Yitzhaq Feder University of Haifa Haifa, Israel

Transcription

1 RBL 06/2013 Fleming, Daniel E. The Legacy of Israel in Judah s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Pp. xxii Paper. $ ISBN Yitzhaq Feder University of Haifa Haifa, Israel This book examines the origins of the people called Israel in light of the body of traditions transmitted in the kingdom of the same name. In particular, Fleming focuses on these traditions as found in the Primary History extending from Genesis through 2 Kings in the biblical canon. Though these books received much of their present form at the hands of Judahite scribes in the late monarchic and exilic periods, Fleming shows that it is nevertheless possible to isolate a tentative repertoire of Israel traditions that can then be compared with external sources of historical evidence. These traditions, so the author argues, originated in a society that preserved many points of continuity with the situation of Israel in the premonarchical period and even with the pastoral peoples of the region from times before Israel. The book divides into four sections. Part 1 offers a preliminary sketch of the distinction between Israel s and Judah s political structures and the imprint that each has left on the Primary History. Part 2 provides an overview of biblical sources originating in Israel, focusing on the portraits of political and social institutions preserved in them. Part 3 lays out a theoretical background for the ensuing discussions of Israel s history and prehistory. Part 4 builds on these previous sections and combines the biblical traditions

2 from Israel with epigraphic and material evidence to produce a reconstruction of Israel s early history, as contrasted with the image of it preserved in Judah s Bible. In chapters 1 and 2 Fleming presents his general approach to the historicity of the biblical sources. He suggests a methodology for identifying early traditions originating in Israel that are now embedded within a narrative context composed by later Judahite scribes, focusing especially on the political terminology employed in each text and the social context implied by it. In his approach Fleming is sympathetic to contemporary Continental biblical scholarship and its rejection of classical source criticism. He casts doubt on the possibility of delineating the various layers of a particular text and shares David Carr s concern for broader processes of scribal transmission. Fleming s particular contribution to this exegetical process is his focus on the political landscape implied by each text, by which he seeks to probe the historical contexts for the earlier phases of their transmission (30). The fundamental distinction between texts from Israel and Judah is a central aim of this inquiry, from which the author will proceed to identify even more precise stations of transmission (e.g., Transjordan, Ephraim, Benjamin, Bethel), governed by the concerns of distinct sociopolitical contexts. The distinction between Judah and Israel is based on an awareness of the distinct political profiles of the two kingdoms. Judah is characterized by a strongly centralized governing structure ruled by a Davidic monarch, with an interdependency between palace and temple in Jerusalem. Israel is characterized by a distinction between cult and political centers, the insecure status of royal successors, and the decentralization of political authority, with tribes playing an important role in collective decision-making (25 26). A fundamental insight is that the primary account of the time before kings originated in Israel and reflect its political environment. This literary heritage was appropriated by the Judahite scribes in creating their comprehensive historical narrative (28 29). In chapter 3 Fleming gives an overview of sources revealing Judahite political perspectives from the monarchic and postmonarchic periods, serving as the foil for his subsequent efforts to distinguish genuine Israel material. In chapter 4 this project begins with an analysis of the book of Judges, which preserves an abundance of Israelite material representing tales of local rulers and decentralized politics. Special attention is given to the story of Abimelech (Judg 9) and the Song of Deborah (Judg 5). Regarding the latter, Fleming observes that Israel is only mentioned in the opening hymn (vv. 2 11), whereas the body of the poem especially the tribal muster in verses reflects a loose collaboration of tribes for the purposes of fighting a common enemy. In general, Judges is not dominated by any region or city, emphasizing the role of decentralized decision-making and collaborative politics. From an editorial perspective, the book

3 reveals multiple phases of transmission and revision before its incorporation in Judah s Primary History. Chapter 5 deals with the family of Jacob, examining the well-known northern provenance of these traditions. By noting several points of asymmetry between the birth narrative (Gen 29 30) and other episodes in the cycle, Fleming argues that these stories incorporate disparate traditions. For example, he argues that the tradition focusing on Joseph (30:24; 37:3) originally did not involve Benjamin, who was only later added to the story (Gen 35:16 20). Whereas the Joseph orientation should be associated with Bethel (Judg 1:22 6), the interest in Benjamin may reflect a Judahite perspective. Similarly, building on the work of Jean-Daniel Macchi, Fleming suggests that Gen 49 is based on an older Israelite poem (vv ), though this source was later adapted to the surrounding narratives and their underlying advocacy of Judah. At this point attention turns to Israel s collective political basis as reflected in traditions pertaining to the monarchic period (ch. 6). After evaluating the distinctive character of Israel s kingship as depicted in the Omri narrative (1 Kgs 16:15 28), Fleming examines the early traditions of David as king of Israel in 2 Samuel. Since the polity called Judah is not attested before the eighth century in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions, preceded by the House of David in the Tel Dan inscription, Fleming casts doubt that Judah was anything more than a toponym in Davidic times. In chapters 6 and 7 Fleming identifies sources from Israel pertaining to territorial conquest on the east and west sides of the Jordan. Specifically, Deut 1 3 preserves an etiological account for Israelite territories to the east of the Jordan, contrasted with later Judahite authors who viewed these possessions as an aberration (Num 32). Josh 8 s account of the conquest of Ai and the h ērem tradition is taken as preserving an early tradition of Israelite settlement in the west. Although both circulated in Israel, these two conquest traditions were not originally part of a unified exodus and wilderness narrative, and the book of Joshua labors to harmonize these various accounts into a unified plot. Chapter 9 deals with the liminal status of the tribe of Benjamin. Although the Song of Deborah associates its territory with Ephraim (Judg 5:14), later Judahite authors claimed it as their own. Moreover, the black sheep in the genealogy of Jacob s sons (Gen 35:16 8) becomes the persecuted enemy of the other tribes in Judg In explaining this anomalous role, Fleming compares the social structure of the Binū Yamina at Mari, suggesting that Benjamin was something distinct and contemporaneous with early Israel (148). This unique status persisted until the late preexilic period, accompanied by an independent body of Benjaminite lore, including early traditions pertaining to Saul and Shiloh. In noting the similarity between the Ai narrative (Josh 8) and the Gibeah

4 episode (Judg 20 21), Fleming makes one of his boldest suggestions, that the latter preserves a victim s perspective of h ērem slaughter, with Benjamin taken as another territorial competitor (159). Chapter 10 focuses on the distinctive characteristics of Israel s historiography. Fleming follows other scholars in viewing the patriarchal and exodus narratives as originally independent, though he suggests that these may have already been integrated in the Joseph traditions originating in Bethel. Attention is drawn to the difficulty of Judahite scribes with various early traditions, such as Israel s pastoral heritage and the distinct eastern and western conquest/settlement traditions. In the following four chapters of the book (11 14), which constitute part 3, Fleming outlines a typology for collaborative politics based on recent innovations in archaeological and anthropological theory. In challenging the traditional dichotomy between tribe and state, Fleming employs concepts such as heterarchy (Crumley) and corporate and network strategies (Blanton and Feinman) to characterize various forms of collaborative politics. Building on typological parallels from Mesoamerica and pre- Viking Denmark as well as more historically proximate social groups the Amorites and Arameans Fleming examines the various possibilities of coexistence between decentralized sources of political authority and monarchy. The treatment of the Amorite tribes in the Mari letters is particularly important for Fleming s general approach, building on his previous study Democracy s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004). Fleming compares the similar modes of subsistence, specifically the interdependency of pastoralist and rural lifestyles, shared by Amorites, Arameans, and early Israelites. More important, however, is the fact that the political structure of the Amorite tribes represents a loose coalition whose primary function is warfare, comparable to the muster of tribes in the Song of Deborah and war against Benjamin in Gibeah. Fleming suggests that sociopolitical collaboration, not ethnicity, was the original basis for Israel s solidarity. These considerations pave the way for Fleming s judicious use of Israel s historical memory as an element in constructing its actual history. In this manner part 3 serves as the hinge linking parts 1 and 2 of the book with part 4. In chapter 15 Fleming formulates the main historical problem as being the difficulty in correlating the epigraphic evidence documenting the name Israel with archaeological evidence from Iron I. In particular, he emphasizes the inadequacy of the material remains to fill in the gap between the Merneptah reference in the late thirteenth century and the Tel Dan stela in the ninth century. Taking Israel on the Merneptah stela as referring to

5 a political entity, it is impossible to determine whether Israel refers to a coalition of peoples or one prominent group within such a coalition. In chapter 16 Fleming compares Israel s portrait of its own prehistory as pastoralists and the sociopolitical organization of the apiru in the Canaanite El-Amarna letters. Parting ways with many contemporary treatments of the apiru, Fleming argues that the usage of this exonym and its pejorative connotations (as employed by the threatened rulers of the Canaanite city-states) should not lead us to the distorted perception that these groups were mere outcasts or bandits. Rather, these groups specifically those led by Abdi- Ashirta in Amurru and Lab ayu in the Shechem region were formidable political forces that could demand the allegiance of whole cities, inviting a comparison to Zimri-Lim s Hana in the Mari letters. The biblical narratives depicting Israel as pastoralists moving into and out of Egypt, wandering in the wilderness, and settling on both sides of the Jordan reflect disparate traditions that all need to be interpreted in light of this social structure, which was already a remnant of the past for the first-millennium tradents of these traditions. Chapter 17 adds further resolution to the picture of Israel in the thirteenth tenth centuries. The decentralized political structure reflected in the earliest Israel traditions, such as the Abimelech narrative and the Song of Deborah, are correlated with epigraphic and material evidence for the social and political changes taking place in the land. A major point is that Merneptah s reference to Israel precedes the explosion of highland settlement in Iron I. Pushed back into a Late Bronze Age context, the emergence of Israel must be understood in light of the political landscape of the apiru in the El Amarna letters: If the apiru were people organized without identification of their city of origin, like the Binu Sim al and the Binu Yamina of the Mari archives, then Israel s population could have overlapped with what polities like Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenoam would have identified with this class (281). After reexamining the differences between the historiographies of Israel and Judah (ch. 18), the book closes with a discussion of genuine versus invented traditions (ch. 19). Fleming argues that the distinction between these two types of tradition depends on the degree of continuity or discontinuity in the social context of the transmitters of tradition. This approach is used as a means to identify the context for the transmission of Israel traditions, illustrated with the example of Bethel. Through a discussion of the excavation layers of this site, Fleming argues that a likely period for the transmission of the Bethel traditions can be found in the eighth and early seventh centuries. This is a well-conceived, sophisticated, and highly original book that offers an unconventional and compelling approach to several long-standing and central problems

6 in biblical studies. In general, Fleming s basic insight that Israel s legacy preserves a more accurate account of this people s origins is convincingly developed, and his emphasis on focusing on political structure as opposed to ethnicity enables him to circumvent several unproductive lines of inquiry. These ideas offer new perspectives on how to interpret the relevant textual and material evidence and deserve serious consideration within the numerous disciplines incorporated in this study. The following comments are not intended as criticisms but rather as points of consideration for future discussion of this important study. First, in delineating the Israel corpus (chs. 3 9), Fleming s aim is to provide a broad overview of this body of traditions. In general, this treatment is well-informed and illuminating. Given the ambitious scope of the book, it is to be understood that Fleming abstains from going into the trenches to defend every textual reconstruction. Nevertheless, some readers will not be fully convinced by the relatively brief argumentation for some of the more provocative suggestions, specifically regarding the early Saul complex (154 59) and the non- Judahite David in 2 Sam (98 109). For example, regarding the latter, it is not entirely clear how Fleming s view relates to existing theories for the development of the David traditions. The consolation is that readers may find a fuller presentation of these issues in the dissertations of Fleming s protégés, Sara Milstein and Mahri Leonard-Fleckman. In defining the scope of the Israel corpus, Fleming has identified an impressive body of traditions. It should be noted, however, that he has not included all of the texts that may be considered northern in their orientation. For example, he does not include the texts dealing with the so-called Shechem covenant(s) (Deut 27; Josh 8:30 35; 24). Though no justification is given for this exclusion, one wonders if Fleming holds by (or defers to) the opinion that these texts were composed in the Persian era. The point here is that Fleming has in some cases tended toward caution, and it may be possible to expand the Israel corpus. On the other hand, Fleming does not automatically exclude texts dealing with southern sites (e.g., Hebron, Beersheba). In his view, David s rule from Hebron and Jerusalem does not contradict his rule over Israel, and he is likewise willing to entertain the possibility that certain Abraham and Isaac traditions circulated in Israel despite their interest in southern sites (84 85, 172). These considerations lead him to abandon the conventional northern/southern distinction as misleading. This latter point is supported by the presence of links between the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions and Israel s scribal tradition (302). In light of Fleming s view of early Israel as a polity made up of disparate groups, it may be worthwhile to explore in more detail the relationship between tribal names and toponyms. In addition to the case of Dan discussed on page 278, one might refer also to the possible case of Asher, which may correspond to Aśśir, appearing as a northwestern

7 coastal town in Egyptian sources (e.g., the Onomasticon of Amenope; compare Judg 1:31 32 and the mention of Dan and Asher together in Judg 5:17). Furthermore, Fleming s understanding of Judah would lead in the same direction. Fleming s arguments for the essentially sociopolitical basis for the early Israel coalition invites further examination of the pervasive role of ethnic sentiments in the Bible. The advantage of his approach is that it takes the early textual and material sources of evidence on their own terms, without seeking to impose on them the problematic notion of ethnicity. At the same time, we should maintain caution in cognizance of the dangers of positivism, granted the limitations of existing evidence. Fleming has made a major contribution to this discussion by demonstrating the underestimated role of political factors in Israel s collaborative existence, but the existence of other factors specifically perceptions of kinship and allegiance to a common deity should not be ruled out. In sum, this book successfully demonstrates that the question of Israel s legacy is not merely a matter of identifying scattered northern traditions but a central problem for biblical studies. Moreover, it shows that these traditions, when properly used, can serve as an important body of evidence for reconstructing early Israelite history. After letting this project serve as a catalyst for research in his own institution for several years, Fleming has now posed the challenge to the rest of us, the greater scholarly community, to engage this provocative theory.