A lot of people don't understand how complex the Biblical picture of the Judges period is which is why so many people have trouble buying that the Amarna Letters are any period after Joshua.
All the Authors of those letters are Pagan Canaanites and that's what I'd expect from The Biblical depiction. The major players are all among cities Judges 1 and other passages (Like Joshua 16:10 and 17:11-12) tell us were still Canaanite at least till the time of David (unless they are arguably outside the range of what was allotted to Israel entirely) Gezer, Megiddo, Jebus/Jerusalem, Sidon and her daughter Tyre. And it could be more cities were Canaanite then just the ones The Bible specified, Pella in the Trans-Jordan does not seem to be directly mentioned in Scripture at all, but most of the Roman era Decapolis cities were ones that had stayed Canaanite. Gibeon is a uniquely complicated situation.
Jericho was a very important Canaanite city until it was destroyed in Joshua, and their most ancient. It's complete absence from the Amarna Letters is a huge problem for any model that places the Conquest of Canaan later. The only destruction of Jericho in the archeological record big enough to match what Joshua describes is the one from the 16th Century BC.
The Israelites entered Canaan as primarily a pastoral nomadic people, for all of the Judges Period a good percentage of them, maybe even the majority, probably didn't even live in cities but preferred the rural life. Judges 1 clarifies how The Israelites initially mainly took over in the most mountainous regions while the Canaanites held out in the valleys and plains. Lachish was a lowland city so it can be deduced to be one that was still Canaanites for awhile in the Judges period in-spite of not being specifically named as such in Judges 1.
But the main cities we know were Israelite cities during this period do not have Kings or Mayors who wrote letters to Pharaoh at Amarna. Lachish, Bethlehem, Kirathjearim and Bethgader in Judah, Gibea in Benjamin, Bethel. Shiloh, Shechem and Tirzah in the House of Joseph's allotment. Japhia and the other Bethlehem in Zebulun, Kedesh-Naphtali and so on. Some of these cities are mentioned in the letters, some Canaanite Kings claimed sovereignty over them, but Kings do love to claim to be King of more then what they actually controlled in practice.
Labaya is the enigma, he's not really linked to a specific city the way the others are, he's been called the King of Shechem by modern scholars but that's actually a city he claims is in his domain and is not depicted as his capital at all. David Rohl argues for him being Saul and other revised chronologies have tried almsot every major Northern Kingdom monarch. But again Gezer shows that the post Solomon period can be ruled out for Amarna. And I really don't see Saul writing these kinds of letters to Pharaoh, even during his darker final years.
Labaya could just be a King of one of the Judges 1 Canaanite cities who's Amarna era King isn't specifically known, probably one of the Jezreel Valley ones disputed between Issachar and Manasseh in Joshua 17:11 and Judges 1:27. Taanach is seemingly missing from the Amarna records, and it's far enough south to be in the West Bank on a modern Map of Israel, since Labaya's fall was at the hands of nearby Gina/Jenin it fits well. The name of Labaya however is believed to come from a word for Lion, and a famous Stele at Bethshean depicts a Lion and Lioness. Another Semitic word for Lion is Gur often translated "whelp" as in a baby lion, and Gur is also a place name connected to Ibleam in 1 Kings 9:27. Dor is also missing from the Amarna records, Labaya could have ruled an alliance of everyone in those verses but Megiddo.
In my current mindset I'm trying really hard NOT to resort to Revised Chronology, to come up with an Exodus model compatible with conventional mainstream Egyptology (but probably not a typical reading of Biblical Chronology).
But I certainly can't support what is within that framework called a Late Date for the Exodus, which I honestly think is just motivated by a desire for The Ten Commandments film to still be correct. In fact even what most are calling an Early Date for the Exodus I consider too late. That's stuff I'll get into elsewhere.
I agree however with popular late dater Dr. David A. Falk that Habiru does have a connection to the Biblical term Hebrew but isn't always a 1 to 1 equivocation. However where I disagree is concluding no one would have called the Israelite Hapiru anymore once the Conquest of Joshua was "complete", to the Canaanite living in those cities and plains the Israelites were still outcasts living among them. The Hebrew Bible is just an account of that history from the POV of those outcasts.
The notion that the Conquest ever was "complete" in Joshua lifetime is a misunderstanding caused by some of The Bible's hyperbole. It was a process that took centuries.
So the Hapiru of the Amarna Letters I believe includes the Israelites, but the Israelites may not be the only people being called that. Another designating I believe the Israelites were apart of but not a 1 to 1 exuviation is the Shasu.
Also The Tribe of Dan are explicitly mentioned in the Amarna letters, the Danuna, neighbors to Tyre like The Bible says they became. Yes the King of Tyre mistakenly calls their Tribal leaders "King" but that's a mistake I'd expect.
The only reason people hesitate to make this identification is all the confusing "Sea Peoples" discourse which sees this Danuna as the same as the Denyen of later Egyptian records. How all the different Dans of the Bronze Age do or do not relate is not something I have settled on a final opinion on. What matters here is EA 151 read on it's own without assumptions implies nothing about a Sea Faring people coming from the Mediterranean. He's just talking about a people near him, in a way that sounds like they are among those being call Hapiru.
Tyre being the only King who mentioned them, fits in well with the unique relationship between Dan and the Sidonian Biblically.
Zsolt Simon did a good job arguing against this Danuna being Anatolian, but may still in my view be placing them too far north by placing them in Hatay. I agree that Danuna is in Canaan, I don't believe anything north of Jebel Aqra still counted as Canaan.
Even in the Amenhotep II Exodus model, the period the Amarna Letters documents is still awhile after when Joshua's conquests happened, so I do get tired of hearing some Christians try to insist these letters directly line up with events in Joshua. There should be references to recent destruction of Jericho and Ai if that were the case.
There are two places that at face value seem to be singled out as places the Israelites took over in Joshua that seem to have Canaanite rulers still in the Amarna letters. Hazor and Hebron.
Even thought Joshua 11:10-13 describes Hazor as being completely destroyed by Joshua himself. And yet Judges 4 has another Canaanite King named Jabin ruling from Hazor. Maybe the Kings of Hazor writing these letters aren't even ruling from the same Hazor anymore but a new place they've called after the same name.
With Hebron there is the issue of an apparent contradiction between Joshua 15 and Judges 1 on if Hebron was conquered while Joshua still lived or after he died. Joshua 15-19 I believe contain a lot of narrative information from later as it discuses the allotment of the Tribes. The Anakim were driven form Hebron Joshua's conquest in Joshua 11:21-22, but other Canaanites still had control of Hebron who weren't taken care of till later.
The Anakim were known to the Egyptians, they are not a people only mentioned in The Bible we have Egyptian records of them agreeing with them being a Triarchy. But they aren't mentioned in the Amarna letters, nor is Hebron a Triarchy in the latter.
What's going on in Hebron in the Amarna letters is itself a matter of controversy, whether it's mentioned at all is a matter of controversy actually, people will say Suwardata ruled Hebron but his capital was mainly Gath.. If Hebron is relevant to letter 366 it very much like it's about Caleb''s clan fighting against the Canaanites over it.
No comments:
Post a Comment