Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ›Biblical Israel‹ (Part 1)

Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ›Biblical Israel‹ 211

Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ›Biblical Israel‹*0 (Part 1) 0

By Nadav Na’aman

(Tel Aviv University)

Introduction

Since the 1990s, scholars have expressed doubts regarding the premor-dial unity of the people of Israel, and arguments have been brought for-ward that the name ›Israel‹ only came to include the population of thekingdom of Judah at a very late stage.1 A group named Israel is listed inthe Merneptah inscription of his fifth year (1208 BCE) after the namesof three cities (Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno^am).2 However, it is not pos-sible to deduce from the order of the inscription where it was located,nor the range of its territory, or who was included in it. Some 350 yearsseparate this from the next reference to Israel, which had in the mean-time become an established kingdom, and no doubt during that longtime it underwent extensive changes in its ethnic composition, size andlocation. There are other examples of ethnic groups that were sporadi-cally mentioned in the dawn of their history, and centuries later arementioned again, without their late appearance helping to determinetheir incipient size or location.3 The gap of centuries between early andlate Israel makes it impossible to create a historical continuity betweenthem, and we cannot rely on the early mention of ›Israel‹ in a discussionabout the ethnic designation ›Israel‹ in the first millennium BCE.

During the monarchical period the name ›Israel‹ was associatedonly with the Northern Kingdom, and quite distinct from the name›Judah‹ associated with the kingdom on its south. This is borne out by

0 The preparation of the article for publication was made with the generous financialsupport of the Israel Science Foundation (ISF).

1 The problem was first raised by P.R. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 148,1992, 11–74.

2 For a recent discussion of the Merneptah stele, see L.D. Morenz, Wortwitz – Ideologie –Geschichte: »Israel« im Horizont Mer-en-ptahs, ZAW 120 (2008), 1–13, with earlierliterature.

3 N. Na’aman, The ›Conquest of Canaan‹ in the Book of Joshua and in History, in: I. Fin-kelstein and N. Na’aman (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological andHistorical Aspects of Early Israel, 1994, 249.

*

ZAW 121. Bd., S. 211–224 DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2009.014© Walter de Gruyter 2009

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 93.180.53.211

Download Date | 12/29/13 3:25 PM

212 Nadav Na’aman

external documents from the 9th century (the inscriptions of Shalma-neser III, king of Assyria, Hazael, king of Aram, and Mesha, king ofMoab), in which the Northern Kingdom is called ›Israel‹. The southernone is consistently called ›Judah‹ (Ya’udi), and its inhabitants ›Juda-hites‹ (Ya’udaia), in the Assyrian royal inscriptions of the 8th-7th cen-tury BCE. The seah volume measure of the land of Judah is mentionedin an Assyrian document from Nineveh, dated to 660 BCE (ADD 148).4Two published seal impressions bear the inscriptions »belonging to#hz (son of) yhwtm king of Judah« and »belonging to hzqyhw (son of)#hz king of Judah«.5 Unfortunately, the seal impressions arrived fromthe antiquities market and their authenticity is uncertain. Jerusalem isdescribed in a Babylonian chronicle from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II,king of Babylonia, as »city of Judah« (Al-Yaäudu).6 Jehoiachin, king ofJudah, who was exiled to Babylonia, is described in economic docu-ments from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar as »king of Judah« (KURYaäudu).7 And a colony of Judahite exiles in the north of Babylonia isdesignated in several Babylonian contracts of the second half of the sixthcentury BCE by the name Al-Yaäudu, after their country of origin.8

Scholars have also noted that the name ›Israel‹ was used by the 8thcentury prophets to signify the Northern Kingdom, and that the appli-cation of the name ›Israel‹ to the kingdom of Judah in the Books ofHosea, Amos, Isaiah and Micah appears in late additions.9 Only in the

4 T. Kwasman, Neo Assyrian Legal Documents in the Kouyunjik Collection of the BritishMuseum, 1988, No 9 line 3. This capacity measure was possibly brought to Ninevehby a Judahite merchant.

5 The proposition that the seal engraved with the four-winged scarab emblem was the of-ficial seal of the kings of Israel rests on its parallel in the recently-published seal im-pression, showing a two-winged scarab pushing a ball of dung, with the inscriptions»belonging to hzqyhw (son of) #hz king of Judah«. See F.M. Cross, King Hezekiah’sSeal Bears Phoenician Imagery, BAR 25/2 (1999), 42–50, 60; R. Deutsch, First Impres-sion – What We Learn from King Ahaz’s Seal, BAR 24/3 (1998), 54–56, 62.

6 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 1975, 102, line 12.7 E.F. Weidner, Jojachin, König von Juda, in Babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, in: Mél-

anges Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud II, 1939, 925–927.8 F. Joannès and A. Lemaire, Trois tablettes cunéiformes à onomastique ouest-sémitique,

Transeuphratène 17 (1999), 17–27; R. Zadok, The Earliest Diaspora. Israelites andJudeans in Pre-Hellenistic Mesopotamia, 2002, 33–35; L.E. Pearce, New Evidence for Ju-deans in Babylonia, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in thePersian period, 2006, 399–411; K. Abraham, West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cunei-form Sources from the Sixth Century BCE, AfO 51 (2005/6), 198–219; idem, An Inherit-ance Division among Judeans in Babylonia from the Early Persian Period, in: M. Lubetski(ed.), New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, 2007, 206–221.

9 J. Høgenhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja, 1988, 14, 20–22; W.D. Whitt, The JacobTraditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis, ZAW 103 (1991), 20–23, with ear-lier literature.




7th century did the distinction between them grow blurred, and thenames ›Israel‹ and ›Jacob‹ began to be applied to the kingdom of Judah,too. It appears that the use of the name ›Israel‹ in reference to thepeoples of both kingdoms began no earlier than the late 8th centuryBCE, after the downfall of the kingdom of Israel and its annexation byAssyria. Only then, when the ancient name ›Israel‹ was left unclaimed,did scribes in Judah begin to apply it to the peoples of both kingdoms.10

This supports the conclusion that the compositions that describethe early history of Israel and Judah as a single entity, which took shapeand became unified in its primeval stages and split into two kingdomscenturies later, could have been written no earlier than the late 8th cen-tury BCE. The exceptions are works that were composed in the North-ern Kingdom and use the overall term ›Israel‹ for the described people.However, it is difficult to demonstrate the northern origin of the biblicalhistoriography; so, except for the story cycle of Jacob,11 the pre-Deute-ronomistic story cycle of the Book of Judges,12 and some propheticstories in the Book of Kings, most of the biblical historiography waswritten by Judahite scribes only after the fall of the Northern Kingdom.

10 For the term ›Israel‹ in post-monarchic biblical texts, see E. Ben Zvi, Inclusion and Ex-clusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of the Term ›Israel‹ in Post-Monarchic Bib-lical Texts, in: S.W. Holloway and L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken. MemorialEssays for Gösta W. Ahlström, JSOTSup 190, 1995, 95–149, with earlier literature.

11 A. de Pury, Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origins d’Israël, SVT 43(1991), 78–96; idem, Situer le cycle de Jacob. Quelques réflexions, vingt-cinq ans plustard, in: A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and His-tory, BETL 155, 2001, 221–241; idem, The Jacob Story and the Beginning of theFormation of the Pentateuch, in: T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to theYahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation,2006, 51–72, with earlier literature.

12 Following Uwe Becker, I very much doubt that it is possible to reconstruct the pre-Deuteronomistic story cycles in the Book of Judges; see idem, Richterzeit und König-tum. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch, BZAW 192, 1990. In spiteof the difficulties in reconstructing an early collection, the geographic horizon of thestories in Jud 3–12 is set in the Northern Kingdom and points to the original locationof the composition. See T. Römer and A. de Pury, Deuteronomistic Historiography(DH): History of Research and Related Issues, in: A. de Pury and T. Römer (eds.), IsraelConstructs its History, JSOTSup 306, 2000, 117–119; E.A. Knauf, Does »Deutero-nomistic Historiography« Exist?, in: de Pury and Römer, ibid., 396. For a suggested re-covery of a pre-Deuteronomistic ›book of saviours‹ (Retterbuch), see W. Richter, Tradi-tionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch, BBB 18, 1963; P. Guillaume,Waiting for Josiah, 2004, 5–105, with earlier literature. I very much doubt Guillaume’srecent reconstruction of ›a book of saviours‹, based on what looks like circular reason-ing (as he himself admits on p. 55). Setting an arbitrary list of criteria for establishingwhich element of the story is early and which is late (see p. 41), decides a-priori the re-sults of the seemingly literary-historical research.



214 Nadav Na’aman

Why did the Judahite authors start calling the kingdom and thepeople amongst whom they composed their works by the name ›Israel‹rather than ›Judah‹? Some solutions have been suggested to this vexedproblem.

Finkelstein and Silberman proposed that a major wave of immi-grants that poured from Israel into Judah in the late 8th century BCEdramatically increased the population of the kingdom of Judah andaltered its society, making it broadly Judahite-Israelite. The picture of aunified kingdom that arises from the story cycle of Saul and David wasdue to the desire of the kings of Judah to create a common past and pro-vide an ideological foundation for the new society that had grownin Judah at the end of the 8th and early 7th centuries BCE.13 Accordingto this solution, the kingdom of Judah, which had been unified andquite homogeneous in the 9th–8th centuries, was transformed in asingle generation into a mixed Judahite-Israelite kingdom. The biblicalhistoriography written in the court of Jerusalem and directed by theking therefore expressed the ideology and the legitimation of the newly-created political and social entity.

I have already discussed this solution in detail and suggested thatall the speculation about a mass migration of thousands (or tens thou-sands) of inhabitants from Israel into Judah following the Assyrian con-quest in 720, and their prompt settlement all over the kingdom – includ-ing the Shephelah and Jerusalem –, has no textual or archaeologicalevidence to support it. Nor is there any foundation for the ›melting pot‹policy attributed to Hezekiah, according to which he settled with un-precedented speed the masses of refugees who migrated into his realm,and even took pains to rewrite the Judahite history books in order to

13 I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision ofAncient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, 2001, 243–245; idem, David and So-lomon. In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition,2006, 129–138; idem, Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and theRise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology, JSOT 30 (2006), 259–285; I. Finkelstein, Jerusalemin the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE: A Reply to Nadav Na’aman, Zion 72 (2007),325–337 (Hebrew). Other scholars also connected the introduction of the conceptof ›biblical Israel‹ to the mass migration of Israelites to the kingdom of Judah. SeeW. Dietrich, The Early Monarchy in Israel. The Tenth Century B.C., 2007, 247–248(original publication: Die frühe Königszeit in Israel: 10. Jahrhundert v.Chr. [BiblischeEnzyklopädie 3], 1997); idem, Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte, in: A. de Pury andT. Römer (eds.), Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Neue Ansichten undAnfragen, OBO 176, 2000, 59–60; W.M. Schniedewind, Jerusalem, the Late JudaeanMonarchy, and the Composition of Biblical Texts, in: A.G. Vaughn and A.E. Killebrew(eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, 2003, 380–81,385–386; idem, How the Bible became a Book. The Textualization of Ancient Israel,2004, 68–73, 94–95.




make them feel part of the host kingdom. Biblical historiography waswritten for a small group of literate people and it is anachronistic tocompare it to the way modern societies try to integrate new immigrantsin their confines. In sum, solutions of the ›deus ex machina‹ sort shouldbe avoided, as they tend to give rise to more problems than they claim tosolve.14

Another line of research for the origin of the concept of ›biblicalIsrael‹ was suggested by Davies.15 He hypothesized that Benjamin wasthe channel through which north Israelite traditions were transmittedto the kingdom of Judah. His point of departure for the discussion is anassumed tension between Benjamin and Judah which is reflected in manyparts of the biblical historiography (i.e., the histories of Saul and Ish-Ba^al, the biography of Jeremiah, the episode of Gedaliah at Mizpah, theepisode of the Outrage of Gibeah and the Book of Esther), indicatinga lack of unity in the kingdom of Judah. He suggested that from the9th century BCE on, the district of Benjamin was included in the terri-tory of Israel, and that to acknowledge Ahaz’s loyalty to Assyria, Sargongranted Benjamin to Judah after he had conquered and annexed Samariain 720 BCE. Davies suggested that the descriptions of I Reg 12,21–24and 15,17–22, which clearly indicate that in the late 10th – early 9th cen-turies Benjamin was part of the kingdom of Judah, are anachronistic.In his words, »The biblical accounts have retrojected the later Judah-Benjamin union into the beginnings of the independent Judaean king-dom itself, severing Benjamin from any recent connection with Israel.«

This bold reconstruction of the history of Benjamin forms the basisfor Davies’ hypothesis of the emergence of the early biblical composi-tion that focused on the twelve tribes and the unity of early Israel.16 Asthe district of Benjamin, which was once part of Israel, became part of

14 For criticism of the mass migration hypothesis, see E.A. Knauf, Bethel: The IsraeliteImpact on Judean Language and Literature, in: Lipschits and Oeming, Judah and theJudeans, 293–294; N. Na’aman, When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City?The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the 8th–7th Centuries BCE, BASOR347 (2007), 21–56; idem, The Growth and Development of Judah and Jerusalem in theEighth Century BCE and the Assumed ›Melting Pot‹ Policy Attributed to King Heze-kiah. A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, Zion 72 (2007), 338–346 (Hebrew).

15 P.R. Davies, The Origin of Biblical Israel, in: Y. Amit et al. (eds.), Essays on AncientIsrael in Its Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, 2006, 141–148;idem, The Trouble with Benjamin, in: R. Rezetko, T.H. Lim and W.B. Aucker (eds.),Reflection and Refraction. Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. GraemeAuld, VT.S 113, 2007, 93–111.

16 Davies suggested that the earliest comprehensive biblical historiographical work waswritten at Mizpah, emphasized the military leadership of Benjamin among the Israelitetribes (excluding Judah) and stopped with the death of Saul. See idem, Origin of Bib-lical Israel; idem, Trouble with Benjamin, 104–108.



216 Nadav Na’aman

the kingdom of Judah, it became the channel through which the scribesof Jerusalem gradually absorbed elements of the Israelite historical andreligious traditions. Benjamin thus played a major role in the creation ofthe concept of ›biblical Israel‹, which had been a unity since ancient timeand included the inhabitants of both Israel and Judah.

What evidence is there to support the assumption that – contrary tothe description in the Book of Kings – the district of Benjamin was partof the territory of Israel until the late 8th century, when it was turnedover to Judah? Is there evidence of tension between Judah and Benjaminduring the monarchical period? Was Benjamin a north-Israelite tribe, sothat it could have been the channel by which northern traditions werepassed to the court of Jerusalem? Did the rivalry between Saul andDavid described in the Book of Samuel reflect the tension between Israeland Judah in the late monarchical period? It is the purpose of this articleto examine these fundamental questions in order to shed light on theemergence of the concept of ›biblical Israel‹ in Judahite historiographyof the pre-exilic period.

The Border between Judah and Israelin the Ninth-Eighth Centuries BCE

Let me open the discussion by clarifying the place of the land of Benja-min vis à vis the city of Jerusalem along the axis of time (the longuedurée). Years ago I discussed this problem in detail and demonstratedthat from the early second millennium BCE the land of Benjamin wasalways included in the territory of Jerusalem.17 This is clear from theanalysis of the documentary and archaeological evidence of the secondmillennium BCE, as well as the documentary evidence of the Persian andHellenistic periods. It is obvious that the district of Benjamin alwayshad a southward orientation, toward Jerusalem, and was detached fromthe political/administrative entity on its north.

The results of the archaeological excavations and surveys con-ducted in the highland district of Benjamin in the Iron Age II clearlyshow that the district of Benjamin was an integral part of the kingdomof Judah in the 8th–7th centuries BCE. The material culture unearthedin major Benjaminite cities, such as Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah), Gibeon,Tell el-Fûl (Gibeah), Khirbet el-Burj (probably Beeroth), and neighbour-ing sites, is identical to that uncovered in Jerusalem and other Judahitesites. Let me present a few examples. A large number of lmlk seal im-pressions have been found in sites located all over the district of Benja-

17 N. Na’aman, Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Sec-ond Millennium B.C.E., UF 24 (1992), 275–291.




min, while only a single seal impression was found north of it.18 Rosetteseal impressions have been found in sites located in the area of Benja-min, but not a single seal impression was discovered in the area north ofit.19 Numerous Judahite pillar figurines have been discovered in the ex-cavations conducted in Benjaminite sites, but very few north of it.20

Many burials in hewn caves, which appear in all districts of the king-dom of Judah, have been discovered in the territory of Benjamin, butnot a single tomb north of it.21 The results of the archaeological researchstrongly suggest that the highland district of Benjamin was an integralpart of the kingdom of Judah in the monarchical period, and that its ma-terial culture differs from that of the hill country of Ephraim.

Both the analysis of the longue durée and the material culture un-covered in the Benjaminite hill country sites show that – contrary to thesuggestion of Davies (and Knauf; see below) – the district was part ofthe kingdom of Judah in the 8th to early 6th centuries BCE. The city ofJerusalem is located close to Benjamin and the Benjaminites could havegained much from their proximity to the kingdom’s capital. The capitalsof the Northern Kingdom (Shechem, Tirzah and Samaria), on the otherhand, were located far north. No wonder that, like their Canaanite pre-decessors, the inhabitants of Benjamin in the Iron Age kept close tieswith the capital of Jerusalem and joined the emerging kingdom of Judahin the 10th-9th centuries BCE.

According to I Reg 12,21–24, after the division of the monarchy,Benjamin was included in the kingdom of Judah.22 The account inI Reg 15,16–22 relates how Baasha, king of Israel, conquered Ramah(er-Ram), a strategic site located about eight kms north of Jerusalem, onthe main road approaching it from the north. Asa appealed for help toBen-Hadad, the Aramean king, who then attacked the northern cities ofIsrael, forcing Baasha to rush troops to the north and abandon Ramah.Asa mobilized his subjects and built Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh) and Geba

18 A.G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account ofHezekiah, 1999, 32–38, 185–197; Y. Magen and M. Dadon, Nebi Samwil (Montjoie),in: G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land – Many Cultures:Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda, 2003, 124–125.

19 J.M. Cahill, Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from Ancient Judah, IEJ 45 (1995),230–252 (esp. 245–246); Magen and Dadon, Nebi Samwil, 124–125.

20 R. Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah, BAR Inter-national Series 636, 1996, 43–48, 95–96.

21 I. Yezerski, Burial-Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah towardthe End of the Iron Age, Tel Aviv 26 (1999), 253–270 (see map on p. 265).

22 For discussion of the textual and historical problems involved with this passage, seeJ.H. Grønbaek, Benjamin und Juda. Erwägungen zu 1Kön xii 21–24, VT 15 (1965),421–436.



218 Nadav Na’aman

(Jeba^), sites strategically located on the two main roads that led from thekingdom of Israel to Jerusalem.23 From this time on, the two fortifiedcities marked the northern border of the kingdom of Judah (cf. Jer 41,9).

Not all the district of Benjamin was included in the territory ofJudah. According to I Reg 16,34, Hiel of Bethel fortified the city ofJericho, which was a major town on the road leading to the Mishor andGilead on one side and to the land of Moab on the other. Control of thisroad was essential to the Omrides, who conquered Moab and ruled overit until Mesha’s rebellion, and for the Jehuhites, who struggled withMoab for the domination of the Mishor (see II Reg 13,20–21).24

Jericho and Gilgal are mentioned several times in the story cycles ofthe two 9th century prophets, Elijah and Elisha (II Reg 2,1.4.5.15.18;4,38). The 8th century prophets Amos (4,4; 5,5) and Hosea (4,15; 9,15;12,5) severely criticized the cult practised in Gilgal and Bethel, bothsites which were then important North Israelite cult centres. It is thusevident that the area of Jericho and the road leading to it from Bethelwere included in the territory of the kingdom of Israel. The road is sche-matically delineated in the description of the sons of Joseph’s southeast-ern border (Jos 16,1), and was detected in the excavations and surveyconducted in this area.25 It is possible that the town of Michmash,situated north of Geba at a road junction, was in Israelite hands. If suchwas the case, Michmash was the southernmost Israelite city in thearea, facing Geba, which was the northernmost Judahite city on Judah’sborder with Israel.

Like the road descending from Bethel eastwards to Jericho, so toothe road climbing from the northern Shephelah to the Bethel area was inIsraelite hands. This is indicated by the description of Ephraim’s south-ern border, which ran from Beth-horon westwards to Gezer and thesea (Jos 16,3.5–6a). Several biblical references mention the settlementof Ephraimite families in the area around Gezer (Jos 16,10; 21,20–22;

23 For general discussions, see P.M. Arnold, Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City, JSOT-Sup 79, 1990, 108–109 and maps on pp. 8–9; W.M. Schniedewind, The search forGibeah: Notes on the Historical Geography of Central Benjamin, in: A.M. Maeir andP. de Miroschedji (eds.), »I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times«. Archaeologicaland Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birth-day, 2006, 711–722.

24 N. Na’aman, Royal Inscription versus Prophetic Story, Mesha’s Rebellion according toBiblical and Moabite Historiography, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Riseand Fall of the Omri Dynasty, Library of Hebrew Bible/OTSt 421, 2007, 166–176,with earlier literature.

25 For the road leading from Bethel to Jericho, see A. Mazar, D. Amit, and Z. Ilan, HurvatShilhah: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert, in: J.D. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past.Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek,1996, 193–211.




Jud 1,29.35; I Chr 6,66–68 [=MT 51–53]; 7,21.28). That Gezer wasincluded in the territory of the kingdom of Israel is evident from a reliefof Tiglath-Pileser III, depicting the Assyrian conquest of this city.26 TheAijalon-Beth-horon road ran inside the Northern Kingdom’s territory,not far from Judah’s northern border, and Shishak’s campaign in the late10th century BCE passed along this route and reached the area north ofJerusalem.27

To conclude, the southern boundary of the biblical allotment ofEphraim (Jos 16,1–5) roughly corresponds with the southern borderof the kingdom of Israel with Judah. The kingdom of Israel dominatedthe two major roads that rose from the northern Shephelah to the areaof Bethel, and descended eastwards to the area of Jericho. The territoryof Judah was located south of these roads and encompassed most ofthe district of Benjamin, except for the Jericho-Gilgal, and possible theMichmash, areas.

Although the Benjaminite district dominated by Israel was relativelysmall, it nevertheless included two important locales – the city of Jer-icho and the cult place of Gilgal. I have already emphasized the import-ance of this area for Israel and its frequent mention in the propheticstories of Elijah and Elisha and the prophecies of Amos and Hosea. Tothese sources we may add the story of Ehud (Jud 3,12–30). Althoughit mentions the tribe of Benjamin, the ›Benjamin‹ referred to in the storyis the district included in the Northern Kingdom. The story reflects thesituation on the border of Israel and Moab in the 8th century BCE,when Jericho was located near the border of Moab, divided by theJordan river. Since the Moabites inhabited the plains of Moab, east ofJericho, the author of the story envisioned an attack from the east, inthe course of which the Moabites defeated Israel and occupied Jericho(›the city of palm trees‹; Jud 3,13). Consequently, Eglon, the king ofMoab, resided in the conquered city and received tribute and gifts fromthe Israelites. After delivering the tribute, Ehud approached »the gravenimages which are near Gilgal« (v. 19), then returned to the king’s palace.After killing Eglon, Ehud »had passed the graven images, and escapedto Seirah« (v. 26), a descriptive designation for the wooded, mountain-ous uninhabited area (»the shaggy mountain«) of Mount Ephraim.28

»And when he arrived, he blew the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim,

26 R.D. Barnett and M. Falkner, The Sculptures of Affur-Nasir-Apli II (883–859 B.C.),Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B.C.), Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.) from the Central andSouth-West Palaces of Nimrud, 1962, 24, 112.

27 N. Na’aman, Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps, BASOR 261 (1986),6–7.

28 N. Na’aman, Äabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the LiterarySphere, JNES 45 (1986), 284 n. 45; idem, Canaanite Jerusalem, 288.



220 Nadav Na’aman

and the people of Israel went down with him from the hill country, hav-ing him at their head« (v. 27). They took the fords of the Jordan andsmote the fleeing Moabites (vv. 28–29). It is clear that all the topographi-cal elements included in the story pertain to the territory of the kingdomof Israel, and that Ehud, although described as Benjaminite of the familyof Gera (v. 15), was depicted in the story as a north Israelite saviour.29

The District of Benjamin in the Prophecies of Hosea

Several locations in the territory of Benjamin are mentioned in Hosea.Most remarkable is the prophecy in Hos 5,8–10, which might be trans-lated as follows:

»Blow the horn in Gibeah, the trumpet in Ramah. Raise a shout: ›Beth-aven; afteryou, Benjamin‹! Ephraim shall become a desolation in the day of punishment; amongthe tribes of Israel I declare what is sure. The officers of Judah have become like thosewho remove the landmark; upon them I will pour out my wrath like water«.

According to this translation, which I defend below, the prophecy invv. 8–10 envisages an impending Judahite attack on Israel and Hosea’sreaction to it.

The interpretation of the episode has been debated by scholars.Alt suggested that the prophecy refers to the Syro-Ephraimite war of733 BCE,30 and his analysis was accepted by many scholars.31 Accord-ing to Alt’s interpretation, in vv. 8–9 Hosea is issuing a warningabout an impending Judahite south-to-north attack, directed against theBenjaminite and southern Ephraimite cities. The Judahite campaign isa counter-attack to the north-to-south campaign of Rezin and Pekahagainst Ahaz, king of Judah, in the course of which the Benjaminitetowns were captured by the Aramean-Israelite army (II Reg 16,5;Isa 7,1). V. 10 was said after the completion of the Judahite counter-attack and confirmed the authenticity of the warning in vv. 8–9.

29 For the anachronistic nature of the story, see Na’aman, Royal Inscription, 168.30 A. Alt, Hosea 5,8–6,6: Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung, in:

Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, 1953, 163–174 (originally pub-lished in NKZ 30 [1919], 537–568).

31 H.W. Wolff, Hosea. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, Hermeneia,1982, 110–114 (original publication: Dodekapropheton. 1: Hosea, BKAT 14/1, 1965);H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahr-hunderts v.Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda, VT.S 11, 1964, 47–48;W. Rudolph, Hosea, KAT 13/1, 1966, 122–129; J.L. Mays, Hosea – A Commentary,OTL, 1969, 85–90; F.I. Anderson and D.N. Freedman, Hosea, AB 24, 1980, 399–416;J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea übersetzt und erklärt, ATD 24/1, 1983, 78–81;G.I. Davies, Hosea, NCBC, 1992, 145–148. The book of M. Mulzer, Alarm für Benja-min. Text, Struktur und Bedeutung in Hos 5,8–8,14, 2003, is not available to me.




Contrary to this interpretation, Jepsen32 and Wolff33 suggestedthat Gibeah and Ramah, with most of the territory of Benjamin, wereconquered in the early 8th century BCE by Joash, king of Israel(II Reg 14,11–14), and remained occupied by the Northern Kingdomduring this century. A similar suggestion was made by Macintosh, whohypothesized a long struggle for control of the district of Benjaminbetween Israel and Judah following the division of the monarchy.34 Ac-cording to his reconstruction, the territory of Benjamin was dominatedby the Syro-Ephraimite allies, and »Hosea’s words are best interpretedas serving to depict the alarm raised in Benjaminite territory … at themenace of the Judaeans«.

The bone of contention is the interpretation of the text – is it a callto arms to the (loyal to Israel) Benjaminite towns, or to the (loyal toJudah) towns of Benjamin? Most remarkable are the words »after you,Benjamin«, which is a literary allusion to the call to Benjamin to jointhe attacking Israelite forces in the Song of Deborah (Jud 5,14).35 Toavoid the straightforward meaning of the text, namely, that it is a callto Benjamin to join the attack, some scholars suggested correctingthe text. Thus Wellhausen and Wolff read it (on the basis of the LXX)»terrify (dr+xAha or VdyrIx _h+) Benjamin«.36 Andersen and Freedman andMacintosh inserted the words »we are« (»we are behind you, Benja-min«), although there is no »we« in the text.37 In my opinion, in v. 8 theprophet ›cites‹ the call to Benjamin to join the Judahite attacking forces.The verb rw^ and the noun trw^h are frequently used in the Bible to sig-nal an attack on a city or enemy (e.g., Jos 6,5.10.20; Jud 7,21; 15,14;I Sam 17,20.52; Isa 42,13; II Chr 13,15).38 V. 8b includes two loud cries:

32 A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2nd revised ed., 1956, 96–97.33 Wolff, Hosea, 113.34 A.A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea, ICC, 1997, 193–199.35 A. Caquot suggested that vv. 14–17 has been interpolated into the Song of Deborah

and that originally v. 18 came after v. 13. See idem, Les tribus d’Israël dans le cantiquede Débora (Juges 5, 13–17), Sem. 36 (1986), 47–70 (esp. 54–55). The suggestion wasaccepted by N. Na’aman, Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon(Judges iv–v), VT 40 (1990), 426. According to this suggestion, the march of the Israe-lite troops to the place of battle (vv. 11b–13) was followed by praise for Zebulun andNaphtali, the two tribes that participated in the fighting against the Canaanites (v. 18).The other eight tribes were only secondarily inserted into the song and did not takepart in the historical event.

36 J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt, 4th ed., 1963, 114; Wolff,Hosea, 104; Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 47; Mays, Hosea, 85. For criticism, seeRudolph, Hosea, 126; Jeremias, Hosea, 81.

37 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 399, 406; Macintosh, Hosea, 193, 197.38 Jeremias (Hosea, 81) correctly emphasized that the verbal form harî^û appears in the

majority of biblical texts as a call for attack and only once (Joel 2,1) as a warning.



222 Nadav Na’aman

»Beth-aven; after you, Benjamin«, to be uttered by the assaulting armybefore the attack on Bethel (Beth-aven). It is evident that the blowing ofthe horn and trumpet should be interpreted as a call to arms of the citiesof Benjamin, represented by the two well-known Benjaminite cities ofGibeah and Ramah.39

We may conclude that in v. 8 the prophet envisions the district ofBenjamin being mobilized to participate in the counter-attack on Bethel.The emphasis on Benjamin is probably due to the towns’ suffering at thehands of the invading forces of Aram and Israel, and their desire toavenge their destruction and losses. In v. 9 the prophet justifies thepunishment that would befall Ephraim, and in v. 10 he reproaches theofficers of Judah who crossed their neighbour’s border and pronouncesdivine judgment on them. The position of Hosea towards Israel andJudah in vv. 9–10 is not unlike that of the Deuteronomist in the two epi-sodes of Baasha’s invasion of the territory of Benjamin in the reign ofAsa (I Reg 15,16–22), and Rezin’s and Pekah’s attack on Jerusalem inthe time of Ahaz. In those two episodes he described critically the invad-ing Israelite forces and the failure of the invasions, but at the same timecriticized the conduct of the kings of Judah who sent a ›bribe‹ to aforeign king and caused destruction and subjugation to the kingdom ofIsrael.40

Finally, the two references to Gibeah in Hosea should be discussed.(a) »They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of

Gibeah. He shall remember their guilt, he shall punish their sins«(Hos 9,9);

(b) »Since the days of Gibeah you have sinned, O Israel. Therethey stopped. Shall not war on the children of badness overtake them inGibeah?« (Hos 10,9).

I see no grounds for the suggestion that »the days of Gibeah« refersto the appointment of Saul as king.41 The ›offences‹ attributed to KingSaul did not take place in Gibeah, and the city, known also by thepositive designation Gibeath-elohim,42 is not mentioned negatively any-

39 This was already suggested by Jeremias (Hosea, 81), who noted that »in v. 8 werdenGibea und Rama zum Gegenschlag gegen das Nordreich gerufen, Bet-El als Tor zumNordreich wird als erste Stadt vom Angriff erreicht«.

40 H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, Ahaz and Tiglath–Pileser in the Book of Kings. Histori-ographic Considerations, Bib. 60 (1979), 498–505; N. Na’aman, The Deuteronomistand Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Kings, JSOT 65 (1995), 41–48.

41 Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten, 125; E. Ben Zvi, Hosea, FOTL XXIA/1, 2005,202, 218; J. Blenkinsopp, Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Persian Period, in: Lip-schits and Oeming, Judah and the Judeans, 639.

42 For the identification of Gibeath-elohim with Gibeah/Gibeah of Saul (Tell el-Fûl), seeS.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel,




where in Saul’s history.43 Scholars usually connected Hosea’s words tothe story in Jud 19–21 and to the episode of the outrage of the men ofGibeah (Jud 19).44 However, Gibeah was a Judahite town and the dis-trict of Benjamin was in the kingdom of Judah. Hosea must have beenreferring to an episode in which Israel, not Benjamin, committed a warcrime near the city of Gibeah.45

The elements of the story in Jud 19–21 that might conceivably beconnected to Hosea’s prophecy are the war crimes that the Israelitescommitted against the tribe of Benjamin (Jud 20). It must be empha-sized that the story in Jud 19–21 is a late post-exilic literary composi-tion, in which elements of the old tradition were so interwoven andreworked that it is impossible to reconstruct its historical nucleus.46 Thehistorical event known to Hosea must have been radically differentfrom the one narrated in Judges. In Hos 9,9 and 10,9, the prophetalludes to an episode in which the Israelites slaughtered their enemies,probably the Benjaminites, near Gibeah. The time and historical back-ground of the episode are unknown. I would suggest, tentatively, thatthe prophet was referring to a war crime that the Israelites had com-mitted when they invaded the district of Benjamin during the monarchi-cal period, either in the time of Baasha or Jehoash. The episode reflectsenmity between Israel and Benjamin, contrary to the assumption ofsome scholars that cooperation and fraternity reigned between the twoneighbouring entities.

The prophecy of Isa 10,28–32, and its possible contribution tothe geographical-historical discussion, should also be mentioned. In thisprophecy Isaiah envisions a military campaign that will proceed from

1913, 69, 80; B. Mazar, Gibeath Ha-Elohim, BJPES 10 (1944), 73–75 (reprint: Citiesand Districts in Eretz Israel, 1975, 80–83) (Hebrew); R. de Vaux, Les livres de Samuel,SBJ, 1953, 52, n. d; 53, n. c; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 1960, 167. For a list ofother proposals, see H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT VIII/1, 1973, 198.

43 For detailed criticism, see A. Caquot, Osée et la Rouauté, RHPhR 41 (1961), 140–142;Davies, Hosea, 223, 244.

44 See for example: Caquot, Osée et la Rouauté, 142; Wolff, Hosea, 158, 184; Mays,Hosea, 143; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 534–535, 564–565; Jeremias, Hosea,133–134; Davies, Hosea, 223, 244; Macintosh, Hosea, 357–358, 413.

45 There are two other allusions in Hosea to war crimes committed in the past. The epi-sode of the »blood of Jezreel« (1,4) is known from the story in II Reg 9–10, whereas thehistorical background of the episode referred to with the words »as Shalman destroyedBeth-arbel on the day of battle« (10,14) remains unknown.

46 Y. Amit, Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19–21, in: H.G. Revent-low, Y. Hoffman and B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitical Literature,JSOTSup 171, 1994, 28–40; idem, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narratives, 2000,179–184; C. Edenburg, The Story of the Outrage at Gibeah (Jdg. 19–21): Composition,Sources and Historical Context (Ph.D. Thesis), 2003 (Hebrew).



224 Nadav Na’aman

the area east of Bethel (Aiath = Ai), march to Geba and split into twoforces that will advance southwards to Jerusalem, one through Ramaand Gibeah, the other through Anathoth. Various historical situationshave been proposed to account for this campaign, but they are not myconcern here.47 What is significant is that the text describes a line ofmarch from the area of Bethel to Jerusalem and ignores the stage inwhich the envisioned campaign crosses the border of Judah. Thus, thedescription in Isa 10,28–32 does not help to define the contour ofJudah’s northern border in the late 8th century BCE.

In conclusion, most of the district of Benjamin was part of the king-dom of Judah in the 9th–8th centuries BCE. There is no evidence that itwas in any stage annexed by the Northern Kingdom, and the passage ofIsraelite troops through the district towards Jerusalem did not changeits status as the northernmost district of the kingdom of Judah. A stateof vassalage is one thing and annexation is another. Admittedly, someborders were shifted during the 9th–8th centuries BCE – for example,the border between Israel and Moab, or the division of the territories ofthe fallen Philistine Gath among its eastern and western neighbours.However, most borders remained stable until Assyria dramaticallychanged the rules of the political game. There is no evidence that theborder between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had changed betweenAsa’s reign in the early 9th century and the Assyrian annexation of Israelin 720 BCE. Since the district of Benjamin was a buffer zone betweenIsrael and Judah, and must have suffered in the course of the militaryclashes between the two kingdoms (as may be inferred from Hos 5,8–9;9,9; 10,9), it might have grown hostile rather than fraternal in its re-lations with Ephraim, its northern neighbour.

(to be continued)

47 From the rich literature written on the subject, in addition to the commentaries see:G. Dalman, Palästinische Wege und die Bedrohung Jerusalems nach Jesaia 10, PJb 12(1916), 37–57; W.F. Albright, The Assyrian March on Jerusalem, Isa. X, 28–32,AASOR 4 (1924), 134–140; Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 30–38, 142–145, 181;idem, Der Feind aus dem Norden: Topographische und archäologische Erwägungen zuJes. 10,27b–34, ZDPV 84 (1968), 46–54; D.L. Christensen, The March of Conquestin Isaiah X 27c–34, VT 26 (1976), 385–399; M.A. Sweeney, Sargon’s Threat againstJerusalem in Isaiah 10,27–32, Bib. 75 (1994), 457–470; K.L. Younger, Sargon’s Cam-paign against Jerusalem – A Further Note, Bib. 77 (1996), 108–110.



Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ›Biblical Israel‹ (Part 1)

Documents

Transcript of Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ›Biblical Israel‹ (Part 1)