Scholars have long been puzzled by how the Tribes of Israel are divided in Deuteronomy 27:11-13, placing half on the mountain of Blessing and half on the mountain of Cursing. It doesn't correspond to the split between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, it doesn't line up to their mothers exactly either, it seems random.
As someone who's spent a lot of time comparing in my mind the tribal allotments of Joshua to the how Israel was geopoliticaly in the Time of Christ based largely on how Herod's domain was divided upon his death. I've noticed an interesting correlation here.
Those on Mount Gerizim seem to equate to what was directly under Rome via Pilate's governance, which had at Herod's death been inherited by Archleous mentioned at the end of Matthew 2. While those on Ebal equate to what was inherited by other sons of Herod, or perhaps even specifically by Antipas.
First listed on Ebal are Gad and Reuben, the southernmost of the Trans-Jordan tribes thus making them equate pretty well to Perea. Galilee as it was in NT times wasn't just Zebulun and Naphtali but also included much of Assher and perhaps even some of Dan. Dan could also equate well to what Philip inherited. But I still think it could also be Antipas, usually Antipas isn't thought to have extended that far north, but when Antipas and Aretas went to war, Damascus got tangled up in that. Or it could be notable that Dan's original allotment being adjacent to the Philistines could be in what Herod's sister Salome inherited.
On Gerizim were Judah, Levi and Benjamin, the three core Tribes of the Kingdom of Judah which became Judea. Simeon's original allotment equates well to NT era Idumea. And the house of Joseph became Samaria. What Archelus inherited is defined as Judea, Samaria and Idumea.
The only possible issue is Isschcar, which I'll get into later.
But first, if this is true, what is the theological significance of it?
Luke 23:6-7 shows Jesus as a Galilean was of Herod Antipas jurisdiction. Jesus grew up in Galilee and did most of his ministry there, but He also said "no Prophet is accepted in his own country". It was in Judea that his Birth, Death, Resurrection and Ascension happened, and where Pentecost happened. Perea being under Antipas control is why he had the authority to arrest John The Baptist.
During the time of of the 66-73 AD war, the same lands Antipas ruled and beyond were under Herod Agrippa II's control.
Issachar is often considered also part of NT era Galilee. Mainly because the traditional site of Nazareth is adjacent to what is traditionally identified as Japhia/Jafia, a city of Issachar. But I have reasons to think one or both of those traditional identifications is wrong.
Both Isaiah 9:1 and the New Testament passages that quote it (Matthew 4:13-15) only mention Zebulon and Naphtali. I think Isaiah's original context was possibly only intending to define Naphtali as Galilee, (other OT references to Galilee mention just Naphtali not Zebulon). In New Testament times Galilee as Antipas ruled it definitely extended further west then just Naphtali, possibly because of how Greco-Roman Jews interpreted Isaiah 9. Meanwhile Matthew 4 could be viewed as saying Jesus going from Nazareth to Capernaum was going from Zebulun to Naphtali.
Zebulun and Issachar are often paired together, like in Deuteronomy 33 and arguably also Genesis 49. And there are other passages that seem to mention only one and not the other. But also in general the different views on how to map out the allotments of the tribes are often most confusing when it comes to these two tribes, both in how they relate to each other and in how they relate to Asher and parts of western Manasseh. The most popular map gives neither any coast land while Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 both seem to predict at least Zebulon will be by the sea. (Note, in Deuteronomy 33 the "West" linked to Naphtali is the Hebrew word for Sea and so probably refers to the Sea of Galiee.)
The city of Samaria itself is possibly a reason why I think perhaps Issachar should be considered part of Samaria not Galilee.
First you should know that in the Hebrew text the spelling of Samaria often has an N at the end. Meaning it's spelling is basically the same as Shimron, a son of Issachar in Genesis 46:13 who had a clan in Numbers 26:24. And Joshua 12:20 mentions a Shimron near Meggido.
As the name of a city Samaria didn't exist before Omri founded it (there is a Prophetic reference in the time of Jeroboam). But he's said to have named it after who he bought the hill from. At first glance it seems like it's saying an individual, but it could mean the clan.
Omri had just overthrown a Dynasty who came from Issachar, Baasha's, and was fighting a civil war with Tibni who could have been of the same tribe for all we know. Choosing a capital at the border of Issachar and Manasseh-Joseph could have been a unifying gesture. Like David's move in choosing Jerusalem for his capital, just on Benjamin's side of the Benjamin-Judah border.
Even if this moves south what's typically viewed as Issachar it's still moving Samaria north of it's traditional location, since it's traditionally south of Tirzah and this would make it north since Tirzah was firmly Manasseh. But perhaps it also makes more sense of some things to place Samaria closer to Jezreel (which was in Issachar), Ahab's capital, then it is usually placed.
No comments:
Post a Comment