Abstract

Exodus is one of Israel´s and Juda’s foundational traditions. However, if Israel as a people came to life in Canaan, how does one understand “the liberation from Egypt”? This article tries to show that the “Exodus tradition” was formed within Northern Israel, perhaps even during the Egyptian domination by Sheshong I (945-925), a campaign that defeated the fragile rein of Saul and is attested to by inscriptions on the walls of the temple of Karnak, in Egypt. The article tries to show also, that in the sanctuaries of Betel, Shechem and Dan there existed a cult to a divinity represented as the image of a bull, to whom was attributed the liberation from Egypt. At the beginning, this divinity was “the God El”, but later, it evolved into the “God Yahwéh”, who took over the attributes of “El”, including the cult of the bull. The wandering about in the desert is an independent tradition, and only later was attached to the liberation tradition. It is just possible that this tradition sprang up in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, a center for collecting tribute, situated in the desert of Sinai and dominated by Northern Israel, during the reign of Jeroboam II, in the first half of the VIII century previous to our common era.

Keywords: Exodus; Northern Israel; El; Yahweh; Bull; Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.

Introduction 

Since the nineteenth century, the literary study of the Bible with its main allies on entering the twentieth century being the critical historical method and archeology, have together carried out efforts to de-construct and re-construct theories about the history of Israel. Beyond doubt, one of the most striking de-constructions has been that of the theory of the conquest of the Promised Land, narrated mainly in the book of Joshua.

After studies, such as Martin Noth (Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels, 1930) and Albrecht Alt (Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1953), among others, about the gradual occupation of Canaan (the migration theory), followed by the theory of George Emery Mendehall (The Tenth Generation: The Origens of the Biblical Tradition, [La Décima Generación: Los orígenes de la tradición bíblica], 1973) and Normann K. Gottwald (The Tribes of Yahwéh - a Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, the tribes of Yahwéh. Sociology of Religion of Freed Israel 1250-1050 aec, 1979) regarding the peasants’ revolt against the Canaanite city-states, influenced by the social and political changes in Latin America, especially in Cuba and Nicaragua, reached almost unanimity on Israel springing into being in Canaan. That is, no serious study today accepts that Israel as a kind of alien nation arrived from outside and settled in Canaan. On the contrary the biblical Israel is essentially Canaanite. This, of course, has had and continues to have repercussions on the current geo-political situation maintained between Palestine and Israel. Finally, the theory of a “United Monarchy” is what continues to suffer great contradiction after the studies mainly of Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (The Bible Unearthed, in 2001; and David and Solomon, in 2006).

If Israel was born in Canaan, then what happens to the history or tradition of Exodus being considered Israel’s foundational experience?

At first, following the appearance of the early theories and in order to safeguard the foundation of Exodus in the formation of Israel, it was argued that only a small group, under the direction of a leader (Moses?) and directed by a God (Yahwéh?), had fled from Egyptian oppression and had joined rebellious Canaanites and immigrant non-Palestinians in the mountains of the central plateau of Canaan[1]. However, this small group, given the difficulties in making its way through the Sinai desert without being detected by the Egyptian control units was continually diminishing in size almost to the point of disappearing as a base to sustain this hypothesis.

Finally the issue has not been resolved: if Israel was born in Canaan, whence comes the tradition of the Exodus? This incongruity continued to increase with the recent discoveries and archaeological findings that suggest that Judah developed rather belatedly. That is, Judah as a kingdom with basic bureaucratic structures for tax collection, etc., developed only in the late eighth century and after the fall of Samaria (722 a.e.c.).

It is from this period onward that Judah expands to the south and west; the mountains begin to be inhabited; Jerusalem grows dramatically in population. Also from this period began to be unearthed the famous phitoi, -- large jars with the lemelek brand, ear-marking them “for the king” -- also strengthening the appearance of a monarchal structure for collecting taxes plus an administrative body of scribes to organize the royal finances.

Actually, the ability to write and manage the written word appears in virtually all Judah during this period. These indications eliminate even the remote possibility of dating the Exodus around the year 1,200 a.e.c., where it has traditionally been located. Thus, not only the very Exodus from Egypt is called into question, but also the route that it would have followed from the Sinai desert in the southern parts of Judah and the Trans-Jordan -- territories totally unknown before the eighth century.

In our search for answers to the question posed above, we will rely on some biblical texts to begin with, and then move on to examine some recent discoveries in archeological sites in Israel and Palestine.

1. “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (Ex 32:4b)

One of the texts for our analysis is Ex. 32, traditionally known as “the story of the golden calf.” When the people saw that Moses delayed in coming down from the mountain, they asked Aaron to make them “gods” (‘elohim’) to go before them. After collecting objects of personal adornment, the people brought them to Aaron to smelt down and manufacture with them a young bull (‘egel’)[2] of metal -- the golden calf. Upon seeing it, the people cried out: “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (32:4b).

This exclamation is surprising because it contradicts the tradition that it was Moses along with Yahwéh, who brought Israel out of Egypt. And that exclamation is given not just here, but is repeated in 32:8c, and is placed into the mouth of Yahwéh himself. That is, on the one hand, as we have seen, it is attributed to the “elohim” in the image of a bull-calf, and sometimes also attributed to Moses, “... for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we know not what has become of him” (32:1c).

“And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Go back down, for your people, which you brought up from the land of Egypt have become corrupted’” (32.7). So apparently we have here two divergent traditions for the flight out of the land of Egypt. If so, which one is the elder or which one has been co-opted?

Besides the different versions of the Exodus, the text also reveals the presence of an ancient tradition of worshiping a deity in the image of a “bull-calf” to whom is attributed the exodus from Egypt: “And they smelted (the ear-rings) and this bull-calf (‘egel’) was produced” (32:24). As if Aaron did not know just why such an image had resulted. The interesting thing is that the text seems to indicate that this deity in the shape of a bull-calf is Yahwéh: “When Aaron saw (the image) he constructed an altar before it, and then crying out announced: Tomorrow we will celebrate a feast in honor of Yahwéh” (32:5).

The next morning the people rose early and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, ate, drank and made merry (32:6). This “Yahwéh”, however, seems different from the “Yahwéh” who is worshiped in Jerusalem, and which is mentioned by the Deuteronomistic editor who severely repressed the other worship: “Moses took the image of the bull-calf they had made, burned it and ground to it into dust. Then he threw it into the drinking water and made the children of Israel drink it”(32:20). The event is similar to that produced by Josiah (640-609), when he centralized worship in Jerusalem and destroyed the sanctuaries of the interior (2 Kings 22-23).

The wrath against the worship of Yahwéh as a bull-calf is so strong that the Deuteronomist author presents it as the cause of the rupture of the alliance: “It happened that as he approached the camp and saw the bull-calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger boiled over, and he threw down the tablets and broke them at the foot of the mountain” (32:19).

From the text itself, it can not discern clearly where the aforementioned cult was practiced. Supposedly we are at the foot of Mount Sinai, where Moses received the tablets of the law (Ex 19:1-3). However, given the later wording late, it is probably referring to the cult practiced in Northern Israel, in the sanctuaries of Samaria, Shechem and Bethel.

2. “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt”(1Kings 12:28c)

Another text of our analysis is 1Kg 12:26–33, traditionally known as “the religious schism between Israel and Judah.” Here we also find the expression referring to the exodus from Egypt: “the king (Jeroboam) is advised and made two calves (‘egeley) of gold, and said,’ It’s too much bother that you go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods (Elohim), Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.” And he put one in Bethel and another in Dan” (12:28–29). Here we also have the existence of a cult of Elohim in the image of “ a bull calf “(‘egel). Unlike the previous text, here is a well defined location. in Bethel, on the border between Judah and Israel to the north, and Dan, on the northern border of Israel, Although these two sanctuaries, located in the northern and southern borders of the territory, were real sanctuaries, that of Jeroboam is based in Shechem in the mountains of Ephraim, ancient city in the central highlands of Samaria (12:25).

Contrary to what the text is trying to imply, the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan and the worship practiced there are older than the temple of Jerusalem. That is, according to the text, and at first analysis, those who change the custom are those of the North: Shechem, Bethel and Dan. But in historical reality, what happens is the opposite. We can check it out in other Biblical texts like Gen 12:6-8, where it is reported that the first sanctuaries that Abraham visited upon arriving in Canaan were Shechem and Bethel. In order to delimit the territory Abraham built there two altars to Yahwéh. A parallel is found in Gen 35:1-15, probably a much older text than Gen 12:6-8. Here it is Jacob who builds an altar to Él and calls the sanctuary “House of Él” which is the meaning of Bethel. So that if it were a sanctuary of Yawéh he should have called it Betyah (House of Yahwéh). So, Bethel was a sanctuary for Él long before being for Yahwéh[3].

1Kings 12:26-33 also takes for granted that the House of David reigned over all of Northern Israel: “And Jeroboam said in his heart, ‘Can the kingdom still return to the House of David ... If these people go up to offer sacrifices in the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, the heart of this people will return to their lord Rehoboam King of Judah”(12:26-27). Today we know that this was never true, and Judah, with its capital Jerusalem, was strong enough to achieve this only after the fall of Samaria in 722 a.e.c. Actually, it was Northern Israel which reigned over Judah. So that, if there had been no “united monarchy” under David and Solomon, there would likewise have been no schism, nor need to avoid people coming in pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

There are two other important points to take note of in 1Kings 12:26-33. One of them is the national festival celebrated in Bethel: “And Jeroboam instituted a feast for the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, one like that celebrated in Judah, and he ascended the altar. He did likewise in Bethel to sacrifice to the bull-calves that he had made and placed in Bethel” (12:32).

The celebration seems to be the Feast of Tabernacles, or the harvest feast, during which Jeroboam ascends the altar to make the offering -- a Jerusalem ritual reserved to the priest. According to the text, this feast existed initially in Jerusalem and later was introduced by Jeroboam also at Bethel; nevertheless in this case likewise the process was just the opposite.

Another interesting aspect is the accusation that Jeroboam was promoting so-called “high places” (bamot), which were popular small shrines within Israel, commonly located on hills or under sacred trees: “And he made sanctuaries on high places and he ordained as priests men who were not “of the sons of Levi” (12:31). In other words, even though Bethel was the national sanctuary (Amos 7:10-17), according to the text there was no centralized place of worship, such as in Jerusalem, but cults spread throughout the land. In addition, to exercise the priesthood (qohen), was not exclusive of a dynasty, like the descendants of Levi or of Zadok as became the custom in Jerusalem, but was exercised by persons taken from among the people (1Kings 13:33). As in Ex 32, also here appears an extremely negative discourse regarding cult, because it is considered the cause for the destruction and deportation of Samaria (1Kings 13:34), and Jeroboam held up as the epitome of the bad kings who had led Israel into sin.

Anyway, since the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan, as well as Shechem, are much older than the temple of Jerusalem, the cult practiced there is also older. Initially it appears that Él was the principal deity in these shrines probably together with the female fertility deities Ahserá and Anat.

Later, perhaps during the reign of the omridas kings without the monotheistic requirement, the deity that stood out among others, was Yahwéh. Proof of this is the stela of Mesa, erected by the king of Moab around 840 a.e.c., on which Yahwéh appears already as the national God of Northern Israel. (KAEFER, JA, 2006, 171). A Yahwéh -- as we are coming around to discover -- that was one worshiped in the image of a bull-calf and to whom was attributed the liberation of the people from Egypt. The cult of this Yahwéh much later will be repressed in favor of the cult of the Yahwéh of Jerusalem, which gradually did away with collaboration with other gods and especially goddesses and became imposed as “The Yahwéh” the One and Only Lord God.

3. “Reject your bull-calf (‘egel), Samaria” (Hos 8:4a)

The third text of our analysis is Hosea 8:4-7. Since the abandonment of the theory of “The Sources” (J, E, D, P), the Prophet Hosea -- or at least parts thereof -- have come to be considered as some of the oldest texts of biblical literature (De Pury, A. (ed.), 1996, p. 15-85). One of those parts that seem to preserve the memories of old practices in Northern Israel, particularly in the capital Samaria, is Hos 8:4-7. As in Ex 32 and 1Kg12:26-33, also here we have a serious accusation against the cultic ritual of the bull-calf in Northern Israel. Only in this case the practice takes place in Samaria, the capital:

“Reject your bull-calf (Egel) Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long before they can be cleansed? Behold, it came from Israel, and it was a craftsman who made it. It’s not a God. Just watch how the bull-calf (egel) of Samaria will be smashed to pieces” (8:4,5).

We understand that the accusation was made in the last years of Northern Israel, shortly before the Assyrian invasion in the year 722 a.e.c. but the cult in Samaria was certainly of a much earlier date -- at least since the days of Jeroboam II (788-747). The accusation, however, comes from the south, from Judah. The God who is speaking here, or into whose mouth the words were placed, is the Yahwéh of Jerusalem. The recipient is quite clear: the bull-calf of Samaria. The noun is mentioned twice and twice the pronoun “it” is repeated. So there is no way to deny the existence also in the capital Samaria of worship of the bull-calf as a deity. Therefore, the complaint is against the national God of Israel Yahwéh worshiped in the form of a bull-calf.

Here, as in previous texts, the reprimand against this ritualistic cult is very strong: “This is no God and it will be smashed.” There seems to be a lot of anger in this reprimand, which brings to mind the previously mentioned competition between the temple of Jerusalem and the sanctuaries of Bethel and Samaria. The situation is very similar to what Kings Hezekiah and Josiah of Judah did to destroy the sanctuaries of the north in a very violent manner (2Kg 18:1-8; 22-23).

In line with Hos 6:4-7 we find Hos 13:2 where there is again a strong reprimand for worshiping a deity in the form of a bull-calf. “And now they multiplied their sins and with their silver they made an image, according to their way of thinking. They are all idols, all the work of craftsmen. About them is said: “Men who sacrifice bull-calves (‘egeley) and they kiss them. “Here the rebuke also includes the cultic ritual: “Men who sacrifice bull-calves and kiss them.” A similar ritual seems to have been offered to Baal in 2Kg19:18.

It seems that cult of the bull-calf at Bethel and Samaria continued even after the fall of Samaria. That’s what Hos 10:5 implies: “The inhabitants of Samaria are shaking for the ritual of the calves of Beth Aven. Behold how its people are weeping for it and how its priests used to rejoice in its glory. Behold that it was taken from them.” The Septuagint Translation uses the feminine plural noun ‘egelot’ (heifers, young cows) for “bull-calf” in masculine singular, which makes sense, since in the Hebrew phrase four times the masculine singular pronoun suffix “it” is repeated in reference to the calf. So the subject should also be masculine singular, as in the case of “the bull-calf”.

The place “Beth Aven” (“house of sin”) makes allusion to “Bethel” (“house of God”). The practice of this worship, even after the invasion and the deportation of Samaria is also mentioned in 2Kg.17:16. Anyway, there is no doubt that also in the book of Hosea there can be found ancient memories of the cult of a deity in the form of bull-calf practiced in Samaria and Bethel[4].

4. “Joseph/Ephraim is the firstborn of his bull-calf (Dt 33:17a)

The fourth text of our analysis is Dt 33:13-17. Deuteronomy chapter 33, commonly known as “the blessing of Moses over the tribes of Israel” is a paradigm for Israel’s identity text. We are interested in the unit that deals with that of Joseph (v. 13-17), and more specifically the v. 17, which says:

“(Joseph is) the first-born of his bull, glory to him. His horns are horns of a wild bull. With them he violently rams the nations up to the ends of the earth. And they are the myriads of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh”.

Joseph, the youngest son of Jacob, is presented as the firstborn of the bull, now its not a bull-calf, ‘egel, but the adult bull (sor). Who would be this bull (sor) of whom Joseph is the first-born? Everything seems to indicate that is the same Yawéh. He it is who favors Joseph with the most abundant blessings from the most beautiful skies above and from the oceans lying beneath; the best fruits of the sun and the moon; the first fruits of the mountains, etc. (Dt 33:13-15).

A blessing not only of abundances, but of power, strength and dominion over his brothers and the nations of the earth (v. 17). The title “firstborn of his bull,” practically raises Joseph almost to a divine category: “Glory to him,” “consecrated” (nazir) from out among his brothers. But who is this Joseph, presented here as the “firstborn of his bull”? As discussed below, this Joseph has a confused identity. He seems to have been a tribe, a literary tradition that was associated with Ephraim.

Another intriguing question in the saying about Joseph is that he is probably sprung up from Northern Israel just like a good part of all of Deuteronomy 33. However, it is very strange that, being originally from the north, this paradigmatic text of Israel’s very identity does not include Ephraim which was the most powerful tribe of Israel, so much so that Israel and Ephraim often become synonymous in the Bible, and Samaria the capital is located on the mountain of the same name, so that Ephraim should be among the tribes receiving this blessing of Moses.

On the other hand Ephraim with Manasseh, is presented instead of Joseph (v. 17). It is quite likely, as discussed below, Joseph took the place of Ephraim. That is, in the final wording of the unit taking place in Jerusalem, Ephraim has been intentionally suppressed for ideological reasons, and instead Joseph was added since he identifies more with Judah, as we see in Genesis 49 (KAEFER, JA, 2006, p. 283s). Therefore, the “firstborn of his bull” must refer to Ephraim (Jer 31:9), and not to Joseph.

Besides literary details, we want to show that in this important text recognized as a paradigm of Israel’s identity, we find a clear and emphatic reference to Yahwéh as the bull (sor) and Joseph/Ephraim, the main tribe in the north, is called the “firstborn of his bull”.

4.1 Gn 49:22-26

A similar case to Dt 33:13-17 is found in Gn 49:22-26. Just as Dt 33 is a paradigmatic text for the identity of Israel so is Gen 49. It’s just that if there is found the blessing of Moses over the tribes, here is found Jacob’s blessing upon his children, who in the end (49:28) will be tribes. We believe that this text contains an ancient layer (49:13-18 and 24a) which before being incorporated by Jewish theology of Jerusalem -- which exalts the figure of Judah (49:8-12) -- was a paradigmatic independent text asserting the identity of Northern Israel, by means of praising Ephraim[5].

The section focusing our interest are the verses 22-26, specifically v. 22. The translation is very complex, since it underwent a profound literary re-touching, requiring our closer analysis. The literal translation is as follows: “Son of porat is Joseph, son of porat close to the fountain. Daughters walked upon/next to the wall/bull”.

Unlike other words of Gn 49, this does not begin with the mention of the name/tribe, but with the expression “son of Porat,” which is a strange and unique expression in the Hebrew Bible. In addition, the noun “daughters” does not fit in with the verb to go (parah).

Therefore, there have been several different translations, which generally can be grouped into two: those translating Porat by “plant” (tree, vine, etc.) and those translating Porat by “animal”. Virtually all of our Bibles associate Porat with a “plant”. I myself on a different occasion translated ben porat by “young vineyard” (KAEFER, JA, 2006, p. 24, 193). A great part of those translating Porat by “animal” identify it with the “bull” (Gunkel, H., 1964: 485; HOOP, R., 1999, p. 180)[6], which seems to be the correct choice.

We like the translation of R. de Hoop (1999, p. 180): “Joseph is a bull-calf, a young bull next to the fountain. In the meadow he makes great strides towards the bull.” This is similar to that of V. SALO (1968, p. 94-95.), who translates it as: “Joseph is a heifer and, son of heifer at the fountain, the offspring of one that goes with the bull.”[7]

The error appears to have entered through the Masoretic version which read sur, “wall” in the third poetic fragment, instead of sor, “bull”. Since written Hebrew has no vowels, both readings are possible. However, this does not solve the enigma of this intriguing verse. The expression ben porat has also been seen as a play on words referring to Ephraim/Efrat (Seebass, H., 1984, p. 334).

That is, Porat and Ephraim/Efrat have the same root. So, many scholars do not hesitate to say that, by right, what was “said of Joseph” (Gen 49:22-26) belonged really to Ephraim and not Joseph (Zobel H.J., 1965, p 5.115; WESTERMANN, C., 1982, p 270; SANMARTIN, J., 1983, 92-93).

That would explain the absence of Ephraim, the most important tribe of the north, in this paradigmatic text regarding Israel’s identity. What favors this option is the constant association between Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the Pentateuch[8].

On the other hand, rarely do we find Joseph mentioned as a tribe, but rather as a house - “the house of Joseph” - in line with “the house of Judah.” In short, we believe that Joseph, as far as being a tribe, is a literary production by the scribes of Jerusalem to embody the tradition of Ephraim and Manasseh, simply in order to do away with them and so magnify Judah.

Therefore, after the foregoing, the translation of Gn 49:22 that seems most compelling is: “Son of the bull is Ephraim, son of the bull along side the fountain. Son of her who walks alongside the bull.”

This lines up Gn 49:22 with Dt. 33:17, whose sections (Gn 49:22-26 and Dt 33:13-17) are very close to saying that Ephraim, the great tribe of Northern Israel, boasted in being the firstborn of the “bull/Yahwéh” (Jer 31.9) this position will be disputed later by Judah (Gn 49:8-10; Cr 5:1-2).

In short, the texts of Ex 32, 1Kg.12:26-33, Hos 8:4-7, Dt 33:13-17 and 49:22-26 show that in Israel, especially in the sanctuaries of Bethel, Dan and Samaria, even possibly in other sanctuaries as Shechem, there was practiced a cult to a deity represented by the image of a bull, to whom at a certain point was attributed the deliverance from Egypt. The texts point to the fact that this deity who from the beginning was “Él”, then, as evidenced by the stela of Mesa, around the year 840 a.e.c., appears in Northern Israel as “The Yawéh of Israel” (KAEFER, JA, 2006, p. 171-174).

Therefore, instead of being a source of inspiration for the resistance in the struggle against foreign empires in Judah, Exodus really was a Northern Israel tradition, similar to the tradition of the patriarch Jacob, which also came from the northern region of Gilead, and was incorporated only later on into the southern tradition of Judah and associated with the tradition of the patriarch Abraham.

If the Exodus tradition originated in Northern Israel, how and in what context did it come about? That still lies ahead of us.

5. The campaign of Pharaoh Sheshong I

One thing seems clear: the Exodus tradition was born as a form of resistance to the domination of the Egyptian empire. The last Egyptian administrative presence in Canaan was that known during the campaign of Pharaoh Sheshong I (1 Kg. 14:25), about 926 a.e.c., a fact recorded on the walls of the famous temple of Karnak, Egypt. Many cities in the central highlands of Israel, as Gabeón and Bethel were destroyed and abandoned at beginning of Hierro 11 (Finkelstein, I., 2013, p. 51). That destruction coincides with the campaign of Pharaoh Sheshong1 (945-925).

The question is: who reigned over these cities of the central highlands before they were destroyed by Sheshong I? Since according to (Finkelstein, I., Silberman, NA, 2006) the hypothesis of David and Solomon is not a possible, could it possibly be the kingdom of Saul, which was growing in its power during this period? If this is so, then the dating for the reign of Saul -- traditionally located around the years 1030-1010 -- must be advanced over a century (KAEFER, J.A., 2014, p. 161-165).

That is possible, once the theory of a “United Monarchy” under David and Solomon, is no longer held. That is to say, Saul would fill the power vacuum that had previously been assigned to the two monarchs. This hypothesis comes to be supported by recent discoveries made in the archaeological site of Khirbet Qeiyafa (Garfinkel Y., Ganor, S., 2009).

The decisive battle on Mount Gilboa between the Israel of Saul and the Philistines, narrated in 1 Sam 28-31 can be considered from this perspective. This battle, in which Saul and his sons were killed, is considered in biblical literature as marking the end of the reign of Saul. In other words, it is likely that the Philistines were at the service of the Egyptian Sheshong I, with whom they seem to have had trade relations, particularly in silver. And because of the constant conflict with the Philistines in later times, this battle could have stuck in the memories of the people and the Israel editors.

The war, however, would have been waged against the Egyptians of Sheshong I. It is with this sense of struggle against the Egyptians that the verb ‘lh “to go up or to drive up” (hifil) was used at the source, as in the phrase cited above: “These are your gods, Israel, who “brought you up” (waged war against ) the land of Egypt” (Ex 32,4b; 1Kg 12,28c) This is how E. Zenger explains himself about the meaning of the verb ‘lh:

“The original formula (‘lh) probably was not limited to the idea of a simple journey under the command of “Yahwéh”. Rather it indicated an action of Yahwéh linked to combat and war, both in relation to the departure (Egypt) as well as to the arrival (Canaan). it was only at a later stage when the meaning of such a concrete origin, given to the formula (‘lh”) would be extended to many events marking the journey from Egypt to Israel “(Zenger, E., 1996, p. 241-241).

After the victory over the prospering kingdom of Israel under Saul, the administration of Sheshong1 was established in Bet Shean, located in the heart of the Valley of Jezreel, considered the bread-basket of the region. The Egyptian presence, however, did not last long. The causes are unknown, but it is recognized that the Egyptian rule was replaced by the new Kingdom of Israel (FINKESLTEIN, I., 2013, p. 146), which at that time was beginning to acquire the status of a nationhood and was greatly strengthened by the ascension of the Omride dynasty (884-842).

Therefore, it is in this context of the struggle against the Egyptian occupation by Sheshong1 where the tradition of the Exodus must have had its birth, and it became preserved in the popular memory initially in the sanctuaries of Bethel and Shechem, in the capital Tirzah and likewise in Samaria.

And still, what about the meandering route of the journey attributed to the Exodus? That is, if the Exodus is a native Northern Israel tradition, why would the Exodus route follow across the desert south of Judah, into the Trans-Jordan of Edom and Moab, and only then enter the promised land in the region of Jericho, close to Jerusalem? The most likely answer is that the route followed in the Exodus was added on later. That is, the Exodus, as far as “the struggle against Egypt” and “the journey through the desert”, are two separate traditions. For the basis of this conclusion we are relying upon the analysis of the findings in the archaeological site Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.

6. Juntillet ‘Ajrud

Kuntillet ‘Ajrud has been one of the most amazing archaeological finds in the late twentieth century in the Sinai region, south of the Judean desert. The innumerable inscriptions and drawings found there, unprecedented in the excavations of the Iron Age period in Canaan, are essential for a more updated understanding of the history of Israel and Judah in the eighth century a.e.c.

Kuntillet ‘Ajrud is in the Sinai desert, 50 km south of Kadesh-Barnea, and 10 km west of the rustic road linking Gaza to Eilat. The small hill is next to Wadi Quraya, which formed a natural route from east to west, and which probably had a permanent source of water, which is rare in this arid region of Sinai. The water factor made Ajrud an obligatory stop for merchant caravans coming and going, connecting Egypt to distant Arabia.

The site was excavated in 1975-1976 by a team led by archaeologist Zeev Meshel, of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, and has been dated quite accurately as being in the first half of the eighth century a.e.c. (Meshel, Z., 1993). So, almost with complete probability it was during the long reign of Jeroboam II (788-747).

The excavations unearthed two larger rectangular, and other secondary construction sites. The larger building contained an entrance doorway, a large interior patio, a room in each of its four corners, and a narrow rectangular room, to the left of the entrance, and parallel to the inner patio.

In this rectangular room were several “pithoi”, large ceramic pots used to store grain and oil, indicating that the room was a large storeroom. The entrance door led to a primary room, known as “the entrance hall”, which in turn led to a second room, known as “the room of the benches”, and this led to the large interior patio.

According Meshel, the “room of the benches” seems to have been the most important room in the building. It had a decorated wall of white plaster, and along the wall, stone benches occupying almost the entire room. In the “room of the benches” were found two “pithoi” decorated with inscriptions and drawings, as well as several stone bowls, four of which with the names of their donors. On the threshold of the “room of the benches” was found part of an inscription, which resembles that prescribed to be written on the house threshold in Dt. 6:9.

So, “the room of the benches” appears to have been a religious place where vessels and objects offered by the passing faithful continued interceding for blessings. Many pots and clay vessels, such as large pithoi, had engraved letters, which suggests the hypothesis that Kuntillet ‘Ajrud was a center for tax collection. The inscriptions asking for blessings and grain storage jars show that life in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud revolved around three basic elements: water, taxes and blessings.

6.1 Inscriptions and drawings

Among the inscriptions and drawings found in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, there are two large ceramic vessels (pithoi) that attract attention. A pot was found in the “room of benches” and another in the room on the right hand side, known as the “room of inscriptions”. In both of these there was found a formula used to introduce a prayer-letter soliciting a blessing:

…the K(ing) says: tell so and so that they are blessed by “YHWH” of Samaria and his ASHERAH”(Meshel 1993, p 208).

Among the picture drawings on the large ceramic vessels , some are more outstanding; this is the case of a scene depicting two deities, apparently a male and a female[9]. The deities have human forms, but with some animal features, possibly of a lion or bull. The upper body is dressed in leather clothing, and the lower part is apparently naked. What appear to be the genitals, could possibly be a tail (of a lion?). Besides there are other scenes: either she or he is playing on a lyre; there is a tree of life, whose leafs are being eaten by two mountain goats; a lion; a group of people (five figures) with their hands raised in prayer; there an archer taking aim; a group of animals; and finally a cow being nursed by her calf whom she is licking.

The two deities have the head, face, ears, and even the mane like that of a lion; that’s why right off they were identified with the Egyptian god Bes. If this were so, then the words “Yahwéh of Samaria and his Asherah” would not be related to the two figures, but would be an independent application (DIA, J., 2002, p. 51). However, we also know that the difference to the images dedicated to the Egyptian deity is very great, so that doubts still persist. Moreover, on the two deities portrayed also appear bovine traits. Then here’s another noteworthy detail: since the male deity has his right foot stretched forward, close to the foot of the cow that is nursing her calf, this also justifies the supposition that a bull is being referred to.

Regardless of the exact identification of the images, the inscription leaves no doubt about two possibilities: one is that we have here the most consistent evidence of a cult of a deity called “Yahwéh of Samaria” existing in the capital of Northern Israel, as we have seen in the cited biblical texts.

And the second possibility: that also here this Yawéh is represented by the image of a bull, and that it was the king of Northern Israel, probably Jeroboam II, who was reigning in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and, therefore, who held control over the Egypt-Saudi trade route and its rich tributes. This, of course, permits attributing great power to Northern Israel in the first half of the eighth century, which would be nothing unusual for the narrator of 2Kg 14:25-28.

Among the fragments of “The Room of benches”, were found the remains of three inscriptions in Phoenician characters. The inscriptions were made in red ink on the plaster that was covering the wall. The fact that the plaster had become un-stuck from the wall and fallen off, made virtually impossible the re-construction of the inscriptions.

Also were found, among the rubble of the room, two ancient Hebrew inscriptions done in black ink. However, again, it was possible to reconstitute only a part of the inscription that was found on the threshold of “The Room of benches”. Although fragmentary and off kilter, there were two lines that were able to be reconstructed, forming the following text:

“...may your days be prolonged and leave you satisfied... from YHWH of Temán and his Asherah... may Yahwéh of Teman and his Asherah favor you...” (Meshel, 1993, p. 207).

As can be seen, the text seems to be a prayer of blessing to be given to travelers who deposited tribute there. Unlike the previous text, here the deities that bless are Yahwéh of Teman and his Asherah.

Therefore in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud are found two different references to Yahwéh: Yahwéh of Teman and Yahwéh of Samaria. This seems a complex issue, but it’s not as strange as it seems, because this reference is also found in some biblical passages such as: Dt 33:2, Jdg 5:4-5, Hab 3:3-7.

These texts seem to indicate that “the Yawéh” has its origin in the desert region of Southern Edom or Northern Arabia. The texts mentioned refer to Yahwéh as a “god of the mountain”, who keeps moving, like the sun from east to west. So it is likely that “the Yawéh” is not originally from Canaan (DAY, J., 2002, p. 15).

A determining factor in this possibility is the fact that Yahwéh is not on the list of the Ugaritic pantheon, whose religious imagery had a strong influence in the Canaanite context (Ps. 82). Lately the trend for researchers is to locate it as coming from outside as from the region of Midian, in Arabia. Similarly, the location of Mount Sinai would not be in the Sinai Peninsula, south of the Judean desert, but rather in southern Trans-Jordan or northwestern Arabia (CROS, FM, 1988, p. 46-65) The Kuntillet’Ajrud records seem to support this hypothesis.

All this, however, leads to another problem. If the biblical texts still retain the memory of Yahwéh as originating from some other place -- something which is confirmed by extra-biblical inscriptions -- then the cult of Yahwéh in Canaan would be relatively recent. Although, as we have seen above, at the time of the Omridas it was possible that Yahwéh was the national God of Northern Israel -- and we think it is -- then the God to whom initially was attributed the deliverance from Egypt was not Yahwéh but the deity Él. Well, we will see.

6.2 The deity Él is Yahwéh

What is evident in the oldest biblical literature of the Hebrew Bible, as well as archaeological excavations, is the strong presence of the cult of deity of Él in Canaan. It is sufficient just to observe the presence of the root “él” in the names of people and places in the Bible. Even the very name “Israel”. In the Ugaritic pantheon, Él was the supreme God and his symbol was the bull (DIA, J, 2002, p. 34-39).

However, it seems that “fertility” was not the field of Él, or at least not his principal strong point. Fertility was much more attributed to Baal. So the bull associated with Yawéh, as we seen in our texts, is a legacy of Él, the supreme deity of the Ugaritic pantheon.

Hence the large number of images or symbols associated with the bull: such as the ceramic cup shaped like a bull that is found in Shiloh, the silver statuette bull-calf found in Ashkelon, the famous image of the bull found in Shechem, near Mount Ebal, whose archaeological site has become known as “the site of the bull” (DIA, J., 2002, p. 34, n. 58), all referring to Él.

On the other hand there exists a virtual consensus among researchers that Yahwéh appropriated attributes associated with Él. The bull which previously represented Él, now will be Yahwéh. Obviously here we are referring to the Yahwéh of Samaria, as we mentioned previously, and this will be strongly criticized by the Deuteronomist writers of Jerusalem.

This appropriation also occurred in reference to Baal, with the difference that with Baal appropriation came about amid a fierce battle; it suffices just to read, among many examples: Hosea: 1-3 while with Él it seems to have been more peaceful. That is, one of the great appropriations by Yahwéh seems to have been, Asherah consort of Él (DEVER, W.G., 2005); the other was the bull.

Obviously the conflict was not between the deities, but rather about the form in which the attributes of one deity become attributed by the faithful to another deity. This is a constant process in the history of religious phenomenon.

Therefore, it is likely that before being associated with Yahwéh, Exodus was attributed to Él. From our way of looking at it, this is also confirmed by Nm. 23:22 and 24:8 where the liberation from Egypt is attributed to Él who is associated with the bull. These verses read: “He, who brought us out of Egypt, his horns are like those of a wild bull (R’m)” (Nm 23:22); “He, who brought us out of Egypt, his horns are those of a wild bull” (24:8 Nm).

The two verses are difficult to translate, and it is unclear whether the addition “his horns” refers to “Él” or Israel... In any case, “Él”, “Israel”, “horns” and “wild bull” all belong to the same semantic field.

6.3 Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and memory of the journey through the desert[10]

As stated above, the journey through the desert is a tradition independent of that of the Exodus and was added later. When the Exodus tradition was born, the places mentioned on the Exodus route would have been unknown to Northern Israel of the tenth century, since many of them did not even exist then (Finkelstein, I., 1999).

Or at least, if there had been any knowledge it would have been very fragmentary. However, in the eighth century, both Amos and Hosea were already aware of this journey through the desert[11]. If so, how was the route -- through the south of the Sinai peninsula as far as the Gulf of Aqaba and then northward through Transjordan, passing through Edom up to Moab -- get to be known by Northern Israel in the eighth century to such a point that It is found mentioned by the prophets? It’s just possible that Kintillet ‘Ajrud may be the key to understand this complex issue.

From what we have seen above regarding the findings in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, there is evidence that Jeroboam II (788-747), king of Northern Israel, reigned over the Sinai Peninsula up to the Gulf of Aqaba in the first half of the VIII century[12]. And also that Israel controlled the trade route that connected Arabia to Egypt through the Sinai desert.

According Nadav Naaman, a drawing found on the wall of the main entrance at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud seems to refer to the Exodus route[13], which would indicate that the tradition of the exodus was not only known in Northern Israel, but that it was used as propaganda for the royal position of Samaria and was already widespread throughout southern Judah.

It is possible that the route of the Exodus found in Nm 33 came into being at that time and in that context, because Nm 33 names places that appear only here and are not mentioned in other texts dealing with the Exodus[14]. In Ajrud Kuntillet authorities and scribes of Northern Israel certainly maintained constant contact with the nomadic traders and they must have learned about distant places in the wilderness from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean coast, and these could have been the names on the list of 33 Nm.

Therefore, the list of names in Nm 33 would be the oldest source for the wandering in the wilderness, and independent of the others. Its origin would be linked to information from traders and pilgrims passing through Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. To try to understand better: the tradition of wandering through the wilderness would have originated in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud during the first half of the eighth century, when Northern Israel dominated the Sinai Peninsula.

From there it would have passed on to Samaria, where it would have been integrated into the Exodus tradition, and incorporated into the anti-Egyptian propaganda. It is in this sense that it is mentioned by Hosea and Amos. After the fall of Samaria in 722, the Exodus tradition, now integrated with the journey through the desert, would have moved into Judah, along with other traditions from Northern Israel, and so it would have been included in the account of the law of Moses.

With the fall of Assyria in the second half of the seventh century, there was a power vacuum in the region of the Sinai Peninsula, which came to be disputed between Judah and Egypt, the latter under the reign of the twenty-sixth dynasty (663-525)[15]. It’s also possible that the conflict arose with the kingdom of Edom, which also had interests in the region.

For Judah, under King Josiah (640-609), the Exodus tradition fitted perfectly into the struggle against Egypt, mainly for the ideological factor of Yahwéh being victorious over the Pharaoh. At that time, with broad knowledge on the part of the Jerusalemite scribes about the southern region of Judah and its routes, the wilderness wanderings was enlarged and fleshed out in detail.

It is likely that the pilgrimage through the Negev desert, passing by the Fortress Cadesh Barnea, has been added in this period, since excavations in this region, particularly in Kadesh Barnea, show a strong presence of the kings of Judah in these places during the later monarchy. Perhaps the importance of Edom and Moab, in the itinerary of the Exodus also becomes reflected in this period.

According to Israel Finkelstein[16], geopolitical knowledge of the places along the route of the Exodus of the Jews disappeared at the end of the Iron Age. All desert fortifications were abandoned, and Edom began to decline after the fifth century.

The priests who wrote in the post-exile no longer had any knowledge of those places in the southern desert. Therefore, the places mentioned in the Exodus route can only have been part of the pre-exilic times. However, the Exodus story continued developing, especially in its role of rescuing the identity of the Jewish people after the Babylonian exile, producing a “new exodus” as a renewed vision of the ancient tradition.

Conclusión

The study of biblical texts Ex 32, 1Kg 12:26-33, Os 8:4-7, Dt 33:13-17 and Gn 49:22-26 in Northern Israel reveals the existence of a tradition which attributes the liberation from Egypt to a divinity worshiped in the form of a bull. Possibly this tradition emerged in the struggle against the Egyptian occupation during the campaign of Pharaoh Sheshong I, registered in the temple of Karnak in Egypt, when the nascent northern kingdom of Israel was defeated by the Egyptian forces (1 Sam 31).

We have also seen that the analyzed texts suggest that the divinity worshiped as a bull was Yahwéh. However this same attribute previously belonged to “Él” the supreme deity of the Ugaritic pantheon, also with a strong presence in Canaan. Therefore, at the beginning, the God of Exodus for Northern Israel was “Él”, who was worshiped in the image of a bull in the sanctuaries of Bethel and Shechem among others, and only later on came to be “Yahwéh”, who absorbed all the attributes of “Él”.

At another time we are going to analyze the tradition of the journey through the desert, as an independent tradition that only later on came to be associated with the tradition of the liberation from Egypt.

We have seen that in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud existed worship of the Yahwéh of Samaria and his Asherah, and the Yahwéh of Teman (northeast of Arabia) and his Asherah. It is just possible that the tradition of wandering in the wilderness also arose in this place and in this period, when the scribes of Israel operating in North Kuntillet ‘Ajrud were familiar with the names of places along the route of the Exodus through their relationship with the merchants and pilgrims passing through Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.

This is how the tradition of the Exodus liberation itself as well as the journey through the desert, came to the knowledge of the prophets Amos and Hosea. It is possible that this route would have been the one mentioned in Nm 33, whose place-names are mostly unknown and differ from those cited in other biblical texts.

After migrating from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud to Samaria, the two traditions merged and after the fall of Samaria in 722 a.e.c., together with other traditions, migrated southward to Jerusalem. In Judah, now as the Exodus tradition, it received additions and was widely used in the struggle of King Josiah against the Egypt of the twenty-sixth dynasty. During the exile and post-exile periods, Exodus was re-read now as a “New Exodus”, and served as foundation for the reconstruction of the Jewish identity.

See the bibliografical references after Spanish version in next pages.

José Ademar KAEFER

Doctor in Biblical Theology
from the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany.
Professor of Old Testament,
Program Master and Doctor of Science in Religion,
Methodist University of São Paulo (UMESP). Brazil.
E-mail: jademarkaefer@yahoo.com.br

Translation  into English: Justiniano Liebl

[1] For example, Schwantes, M., The History of Israel - Local and origins, 2008.

[2] ‘egel’ is a one-year-old bull (Lv 9.3; Mq 6.6). The author of this article, a Brazilian writing in Portuguese has chosen from that language a young “touro” translation to qualify the word normally used bezerro in Portuguese translations. In Castilian we use “calf”, that is both a young breeding bull or young cow. So we sometimes combine words as “bull-calf” (extended by the translator note).

[3] Even after the destruction of Samaria in 722 a.e.c. Bethel continued to be a strong contender with the temple of Jerusalem.

[4] We are still in Hosea with other references or reports on the religions practiced in Samaria and Bethel. Otherwise, the whole book is marked by the conflict between the deities. In addition to 4:12-14 s; 5:1-4; 10:1-5; 14:9). Os 14:9 see the “I am your Asherah and your Anat”.

[5] For more information about this ancient layer, recently we sent an article to the magazine Theológica Javeriana in Bogota, Colombia. There we also presented a proposal for a concentric structure of Genesis 49.

[6] E. A., Speiser, Genesis, p. 367-368, read “son of Wild ass”; MCA, Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine, UBL 8 Münster, 1990, p. 532-534, translated as “son of heifer”; A. Schökel, biblical Hebrew-Portuguese Dicionário proposes “Pony”; MACCHI JD, et ses Israёl tribes, p. 185, translated “cow son”.

[7] V. SALO, Joseph, Sohn der Färse, BZ 12, 1968, p. 94-95.

[8] Gn 41:50-52; 48; Nm 1:10-32; 13:11; 26:28-37; 27:1; 32:33; 34:23; 36:1-5.12; Js 14:4; 16:1-4; 17:1-2.

[9] Unfortunately, it is not possible to address the extensive and fascinating subject of worship of female deities in Canaan as Asherah, and its influence on the religious culture of Israel. There is abundant comparative literature, of which we quoted some.

[10] For this matter we can only argue hypothetically and therefore, we are inspired mainly by a lecture presented by Israel Finkelstein in November 2013 in San Diego, Baltimore.

[11] Os 2:16-17; 9:10; 11:1-5; 12:10-14; 13,4-5; Am 2:10; 3, 1; 9.7.

[12] Period in which probably Uzziah (781-840), King of Judah (2 Kings 15:1-7), was a vassal of Jeroboam II.

[13] NA’AMAN, Nadav. The Inscriptions of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Through the Lens of Historical Research. Ugarit-Forschungen, 43 (2012a), Neukirchen-Vluyn, p. 1-43.

[14] Most of these places remain unknown.

[15] It is important to remember that about 650 a.c.e. the Assyrians were expelled from Egypt. From then on they began to expand control over the ancient Canaanites territories, coming into conflict with the nascent Judean kingdom. It is in this context that the death of King Josiah by Pharaoh Neco at Megiddo in 609 a.c.e. should be interpreted (2 Kings 23:29).

[16] The Forgotten Kingdom, p. 150.