Ancient Israel (the United and Divided Kingdom)
Along with the reemergence of Iron Age hierarchies and complex societies came the restoration
of literacy and recursive institutions throughout the Near East. Written
testimony about the social experiences and evolving world
views of inhabitants survives for a number of societies. While many
Ancient Near Eastern societies labored to reconstitute and to remodel
themselves according to the values of the previous era, the written testimony
of one society, ancient Israel, challenged traditional concepts of political
legitimacy, human rights, and polytheism. Unfortunately, our knowledge of the
history of ancient Israel is based largely on one
source, the Old Testament. From a
historical perspective this massive work contains
strands of information set to writing as early as the reign of King Solomon
(961-922 BC). Most of it was probably compiled, however, during the Babylonian
Captivity (586-539 BC) or later. In its eventual form the Old
Testament contained an historical account of the rise and fall of the United
Kingdom of Israel, a body of law received by Hebrew prophets (material that was
ultimately formulated into a broad based code of ethical requirements or laws
known as the Pentateuch or the Torah), and the poetry and prayers of various
Hebrew prophets. It is unnecessary to stress that the purpose of the Old
Testament was religious. Its contents were assembled first
and foremost to teach the Israelites about the covenant between the god
Yahweh and themselves. According to the Old Testament, Yahweh chose the
Israelites to serve as human agents to his plan of salvation. The Old Testament
stresses that Yahweh was consistently faithful to his promises to the
Israelites and that he expected them to remain faithful in their devotion to
him in return. This much was believed and accepted as faith
by the Israelites. Difficulties arise
when we try to distinguish genuine historical information from matters of
faith, particularly when there is little external information to corroborate
the particulars of the Old Testament narrative. As we have already seen with
respect to the Stele of Merneptah (1204 BC), when
external source material does surface it tends to confirm the general
historical outline, however minimally. Besides that document additional
inscriptions, such as the Mesha and the Tel Dan Stelai, have surfaced in Dibon
(Jordan) and Tel Dan. Each of these is contemporary with the Era of the Divided
Kingdoms (9th century BC)
and each refers to the polities of Judah and Israel as the House of David or
the House of Omri, respectively. These demonstrate
not only the names by which these polities were known
to their neighbors, but also that the two kings, David and Omri,
were historical. Both texts, in fact, recount plundering expeditions conducted
by neighboring kings (Mesha the king of Moab and an
unnamed king of Aram, possibly Hazael) in the
territories of Israel and Judah, respectively. Apart from furnishing external
corroboration for their existence, therefore, the texts provide a decidedly
contrasting perspective to the narrative presented by the Old Testament. In addition, Israel and Judah were both repeatedly mentioned as subjugated territories in
the annals of the Assyrian Empire, including one inscribed relief that portrays
King Jehu of Israel (c. 841-814 BC) bowing
before the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III.
These points need emphasis because they
help to place ancient Israel within the context of wider Iron Age Near Eastern
developments. Insofar as specific details about the history of Israel and Judah
are concerned, we must rely almost exclusively on the narrative of the Old
Testament itself. As one scholar has observed, were it not for that document we
would probably know far more about less celebrated polities such as the kingdom
of Sam’al in eastern Cilicia (where several long
royal inscriptions have survived) than we would about Israel or Judah. Without
the benefit of the Old Testament, in other words, the place in history of
Israel and Judah would be reduced to those of other
tributary states that succumbed to the expansion of early Iron Age empires,
alongside the Aramaeans, the Moabites, the Philistines, and the Edomites. We would know nothing, moreover, about earlier
aspects of the Hebrew narrative, including the eras of the Patriarchs, the
Exodus, or the Wanderings in the Wilderness.
In order to illuminate the historical path
of the ancient Israelites we are compelled to parse the narrative of the Old
Testament carefully. To do this, biblical
historians rely on three competing strategies. Some insist, for example, that
archaeological research in Palestine and the Near East has revealed and will
continue to reveal material and textual evidence to confirm the fundamental
historicity of the Old Testament. Some of this evidence we have alluded to above. Opposing scholars are quick to observe that some of
the emerging archaeological evidence actually contradicts the Old Testament
narrative or is chronologically too imprecise to furnish suitable corroboration
of recorded events. Some sites allegedly conquered by the Hebrews in Canaan,
for example, appear to have been unoccupied at the presumed time of the
invasion (ca. 1200-1100 BC). A second line of reasoning posits, therefore, that
the Old Testament was crafted exclusively as a
religious and literary document. It neither furnishes nor was it ever intended
to furnish accurate historical data prior to the time of the monarchy, at which
time its compilers were sufficiently familiar with events to describe their
state as a historically definable entity.
According to this argument, the Old Testament tells us far more about
the intellectual prism through which later Israelites viewed their origins and crafted their narrative than it does about history per se. A
third perspective holds that some of the themes presented in the Pentateuch –
the primeval history, the stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the revelation
to Moses at Mt. Sinai, and the Wanderings in the Wilderness -- resemble short
credo-like recitations of recollected experience. These were
probably organized within the framework of cult practices perhaps as
early as the time of the Judges (1200-1000 BC). Fundamental as they were to the
recursive process of preserving cultural memory, these themes emphasized a
reiterated belief that Yahweh had worked through history to save this people.
From this perspective the purpose of the narrative was
to reinforce belief in Yahweh’s efficacy by emphasizing the need for sustained
devotion. Apart from certain themes that were expressed in broadest possible
terms – for example, that the Israelites eventually settled in Palestine, that
their tribes became located in particular areas, and that the nascent society
underwent a process of state formation, the Old Testament narrative preserves
little that is historically recoverable or definable. While each of these
perspectives holds merit, the main issues remain confused. Scholarly debate
about these matters has significantly diminished our ability to rely on the Old
Testament as a basis for historical reconstruction. Matters long taken for
granted, such as when and how the Hebrews arrived in Canaan and where they
originated, remain open questions. The Stele of Merneptah
and its associated relief at Karnak indicate, for
example, that the Israelites were a people (not a place) inhabiting Canaan,
dwelling in tents and fighting on camel back ca. 1204 BC. However, they do not
confirm the narrative of a flight from Egypt, the Wanderings in the Wilderness,
or even the tradition that the Israelites invaded Canaan at this time (as
opposed to having resided there all along).
Rather than attempt to sift through the
narrative of the Old Testament for random kernels of historical authenticity,
it seems wiser to explore its value as a general interpretation of Iron Age
social and cultural transition, not only in Israel but
throughout the wider region. In many ways the patterns discernible for the Israelites in the Old
Testament narrative apply equally to neighboring societies such as the
Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, the
Philistines, and the Canaanites. Many of these peoples exhibited common
attributes, including associated languages and social origins
and similar experiences during the process of state formation. In fact, the
emergence of these states was to some degree a product of their immediate
proximity to one another and the inevitable consequence of encroaching
territorial claims. Another factor to consider was their common emergence from
the upheaval provoked during the collapse of the Late Bronze Age. If we recall
that the wider region of Late Bronze Age Canaan was overrun by such diverse
elements as the Sea Peoples, the Habiru, the
Israelites, and the Aramaeans, we should expect to see common patterns of
societal development occurring across the landscape. The archaeological
evidence indicates, for example, that Late Bronze Age Canaanite urban
communities such as Hazor, Lachish, Debir, Bethel, Gezer, and Beth Shean
were destroyed and replaced by a pattern of dispersed rural
settlements. As urban societies
reemerged, it is safe to assume that they did so with populations representing
an amalgam of previously settled and newly arrived inhabitants, again, not
merely in Israel but throughout the region. Given the lack of recursive
institutions during the interim, attempts to explain the complexity of these
settlement origins would have been challenging for any of the emerging
hierarchies. The idealization of so variegated a past required a process of
simplification. However, to hold validity with its intended audience, the Old
Testament narrative also needed a semblance of historical plausibility. In
other words, the reliance on strategies for survival, such as pastoralism,
farming, warfare, and the formation of centralized hierarchies needed to convey
a sense of lived experience, as opposed to literary invention.
When examined from this perspective the
narrative of the Old Testament appears to reflect the challenges endured by a
number of Iron Age societies that transited from pastoral roots to settled
urban existence. Perhaps as a result of the time spent
in the Babylonian Captivity, the compilers of the Old Testament reflected on
this process more than others, closely examining its costs and its benefits. If
so, the value of this reflection lies more in its interpretation of a
fundamental change in lifestyle than in its account of any specific historical
experience. Regardless of the complex origins of the Israelites, in other
words, they as a people witnessed their society’s transformation from a
stateless population of dispersed, tribally based, rural elements to nucleated
urban populations with a centralized hierarchy. They then witnessed the
suppression and defeat of this hierarchy by those of larger, militarily stronger
powers. In this textbook we have referred repeatedly
to the acculturation of newly arrived migrant populations, such as the
Akkadians, the Amorites, the Hurians, the Kassites, the Hittites, and the Mycenaeans.
However, the process by which cultural assimilation was
achieved has never truly been explained. By devising a sense of
trajectory for this experience and by subjecting it to the scrutiny of recalled
memory, the writers of the Old Testament were able to articulate their
experience as a process of gradual enlightenment. Apart from matters of faith, this explanation of the repeated ancient Near Eastern transition
from herding to farming, from rural to urban settlement, from tribal chieftains
to centralized monarchies, is elucidated more effectively by the Old Testament
narrative than by any other source.
Before addressing these
matters, a brief outline of events as recorded by the Old Testament (and other
relevant sources) needs to be presented, despite its
potentially limited historical value. Even the dates must remain approximate.
The cultural significance of the cultural tradition will be
explored in a later section.
Historical Outline – the Era of the Patriarchs, ca.
1850-1000 BC
According to the Old Testament the Hebrews began their history as a tribally
based pastoral element migrating through Mesopotamia and surviving along the
margins of urban societies such as Sumer, Akkadia,
and Babylonia. Around 1850 BC, Abraham led his following from Ur in southern
Mesopotamia to Haran in northern Euphrates valley and then to Hebron in Canaan.
Sometime between 1700 and 1580 BC, Joseph led a migration into Egypt. According
to the Hebrew tradition not all the related tribal
communities relocated to Egypt. The Benjaminites, for
example, claimed to have remained in Canaan throughout the Egyptian experience
and were viewed throughout the historical era as the
keepers of ancestral law. In the period 1290-1224 BC, Moses conducted the
Exodus from Egypt. Based on the testimony furnished by the Stele of Merneptah in 1204 BC, and allowing forty years for the
Wanderings in the Wilderness, the Exodus is presumed
by many to have occurred during the reign of the New Kingdom Egyptian Pharaoh
Ramses II. This would be consistent with other destabilizing developments of the
Late Bronze Age, mentioned above. The Stele of Merneptah
allows for the possibility that the Hebrews (referred to specifically as the
Israelites) invaded Canaan. If so, during the next two centuries their
populations gradually adapted to settled agricultural existence. They lived
side by side with surviving elements of native Canaanite population and in
close proximity to competing, highly militaristic neighbors, such as the
Philistines, the Aramaeans, and the Phoenicians.
The Period of Judges and the Settlement in Canaan
(1200-1000 BC)
Hebrew society at this point
was organized according to a loose confederacy of twelve tribes, ten in the
north, two (Judah, Benjamin) in south. Each tribe was ruled
by tribal warlords referred to as judges or Suffetes. Their
populations remained highly segmentary with each regulating its own affairs.
Within each tribal population there were also sub
tribes and smaller kinship-based communities. The Hebrew tribal confederacy was centered on a commonly held sanctuary (something
referred to in Greek as an amphyctyony, or an
association of neighboring states organized to defend a religious sanctuary).
Although the sanctuary was relocated several times (Shechem,
Bethel, Gilgal, and Shiloh), there was ever only one at any given time. According to the book of Joshua, the confederate tribes first
accepted the cult of Yahweh at Shechem and became
united to each other and to Yahweh by a covenant. Some have interpreted
this to mean that Shechem was where the Yahweh cult was initially conferred on the northern tribes by
those who had migrated out of Egypt. The fact that it had to be conferred or accepted indicates, however, that the cult had
many competitors, most particularly the Phoenician Baal cult, but others as
well, including that of the love goddess Asherah. It
is worth nothing, for example, that the names of several Israelite kings
express variations of the name, Baal.
The Period of Judges was one of deep
internal dissension among the Hebrew tribes. The population was geographically
scattered and lacked anything remotely resembling a unifying central
hierarchy. This weakened the
effectiveness of the Hebrew confederacy and exposed its constituent elements to
attacks by neighboring peoples. Repeated military losses to the Philistines
compelled reluctant tribal leaders to appoint a king named Saul (1020-1000 BC).
According to the Old Testament, there was no precedent for kingship among the
Hebrews, and the decision to create a central hierarchy was
regarded as the option of last resort. Saul’s administration suffered,
accordingly, from a lack of legal-administrative framework. He had to build his
royal hierarchy essentially from scratch. To do this, King Saul constructed a
fortress-palace at Gibeah, he assembled a royal
militia of some 3000 warriors, and he attempted to govern the unruly tribes via
his immediate family members and household attendants. To sustain this
hierarchy, he appears to have depended entirely on gifts and war booty. The
idea of imposing taxes was simply out of the question. As Saul’s military success diminished, his authority was challenged by one of his officers, David of Judah.
Saul eventually turned against the tribal leadership: he purged the standing
priesthood (the one unifying institution prior to the creation of the
monarchy), and otherwise provoked internal dissension and rebellion by his heavy handed demeanor. Although Saul managed to expel David
from Judah, he himself was defeated by the Philistines
at Mt. Gilboa and committed suicide. Resentful
subjects then refused to recognize the legitimacy of his son and successor, Ishbaal, eliminating him as well. Having
already been proclaimed king of Judah, David successfully obtained
recognition of the northern tribes to emerge as the second king of all of Israel
(ca. 1000-960 BC).
The United Kingdom (1000-922 BC)
David quickly defeated the
Philistines and established the United Kingdom (1000-922 BC). As a military
commander of remarkable ability, he conducted successful campaigns along the
entire coastal strip from Gaza to Phoenicia. He ultimately extended his
authority to the Euphrates River in the north and perhaps as far as the Red Sea
to the south. His reign represented the greatest territorial extent of Israel
and was later recalled as a “golden age." David
established his capital at the former Canaanite citadel of Jerusalem, which lay
conveniently on the northern border of Judah, close to the northern tribes.
Using this fortress as his base he successfully
established a strong central authority. Among other things, he relocated the
Yahweh cult to the capital, bringing it into closer association with his regime
to enhance his own legitimacy. He also attempted to distribute the costs of his
administration among the tribes, although most of his funding probably still
arose from war booty and external tribute payments. David was
succeeded by his son King Solomon (961-922 BC). Solomon was not as
active militarily as David, but he was gifted in trade
and diplomacy. He forged alliances with Phoenician kings, Egyptian Pharaohs,
and Arab sheikhs along the Red Sea. Solomon set about the construction of the palace and the temple in
Jerusalem. He also extended the reach of the central hierarchy throughout
Israel. He imposed taxes and established garrisoned fortresses or store cities
at the center of each tax district. Along the frontiers and the trade routes of
the kingdom the remains of fortified complexes (such
as Megiddo) appear to date to this era. Each displays a uniquely designed
six-chambered monumental gateway. To construct his monuments, Solomon resorted
to conscript labor, or the prytany system. Each tribe was compelled to send laborers
one month per year to work for the king. Many scholars believe that Solomon
imposed tax districts only in the north, and that the southern tribes of Judah
and Benjamin were exempted from taxes as well as from
conscript labor. If so, this would have fostered resentment among inhabitants
of the northern tribes. Solomon also relied heavily on dynastic marriages to
secure alliances with neighboring polities (allegedly amassing 700 wives and
200 concubines). Numerous foreign princesses settled in the palace at Jerusalem
along with sizable entourages of priests, attendants, and dignitaries. These
immigrants brought their native cults, particularly the Phoenician Baal cult,
to the emerging temple / palace complex at Jerusalem. The forced labor
requirements and cosmopolitan character of Jerusalem caused dissension among
Israelite citizens, particularly among the northern tribes, and support for the
dynasty soon eroded. At the demise of Solomon this
resentment erupted into open civil warfare.
Depiction of the City of David with the Palace Complex
in the Background; Illustration by John Hill
The Divided Kingdom (922-721 BC)
Within a matter of decades the United Kingdom dissolved into the two separate
kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judah to the south. Open conflict erupted ca.
922 BC when Jeroboam, the former supervisor of Solomon’s forced labor gangs,
challenged the authority of Solomon’s son and successor, Rehoboam,
The latter was attempting to impose arbitrary labor levees on the northern
populations while continuing to exempt the inhabitants of Judah. In this effort
Rehoboam
was supported by a prophet named Ahijah of Shiloh.
Aided by neighboring polities such as Aram (Damascus) and Edom, the northern
tribes broke away to form their own separate kingdom. Jeroboam, who now assumed
the throne as the King of Israel, not only established a new capital in the
north (Samaria) but he installed new sanctuaries for the national cult of
Yahweh at Ethen and Dan, cities that were situated on the southern and northern
borders of his kingdom. These acts essentially
rendered the secession irreversible. Of the two kingdoms
Israel remained the more populous and urban and was more closely connected to
the ruling houses of Phoenicia, Damascus, Moab, and Edom. Judah remained more
rural and more isolated. Its people adhered to the legacy of rule by the
ancestral House of David as well as to its claim to the temple built by Solomon
in Jerusalem. Scholars have argued that the separation was probably inevitable
and that the United Kingdom was a temporary development resulting largely from
the success of David and Solomon. Although conditions in Israel remained more
tumultuous than those in Judah and were punctuated by
repeated instances of rebellion, mutiny, and intrigue, few really questioned
the authority of the king. Kingship remained charismatically based and
dependent on evidence that the king personally enjoyed the support of Yahweh.
Under King Omri (885-874 BC) Israel became a
significant regional power. Omri constructed the
fortifications of Samaria and forged a crucial alliance with the King of Tyre by marrying his son Ahab to the Tyrian princess
Jezebel. Ahab (873-852 BC) continued his father’s work, establishing Israel as
one of the strongest states in the region. He contributed the second largest
contingent of troops and chariots to the military coalition that confronted
(unsuccessfully) the Assyrian forces of King Shalmaneser
III at Kalkar in 853 BC. This and other defeats
combined with Ahab’s encouragement of Tyrian religious practices at Samaria
(particularly the cults of the Phoenician deities El, Baal, and Asherah) incited a kingdom-wide rebellion instigated by the
prophet Elijah. Elijah persuaded Ahab’s general Jehu to overthrow the dynasty,
eliminating the entire family of Omri in the process.
Although set in motion by external developments, this
struggle has often been interpreted as a religious dispute between more
tolerant Israelites (such as the ruling class) who were willing to pursue a
more inclusive form of Yahwism -- one that did not prohibit the worship of
outside gods -- and others like Elijah who insisted on a more exclusive worship
of the Hebrew deity. As we shall see, the pattern of this conflict
appears to have repeatedly colored the perspective of the Old Testament
narrative. From here on the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became vulnerable to
the advances of the expanding extraterritorial states to the east, including
the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, and the Persians. The kingdom of Israel
joined in the repeated rebellions of its northern neighbors against the
Assyrians and was punished with increasing harshness.
The rapid succession of dynastic usurpations that occurred between 745 and 722
BC probably reflects the unhappiness of the Israelite population with the
hierarchy’s acquiescence to Assyrian authority. In 722-721 BC, the Assyrian
Kings Sargon II and Esarhaddon conquered Israel and deported the ruling
hierarchy (the royal family, the nobility, and the warrior elite) to Urartu
(ancient Armenia), replacing them with settlers from other regions. In Urartu the deported Israelites gradually merged with the
native population to become the "lost tribes.” After the collapse of Assyria the Neo-Babylonian Empire extended its authority
into the region and compelled the surviving dynasty in Judah to accept
tributary status. In 601 BC the King of Judah, Jehoiakim, unwisely seized the opportunity of a momentary
Chaldean setback in Egypt to stage a rebellion. When Jehoiakim died suddenly in 597 BC, the burden of resistance suddenly fell to his 17-year-old son, Jehoiachin. King
Nebuchadnezzar quickly took the city, plundered its historic treasures, replaced King Jehoiachin with his uncle Zedekiah, and carried off the
rest of the royal family to Babylon, along with thousands of the kingdom’s
wealthiest residents. Most of the exiles including prophet Ezekiel were settled near Nippur, but the former king was kept at
Babylon itself. As noted earlier, archaeologists have actually recovered
cuneiform tablets listing rations assigned to Jehoiachin
and his family in the excavated remains of that site. Despite this tragic
example, King Zedekiah mounted yet another rebellion in 587 BC. After an
eighteen-month siege, King
Nebuchadnezzar’s forces successfully took the city, destroying its monuments
and deporting King Zedekiah and thousands of other inhabitants to Babylon. This event is traditionally
designated as the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity (586-539 BC),
the period when the canonical Hebrew literature was presumably compiled.
The Restoration of Judah and the Emergence of Judaism
In 538 BC
King Cyrus of Persia released the Babylonian captives and allowed their leaders
to return to Jerusalem to restore Judah as a Persian client state. The process
proved daunting, however, and required repeated Persian assistance over the
next century. When Sheshbazzar (referred to as the
Prince of Judah) was dispatched by Cyrus to serve as
governor of Judah and to rebuild temple of Yahweh, he encountered Jerusalem in
ruins. Squatters were occupying the properties of the exiles, and his returning
exile families lacked the necessary resources to restore the settlement.
Various neighboring peoples such as the Idumaeans and
the Samarians (many of whom were descended from foreigners settled there by the
Assyrians) saw little advantage to the restoration of the polity of Judah in
their midst. Internally, conflict emerged between those Judeans who had not been deported during the Babylonian Captivity and
the returning descendents of the exiles. The latter
tended to regard themselves as the legitimate worshipers of Yahweh and the
non-deported inhabitants as heretics, much like the settlers in Samaria. Little
progress was made during the initial wave of
returnees, accordingly. In 520 BC, Zerubbabel, who was
possibly the grandson of the former King Jehoiachin,
was dispatched by King Darius I of Persia along with the high priest Jeshua to attempt a second program of resettlement.
Although they managed to rebuild the temple, Jerusalem remained a ghost town.
During the reign of King Artaxerxes I (465-424) a third pair of leaders, Ezra
(apparently a Jewish scribe) and Nehemiah (referred to as a cup
bearer to the king) were commissioned to stabilize the province’s social
and religious situation. This time King Artaxerxes gave them the necessary
funds and materials to restore the Yahweh cult, but more importantly
they brought with them a copy of the Pentateuch or Torah. They used this
document to legitimize their program to initiate a renewed covenant with Yahweh
and to impose strict new religious prohibitions. Not only did they demand
strict adherence to biblical law, observance of the Sabbath, and tithing to
support the priests and the temple, but they also prohibited intermarriage
between Jews and non Jews
and required proof of genealogical descent from exiled families as the basis
for citizenship. These prohibitions arose naturally enough from concerns about
the lingering effects of religions syncretism and cultural assimilation that
had occurred among the non-exiles. Many Judeans, for example, had married
non-Hebrew spouses or had abandoned the Hebrew language altogether. The issue
of foreign spouses, particularly among elite families, raised the prospect of
veneration of foreign deities in the temple. Much like the stance taking by
Elijah during his conflict with Ahab and Jezebel, in other words, these leaders
pursued a more exclusive religious policy. While their measures insured the
purity of both the Yahweh cult and the Jewish people, they initiated the
formation of an ethnically and religiously closed society. Scholars point to
the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah as the inception of Judaism per se. The return
from Babylonian Captivity and the restoration of Judah during the Persian Era
also marked a transition from an earlier experience in which Israel was viewed as a Hebrew territorial state to a later phase in
which cultural identity was based exclusively on Jewish religious ideology.
Along with Palestine
Judah and Samaria remained subject to larger empires in the Hellenistic Era
(particularly the Seleucids of Syria). The revolt of the Maccabees ca. 166 BC
brought them some measure of autonomy; however, Judah was
ultimately suppressed by Pompey the Great of Rome in 63 BC. From then on
the history of Judean dealings with the Romans proved decidedly uneven
(friendly relations with Julius Caesar; however, the inhabitants were despised
and terrorized by the Emperor Caligula). Ultimately
the remaining Jewish population in Palestine rebelled against Roman authority
and was crushed violently by the Roman Emperors Vespasian (64-73 AD), and
Hadrian (132-136 AD). Their experience with Roman imperium proved disastrous
and largely unavoidable.
Cultural Analysis of the Hebrew Experience
Regardless of the complexity
of their origins, the cultural narrative of the Hebrew Old Testament clearly
portrayed the people’s heritage as one firmly rooted in pastoralism. As such,
the narrative could apply to the settlement pattern of any number of non-urban
agro-pastoral societies dwelling along the margins of Mesopotamian urban
states. The Old Testament insists that the Hebrews
were essentially a nomadic people at least until the period in which they
conquered and settled in Canaan ca. 1200 BC. It is useful, therefore, to
compare its description to that of other known pastoral societies.
Segmentary or pastoral societies in the Ancient Near East and
the Mediterranean coastal regions exhibited certain recognizable traits. Most
pastoralists did not wander long distances, for example. Most often they employed livestock grazing patterns known as transhumance. Typically
herders rotated their animals between two or three points in a narrowly
conscribed landscape (perhaps 150 km in extent) that combined highland summer
pastures, lowland winter pastures, and springs, watering holes, or oases along
the midland access routes. The most important component to transhumance was
access to highland “top lawn” or pelouse meadows during summer grazing season. Especially in
highlands above the Mediterranean tree line (ca. 1500
m elevation) top lawn grasses furnished the animals with four times the
available nutrient of other grazing landscapes along their route. For this
reason, herders tended to drive their flocks into the mountains as soon as the
snow melted and would keep them there for a considerable part of the year. This
is where herds would be fattened and gleaned before returning
to the coastal and desert lowlands for the winter. Lowland pasturing was frequently furnished by field stubble outside the walls
of cities. Seasonal proximity to cities enabled nomads to exchange livestock
and by-produçts for tools and equipment that they
could not manufacture themselves. Abraham, for example, began his experience
outside the city of Ur. Pastoralism represented an alternative, complementary
component to settled agricultural existence, therefore. It expanded the
economic capacity of urban societies by utilizing the least productive terrain
of the surrounding hinterland. In modern day Afghanistan
some 30% of the population continues to engage in pastoralism in the rugged
terrain of that country.
Living predominantly out of
doors in tents pastoralists were and are more commonly exposed to the elements.
In the Near East this meant exposure to harsh desert
conditions where miscalculations could quickly result in death. The minimal
character of existence and exposure to the elements profoundly influenced the
trajectory of pastoral societies. In contrast with urban lifestyles, pastoral
existence entailed the following:
Nomadic Lifestyle was austere. Constant
movement limited the quantity of material possessions that could
be transported. Many possessions were shared in
common, including wives, as the Old Testament repeatedly demonstrates. From the
perspective of religious observances, nomads lacked the material wealth
necessary to conduct large sacrifices to the gods like neighboring urban
peoples.
Pastoralists were highly autonomous. The fact that nomads had to survive on their own
reduced the need for hierarchy. Shepherds were frequently required to drive the
herds in small bands, separating themselves for days from main camps. From the
perspective of religious observances these individuals
maintained the capacity to pray to their gods as individuals. Pastoral cultures
tended not to have priestly hierarchies, therefore; each person communicated
with divine entities on his or her own. Religious practices needed to be accessible
to all worshipers from one generation to the next. Accordingly, pastoral
societies tended to construct an assemblage of rituals, rules, and laws, common
to the entire community so that the devout could worship individually. As a society ancient Hebrews owned few material possessions, made
minimal sacrifices, had no priestly hierarchy, and worshipped their tribal god,
Yahweh, as individuals, families, or clans. The tendency of their culture to
emphasize individual communication with their deity resulted in more immediate
religious experiences for some, namely, the prophets, those perceived (and perceiving themselves) as divinely
inspired by Yahweh. It is interesting to observe, for example, that neighboring
pastoral peoples such as the Edomites similarly
recognized the importance of prophecy. Something charismatic about prophets,
such as the ability to speaking in tongues, or the experience of epileptic
seizures, convinced their contemporaries that they had been
touched or "blessed" by a deity. Prophets could
not be trained or appointed; rather, they were divinely inspired (revelational) and, therefore, represented the ascendancy of
the individual in pastoral society.
If one can accepts these
basic tenets, then certain fundamental features seem evident about the Hebrews
at the time of the Exodus and the migration into Canaan (again based on the
narrative preserved in the Old Testament). Their society had no tradition for
kingship, colleges of priests, or other urban forms of social hierarchy beyond
clan or tribal leaders who frequently emerged as prophets. During the period of
Judges Israel existed as a loosely composed federation of tribal populations
dominated by patriarchal councils of elders (suffetes) and little more. The
existence of a college of priests purged by King Saul indicates, on the other
hand, that collective hierarchies with recognized tribal authority were
emerging in Hebrew society as it adapted to settled existence, possibly due to
the unifying influence of the amphictyony. Resistance to the institution of kingship
suggests that there was a potential conflict between those persisting in the
austere traditions of pastoralism and those wishing to engage in the material
benefits of more complex society. Historically, pastoralists were highly averse
to the imposition of administrative procedures requiring census counts,
property records, or tax assessments.
As we have seen, ancient Near
Eastern pastoral elements tended to venerate a particular warrior deity that
warded over their tribal elements at the expense of all others. In this instance the Hebrews worshiped Yahweh. This does not mean
that they denied the existence of other gods but rather that they saw their
particular god as a savior deity who protected them against all opponents,
human and divine. As a world view the tendency to
focus on one god at the expense of all others is called henotheism. Parallels can be drawn with the Babylonian emphasis on Marduk and Assyrian emphasis on Assur, not to mention the
patron deities of numerous Mesopotamian city states.
Nevertheless, the Hebrews were able to sustain and to
preserve a tradition, ultimately written, of a renewing covenant with their
patron deity, Yahweh. There was the
covenant of Abraham, that of Isaac, that of Joseph, and that again of Moses.
This tradition enabled them to interpret their experience with Yahweh in
explicitly historical terms. As they articulated it, Yahweh had a reason for
leading them, for protecting them, and for using them to fulfill some larger
purpose from which all humans would ultimately benefit.
Biblical scholars presume
that the oral traditions of the Hebrews were first compiled
and codified during the reign of King Solomon (961-922 BC). As such the Old Testament appears to contain numerous disparate
particles of previous oral communication concerning Yahweh. One such example, the "Decalogue of
J" (Exod. 34-14-28) appears
to reflect a list of Ten Commandments consistent with the requirements of a pastoral
community. Conceivably, this one more closely reflects the laws obtained by
Moses on Mount Sinai.
THE DECALOGUE OF
'J' (10th Cent. BC; Old Testament, Exodus
34.14-28)
1. Thou shall
worship no other god.
2. Thou shall make
thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of
the Passover thou shall keep.
4. The firstling
of an ass thou shall redeem with a lamb; all the first born of thy sons thou
shall redeem.
5. None shall
appear before me empty.
6. Six days thou
shall work, but on the seventh thou shall rest.
7. Thou shall
observe the feast of in-gathering.
8. Thou shall not
offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the
sacrifice of the Passover remain until morning.
9. The firstlings
of thy flocks thou shall bring unto Yahweh, thy God.
10. Thou shall not
seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
The
language of this code would appear to reflect moral requirements conceived for
a pastoral people residing in a wasteland such as the "Wilderness,"
or migrating along the margins of settled agricultural communities such as
Canaan. It exhibits henotheistic tendencies (“Thou shall worship no other god”)
and a profound emphasis on livestock as the economic basis of the community.
Again, this seems very much in keeping with the narrative of the Old Testament.
With the conquest of Canaan, the Hebrews, now referred to as the Israelites, quickly adapted
to settled agricultural existence. A yeoman stock of citizen-soldier-farmers
came to furnish the backbone of King David's army as well as the conscript labor
force used by the king to construct monuments at Jerusalem, not least of which
the palace and the temple. Under David and Solomon Israel experienced eighty
years of powerful centralized authority. Along with territorial expansion
through military conquest, the kings imposed a more sophisticated
administrative and tax system. To assume its place as an emerging Near Eastern
polity, they recruited talented outsiders, including skilled artisans,
diplomats, courtiers, merchants, and financiers. Gradual but substantial social
transformations accompanied urban growth. As the flow chart below indicates, a
stratified society gradually supplanted the traditional tribal system. At the
top stood the king and his court (including wives and concubines, mercenary generals,
and priests), officials dependent on royal favor stood just below these, and
other people engaged in commerce and industry likewise resided in the cities. Presumably,
the largest proportion of the population consisted of ordinary Israelite
peasants farmers who lived in the countryside. Wealthier landowners also
employed slave agricultural labor.
INSERT TABLE 7: Flowchart of the Israelite Hierarchy
|
KING |
|
MERCENARY GENERALS |
FOREIGN PRINCESSES |
PRIESTS |
OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATORS |
ROYAL ATTENDANTS |
PRIESTLY ATTENDANTS |
FOREIGN FINANCIERS |
FOREIGN FINANCIERS |
FOREIGN FINANCIERS |
FOREIGN ARTISANS AND TRADERS |
FOREIGN ARTISANS AND TRADERS |
FOREIGN ARTISANS AND TRADERS |
CITIZEN/SOLDIER/FARMERS |
CITIZEN/SOLDIER/FARMERS |
CITIZEN/SOLDIER/FARMERS |
SLAVES AND NON CITIZENS |
SLAVES AND NON CITIZENS |
SLAVES AND NON CITIZENS |
As
urban centers developed, a considerable non-Israelite population is likely to
have dominated their populations. A foreign princess at the palace was
naturally accompanied by a sizable entourage of priests to venerate her native
cult (the Phoenician Baal cult in particular), not to mention, attendants,
servants, business agents, and courtiers. At the head of David's army stood
mercenary generals such as his good friend Uriah the Hittite, presumably an
émigré from the Neo-Hittite Empire in Cilicia. Numerous Phoenician artisans,
merchants, and traders migrated to Jerusalem to fulfill skilled labor tasks and
to fill voids in the emerging economy, with the inevitable result that they attained
greater affluence and higher social status than did the Israelite inhabitants themselves.
In short, the attempts of Kings David and Solomon to construct an
administrative hierarchy and to elevate the newly founded kingdom of Israel to
the level of neighboring polities inevitably induced social and economic
dislocations that placed ordinary Israelite citizens at a disadvantage. Such problems were not unique to Israel, to be sure, but they were
clearly incorporated into a narrative that portrayed Hebrew society as one
divided between a foreign urban hierarchy and a native rural peasantry.
Conditions changed little during the Era of the Divided Kingdom. Both states,
Israel and Judah, experienced prosperity until the late 8th century
BC, although the gulf between rich and poor continued to widen with many
independent farmers losing their land and falling into agricultural dependency.
The literature of the reforming prophets refers repeatedly to economic
difficulties characteristic of subsistence farmers trapped at the bottom of a
transforming economy, such as land shortages, indebtedness (including debt
bondage), and the abandonment of the poor. Indebtedness and heavy mortgages on
land resulted in insolvency, not to mention, legal proceedings initiated by
wealthy creditors (particularly foreign moneylenders) against overburdened
farmers. The resentment felt by Israelite citizens against these proceedings is revealed by the complaints preserved in Isaiah and
elsewhere of "corrupt judgments" rendered by judges acting in the
interest of the hierarchy. In the period of the United and Divided Kingdoms, in
other words, a formerly pastoral society that viewed its destiny inextricably
linked to the implementation of the will of its god Yahweh confronted head on the
inevitable consequences of complex societies, including widening social
disparities, tax burdens, and economic inequality.
To make matters worse, the populace
regarded the kings themselves as the agents most responsible for having
recruited these foreigners and for having elevated them to positions of
importance. Since the hierarchy was essentially a product of the kings’ own
devices, it effectively eliminated them as credible arbiters in disputes
concerned with social justice or judicial redress. The pressures of so many
converging forces culminated in a civil war at the end of Solomon's reign and
in the dissolution of the United Kingdom into Israel to the North and Judah to
the South. However, the process did not end there because the ruling dynasties
of both realms continued to pursue Near Eastern models of urban growth and
centralized political hierarchy. Redress by Israelite citizens was obtained by turning instead to the leadership of the reforming prophets.
As we noted earlier, most of the prophets
were revelationally inspired individuals. Amos, ca.
760 BC, was allegedly a Judean sheep farmer who moved to Israel; Hosea, ca.
740, was a baker likewise dwelling in Israel. Since the moral inspiration of
the prophets was unquestionable and their role in Hebrew society dated back to
its beginnings, their legitimacy was unassailable even before the kings.
Visionaries, such as Elijah and Elisha (ca. 860 BC), Amos and Hosea (ca. 760 BC),
and Isaiah,
elevated the complaints of Hebrew citizens to the level of religious redress.
They pointed to the introduction of a monetary economy and to the recruitment
of a foreign hierarchy as proof that the kings had deviated from the ancestral
religion and the moral code of Yahweh. While this was certainly true, one could
legitimately question the relevancy of the code mentioned above (the Decalogue of J) to contemporary needs of
settled agricultural society in the Divided Kingdom. By focusing rather on the
moral implications of the Hebrew covenant, the reforming prophets were able to
adapt its expression to contemporary needs. This is indicated
by the Ten Commandments recorded in their more familiar form in Exod. 20.1-17 and Deut. 5.6-21 (presumably from the eighth to sixth centuries BC). Certain features to the more familiar code, such as property
holding (houses), bearing false witness (as in testimony in lawsuits), and
swearing oaths in vain (again as in testimony in legal proceedings) had little
relevance to a pastoral society residing in a remote wasteland and appear much
more to reflect the challenges confronting the Israelites at the time of the
urbanized kingdoms.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
1. Thou shalt have no other
gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image
3. Thou shalt not lift up the name of Yahweh in vain (i.e., thou shalt not
swear to a lie).
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt do no murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's house.
As fresh components to the
narrative, therefore, the prophets expressed the heightened pattern of
alienation that emerged between the foreign dominated hierarchies of the cities
and the rural peasantry in the countryside. In the process, they redefined the
moral requirements of the Yahweh cult insofar as these pertained to settled
agricultural existence. The reforming prophets decried the social inequities
and institutional corruption of the kingdoms by interpreting these as offences
against Yahweh. They challenged the religious tolerance of the foreign
dominated hierarchy by insisting on exclusive worship of Yahweh. Even at the
time of the Divided Kingdoms, this idea was not as popular as one might think.
Epigraphical data demonstrates, for example, that many inhabitants of Israel
and Judah continued to venerate Yahweh in henotheistic terms, including the
pursuit of cult practices that associated Yahweh and Asherah
as divine consorts. In the Old Testament narrative the
reforming prophets assumed an important role, therefore, in crystallizing
religious thought in monotheistic terms. Since they lived and preached in an
era in which the two kingdoms grew increasingly vulnerable to the threats of
neighboring empires, the prophets employed the general sense of foreboding and
anxiety with the kingdoms’ declining political and military status as proof of
the society’s religious fall from grace. The narrative thus articulated a
history of a pastoral society whose experience underwent the long trajectory
from the margins of urban society to the center, from periphery to core. The
Hebrews’ future was insured by a covenant with Yahweh
so long as their veneration remained exclusive. By accepting this covenant, the
Israelites’ fortunes advanced and enabled them to become a world power.
However, Yahweh’s favor declined as the people adapted to settled urban
existence and experienced the various complexities this transition required –
cultural and religious diversity, social stratification, political and social
inequality, monetarized commercial practices, and the emergence of rich and
poor. Having lost the favor of their deity, the Hebrews became vulnerable to
conquest by the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonians, and the Persians. The reforming
prophets not only predicted these calamities but they reinterpreted the moral
code to make it applicable to the new conditions of settled urban existence.
They insisted that the calamities themselves were the product of a failure in
religious behavior.
In the post-exilic period,
the role and influence of Israelite prophets declined. Given the existence of a
written testament bearing the word of Yahweh, the inhabitants of the restored
kingdom of Judah no longer expected Yahweh to speak directly to them as in the
past. Instead, the roots of a rabbinical tradition that reinterpreted the law and
applied it to new situations came into being. Eschatological belief in a final
judgment likewise appears to have germinated among Jews who remained in
Babylon. In this regard, they were probably influenced
by exposure to Zoroastrian concepts that appeared to answer basic questions
raised by monotheism. New strains of thought argued that a fallen angel similar
to Ahriman was responsible for all evil and injustice in the universe. The
divine forces of good and evil would confront each other in a cosmic battle to be won by a Messiah at the end of time. His victory would
lead to the resurrection of the dead and a final judgment for all time. These
ideas first appeared in Jewish writings in Hellenistic era but they most
probably were introduced during the Babylonian
Captivity. For many centuries they were accepted by a small
minority. However, following the success of Maccabees the eschatological
view became increasingly popular in Judaism and profoundly influenced both
Christianity and Islam.
Despite the limitations of
the Old Testament as a historical source, three clearly and consistently
articulated concepts emerge from this distillation of the Hebrew experience.
The first of these is monotheism. As
the reforming prophets railed against the kings and their foreign hierarchies,
they increasingly came to express their concerns in monotheistic terms. In
doing so they drew on a cultural tradition of nomad austerity, of purity of
religious observances, and hence of an indifference to and ultimately a
rejection of materialism and polytheistic religious practices. By doing so at the expense of urban social
hierarchies, they reasserted the primacy of the individual in the religious,
moral, and social order. Equally important, the expressions recorded in the
narrative of the Old Testament articulated a resounding denial of the divine right of kings. Ancient Israel represents the
first culture on record to articulate such a opinion. Again, it was easier for the Israelites to
assert this principle because their segmentary,
tribally based origins lacked a tradition for kingship. Since kingship came
relatively late in the development of Israelite society, it lacked the
legitimacy of ancestral institutions such as prophecy. In addition, Israel was
a relatively small kingdom that placed a higher premium on preserving the
security of its property-holding citizens. These citizens were able to rebel
against the practice of forced labor in ways not possible elsewhere. When the
kings attempted to secure their place in wider Near Eastern society by
establishing foreign hierarchies, they furnished the reforming prophets with a
xenophobic argument to challenge the authority of the social hierarchy in the
interest of ordinary citizens. Accordingly, the narrative of the Old Testament
articulated for the first time the principle of the dignity of humankind. Put simply, citizens of a given society
possessed rights that were inalienable, even before the authority of a king.
The problems incumbent to the emergence of
subsistence agricultural society -- land and debts, corrupt judicial
proceedings, forced labor, care for the less fortunate, all reflect a wider
demand for social reform as articulated by the reforming prophets. By
confronting these developments as religious matters, and more specifically as
the betrayal of the ancestral covenant with Yahweh, the reforming prophets were
able to reassert authority in Israel, not only with respect to these questions,
but also with respect to religious reforms that rejected idolatry, sacrifice,
and polytheism. In their place, they proposed a monotheistic moral order based
ultimately in the responsibility of the
individual. In this respect, they assumed their place alongside
Zoroastrianism, Greek Rational Thought, Buddhism, and Confucianism as innovators
of an Axial Age.