Ethnic Origins of Early Israelites - Essay Example

Ethnic Origins of Early Israelites Student’s Name: Name of Institution: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction The origin of the Early Israel has been one of the most elusive historical searches. The helplessness of historians, archeologists and scholars that accompanies this quest in recent years is best summarized by Bloch-Smith: “Earliest Israel remains terra incognita” (2003, p. 401). In all these years, historians have sought to find this answer through biblical history and archeology. However, there are lapses in these sources which make coming to a conclusive answer impossible. For instance, the religious explanations offered by the bible do not agree with the political, social and economic framework with which archeologists reconstruct history. Nonetheless, a number of theories have been adopted to explain the presence of Israel in Canaan. However, in all these theories, the underlying difficulty seems to surround the definition of ethnicity, and therefore the constitution of Israeli’s ethnicity. This is especially so considering possible assimilations that may have occurred in those early days. The concept of ethnicity therefore becomes the key focus of this paper. Theories In the attempt to reconstruct the origin of early Israel, biblical archeologists have resorted to comparing archeological excavations with biblical data (Coote & Whitelam 1987, p. 5). The first model (i.e. of conquest) has been supported by those who wish to confirm the primary historicity of the biblical scriptures on the origin of early Israel during the Late Bronze/early Iron age. This model was developed by William Albright, and was later continued and expounded by his student John Bright (Rendsburg 1992, p. 510). Besides problems associated with the identification external corroborations regarding the sojourn and enslavement of Israel in Egypt and the story of the exodus (including the 40-yers old wandering in the wilderness), there are also conflicts between biblical evidence and the archeological evidence found at Transjordania (Pitkanen 2004, p. 162), as well as problems related to the Cisjordan, most especially the conquest of Jericho and Ai as depicted in Joshua 6: 7-8. The ‘peaceful infiltration’ model was originally developed in the early 20th C by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth (Rendsburg 1992, p. 510). This model asserts that Israelites had been nomads, who had then immigrated and finally settled around Canaan. This theory is not consistent with biblical accounts, and has further been criticized for showing little understanding on the nomadic life around the region (Dever 2003, p. 51-52). The model also assumes Israelites had been outsiders, a matter that has also been challenged. Mendelhall and Gottwald developed the third model (i.e. peasants’ revolt). This model argued that Israelites were once part of an underclass, which then revolted against the upper class of Canaan, and migrated to the highlands where they settled for long to finally become Israel. Although criticized for adopting a Marxist socio-political view (Gottwald, 1999, p. 18), the model was notably the first to introduce the idea that Israelites had an indigenous origin, and influenced future attempts to understand the origin of Israel from an indigenous perspective. One of these efforts was by Coote and Whitelam (1987, p. 15). These two argued that factors such as climate change and the collapse of trade structures caused the fall of the Late Bronze Age, and ultimately facilitated the rise of the Iron Age out of which Israel sprung (Whitelam 2000, 16; Pitkanen 2004, p. 164). It is upon this indigenous-origin perspective, this paper looks at the ethnic aspect of the problem. The Concept of Ethnicity As already mentioned, one of the problems that have stood in the way of finding a conclusive answer as to the ethnic origin of early Israel, as both Bloch-Smith (2003, p. 402) and Denver (1995, p. 201) contend, is the complexity of the concept of ethnicity. Pitkanen (2004, p.166), for instance, notes that there are problems with the terms ethnicity, ethnic identity and ethnic group, which he argues are ‘slippery’. Yet, if the search for the ethnic origin of early Israel is to be attempted, then it is important to have an idea on ethnicity. There are cross-disciplinary investigations into how people conceive the notion of ethnicity. Hutchinson and Smith (1989, v) formulate a comprehensive definition. To them, ethnic communities should exhibit six key features: a shared proper name that identifies and expresses a common essence; the myth of shared/common ancestry, including origin in place and time to provide a sense of kinship; shared past(s), i.e. historical memories; element(s) of common culture, e.g. customs, religion, language, etc; a chord/link with homeland, physical or symbolic; and a sense of oneness and solidarity. How these features come to be constructed can be explained through the approaches used in the study of ethnicity. Although there are a number of these approaches, most are variants of these two main ones: Primordialism and instrumentalism. Primordialism sees ethnic ties to be based on birth with the other elements remaining static and immutable Hutchinson and Smith (1989, p. 8). This approach has been criticized for being too rigid when ethnicity is seen as malleable and dynamic (Dever 1995, p. 201). Instrumentalism, on the other hand, sees ethnic ties as socially constructed based on circumstances and expediency (Hutchinson and Smith 1989, p. 8). This has been criticized for overemphasizing materialism and expediency and thereby ignoring the sense of permanence that people feel about their own ethnic identities. Notably, Hutchinson and Smith (1989, p. 9) argue that the approaches to the study of ethnicity are hardly purely either primordial or instrumental, but just a matter of emphasis. This interplay between the two approaches is what then brings about the notion of ethnic boundaries (and boundary markers). According to Nash (1989, p. 12-13), boundary markers distinguish one ethnic group from another, e.g. kinship, common language, shared values, common dressing styles etc, which are known as ‘index features’. The unique combination of these index features is what marks the boundaries. Yet, differences in these categories may not mean there are boundaries. Early Israel: Ethnicity and Boundary Markers Having seen the constituting features of ethnicity, this paper now attempts to use the concept ethnic boundary markers to identify the early Israelites. Speaking of a common name as a feature of ethnicity, the Bible constantly distinguishes Israelites from other ethnic groups in the land. It keeps referring to Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites and Jebusites (Pitkanen 2004, p. 169), and insists on distinguishing them from Israel. The scrolls of Merneptah Stele also place Israel around Canaan around 1200 BC (Whitelam 2000, p. 13). Confusion then ensues and this then becomes the beginning of the problem regarding the ethnic origin of early Israelites. The Biblical identification of Israelites as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Jacob form the central components of Israelite ethnic psyche as far as the Hebrew scriptures show. There is a problem concerning the source of such beliefs and exactly when they were recorded in the scriptures. Some scholars date the scriptures in the pre-monarchy. However, in relation to the varying views regarding the dating of Old Testament documents, it is estimated that the period during which the documents were written may have vary between the early monarchy and the Persian periods. Therefore, although it is not easy to tell if such beliefs already existed in the early Israel periods, it is a possibility, which would then mean that such beliefs were different and distinguished Israelites from the other groups around. The bible also provides Israelites with common historical memories, as demonstrated in the stories of the patriarchs, sojourn and slavery in Egypt and the exodus. Although the origin as well as the historicity of these stories is largely disputed, there is some possibility that some slaves escaped Egypt into Canaan in the days of Early Israelites. The fourth feature of ethnicity is common culture. Pitkanen (2003, p. 57) argues that language may not be a major issue considering that Hebrew is Semitic and is therefore likely to be dialectically different from the other languages around Canaan. The most important issue here is religion. The Bible constantly distinguishes Yahwism from the other surrounding religions. Still, the origin of Yahwism is not clear. But most importantly, this falls in the same category as other aspects assessed in an attempt to find the origin of Israel. In this respect, for instance, Ajrud & Mazar (1990, p. 45) argue that if Israelites had indigenously developed from the Canaanites then Yahwism may lie within the Canaanite religion. In addition, some of the Israelites may have originated from ‘outside’ and brought the belief in Yahwe with them. Yahwism may then be understood as somewhat external to Canaan. There have also been efforts to determine if any aspects of the culture of Israel can be found in archeological record. This debate probably began with Finkelstein, who argued that it was possible to distinguish Israelite ethnicity from material remains. However, some scholars have refuted this argument. But Dever (2003, p. 191-200), has recently provided good reasons to affirm that the archeological records do show a distinct Israelite identity during the Early Iron Age. Dever’s (2003, p. 191-200) view finds merit in the fact that at this time, increase in rural settlement accompanied by an explosion of population in the hill country was witnessed. Archeological excavations have found site and house layouts which emphasize on clan and extended family. Archeological records further note agrarian model of production and communal/tribal organization. Dever (2003, p. 193) further notes a change of technology, language, religion and art. While one may see this as merely the result of a population explosion, there is a notable distinction between Iron Age I and Iron Age II, with the latter featuring more urban and centralized settlements, further expansion of population, expansion of system and public works, and the layout of settlements demonstrate an increasingly stratified society and an uneven distribution of wealth. This cumulative evidence thus suggests that some sort of new unit sprung, and which was different from what had been there before and what came after. These findings remarkably match the biblical (especially in the book of Judges) descriptions of and accounts on the premonarchical society (Pitkanen 2004, p. 172). It is important to note that while most of these features may be understood from economic perspective, still a society of this kind would leave behind its marks in the consciousness of the people who inhabit it in such a way to distinguish it from, say, the societies living in the lowlands. Another remarkable boundary marker discovered was the fair absence of pork bones from the Iron I highlands, relative to the lowlands. Conclusion This paper has focused on the concept of ethnicity as explored by Hutchinson and Smith (1989). It looks at the possible ethnic boundary markers of the early Israelites and how these could provide an answer as to their ethnic origin. However, this discussion does not lay to rest the quest for the origin of the early Israelites. It merely uses the complexity of the ethnic boundaries here to show another difficulty faced in this search. However, importantly, it provides a new framework for the search of the ethnic origin of early Israelites. References Ajrud, K. & Mazar, A. (1990). Archaeology and the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE, New York: Doubleday. Bloch-Smith, E. (2003). ‘Israelite Ethnicity in Iron I: Archaeology Preserves What is Remembered and What is Forgotten in Israel’s History’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 122(3), 401-425 Coote, R.B. & Whitelam, K.W. (1987). The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective, Sheffield: Almond Dever, W.G. (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Dever, W.G. (1995). ‘Pots & People’, Biblical Archaeologist, 58 (4), 199-213 Gottwald, N.K. (1999). The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Hutchinson, J. & Smith, A.D. (ed.) (1989). The Ethnicity, Oxford: University Press Nash, M. (1989). The Core Elements of Ethnicity’ in Ethnicity, in J. Hutchinson & A.D. Smith (ed), Ethnicity, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 10-15 Pitkanen, P. (2004). ‘Ethnicity, Assimilation and the Israelite Settlement’, Tyndale Bulletin, 55(2), 161-182 Pitkänen, P. (2003). Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: from the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple, New Jersey: Gorgias Rendsburg, G.A. (1992). ‘The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: the Case for the 1100s’, Vetus Testamentum, vol. XLII, no. 4, pp. 510-527 Whitelam, K.W. (2000). ‘Israel Is Laid Waste; His Seed Is No More’: What If Merneptah’s Scribes Were Telling The Truth? University of Stirling Read More