly, did Israel
have? Together with the historical and political aspects, there are also
doubts as to the credibility of the information about belief and worship.
The question about the date at which monotheism was adopted by the kingdoms
of Israel and Judea arose with the discovery of inscriptions in ancient
Hebrew that mention a pair of gods: YHWH and his Asherath. At two sites,
Kuntilet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and Khirbet
el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that
mention 'YHWH and his Asherah', 'YHWH Shomron and his Asherah', 'YHWH Teman
and his Asherah'. The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, YHWH and
his consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name. These inscriptions,
from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state
religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea,
following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.
The archaeology of the Land of Israel
is completing a process that amounts to a scientific revolution in its
field. It is ready to confront the findings of biblical scholarship and
of ancient history as an equal discipline. But at the same time, we are
witnessing a fascinating phenomenon in that all this is simply ignored
by the Israeli public. Many of the findings mentioned here have been known
for decades. The professional literature in the spheres of archaeology,
Bible and the history of the Jewish people has addressed them in dozens
of books and hundreds of articles. Even if not all the scholars accept
the individual arguments that inform the examples I have cited, the majority
have adopted their main points. Nevertheless, these revolutionary views
are not penetrating the public consciousness. About a year ago, my colleague,
the historian Prof. Nadav Ne'eman, published an article in the Culture
and Literature section of Ha'aretz entitled 'To Remove the Bible
from the Jewish Bookshelf', but there was no public outcry. Any attempt
to question the reliability of the biblical descriptions is perceived as
an attempt to undermine 'our historic right to the land' and as a shattering
of the myth of the nation that is renewing the ancient Kingdom of Israel.
These symbolic elements constitute such a critical component of the construction
of the Israeli identity that any attempt to call their veracity into question
encounters hostility or silence. It is of some interest that such tendencies
within the Israeli secular society go hand-in-hand with the outlook among
educated Christian groups. I have found a similar hostility in reaction
to lectures I have delivered abroad to groups of Christian Bible lovers,
though what upset them was the challenge to the foundations of their fundamentalist
religious belief. It turns out that part of Israeli society is ready to
recognize the injustice that was done to the Arab inhabitants of the country
and is willing to accept the principle of equal rights for women - but
is not up to adopting the archaeological facts that shatter the biblical
myth. The blow to the mythical foundations of the Israeli identity is apparently
too threatening, and it is more convenient to turn a blind eye. •
Prof. Ze'ev
Herzog teaches in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern
Studies at Tel Aviv University. He took part in the excavations of Hazor
and Megiddo with Yigael Yadin and in the digs at Tel Arad and Tel Be'er
Sheva with Yohanan Aharoni. He has conducted digs at Tel Michal and Tel
Gerisa and has recently begun digging at Tel Yaffo. He is the author of
books on the city gate in Palestine and its neighbors and on two excavations,
and has written a book summing up the archaeology of the ancient city. |