But everybody seems to agree that the Levant in the time period of the early Israelites doesn’t seem to be under that kind of control. Especially in the highlands. It was a sparsely settled area shared by nomadic family groups with no central government or religion.
This is a very complex issue, kb, mainly because of the bible story which vastly oversimplifies what was going on. The reason for the oversimplification is that it is NOT a history book. It is a morality play and the incidents it cites are meant to reinforce object lessons.
The archaeology of the region shows that "Israel" and "Judah" (and I'll use the names which are conventionally assigned for ease of reference, not because they were in common usage at the time) developed independently and far differently. Israel is traced back to around 150 villages in the Eastern Highlands. Judah had about 20 of which Jerusalem was one and not a very impressive town. The population of Israel was thus higher from the start and, because it switched over to agriculture from herding far earlier the population grew much faster. The reasons for this are primarily geographic. The land was better suited to agriculture than the south where the soil was thinner and rainfall was even more sporadic. Pastoralism continued in Judah for a much longer time as the primary economic engine.
What was the political situation c 1000 BC? The Hittites and Canaanite cities had been taken out by the Sea Peoples. The Egyptians had withdrawn from their long occupied base of Beth Shean near Galilee c 1150. The Philistines had occupied the five cities along the coast, but, in typical Greek fashion these were independent city-states and while locally dangerous were probably in no position to threaten expansion. The kingdom of Damascus was probably coming together. Assyria was busy in the east and would not start it's westward expansion for another century and a half.
So, for a brief shining moment there probably was no great military threat looming over the land, which is not to say that the normal forces of clan-based leadership would not have been at work, creating the concept of a nobility among clan leaders and a social hierarchy somewhat akin to feudalism. You also had a time of no public buildings, no literacy, no army (except whatever thugs could be recruited by local leaders) and no organized religion. As William Dever shows, it seems pretty clear that the old Canaanite religion was imported into the new region, because in his view the majority of the Israelites were Canaanite refugees in the first place. Baal, El and Asherah were all in the pantheon
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art4950.asp
Yaweh Yahweh was, for a short time, part of the Canaanite pantheon. He was a Son of El; and part of the court of El as cupbearer along with Baal. Later, as the National God of Israel, Yahweh was equated with El, and Asherah became his wife. A stone of the Temple at Jerusalem was found dedicating it to Yaweh, consort of Asherah, in fact.
so there does seem to be quite a degree of cross-pollination going on.
Anyway, back on track.
Then, if you take the OT for a history book, the ever increasing Israelite population wanted to imitate their neighbors. They were not happy about not having a royal family, a standing army, a big temple, to brag about.
Finkelstein, in "David and Solomon" gives a much more lucid reason for the foundation of a monarchy: fear. Backed up by archaeological finds the raid of the 22'd Dynasty Pharaoh, Sheshonq I, has been established. Although the bible claims that the object of his attack was Jerusalem it seems as if Sheshonq never went near the place. There are good reasons for this but I'll get to that in a moment. Working from the Karnak inscription Finkelstein shows that Sheshonq's target was the traditional area of Egyptian interest, the coastal plain (and he either had to be allied with the Philistines or conquer them...and he does not seem to have conquered them!) and the north, near Megiddo which he sacked and burned. Moreover, from the place names listed it seems that Sheshonq hit the developing kingdom of Israel. The date of 925 BC is now fairly solidly backed by C-14 dating of the destruction layers.
The OT wants to pretend that Sheshonq was sent by god to punish Jerusalem and, if it had been a rich city of gold and former capital of a vast empire it would have been a worthy target for an agressive pharoah. But, if in 925 it was an insignificant little hill town, what would have been the point in marching all that way off his intended line of attack? Archaeology has shown that Jerusalem in teh 10th century (and later) was an insignificant town. I just read a study by David Ussishkin which again supports these findings. I'm sure I can find it for you if you'd like to read it.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
