The 39 books written in Hebrew or Aramaic according to today’s count are divided into three large groups in the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (“Instructions”; Pentateuch), Neviim (“Prophets”) and Ketuvim (“Writings”). This is why in Judaism the Bible, which we Christians call the “Old Testament”, is referred to as “TaNaK” (pronounced: TaNaCh), an artificial word made up of the first letters of the three groups. […]
Overall, however, the TaNaK was probably completed and generally accepted around 100 AD. From this late date, the text-forming work is finished.[…]
It was based on four different sources: J = Yahwist around 950 BC; E = Elohist around 800 BC; D = (Pre-)Deuteronomi-um in the 7th century BC and P = Priestly Writer around 550 BC.
[“Münster Pentateuch model”]: A central change compared to the older theory formation is that the first written traditions are dated approx. 100 to 200 years later (instead of the 10th century to the 8th/7th century BC). After the first larger, written narrative contexts in the 7th century, the Münster Pentateuch model sees the decisive formation phase for the Pentateuch in the exile-post-exile and Persian period (6th-4th century).[…]
Only at first glance does it appear that the biblical tradition intends to narrate a course of history; if one takes a closer look, it becomes clear that the biblical tradition is a theological space of teaching and reflection that chooses narrative as a mode as well as lived life and experienced history as a place for orienting theological reflection.[…]
The supreme priest is the king. Staff are employed at the places of worship and the royal court (priests, prophets, etc.), who are paid for their services. They assist the king as advisors in theological and political matters, e.g. in (warlike) decision-making situations (cf. 1 Kings 22; 2 Kings 3).
Like the Codex Hammurapi, the Deuteronomic Law is divided into a prologue (Deut 5-11), a body of laws (Deut 12-26) and an epilogue with blessings and curses (Deut 28).[…]
In addition, the character of the law was changed insofar as the law is in the form of an Assyrian vassal treaty. It can be shown that the core of the blessing and cursing chapter in Deut 28:20-44 has been literarily adopted from the oaths of succession to the throne of Azarhaddon (VTE § 56; 38A-42; 63-65).[…]
The Assyrian treaties were not simply imitated, but were theologically reinterpreted in their own context: Unlike in the Assyrian vassal treaties, it is now not the Assyrian king or Assyrian deities who are the contract givers, but YHWH is the lawgiver and concludes a mutual contract (“covenant”) with the people of Israel.
Judah in the 10th century BC
The kingdom of Judah must be understood as a remote mountainous region in the hinterland, where a small-scale, agrarian society of farmers and small livestock breeders lived in subsistence farming organized in villages and clans. There is no material evidence from Judah from either the 10th or 9th century BC that would suggest a centrally governed, territorially organized state. Archaeological research in recent years has led to a new assessment that revises the biblical image of a centrally governed territorial state under David and Solomon in the 11th/10th century BC. How large the territory of Judah actually was is disputed. At this time, Jerusalem was a small village without monumental architecture or written records. Excavations show that after a gap in settlement, early Iron Age Jerusalem was probably only a modest village settlement of 1 ha and around 200 inhabitants.[…]
This makes Jerusalem in the 10th century BC a typical Judean mountain village – not significantly larger or smaller than others. This village certainly did not have the dominant position of a capital and a central administrative center. The continuation of the dynasty with Rehoboam as narrated in the books of Kings can hardly be proven historically. It could be that Rehoboam was also a figure who, from a later Judean perspective, served to narratively construct continuities. The campaign of the Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I (945-924 BC; biblical name: Shishak) in Palestine, which is traditionally dated to around 926 BC, tells of the plundering of the temple and the palace (cf. 1 Kings 14:25-26). Egyptian sources about this campaign, however, omit Judah and Jerusalem. The findings indicate that Judah and the region as a whole were under Egyptian domination.
There is a gap of 350 years between the first non-biblical mention of “Israel” on the Merenptah stele (1209 BC) and the next, in which “Ahab of Israel” is mentioned on an inscription by the Assyrian king Salmanassar (853) and a little later “Jehu, the son of Omri” on the stele of the Moabite king Mesha (around 840). However, on the inscription from Tel Dan, found in 1993 and written in Aramaic around 835, there is a note that King Hazael (ca. 843-803) killed the king of Israel and a king from the “House of David”. This is the only non-biblical source that – over 100 years after David – proves the existence of a “House of David”. Since ruling houses are named after the founder of dynasties, the position that David is a historical person seems plausible in view of this finding, even if there is no further extra-biblical evidence for this. […]
In view of the archaeological findings, it can be assumed that there was no developed territorial state with a central administration under David. “If kingship as an organized state does not emerge until the 9th century BC and there was neither a united kingdom nor a division of the empire, Israel is the name of the state in the 9th century BC and has no connection to the local ruler David, whenever (10th or 9th century BC) he is to be placed.” […]
An important argument in the discussion about the figure of Solomon’s reign are the building measures in Jerusalem, Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor, which are attributed to Solomon in 1 Kings 5:6, 27-32; 9:15-19. […] However, archaeological excavations in Megiddo and other cities have now made it clear that the facilities found, such as warehouses, stables and gates, do not date to the time of Solomon, as had long been assumed, but to a much later date and therefore cannot be linked to the construction measures (allegedly) initiated by Solomon. […]
In the narratives, Jerusalem is a not unimportant city with an ambitious kingship, palace complexes, central administration and international contacts. However, Jerusalem only achieved this status in the 7th century BC. In the world of the text, however, it already appears to readers as such under David and Solomon.
The narratives tell of the three or four generations of the family of Abraham and Sarah (Gen 12:1-23:20), Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:1-28:9), Jacob with Leah and Rachel and his twelve sons (Gen 28:10-35:20). The family originally came from Ur in Chaldea in Babylonia and emigrated to Haran in Syria under their father Terah (Gen 11:31). From there, Abraham and Sarah moved to Canaan at God’s command (Gen 12:1-3). From now on, the wanderings of Abraham and Sarah’s family in the Syro-Palestinian region are recounted. […] It is only in the Books of Kings that we find dates that allow us to reconstruct the times within the text (!). According to this, Abraham and Sarah must have lived around 2300 to 2200 BC.
[N]o realistic route can be recognized in the narrated wanderings of the patriarchs. Sometimes thousands of kilometers are covered for no apparent reason (cf. Gen 12:9-10; 13,1.17; 18,1; 20,1; 22,19). This does not indicate any real migration of peoples, nor can it be derived from a (semi-)nomadic existence. […]
In the narratives, places are mentioned whose settlement history has been archaeologically researched, such as “Ur in Chaldea”. In Ur, an ancient place in southern Mesopotamia, Aramaic-speaking Chaldeans had only been living since the 8th century BC. If the reference to Terah and his clan coming from “Ur of Chaldea” and moving away from there (Gen 11:31) were a “historical” note, Terah and Abraham could have left Ur of Chaldea in the 8th century BC at the earliest. According to the biblical narrative, Abraham and Sarah would not have arrived in Israel until the middle royal period, especially since, according to Gen 11:31, they had previously lived in Haran for a longer period of time. Another example is the place “Gerar in the land of the Philistines” (Gen 20:1, 2; 21:32; 26:1, 6, 17, 20, 26), which plays an important role in the Abraham narratives. Excavations have shown that Gerar was an important place – but only in the first half of the 2nd millennium and then in the late 8th and 7th centuries B.C. The (Indo-European) Philistines, however, reached the Canaanite coast around 1200 B.C. (Gen 10:14; 21:32 etc.), at a time when Gerar had no settlement.
[…]
Camels are frequently mentioned in the stories about Abraham (Gen 12:16) and especially in the stories about Rebekah and Isaac. The one-humped camel or dromedary as a domesticated beast of burden and hunting animal only became known in Palestine after 1000 BC via the Midianites (= Ishmaelites) (Jdg 8:24-26). In the narratives, the camel is a status symbol to illustrate the wealth of Jacob (cf. Gen 30:43; 32:8.16) and Pharaoh (Gen 12:16). However, it is unlikely that the pharaoh owned camels, as camels are not found in Egyptian texts or images; moreover, there is no Egyptian character for “camel”. Even if the camel was already known around 1000, it was not used intensively as a means of transportation suitable for the desert until the 8th to 7th century BC in the Assyrian Empire. This is because the camel is the only animal that can endure long stretches of desert without needing water or food. The camel was therefore the prerequisite for the global trade in luxury goods (e.g. rare spices, precious stones or resins/incense) from southern Arabia. However, this trade is already mentioned in the narratives of the first parents, for example in Gen 37:25. However, the economically lucrative caravan trade cannot have developed in the “time of Abraham”, but only in the Assyrian Empire, because the camel had not yet been domesticated. The camels and camel caravans in the narratives of the first parents must therefore date from much later times. […]
These examples show that the archetypal narratives cannot be set in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC but are narratives that have grown over many centuries and fulfill different purposes and functions. […]
For example, we are told that Abraham erected altars in Bethel and Shechem (Gen 12:7-8), but also in Hebron (Gen 13:18). In this way, important cult centers of the northern kingdom and the old center of the south are linked together and a bridge is built between north and south.
In this way, the individual, originally localized legends become a common story and the patriarchs, as a family, become the common ancestors of the entire people.
In the Priestly Document written in the exilic-post-exilic period (2nd half of the 6th century BC.) and in the Great Post-Exilic History (Genesis 1:1-2 Kings 25*), the arch-parents – and Abraham in particular – have an important function: The overarching narrative arc, which extends from the beginnings of creation to the downfall of kingship (Gen 2:4-2 Kings 25*), begins – not coincidentally – with the stories of Abraham and Sarah and the great migration that leads the patriarchs, at God’s command, from Ur in Chaldea to Haran in northern Mesopotamia (Gen 11:27-32) and then from there to a land unknown to them but promised by God. This migratory movement describes the path to which the exiles were called in the 6th century BC: the path from Babylonia (= Ur in Chaldea) to the land unknown to them, which they, living in the second or third generation in Babylon or Persia, do not know or which has become foreign to them. Thus, the textual world of the arch-parent narratives (Gen 12) reflects the Babylonian or Persian world empire: Abraham’s origins lie in Ur, in Babylonia!
[…]
The fact that Abraham and Sarah, despite all the adverse and improbable circumstances, still had a son, the bearer of the promise (!), was a message of hope in the presence of exile.
The arch-parents are not about an “once-upon-a-time” world, but about the political, theological and personal questions that deeply preoccupied people. With the narratives of the parents, stories have been placed at the beginning that seem to tell “how it was”, but which actually want to tell how things could go on.
The book of Exodus recounts the exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert to Sinai, while the book of Numbers recounts the journey from Sinai through the desert to Moab and the border of the Promised Land. At the center of the Torah is the Book of Leviticus, which takes place at Sinai and in which instructions are given that are to be constitutive for Israel’s life in the land. In other words: The stay at Sinai with the making of the covenant and the giving of the Torah (Ex 19:1-Num 10:10) is framed by the descriptions of the wandering in the desert (Ex 15:22-18:27 and Num 10:11-20:29) and concluded by the sojourn in the East Bank (Num 21-36) and the account of the day of Moses’ death (Deut). […]
The Exodus – as the Bible describes it – is not historical. The most important reasons for this clear statement from a historical perspective are: (a) The biblical chronology, which dates the Exodus 480 years before the building of the Temple and thus around 1440 BCE under Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE), is contrived and at the same time contradicts the participation of the Israelites in the building of the city of Ramses under Ramses II (1279-1213 BCE). (b) The routes of the Exodus reported in the Exodus narrative contradict each other. (c) In Ex 12:37; Num 11:21 the Bible assumes 600,000 people, in Num 1:46; 2:32 even 603,550 able-bodied adult men.
Christian Frevel, Geschiche Israels (History of Israel)
It is impossible for such a group to survive in the desert, as there is not enough water in the natural springs. Apart from this, there are no archaeological traces of a 40-year mass movement in the LBA period [= Late Bronze Age, B.S.] on the Sinai Peninsula. (d) The oasis of Kadesh (‘ğn el-Quudğrat), where Israel is said to have stayed several times and for long periods (Num 13:26; 20:1; Deut 1:46, etc.), is not known to have been inhabited in the LBA until the Iron IIB period in the 8th century BC. The same applies to Arad (Num 21:1), the East Jordanian city of Heshbon (Num 21:25f.) or the port city of Ezion-Geber (Num 33:35f.). (e) There is no evidence of a mass exodus or mass expulsion of Semites in Egypt during the 19th-21st dynasties. Egyptian sources are completely silent about the Exodus. Since none of the biblical evidence is contemporary and its source value remains limited, the historical proof of an exodus is hopeless.
[…]In addition, there is no evidence in Egyptian and other sources that “Israel” stayed in Egypt.
[…]
So the question is: who told of an “exodus”, when, for what reason and for what purpose? Interestingly, the probably oldest literary evidence is not found in the Book of Exodus, but in the Book of the Twelve Prophets and also in Israel (Hos 8:11-13; 9:3-4; 11:1-6; 12:8-14 cf. Am 2:10; 3:1, 9:7). It is assumed that the listeners and readers can contemplate something under the cipher “Egypt”. At the same time, it is noticeable that in these texts “Egypt” is often used in parallel with “Assyria”. This leads to the conclusion that it was not experiences from Egypt, but those from the time of Hosea with the Assyrians and the imperial policies of Sargon II (722-705), Sennacherib (705-681) and Asarhaddon (681-669) that were the impetus and driving force. […]
The narrative about the childhood of Moses takes up an old literary model that was revived in the 7th century BC: King Sargon I of Akkad (around 2340-2284 BC, in Akkadian: šarru-k̅ en = “the king is legitimate”) was of unknown, non-dynastic origin, which was legitimized by a legend. This legend tells that he was abandoned in a basket of rushes as an infant. Many centuries later, this legend was taken up by Sargon II (722-705) for his own legitimization and seems to have been adopted from there in the childhood story of Moses. […]
The concept of the covenant, which is found in the context of the Exodus traditions, is decisively influenced by Assyrian vassal treaties (= “covenant”), with which the Assyrians defined the relationship to their vassals. This “covenant” is a contract in which the Assyrians define the tasks, duties and obligations and demand the obedience of their subjects through an oath of allegiance.
These treaties were received in the biblical texts with the opposite sign, especially in the Deuteronomistic literature, in that the early versions of the Book of Deuteronomy draft a counter-treaty to its Assyrian models. In Deuteronomistic literature, the Assyrian oath of loyalty is of course not to the Assyrian king, but to YHWH (cf. Deut. 13*; 28*) – Israel is loyal to him alone! The fact that this subversive counter-reading is set in the context of the Exodus tradition, the narrative of liberation from bondage and enslavement, speaks for itself.
During the Babylonian exile and in Persian times, the Exodus narratives are retold. The Exodus narratives now serve to call on people to leave their lives in the Babylonian and Persian empires and move out in order to live in their own country. The fact that the location of this narrative is not Egypt in the 13th century BC, but rather the situation of exile, can be seen in Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah II). Here, the possibility of returning from exile to the promised land is described as an exodus (Isa 48:20-21; 52:11; 55:12). […]
The Exodus traditions are thus narrative condensations of historical experiences – not necessarily of a historically fixable enslavement in Egypt, but of “Egypt”, i.e. of experiences of foreign rule, exploitation and lack of freedom, for example by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, etc.
From Geschichte Israels, Barbara Schmitz
