Exodus Israelites march into Transjordan

by Damien F. Mackey It is the same point that has struck me and to which I have referred previously: namely, that a change in rule occurred while Moses was still in Midian. Thus Anati writes with reference to Exodus 2:23: “Here the biblical narrative signals a change of government in Egypt, an important clue in establishing a relative chronology”. PROFESSOR EMMANUEL ANATI ON MIDIAN After we read about the death of the patriarch Isaac, aged 180 (Genesis 35:28-29), the narrative proceeds, in Genesis 36, to list the descendants of Esau. Verses 31-43 are about the various Kings of Edom (v. 31): “These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned ….”. Professor Emmanuel Anati, when discussing the Midianites in the context of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, will refer to one of the Edomite kings (The Mountain of God, 1986, p. 202). Midian, he said, consisted of five tribes (Genesis 25:1-4), “the Midianite confederacy”, as he described it, and Midian was “defeated by Hadad, son of Bedad (36:35)”. Most relevant will be the first king mentioned in the Edomite list (36:32): “Bela son of Beor became king of Edom. His city was named Dinhabah”. He is the famous seer, “Balaam son of Beor”, of Numbers 22-24 – a true historical character. Also, in the Book of Numbers we read about a census taken “of the whole Israelite community” (1:2). Verses 5-15 list the heads of each tribal family. Two names in particular stand out for me (v. 6), “from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai”. These names recur again in the Book of Judith, which work commentators tend to dismiss as a ‘didactic’ or ‘historical fiction’ (Judith 8:1): “… Salamiel, Sarasadai”. The pair are listed towards the end of a sixteen-generation long Simeonite genealogy. Professor Anati also makes a point here about Egyptian dynastic chronology. It is the same point that has struck me and to which I have referred previously: namely, that a change in rule occurred while Moses was still in Midian. Thus Anati writes with reference to Exodus 2:23: “Here the biblical narrative signals a change of government in Egypt, an important clue in establishing a relative chronology”. One’s opting for, for instance, pharaoh Amenemes IV, the presumed last king of the Twelfth Dynasty, for the stubborn ruler of the Exodus (a recent suggestion), would not have taken into account that clue from Exodus 2:23 which seems to hint at a change of dynasty. Poor old Amenemes so-called IV has been variously touted by revisionists as the Exodus ruler, or his first born son, or even as Moses himself. Professor Anati, who has hypothesised that the location of Jethro’s Midianite tribe at the time of Moses’ sojourn was in and near the Uvda[h] Valley, believes that he has found archaeological evidence for their settlement there (op. cit., p. 204): My hypothesis is that Jethro’s tribe lived in the Uvda Valley as well as in other places in the southern Negev north of Eilat … recently archaeological explorations in these areas has brought to light important concentrations of small dwellings from the Early and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Ages … huts, agricultural structures, threshing-floors, and livestock enclosures, as well as the cult sites, altars and boulder-menhirs …”. Jethro, professor Anati had noted (p. 202) was also called Reuel, “shepherd of God”. The root of the name “Jethro” is itr, he says, “and implies superiority, as a superior man”. Jethro was undoubtedly the boss. Whilst on the subject of the Midianites and the Holy Mountain, professor Anati, commenting on the Divine name, will take a swipe at the JEDP version of it (p. 203): The term Elohim defines Yahweh as the God of the fathers, which is the third title after Elohim and Yahweh. The term Yahweh embraces the three tenses of the verb “to be”: was, is, and will be. The number three is repeated once again, for the third time, in the title of “God of the three fathers”, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God revealed himself three times in this narrative as the one and triune God, in three different manners: three names, three tenses, and the God of the three patriarchs. It is difficult to accept the hypothesis of those who see this extremely compact and coherent text as the merging of two distinct sources, the Elohim and Yahwetist traditions. …. In Numbers 13, Moses will send men “to spy out the land of Canaan”, one man from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. Here we are given an eye-witness account of the Promised Land at the time (vv. 21-25): So they went up and spied out the land from the Wilderness of Zin as far as Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath. And they went up through the South and came to Hebron; Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and there cut down a branch with one cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole. They also brought some of the pomegranates and figs. The place was called the Valley of Eshcol, because of the cluster which the men of Israel cut down there. And they returned from spying out the land after forty days. Spooked by the giants in the land, though, and by the large, fortified cities, the spies will advise against entering (vv. 27-29). Not so Joshua and Caleb, the only two of the Exodus generation who will ultimately enter the Promised Land (v. 39): “Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, ‘We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it’.” Dr. David Rohl writes that the name of Caleb (tribe of Judah) has been found at Gezer etched in Proto-Sinaitic script (From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible, p. 227): A potsherd from the MB II-B stratum at Gezer (conquered by the Israelites) bears three Proto-Sinaitic signs scratched onto its surface. The letters k-l-b spell out the name Caleb (‘dog’), and, as we have seen, this was the name of the Israelite chieftain who led the war against the cities of the south. DR JOHN OSGOOD ON TRANSJORDAN Dr. John Osgood has provided a sound archaeological reconstruction of the Transjordanian region at the time of Israel’s incursion, meanwhile showing that the sites of Bab Ed–Dhra, Numeira, etc. - claimed by some to be Pentapolis (Sodom) – belonged, instead, to the Conquest era: https://creation.com/the-times-of-the-judges-mdash-the-archaeology-exodus-to-conquest The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest Historical Framework Numbers 21 fills in some fascinating history about Trans Jordan. The following facts emerge, from the north downwards …: 1. The Amorite king, Og, ruled in Bashan in the far north. 2. It appears that the original kingdom of Sihon, the Amorite, was just north of the Wadi Zerqa, known in the Bible as the River Jabbok (Numbers 21:24) 3. It appears originally that the former king of Moab had ruled the area south of the River right down to the Wadi el Hasa (Wadi Zared) 4. Prior to Israel conquest of this area, Sihon had conquered the area between the River Jabbok and the Arnon River from the former king of Moab. It appears, importantly for our discussion, that he did not totally drive out the Moabites from this area but they served him (Numbers 21:29, where captivity is mentioned). 5. In the days of Israel’s conquest, Moab under Balak, king of Moab, was the territory between the Wadi el Hasa and Wadi Mujib (Arnon). …. The conquest by Israel of Trans Jordan extended from the Wadi Mujib right up north to include all the area of Bashan—in other words, all the area of Sihon and all the area of Og, king of Bashan. It explicitly did not include the main area of Moab, south of the Wadi Mujib …. These facts will give us the following guide archaeologically …: 1. The northern kingdom of Bashan should show evidence of Amorite civilization, here equated with EB III, which was ended by the MB I peoples, here called Israel. 2. The area of Gilead north of the Jabbok River but south of Bashan should have exactly the same pattern as that of Bashan EB III superseded by MB I civilization, where Israel settled. 3. The area between the Wadi Mijib (Arnon) and the Wadi Jabbok will show evidence of three phases, the lower phases representing Moabite culture, here defined as EB IV, a second layer representing Sihon’s civilization holding Moabites captive, here it will continue to be EB IV and then a third culture representing the Israelite conquerors (MB I). 4. In Moab south of Wadi Mujib we will meet with an EB IV culture which has arisen from a previous EB III culture, and which will continue on in that vein without explicit conquest by the MB I people. …. This pattern … is, in fact, exactly what we find from the archaeological reports presently at hand. EB IV in Trans Jordan is, in fact, defined most clearly in the area of ancient Moab. It will, however, include a portion which was occupied by the group known as the Midianites mentioned in Number chapter 31. The area where these Midianites lived can logically be identified if one bears in mind that the Midianites were associated geographically with the Moabites, and close to Israel’s encampment north of Moab in such a way that the social intercourse with the Midianite women at Beth–Peor could occur. And if one bears in mind that when Moses lived in the northern Sinai–Negev region during his forty years of exile from Egypt, he came in contact with this Midianite group and married one of their women. Then clearly the only geographical spot where these Midianites could have lived is in the western portion of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, and perhaps at its southern end …. It is just there that the cities of Bab Ed–Dhra, Numeira, etc. have been excavated, all of which show signs of destruction at the end of EB I and subsequent poor repopulation by the EB IV people (here defined as Moabites). …. These cities, five in all, have been suggested as possible candidates for Sodom and Gomorrah, the five cities of the plain. However, the narrative of Numbers 31, Moses’ attack on the Midianite cities, fits the details better, particularly when one views the nature of the destruction at these cities. It was not the type of geological destruction that the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah would suggest, but far closer to that which would be wrought by human agency. The area between the Jabbok and the Wadi Mujib is the most interesting of these areas, especially as a number of sites have been excavated in this area providing consistent results, particularly at the sites of Iktanu and Tel Iskander. Prag … while discussing Tel Iktanu, points to two phases, both particularly emphasising red coloured ceramics, essentially of an EB IV phase with similarities to the Moabite area EB IV, and also states that these red slipped or burnished pottery of Iktanu phase 1 and southern type are not to be found in the areas north of the Wadi Zerqa (Jabbok). She saw the Jabbok as a border area, so that what in essence is occurring in this part of Trans Jordan is two phases of what might be called EB IV followed then by MB I, often built on different sites. Now this corresponds exceedingly well with the phases suggested for this area (see Figure 11 again), which was conquered from the former king of Moab by Sihon and then reconquered from Sihon by Israel. Down in the south, however, the red burnished wares continue on through all phases: “The essential point of interest for all these southern sites is that red slipped and burnished wares continued right through the pottery of early and late phases, though there does seem to be an increase in plain and non–red slip wares towards the end of the period at the expense of the red wares.” …. However, north of the Jabbok or the Wadi Zerqa, we meet the situation where Middle Bronze I sites are often built straight on sites that previously had to have Early Bronze III habitation, the Early Bronze IV of the south now being absent. “They indicate that in the region north of the Zerqa River in Trans Jordan, significant proportion of EB–MB sites (approximately half) were founded on the same position as a previous EB III or EB II settlement.” …. EB–MB in this discussion is the same as MB I. It is Kathleen Kenyon’s terminology. The sites in the north consistently show the evidence of destruction at the end of EB III wherever excavations have occurred, and a supplanting by the MB I people, a picture that is thoroughly consistent with the biblical narrative of the– Exodus and Conquest. This, however, identifies EB IV Trans Jordan pottery culture as Moabite (and also possibly Ammonite). The MB I people of Trans Jordan were the Israelites, who conquered the area of the former Amorites and settled instead in their place. From this Trans Jordan area under Moses, the Children of Israel next thrust across the Jordan River into Palestine under Joshua after the Reubenites, Gadites and the tribe of Manasseh had built cities and shelters for their families and their cattle (Numbers 32). The evidence of a relationship between the Trans Jordan MB I people and the Palestinian MB I has been obvious to several. Prag reports: “This raises the interesting point that settlement on the open Valley floor as in the Chalcolithic, EB–MB parts of the Iron Age, etc. may indicate a degree of unity, cultural or political on both sides of the Jordan, while a retreat to defensive positions as in the EBA and the rest of the Iron Age may indicate periods when the Jordan River was a political frontier between the hostile groups. It might be inferred therefore that Palestine and Transjordon belong to one political unit in the EB MB period and that there were no difficulties in passing the Jordan fords.” …. This is completely consistent with the biblical narrative, and the revised chronology here presented allows the biblical narrative to find its true place against the archaeological artifacts. Dever notes not only a cultural unity between the two, but also presupposes that the Trans Jordan people preceded the conquest of Palestine, an incredibly ironic statement in view of the fact that the Bible’s narrative of Israel’s conquest was not consulted for this. “The ER 1 V/MB I transitional phase in Transjordan was brief and rapidly gave way to a culture which expanded vigorously, chiefly into Palestine, where its fully developed expression is seen in the numerous sedentary and semi–sedentary MB I sites of southern Palestine. Elsewhere I have attempted to document this expansion and to distinguish geographical and cultural ‘Families’ in MB I.” …. It is most ironic that Dever can take this view and still not consult the Israelite conquest narrative, which is certainly the only written illustration of a culture that behaved in this manner in that part of the world. The next act of the Children of Israel prior to the Conquest across the Jordan River was the destruction of the Midianite enclave, apparently on the western side of Moab. This is narrated in Numbers chapter 31 and I believe illustrated archaeologically by the five cities in the southern Ghor of the Dead Sea. These five cities are known today as Bab edh Dhra, Numeira, es–Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir …. All the sites discovered or visited by Rast and Schaub belong to the Early Bronze Age (3150 2200 BC). Even more interesting is the fact that all of them came to an end in virtually the same period: Bab edh Dhra—from EB I to late EB III/beginning of EB IV. Numeira—EB III es Safi—EB I to EB III Feifeh—EB I to EB III Khanazir—EB III to EB IV Thus three of these cities existed from EB I to the end of EB III of EB IV. The other two were founded during EB III and came to their end at the end of EB III/beginning of EB IV. The Rast and Schaub survey also focuses our attention on the similarity in location and layout of these five cities. Moreover, at least three of these cities were destroyed by fire.” …. These five cities are cited as possible candidates for Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bela by reference to the accepted chronology. However, their destruction was the type that man would create and not the fiery geological catastrophe that Genesis speaks of in reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is thus consistent with these five cities being the Midianite cities of Numbers 31. ….