Page 1 of 4

2.

Identify and describe the main contributions of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine to our

understanding of Biblical history.

Our understanding of Biblical history starts with the premise that the narratives in the Bible are, first and
foremost, God's own revelation. Secondly, the Biblical writers are confined to a specific time and
space, and for such we can correlate the events described with other extant parallel narratives or facts. Our
research of the extra biblical data, then, does not aim to verify the Biblical account, but to discover other relevant
events that could help us to paint a fuller and more vivid picture of the past. Such is my present task and for that I
am going to use the Biblical text as the default framework, because it is within it that we can contextualize the
extant extra Biblical information, and to determine which facts actually help us in our discussion.
I am going to take four Biblical pictures corresponding to a stage of the Israelite past and then I will
correlate my findings to them. They are in consecutive order: (1) The Era of the Patriarchs, (2) The Exodus, (3)
The Conquest and Settlement in the Land, and (4) The Monarchy (the material for this stage is widely discussed
in questions 3 and 4).
1. The Era of the Patriarchs (Middle Bronze)
This era begins with Abram migrating from Ur, a Mesopotamian city-state, to Haran and then into Canaan. The
evidence to date the patriarchal era around 2100 and 1500 BC is given by the Biblical record itself (1 Kgs.6:1,
Exodus 12:40, and data of births in Genesis narratives). Even considering the uncertainties of the Biblical record,
for instance the textual variation of Exodus 12:40 in the LXX understands the 430-year period covers the
Egyptian sojourn and the patriarchal period as well, the Bible appears to indicate the first half of the second
millennium as the setting for the patriarchal narratives.
There is no extra biblical mention of the patriarchs or the events related to them. As we can expect, the
journey of a family does not merit the attention of imperial scribes. However, following our premise, I am going
to use the extra biblical evidence that corresponds to the period between 2100 and 1500 BC to enrich the Biblical
picture of the patriarchs.
a. The Mari tablets (ca. 1810-1760). The city of Mari was a major city in ancient Syria. This material
gives light on the political picture from the Levant in the west to the area of Mesopotamia and western Iran in the
east. One interesting aspect that the Mari archives is the social pattern of the time. There is mention of tribes
living in unsettled areas, migrating according to the cycle of dry-wet seasons in the area. These tribes established
good relationships with the people of settled areas, as we see in the dealings between Abraham and the inhabitants
of Canaan. From the archives of Mari, we know of the treaty making-process between 2000 and 1500 BC. The
available archives so far present a consisting format and present similar patterns found in the patriarchal treaties
described in Genesis (Abraham/Abimelek, Isaac/Gerar, Jacob/Laban). What it is interesting to note is that these
patterns are not found for extant third or late second millennium, or later treaties.
b. The Hammurabi Code (ca.1760). This Old Babylonian legal collection tell us of practices of its
time. Here we find a legal case for Abraham's bearing of Ishmael through Hagar and Jacob through Rachel and
Leah's maidservants. The custom of the time is that the maidservants were part of an "insurance" policy in the

Page 2 of 4

case the wife was barren. The Hammurabi laws show us these traditions were followed in Mesopotamia. I think
that our understanding of the Biblical narrative can be appreciated from a different angle. Because sometimes
when we see Abraham or Jacob -especially the latter- giving into their wives wishes (like they did not have any
word on the matter) and bearing children from their maidservants, we put them under a very negative light and
emphasize a teaching about family roles, male authority (e.g. "problems happen when roles in family are
overturned"), or we see something very dysfunctional going on there, when in fact this is a very common practice
of the time. We may now understand the reason behind the absence of a judgement value from the Biblical author.

From the Hammurabi code, and from other Old Babylonian documents and Mari texts, we have a
reference prize for the selling of slaves. As we know, Joseph was sold by his brothers for 20 shekels (Gen.37:28).
Such is the average price for the 18th century, and as Kitchen notes, the price was cheaper before and as slavery
got demand, the price increased (e.g. Exo 21:32= 30 shekels).
2. The Exodus
In order to consider the Egyptian records for our discussion, we need to take into account the mention of three
people groups: First, the Asiatics, referring to anyone to the east toward the area of Canaan. Second, Semites like
the Israelites and the Canaanites. Third, the Hurrians who are Asiatics but not Semites. Therefore, when the
Egyptians are referring to the Asiatics they could be referring to a particular group of Asiatic, or they could be
referring to the larger inclusive group. In such scenario, we do not always have total certainty if they are referring
to the Israelites or not. At this time, there is no specific evidence for the Israelites in Egypt, however, ample evidence
does exist for the presence of Semite groups in Egypt during the second half of the second millennium. For instance,
the inscription of Hatshepsut attests of Asiatics living in the Delta Avaris along with other "vagrants" who does not
worship the Egyptian sun-god RA. Also documents correlated to the 18th Dynasty record the building of public
projects by Asiatic and Semites slaves. Perhaps, the most interesting archeological finding of Israelite presence in
Egypt is the four-room house identified in Medinet Habu which is the predominant type of domestic building in
Israelite settlements during the entire Iron Age (1200-586 BC).
A lot of discussion has been made about the authorial decision of not naming the ruling pharaoh at this time
of Exodus. Without disregarding the theological point that it is YHWH and not pharaoh the center of the narrative,
it is very interesting to consider Hoffmeier's observation about the Egyptian practice itself of not giving a specific
name in their records until about the 10th century BC.
A last important piece of evidence from comparative studies in archeology is important for the Exodus
period. According to Kitchen, the formulation of the Hittite treaties is unique to the period between 1400-1200
BC. He came to this conclusion by finding a basic correspondence between Sinai and the Hittite corpus
corresponding to an extensive evidence of thirty documents from 1400-1200 B.C. There are two important
kingdoms to be considered for our discussion.

Page 3 of 4

First, Egypt is central because of the multiple historical references in the Exodus narrative. Following a
chronological reconstruction of Egyptian history1 and placing the exodus in ca. 1400 BC, we find that this event
occurred during a period after the expulsion of the Hyksos2. During the Southern 18th Dynasty of the New
Kingdom (1552 1305 B.C.) Egypt maintained its dominance in the Levant over the other two dominant powers
in the region, the Mittanians and their successors, the Hittites. It was a period of extensive political and
commercial exchange with several other states in the Aegean, the Near East and East Africa.
Second, since we have mentioned the resemblance of the Sinai covenant with those of the Hittite treaties
we will briefly discuss its history concerning to the Biblical account. The greatest period of foreign expansion of
the Hittite kingdom throughout western Asia Minor and Syria, almost as far south Damascus, occurred between
ca. 1344-1239 B.C. although its presence and dominance goes back to 1600 B.C. at the end of the Old Kingdom
when it began to decline. It is during this period that Egyptian-Hittite diplomatic relations were established by the
signing of several treaties.
The comparative studies of the cache of tablets have been particularly helpful to discern an organized
pattern of the laws that previously seemed random. In this regard, Kitchen presents an outline history of treaty,
law and covenant through six chronological phases (from ca. 2500 to 650 B.C) using between 80 and 90
documents in order to establish a very accurate and unambiguous framework against which we can correlate the
Israelite laws. The factual evidence of 31 Hittite treaties shows us that there is an undisputable correspondence
between the renewal of the covenant in Deuteronomy and the Hittite treaties classified as phase V (1400-1200
B.C.).

3. The Conquest and Settlement in the Land

Literature from Assyria, Hatti and Egypt -from the context of second and first millennium- shed light on
the conquest narrative of the book of Joshua. There are similarities in the use of language between the Hebrew
conquest (e.g. the use of hyperboles and synecdoche) and other Near Eastern accounts of conquest. The result of
such comparative studies give us a richer understanding of the narrative. The extrabiblical texts to be considered
for this period are:
a. The Merneptah Stela (1209-1208 BC)
This Egyptian stela contains the earliest mention of Israel outside the Bible. The inscription celebrates pharaoh
Merneptah's victories. The line reads: "Israel is laid waste. His seed is not". It also mentions three Canaanite sitestates: Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam. Much debate has raised the question about how long had the Israelites been

Egyptian dynasties have been derived from Manethos history of Egypt (late fourth century B.C.) regarded as been
reconstructed with high degree of reliability. B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O'Connor and A.B. Lloyd. Ancient Egypt: A Social
History. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 183.
2
The Semitic Hyksos ruled Egypt from ca. 1730-1580 B.C. under whom the Hebrews enjoyed a favorable opinion due to
their cultural affinities and Josephs elevation as a second ruler in the kingdom. They were expulsed by Ahmose and that
marks the beginning of the Southern Eighteen Dynasty. (Merril, 24)
1

Page 4 of 4

in the country and how did they got there? Indeed, the Bible provide answers for both questions in the books of
Joshua and Judges. However, archeological evidence provides no answer. The Egyptian Stela gives us certainty
that already by the quarter of the thirteenth century, Israel was a relevant entity to be mentioned by an imperial
scribe.
b. The Amarna Letters (1352-1336 BC)
Famous for their mention of the 'apiru and the possible link with the "Hebrews" of the Canaanite Conquest. The
letters were exchanged between Egypt and its vassal kingdoms in Canaan and northern Syria. They mention a
band of 'apiru, described more as mercenaries, posing a threat for the city-states in the region. After over a
century of discussion, a consensus has not been reached. However, what it is out of the question is a straight
equation of the two terms. Cautious and more open scholars raise an interesting question: Could the Israelites
have been perceived by the Canaanites opponents as 'apiru? The nature of the relationship is dependable on
whether one assumes a 15th or a 13th century arrival to Canaan. If one assumes the latter, the 'apiru might be a
precursor of Israel. With the earlier date the relationship can be closer. That the troublesome migrants might
include some Israelites on their journey of Conquest.
c. Material Remains
A careful reading of the book of Joshua give us information of the property damage caused by the conquest.
There are three specific cities that were burned to the ground: Jericho, Ai and Hazor; but many others were
inhabited by the Israelites. They lived in cities that they had not built and enjoyed vineyards and olives that they
had not planted. This information should guide the archeological quest, so we have no reason to expect a
widespread destruction in the Transjordan area.
Archeology of Jericho. Even though the archeology of the city correlates with the description of events
described in Joshua (collapsed city walls, evidence of burning, grain recovered which indicates that the city must
have fallen quickly and not as a result of a siege), the date assigned to the material findings (Middle Bronze Age)
indicates that Jericho was not even occupied by the time of the conquest (Late Bronze Age), whether one assumes
a late or early date. However, as some scholars have indicated, the reappraisal of previous interpretations is
necessary.
Archeology of Hazor. The results rendered that Hazor was violently destroyed by fire in the LBA
(several times and before that in the MBA as well). A detail that is very interesting to discuss is the discovery of
mutilated Canaanite and Egyptian statues in Hazor's destruction debris. If we consider that only four groups were
active at the time could have destroyed Hazor: (1) the Sea Peoples -such as the Philistines, (2) a rival Canaanite
city, (3) the Egyptians and (4) the Israelites. As for the Egyptians and Canaanites, it is very unlikely would have
destroyed statuary depicting their gods. In addition, the Bible says that Hazor was the head of all the kingdoms of
Canaan and archeology corroborates that the city was too powerful to have fallen to a minor Canaanite city. As
for the sea-peoples, the city is too far inland to represent any interest to those maritime traders, and also any of the
hundreds of potsherds recovered at Hazor can be attributed to the well-known repertory of Philistine pottery. This
leave us with the Israelites.