Loading...Yesterday I argued that the Old Testament account found of the “Conquest of Canaan,” as found in the book of Joshua, cannot be historically accurate. This is one of those matters that matter. As we all know full well, the dispute over the land has been going on for millennia, and continues to create trauma and disaster, war and suffering, all the time — no matter which side you stand on. And please, in your comments, do not make polemical political remarks that are hostile to those who disagree with your position; there are huge problems everywhere you look….
Our question here, for the purposes of this blog, right now, is not about legitimacy — who should own what, and on what grounds? — but history. If Israel was not in fact a pre-existing entity that emerged out of Egypt at the Exodus and then entered the land God had promised the ancestors, wiping out the native population to take over what by divine right was theirs — then where then did Israel come from? Historically? At one time there was no nation in that part of the world; at a later time there was. So where did it come from?
This question has intrigued and even plagued critical scholars for a very long time. Here I explain some of the leading options commonly propose over fairly recent decades, taken from my textbook on the Bible.
********************************************************************************************************************
Explanations for the Beginnings of Israel in the Land
Modern scholars have come up with a number of explanations for how the nation of Israel emerged within the land known as Canaan. The following are the four most popular.
This is a post that might actually matter for something other than antiquarian interests. Even if you’re not an ancient history buff — well, you may want to know all this. And if you do have antiquarian proclivities, you’re in the right place. To read what historians have said, you gotta join the blog. And why not?. It won’t cost much and all your fee goes straight to charity.
Theory # 4, “Gradual Emergence” may be the prevailing academic view, but it is wide enough to drive a truck through. It’s mushy, vague and general. Hard to dispute something when it doesn’t say much.
But it’s what the archaeological evidence supports
Such as? Examples would bolster your case and would be interesting to examine.
So you’re saying marching around city walls blowing on horns isn’t necessarily sound siegecraft? I think it would be genuinely annoying. Might surrender just to get a good night’s sleep.
What happened was probably chaotic, there were few if any written chronicles (none that have survived), and people tend to like to make a coherent narrative out of the past, when our daily activities are, if we’re honest, a bit helter-skelter at times, and certainly when we’re fighting.
There really was a Trojan War (probably many). I remember one theory propounded on a PBS documentary I watched long ago, that the Trojan Horse symbolized Poseidon, who was connected in stories to both horses (like Pegasus) and earthquakes (which could make the walls of a city fall down, leaving it open to pillage). Why not just say Poseidon sent an earthquake to give victory to the Greeks? Because it’s not as good a story, and it would be too easy. The story as written gives the victory to Greek cunning and ingenuity, even though the gods are involved on both sides.
But interestingly, the victory over Jericho is not achieved by Hebrew cunning, but by their faith in Yahweh, who actually does make the walls come tumbling down. In reality, maybe (I said maybe) they did use psychological techniques like keeping the besieged awake and on edge with marching and horn blasting.
But in neither case was victory likely to have been achieved with one stroke. Never is.
>So you’re saying marching around city walls blowing on horns isn’t necessarily sound siegecraft? I think it would be genuinely annoying. Might surrender just to get a good night’s sleep.
Hey, it’s what the US used to get Noriega.
Or the noise was intended to cover the sound of tunneling under a section of a wall (sapping) and that is what brought down a piece of the wall (all that would be needed).
When a fundamentalist argues God stopped the world (In Joshua) because “he can do anything”. I reply with “yes, he can do anything, but what is more likely; He stopped the Earth from spinning or he made humans who will believe anything they read?” (I’ll go with the later…)
please visit FB of Gill Broussard he’ll explain you with details why earth stopped and why we have 365 days calendar now and why will be great drought now
The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman makes a thorough case for gradual emergence, and is loaded with fascinating archaeological facts and textual criticisms. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in this topic. For those who don’t really like to read, there are 2 documentaries available: a 4-part European version, and a 90-minute History channel version that can be found on YouTube.
Yup, it’s a terrific book.
Do you have an opinion on whether Moses was a historical figure in some way, or just legendary? (Be careful; the mythicists will argue that if stories and laws could be built around a mythical Moses, so too could it have been done with a mythical Jesus!)
Yes, I think he’s a legend. And no, I don’t think the evidence for Moses vs. the evidence for Jesus is at all commensurate. Like every other historical figure, each case has to be decided on its own merits. Kinda like presidential candidates….
I like to distinguish between a person being “a legend” and being “legendary.” What I mean is, there may have been a person [or several people] that formed the semi-historical basis for the Moses myth. I’d say he’s legendary, but maybe not just a legend. This is similar to Bart’s idea that there may have been a real local hero who later became the Joshua of legend. It’s easy to see this principle at work in the case of King Arthur, who was probably a real local war-chief, but not the paragon of Christian chivalry that he became in the 13th century. I doubt that if there really was a Moses, he knew anything about the Torah that is attributed to him. But, just like Arthur, he’s become an archetype in our collective unconscious. Scholarship can debunk him intellectually, but archetypes don’t die easily, whether they are just legends, or just legendary.
I vote for theory 4.
Unfortunately, people don’t need to know history to have opinions on religion, politics, or anything else. Still, education is our best defense against repeating the mistakes and bloodshed of the past.
Great thread – this is a topic of ‘biblical’ proportions. Our modern world would benefit immensely from a broader dissemination of what unbiased historical scholarship and archaeology of the Holy Land can tell us.
Dr. Ehrman, I didn’t know where else to ask this question. So I apologize to the irrelevance to your article above, although I thoroughly enjoyed it! Is it widely accepted that the Egyptian Book of the Dead influenced the Ten Commandments? And to your knowledge, what is the earliest practiced religion or do we know?
No, it appears not to have had any influence on the Ten Commandments. And no, we don’t know what the earliest religions were because they are very, very pre-historic.
Thanks!! Another quick question (may be a stupid question)! But just so I understand- scholars know that Paul’s writings & the gospels were written in the first century, but those original writings have been lost and we only have copies from much later? If so, how do scholars know when the original was written? Or we have the actual manuscripts from the first century?
No, we don’t have manuscripts. That’s true of every book from the ancient world, the writings of Homer, Plato, Euripides, Julius Caesar, Cicero, Augustine, name your author. Their books are not dated on the basis of the dates of their manuscripts, which are invariable many centuries after the originals. They are dates based on lots of other factors, including internal references in them, historical situations they presuppose, what they authors mention, how they talk about it, how they themselves are mentioned by other authors, which works other datable authors attribute to them, and lots of other things. But the dates of, say, the books of the New Testament are not HUGELY debated (different estimates may very by years or a few decades, but not more than that)
So is it fair to say that it is misleading when apologists say “the accounts were written within generations of Jesus’s life.” Although I am still learning on my recent quest for biblical truth, to me it seems like that’s still a lot of time between those written accounts & what scholars have for forgery & misconstruing the text. Also, I would think that preservation of the originals would be of utmost importance to the God of the Bible.
Are you referring to the Gospels of the NT? yes, they were written within 40-60 years of Jesus’ life. But if you’re referring to the accounts of the Patriarchs, say — no those are centuries later . But the manuscripts that *contain* those accounts, yes, those are later still. There’s a very important different between when an account was composed and when the book containing the account was produced (the Bible on my desk was produced in 1994; but the books in it were composed many centuries earlier)
Also, would you recommend or give any merit to Robert Price’s “The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul”
If you’re looking for a book on the historical Paul — his life and writings — then no, this would not be the book I’d recommend. Lots of major scholarship out there on Paul. Bert Harrell has a recent biographical sketch; E P Sanders has a very short book; might start with my Peter Paul and Mary Magdalene?
Dr Ehrman, two questions. What is your current thinking on the Documentary Hypothesis? What is your current thinking on where the Israelites crossed and the Egyptian army was destroyed, the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?
I think the DH is right in its basic assertions and conclusions, but that it’s probalby (much more) complicated than simply four sources JEDP. Still, that’s a good starting point. The Bible calls it the Sea of Reeds, definitely not the Red Sea. I don’t, thgouth, think it’s a historical account of something that actuallyhappened.
Dr Ehrman –
In this vein, might there be a good state-of-the-question piece or compendium around the documentary hypothesis you’ve come across for someone who’s read Who Wrote the Bible (and Bible Unearthed; and who’s currently listening to John Barton’s A History of the Bible on audiobook). Lay level would be best, but I could probably tolerate it even if it veers into the technical. Thanks a ton!
Are you saying these don’t lay it out clearly enough? Have you tried Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?
They are indeed quite clear, and fun/great reads (or listens, as with Barton’s presently) – I’m just (overly?) keying off your prior comment that the JEDP model is a good start but not sufficiently reticulated, and wanting to go the next step down the road in the right direction. My gut is that next step is going to be more technical… Many thanks in advance.
Oh boy is it more technical…
Yipes – ok. Good to know before I wade too far off into the technical deep end without the requisite Hebrew language flotation device… Thanks!
And – “my Bible textbook” is an entirely legitimate answer!
Yes, I do lay it all out there, in its basic form, with the evidence.
Delivery of the new 7th Ed. of your freshly minted NT Textbook (finally!) comes tomorrow. With this, I am now compelled to have your Bible textbook follow it. Only fitting. Even if they won’t fit in my apt… Cmon Kindle version!
Israel was never a nation in the Scriptures. The scribes are using nations to describe the nature of man who transitions from the ego self (Egypt) to his spiritual self ( Israel.) The Bible is full of allegories explaining this same concept. This particular literal interpretation and naming of Israel in 1948 has caused devastating consequences all over the world.
I’ve seen a fair amount of popular writing disputing the idea that there were slaves in Egypt at all, though I don’t know what the evidence is. Could you comment on this?
There were definitely slaves in Egypt, going way, way back. They are in the records, though I don’t have any Egyptian references to hand.
Basically, we have no idea how it happened
Currently reading “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Friedman. Fascinating. A book you recently recommended. Thanks Professor.
I am curious about Gradual Emergence: can we draw parallels between a gradual emergence of Canaanite Yahwehists and the gradual growth of Christianity as you describe in your book?
There may be some very broad analogies — I’ve never much thought about it!
Interesting set of posts Bart! The gradual emergence theory seems to be the most logical one indeed. I would take the side of Israel Finkelstein and William Devers about there was some internal events that caused a relocation into the hills/mountains. (See William Devers book about the Ancient Israelites snd ehere they Cane From). According to both archaeologists there was a dramatic drop in city state living (I believe in LBA) then a dramatic increase in hill dwelling (again I believe in IA1). Both agree that these “Israelites” were most likely Canaanites living in the city states then moved to the hills/mountains. The big question is why? Of course many theories are out there, but even I’m not confident enough to say why. I will wait until more evidence is presented.
**But within Canaan a cult of Yahweh emerged, then spread, and eventually a sizeable number of people adhered to it. Later they told stories about how they came to be a separate people from their neighbors.**
I think a fascinating counter-factual to ponder is, what would have happened to that cult if “The Triumph of Christianity” had turned out to be anything but.
I agree that the emergence theory fits the model. There is a whole group of civilizations where conflict between War and Fertility cults. The most famous besides Canaan are the Norse. The Norse Myths talk of the War of the Aesir and Vanir. That war is seen by many as being based on the actual merging of various tribes in Scandinavia.
Good evening, Bart. If Israel slowly emerged into a nation, is there any proof of a gradual mixing from native Canaanites into a new nation? Maybe a missing link of something that is not quite Israel and not quite Canaan?
I guess the proof is precisely that that there is no evidence of any major shifts in culture or religion at any one time.
Hi Bart. I think you referred to Richard Friedman’s book “Who wrote the bible” in a recent post. Have you read his book “Exodus” in which he deals specifically with the issue of where Israel cam from? He argues that the Levites were actually a priestly class from Egypt that integrated with various tribes in Canaan. If you did read it what did you think of it? Must say I wasn’t entirely convinced.
Haven’t read it. The summaries I’ve read of it make it sound like a stretch to me, but I haven’t looked at whatever evidence he tries to cite.
I though “Exodus,” by Richard Elliott Friedman was an interesting book.
Link to my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2350968713
Just as fascinating to me is the idea that a late blooming Judah, which may never have been a part of the original tribes of Israel, whose written legacy (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) identifies Judah as Israel. A political entity named Israel seems to have existed. But a thousand years after its demise in 722 BC, a people are clearly identifying themselves as Israel.
A comparable example might be the idea of being Roman, espoused by the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires, and even given as a root of the British Empire.
I meant to ask this question when you first posted re the Exodus, but … What do you think of Friedman’s hypothesis that there was an Exodus, but it only involved the Levites, and the rest of Israel emerged from the Canaanite background as in your comments above?
Haven’t read his book o it. The summaries I’ve read of it make it sound like a stretch to me, but I haven’t looked at whatever evidence he tries to cite.
The OT is not accurate. However, there are some accurate statements in it. Just need to figure out which ones they are.
Canaan, ( even though the name of one of Noah’s sons ) is a territory not a people ( Palestine, Lebanon, parts of Syria and surroundings ). Its inhabitants were of different people of different backgrounds independent of one other disunited or not necessarily united that happen to reside in that land but were not Israelite. Israelites although inhabitants of Canaan were more united ethnically/religiously and were descendants of Prophet Jacob known as Israel. He established the Kingdom of Israel. Hence Israel.
The term Israelite came after Jacob. His grandfather was the patriarch Abraham. Abraham had two branches, one through Isaac and the other through Ishmael ( the one we never talk about ). Through Isaac we have Jacob( Israel ) hence the Israel and Israelites.
Prophet Joseph, son of Jacob, established leadership and a kingdom in Egypt. Moses and Aaron years were sent to Egypt to rescue the Hebrews from Pharaoh. Joshua accompanied Moses and Aaron when they crossed the sea with their so called few followers, they got lost for 40 years.
Joshua entered the Holy Land after the death of Moses with the second generation of immigrants and conquered it. Hence Israel( until 70 AD ).
The word Israel began to be referred to as a State or territory along with a name of a person/people ( Ethnic and Geographic similar to Canaan ) …. the children of Israel or the lost sheep of Israel in the timeline of Jesus.
Without getting political, the kingdom of Israel was split in two. Israel to the north, Judah to the south.
After the destruction of the north and to follow with the destruction of the south, the Romans occupied that territory and changed its name. It later fell to the Arabs and others until recent history with the re-establishment of the State of Israel in an attempt to revive old Jewish traditions. Hence Israel.
Isn’t it amazing how allegories morph into fact and then it all morphs into law and then war? Entire religions are based on myth, allegory, and pure non-sense that somehow become literal. It astounds me how humans can turn abstract ideas into concrete blocks and build some ridiculous foundation out of them all. It is at this level that religion becomes the root of all evil.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that the key images that we have from the Old Testament such as Moses getting the 10 Commandments from God, in actuality was something more along the lines of the community writing up rules to help themselves prosper, and then over the generations the story became more dramatic? Along the same lines, how did they “know” God was talking to them, and would you agree that even in those days they had to be aware that some people would lie or were “crazed?”
Yes, I think these originated as community rules that over time morphed into divinely given commandments.
Hey, Bart, I frequently hear other scholars use the same terminology you do: “Yahweh worship”, “Yahweh cult”. My issue here is, why not assume that Yahweh is the name Israelites gave to God (you know, the timeless, “I am who I am God”), instead of assuming that Yahweh was a cult deity. Because, as far as I know, as of now, there is no firm evidence, of Yahweh being a pantheon deity, so isn’t it more logical to assume what I said, instead of going with the theory of “Yahweh worshiping cult”? Thanks in advance
I think it was both, no? It was the name they gave to their principle God and they engaged in the worship of him in their cultic activities.
Regarding the Arthurian legends, the Odyssey, and the Old Testament, Churchill wrote, “It is all true, or it ought to be….”
“It is all true, or it ought to be; and more and better besides. And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they themselves be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round.”
http://a.co/8cs2oa7
Since The lack of historical Support For the biblical stories being readily available to the public, it’s no wonder the fastest growing group (particularly those under 30) now identify as “non religious”. Another decade and America will look like Europe w churches being converted to coffee shops and gyms.
I subscribe to the gradual emergence theory, with the side note that I think the earliest Israelites gradually migrated in from Mesopotamia and may have been among the aboriginal settlers of the area.
Also, there is growing belief that Yahweh started out as a warrior god of Edom (along with Qos) and that gradually the Yahweh cult, centered around the Temple at Jerusalem, took over, a process that wasn’t fully complete until Ezra (and even then had weak points).
DNA evidence supports the gradual emergence theory: jews and palestinians are closely related (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm)
I’m from a Sicilian family, and my most nuanced DNA testing suggests about 12% Middle Eastern and about 35% Sephardic Jewish ancestry (as well as Italian, and some French, British, Iberian, and Southeast European roots). Do you have a best guess about where in the region my Middle Eastern and Sephardic Jewish origins could have originated?
No clue!
I think that using the Hebrew Bible as a history book will fail most historians. I would not be surpirsed to find that the Hebrew Bible is a story of the soul, using the “Language of Brances” to tell the stories. Why do I suspect that,,,,because a lot of the stories can be traced to other stories who circulated in the area at the time. One example of are all the pre-flood stories which circulated in the area, including the creation myths. In Sumarian – Babylonian traditions you have almost the same stories as in the Torah/Genisis ,,,BUT muuuuuch more detailed and descriptive. The problem is that these stories about gods coming from other worlds (planets – Niburu),,,these Annunakis,,,made a more sophisticated speices on earth, in “their image”. The problem, these MUCH more ancient stories than the creation myths in the Hebrew Bible tell a the same stories but, a very different belief system,,,,,,,,. But, the stories were there, and the Israllites were at least in the same area where these stories flourished around 500BC (Babylon). So those stories were easy to pick up.
If we should believe some orthodox jews, and jewish scolars,,,,the whole religious system is built upon a much deeper understanding of God and our souls,,,,,,,,,its descend and the coming accend. Those theories can be traced back many thousands of year.
I think it is a real possibility that Israel began as a religious comunity around Abraham, with a moneteistic view, with a deep and spiritual understanding of God. I also think it is a possibility that they shared the same religioius views of this spiritaul God, and the spiritual man,,,whos soul were decended into materialism. I wouldn’t be suprised that they within their way of talking, told the story of the soul and God using the stories circulatating (for example the much different Sumarian —almost the same story, but very different devinity- and used them as a tool (Language of Brances) to tell this important spiritual story. Just the same with the story of Moses,,which could have had som reality behind,,,in some way) but used it as the story of the souls way out of boundary,,,after 40 (represents a period of probation, trial, and chastisement) and THEN ! into Y-Sh-R (Direct) EL (God) (Israel).
Yes, I do think one should be careful using it as historical stories (alone) but rather consider it as a spiritual story.
Kjell Tidslevold
If Israelites are primarily Canaanites (ie. branch of Canaanite peoples, gradually emerged) why did they show such hostility towards their blood relatives? The attitudes and behaviors of the Israelites in the OT are genocidal, and even in Matthew Jesus treats a Canaanite woman with cruelty and contempt. I’m sure the Canaanites did as much violence to the Israelites as the Israelites to them, it’s just odd peoples originally so close in ethnicity, culture, and religion would go to such lengths not only to eliminate each other but to eliminate all evidence of commonality.
Are you asking why there are civil wars? I wish I knew.
I once heard, during a four week adult education course on Ancient Egypt that I paid for no less, that the Ancient Israelites likely borrowed the idea that God cares how people behave ethically toward each other from Egyptian religion (and blended this with amoral Canaanite notions of devotion). This is obviously pure speculation, and even if it contained a grain of truth, would not require the Israelites to have actually lived in Egypt. I do not know the history of said speculation.