3.1 Is Jeremiah present or absent?
3.5.2.1 A new paradigm
The new model of the 'new archaeology,3 of the 1970's and 1980's, proposes that Israel gradually emerged through a process of internal and peaceful transformation. This theory
ISee Dever 1991:108 and 1987:216.
2Gnuse 1997: 17 and 22inhis work "No other gods: Emergent monotheism in Israel. "
3Dever's description of the movement in 1987:219.
is based on recent archeological findings of significant population growth and peaceful expansion on the highlands of Palestine and a simultaneous decline in the population of lowland Canaanite cities. Archaeological discoveries also indicated "the continuity between lowland urban Canaanite and highland village Israelite culture, especially in regard to pottery, farming techniques, tools and building construction" (Gnuse 1997:32).
On this basis a new paradigm emerged, suggesting that "in some way Canaanites gradually evolved into Israelites as social and political conditions changed at the beginning of the Iron Age" (P33). However, the causes of the process of peaceful transformation are presented in a variety of proposals by the various researchers, which can be divided into four categories (following Gnuse 1997:33ff).
3.5.2.1.1 Peaceful Withdrawal
A first group of scholars suggests a peaceful withdrawal into the highlands due to: conflict in the lowland valleys (Callaway); severe economic and social pressure (Lenski);
agricultural intensification and diversification (Hopkins); an urban collapse of Canaanite cities (Frick); violent perpetration by Egyptians and sea peoples (Ahlstrom and Meyers), and to evade taxation (Soggin and Romer). According to these theories, no settlement of outsiders occurred, only movements of indigenous people from the valleys and the fringes of the desert to the highlands took place (Gnuse 1997:33-38).
3.5.2.1.2 Internal Nomadism
A second group of scholars poses a model of internal nomadic settlement suggesting that Israel: (1) was an ethnically united group long before the conquest, who moved between cities and urban areas and eventually settled to farming (de Geus); (2) originated from a group who migrated from Egypt, 'culture-land nomads', who settled in the plains (Fritz);
(3) was initially a group of 'enclosed nomads' with a distinct identity, who moved into the highlands due to wars and subsequently expanded as pastoralists, and settled down during the thirteenth century which eventually led to the formation of a state (Finkelstein). Again, these theories suggest peaceful settlement and extensive contact and a symbiosis with the Canaanites (Gnuse 1997:38-44).
3.5.2.1.3 Peaceful Transition or Transformation
The theory of peaceful transition or transformation poses the view that Israel emerged from the expansion of the indigenous highland population. A lower mortality rate due to improved agricultural conditions and natural population growth facilitated the expansion.
Lemche,I classified as a 'late dater' (Scheffler 1998:522), is an outspoken proponent of this theory. His statements entail that Israel never had a distinct identity until after the Exile. Biblical texts, which are documents allegedly dating from the Hellenistic period, invented a fictional history and identity of Israel for theological purposes and therefore pre-exilic people were unaware of any exodus or conquest traditions.
According to his VIew, the so-called Canaanites gradually transformed to so-called Israelites due to socio-economic factors. Furthermore, a history of Israel cannot be constructed from Biblical sources due to their unreliability. A true picture can and must be presented only through archaeological and critical historical methods.
Other proposals in support of the theory of peaceful transition indicate the following contributing factors: climatic changes such as drought in the lowlands and favourable agricultural conditions in the highlands stimulated the latter's population increase (Stiebing); violent conflict and advanced weapons and fighting skills led to a transition of power to the highland society (Drews), and a social-historical process over a period of more than two millennia in which the collapse of the trade routes played a significant and final role (Coote and Whitelam, and also Albertz).2
All the above-mentioned theories has in common the fact that Israel settled and emerged through an internal, gradual and peaceful process by means of social and agricultural development. This caused a transition of power to the highlands community from which Israel eventually emerged.
1As discussed by Gnuse 1997:45ff. For a more detailed and critical discussion of Lemche's viewpoint see Thompson 1992:129-138. Thiellabelled Dever's version as the new 'evolutionary model'. Albertz calls it a 'digression model' (Gnuse 1997:47).
2See Gnuse 1997:47-52 for more details.
3.5.2.1.4 Peaceful Amalgamation or Synthesis
Since the early nineties a new variant of these models was posed by scholars suggesting a combined process of peaceful withdrawal, internal nomadism and peaceful transition together with a complex synthesis or amalgamation of several different groups of people which eventually produced Israel.
Halpern (1983:47ff) was the first to pose an amalgamation of groups for the origin of Israel. The highland community had to absorb some bandit elements and outsider groups which "included a core group from Egypt with the memory of an exodus experience"
bringing with them the name of the deity known as Yahweh. Larger groups from Syria, responsible for the creation of the name Israel, also moved in and brought with them the customs of circumcision and the rejection of eating pork. A confederacy, conscious of their distinct identity, and drawn together by some mutual military activities and economic concerns about trading links and surplus produce, already existed by the beginning of the first millenium BC.1This confederacy later developed into an Israeli monarchy. Halpern's (1983:239) viewpoint sums up the situation: "Historical Israel is not the Israel of the Hebrew Bible. Rather, historical Israel produced biblical Israel. "
Dever (1987:236) previously supported the 'peasant's revolt' model opposed to the 'nomadic infiltration' and 'conquest' models as maintained by the scholars of the past.
However, Gnuse (1997:54), on the grounds of Dever's latest proposals classifies him as a proponent of the amalgamation theory. According to Dever, Israel originated by the twelfth century BC, from the farming community of Palestine. This community was gradually constituted from among withdrawn lowland Canaanites, urban refugees, social bandits, revolutionaries, and nomads. These groups transformed themselves when they moved into the highlands and eventually became aware of an own identity. He distinguishes between the urban and rural populations rather than working with the traditional Israelite/Canaanite dichotomy.2
I See Gnuse 1997:52,53.
2See Gnuse 1997:54,55, also footnotes, for Dever's latest contributions.
Thompson (1992: 1-170) elaborates on the priority of archaeological evidence above Biblical sources in the process of reconstructing the history of Israel.l He also advocates a very slow natural process of change over millennia mainly caused by climatic and economic factors. The latter forced the indigenous population and some smaller outsider groups to move from the towns to the highlands (Thompson 1992:324 and 328). These groups only formed a political unity as late as the eighth century BC under Assyrian domination. The Biblical account of an Israelite identity and two unified Israelite and Judahite monarchies is simply a fictional fabrication during the post-exilic period under the influence and with the assistance of the Persians. Thompson (1992:422,423) concludes his work with the following statement:
"The linguistic and literary reality of the biblical tradition is folkloristic in its essence. The concept of benei Israel: a people and an ethnicity, bound in union has its origin andfinds its meaning within the development ofthe tradition and within the utopian religious perceptions that the tradition created, rather than within the real world ofthe past that the tradition restructured in terms ofa coherent ethnicity and religion... .It is in the Persian period, quite specifically to be identified with the theologized world of the biblical tradition, within which Israel itselfis a theologumenon and a new creation out oftradition. "
This period must be regarded as era of the origin of the identity and the economic unity of Israel?
Weinfeld 3 presents a variation on this theme. His amalgamation theory claims that tribal groups, each with their own history and traditions, including a Joshua group, which most probably arrived later than the others, invaded the land and established camps. From these bases they launched attacks against other tribes and the surrounding cities. These tribal groups eventually merged with each other and with some smaller groups of pastoralists, outlaws, and refugees from cities, constituted Israel. The tribal groups each had their own
~Thompson (1992) devotes four chapters of his work, 'Early History ofthe Israelite People,' on this.
Thompson 1992:127-422. See Gnuse 1997:55,56 for a summary of Thompson's viewpoint
3In his work: 'The Promise ofthe Land: The Inheritance ofthe Land ofCanaan by the Israelites' 1993'
summarised by Gnuse 1997:57. ' ,
folkloristic tales, which became common property of the newly formed Israel. According to Weinfeld these stories were recorded in the biblical books of Joshua and Judges, and contain many authentic historical memories.
In sum, the amalgamation theories combine factors such as nomadic movements, peaceful withdrawal, and transition of power, human reproduction, and refugee elements into one theory. The complexity of the internal peaceful process, as well as the diversity of the people which gradually formed a unity, are both emphasised.
3.5.3 Evaluation and conclusion
For the present purpose the exegete must rely on the dating and interpretations of archaeologists. Previously archaeological evidence was usually interpreted and dated to support biblical historical accounts. The 'new archaeology' tends to re-date and re- interpret both archaeological findings as well as the accounts of the Biblical events. In turn, this results in the rejection of Biblical records as being fabrications on the one hand and on the other, the acceptance of the interpretation of archaeological findings as the only trustworthy data for the reconstruction of Israel's history of origin. In the archaeological circles this trend causes doubt in the trustworthiness of Biblical records, but in the theological circles doubt is cast on archaeological assumptions regarding interpretations, motives and methods as well as the dating of findings. In some cases if the dating were to be moved with only a few years, a totally different picture will emerge. Furthermore, it seems, in the words of Miller (1989: 154), "that archaeologists tend to be over-confident regarding the possibility ofreconstructing the details ofBiblical history. "
Miller (1989:153) calls this a 'methodological minefield.' Archaeology claims that 'The stones don't lie,' but in actual fact they are silent, until they are interpreted. Artifacts and archaeological findings are fragmentary and references to Israeli history are sparse and rather biased, if it does occur at all. On the other hand, according to critical literary analysis of sources, traditions, and forms, Biblical records indeed show signs of theological, ideological, cultic, and even political motivations for their compilation, interpretation, and re-interpretation by pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic authors and editors (Miller 1989:153).
Silbennan (1992:22-31) points out that every generation tends to interpret the Israeli history of origin through the values of its own age. In our ever-changing society today there is a need for gradual peaceful transfonnation. Some interpreters in their theories regarding Israel's origin project this need. In the same fashion, Gottwald (ABD VI: 83- 84), a proponent of the revolutionary model, complains that the notion in favour of a peaceful model is born from the tendency to promote an attitude of easy acceptance of social injustice and imperfections of our time. Itis rather obvious that revolutionary (even Marxists), as well as older and modern scientific evolutionary theories are playing a decisive role in interpretation. Gnuse (1997:59) correctly warns that when "we articulate our theories, we also must be willing to step back and look at our theories as partially an expression ofour own contemporary religious and existential needs. "
For the purpose of this study, the researcher will not attempt to design a new theory regarding the emergence of Israel. One tends to agree with Kaiser (1998:xii) to "take the Bible on its own terms," because "The text is not guilty until proven guilty." Miller (1989:152ff and 1991:93ff) admits that it is almost impossible to represent a reconstruction of the history of Israel due to the wide variety of theories and approaches.
Proponents of the new theories do not acknowledge the OT as a reliable source of history.
Factors which disqualify the Bible as reliable source, include the intervention of the divine, the lack of external evidence, and the role of individuals and their subjective reports of events (Kaiser 1998:2-8). The new theories and approaches to the history of Israel led to a stalemate position between the study of theology and the religion of Israel.
Recently Childs (1985) in his canonical approach, focused on theological reflection on the received Hebrew Scriptures as canonical religious traditions of Israel. This approach might break the checkmate position: "in order to free the Old Testament for a more powerful theological role within the life ofthe Christian church"(P6).
Nevertheless, considering all facts and theories, the proposal of Weinfeld (1993:99-155) entailing an amalgamation theory of different groups entering the land at different stages or periods, each with their own folkloristic legends and religious experiences, seems
attractive and plausible. lOne must accept that the emergence of Israel and its settling in Canaan did not happen as a transplant or the movement of a complete united people from Egypt to Canaan. One kernel group with an Exodus experience and a Yahwistic religion, from which monotheism may have emerged, probably entered the land. However, there were many other groups infiltrating the land and the original inhabitants as well. In the history of the development of Israel, the Exodus group propagated their ideals and religion, but initially not as a majority group.. Sometimes a king was loyal or sympathetic to their cause and did much to promote Yahwism and the ideal of a united IsraeL Others were more inclined to follow their own policy or were forced to compromise their ideals to that of a conqueror. The possibility exists that Israel could have developed over a long period of time from a variety of groups with diverse religious goals into a people with similar goals, shared religious beliefs, values, and aspirations. The OT reflects some evidence of different groups and the different sources of encounters with the divine. The emergence of monarchies, especially the Davidic monarchy, also played a unifying role.
The fall of the Northern Kingdom (721 BC) and later the fall of the Judean society (587/6 BC) were experienced as disruptive stages for this development of unity, but simultaneously provided challenges to the ideal of unity, especially with the Northern tribes in diaspora. The role of the Exile and the return of the elite to Jerusalem in this unifying process cannot be underestimated. Therefore, the approach in this study, although mainly based on a canonical theological method, will be open to the new theory of the emergence of Israel and will take into consideration the possibility of such a process, although it will be regarded as a possibility and not as proven historical facts
3.6 Theories regarding the emergence of Israelite monotheism 3.6.0 Introductory comments
Although it is generally accepted that the OT promotes a basic monotheism from which the Jewish and Christian faiths stem, the debate concerning the origin, development and nature of this monotheism is far from exhausted. Especially since the eighties this matter
IPerhaps the sociological model of the development of the Afrikaans language, culture, and beliefs in South Africa, plays a decisive role in this choice. Inthe history of the Afrikaners, the experiences and battles of various small groups in different periods, locations and of a variety of motives, also gradually became the history of a majority or a large portion of the Afrikaner people.
became a much-debated issue due to new archaeological, epigraphic and iconographic discoveries. These discoveries resulted in the quest for Israel's true historical origins, the process of the conquest and the pre-exilic existence of the twelve tribes and the monarchy.
The trustworthiness of Biblical sources to provide reliable facts to reconstruct Israel's history became questionable because of presumptions that later exilic and post exilic redactors collected, arranged, and edited much of the Biblical material and utilised it to promote their own political and especially their theological viewpoints. This was followed by late dating of OT texts. Proposed dates vary from exilic to the Hellenistic period.
Together these factors led to a review of the development process of Israeli monotheism.
These viewpoints, which strive to reconstruct a true historical account of Israel, its origins and monotheism from extra Biblical sources, stand in sharp contrast to the traditional Biblical history as presented and interpreted from the OT. I