SUMMARY: The new discovery of an ancient inscription confirms the early worship of Yahweh in ancient northern Israel. It is challenging critical approaches to the Bible and it may have started the process of confirming the ancient boundaries as well.
And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. 20 And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD. 21 And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD. – 1 Sam. 3:19 (ESV)
Discovery of Ancient Hebrew Inscription Challenges Critical Theories
The northern boundaries of ancient Israel as described in the Bible have often been rejected by critics. It is alleged that a later editor, or editors, invented or exaggerated Israel’s boundaries out of national and religious motivations. Even more, it is alleged that the worship of Yahweh, ancient Israel’s national God, was something that developed late in Israel’s history.
Now, however, the new discovery of an inscription on a clay jar in northern Israel overturns critical theories about the development of Israel’s religion, and challenges views that question aspects of the Bible’s narrative. To get a sense of the issues involved, consider the account of an ancient Israelite worshiper, Hannah, and how it led to the birth of a great prophet Samuel who would later anoint King David.
Israelite Experiences: Real or Imagined?
The details surrounding the birth of the prophet Samuel are as inspirational as they are unusual. He is the longed for son of a seemingly unremarkable woman struggling with infertility, and provoked by an adversary, until we learn that she is more than that.
Hannah’s plight and prayer stirs the hearts of sensitive readers who contemplate her husband’s well-intended but ineffectual comfort. Simultaneously, the reader experiences bewilderment at the shocking disconnect of her priest, whose lack of familiarity with authentic, heartfelt prayer confuses him.
And Eli said to her, “How long will you go on being drunk? Put your wine away from you. But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD. – 1 Sam. 1:14,-15 (ESV)
Even after the joyful news of conception and a successful birth, the reader is held in suspense wondering if she will fulfill her vow to dedicate her baby “to the LORD all the days of his life” (1 Samuel 1:11). The text describes the ticking down of the clock as year after year she remains behind while her husband goes up to Shiloh for the annual family sacrifice without her (1 Samuel 1:21-24). The explanation for her delay is simply that she is waiting until the child is weaned. But is this decision as straightforward and rational as it seems, or is it a reluctant mother’s delay tactic (1 Samuel 1:22)?
When the time comes, Hannah does in fact take the child to Shiloh where she presents him before the Lord along with other special offerings (1 Samuel 1:24). Not only is she not reluctant, it appears from the text that she is quite exuberant (1:26-28). The text then goes on to record The Song of Hannah, a magnificent song of worship that expresses Hannah’s heart of thanksgiving, documents her vindication, and highlights the climax of her journey.
Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. – 1 Sam. 2:3 (ESV)
Hannah’s Prayer: Fact or Fable?
A careful reading shows that the song is decidedly messianic in content. The song is filled with triumphant hope. It is prophetic in nature celebrating God’s salvation. It looks toward a future Israelite king to be established by God himself. Yet its reference to a coming king is made at a time when there had never been an Israelite monarchy.
This seems as novel as Noah’s idea that a flood would destroy the earth in an era when it had never rained. And then there is the song itself. The song is good, perhaps a little too good for a nondescript woman this early in Israel’s history, at least as far as critical theories are concerned.
In fact, her Messianic theology is so ahead of its time, and her Hebrew lyrical sophistication so beyond her expected capacity, that the poem feeds into a larger critical narrative that dismisses much of the historicity of the books of Samuel and Kings. It’s not just Hannah, though.
Critical theorists dismiss the very existence of an early Israelite presence in Shiloh, asserting that the whole thing up to and including David and Solomon, were contrived hundreds of years later. This critical theorizing has been due to scanty archaeological findings, combined with a minimalist interpretive approach, and packaged in an established paradigm from which it is hard to break free. However, the process of seeing the biblical account with higher regard may have been helped by the new discovery.
Shiloh: Centralized Place of Worship
The importance of the Shiloh issue can be seen in the fact that the Bible portrays this site as uniquely important in the history of ancient Israel. After the conquest, Shiloh served as an important location for Joshua and functioned as a kind of unofficial capital where worship and strategic planning took place (Joshua 18:1, 9; 22). Moreover, Shiloh was fairly centrally located between the most southern and northern extremities of ancient Israel’s borders. This relative accessibility added to its attractiveness and helps explain how it was a major center of Israelite worship for over three centuries, according to the biblical timeline.
Samuel began in Shiloh, and once Samuel’s role was confirmed, the text says that “[A]ll Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD” (1 Sam 3:20). This is to say that all of Israel knew that Samuel was a prophet, because everyone from “Dan to Beersheba” represented all of Israel.
Worshippers traveling from as far north as Dan, and as far south as Beersheba, the border towns on the periphery of the nation, would have encountered Samuel from his youth. It was to Shiloh, the central place of worship, that worshipers could travel, interact with God’s prophet, and hear a word from Yahweh before returning home.
As was the case with Shiloh, though, critical views have dismissed all the early boundary references to Dan as anachronistic editing (recreating early boundaries based on later boundaries). This is connected to a varying combination of scanty archaeological evidence, philosophical commitments about the evolutionary development of Israelite religion, and critical views of the development of the biblical text (see Patterns of Thinking, Part 3)
Patterns of Evidence and Hannah’s Vindication
So, the idea of an early border as far north as Dan, as well as an ancient Israelite presence in Shiloh, have both been rejected. But these kinds of wholesale rejections are being increasingly upstaged by archaeological discoveries, and are demonstrably ill-advised. For example, we have recently seen the confirmation of an established ancient Edomite Kingdom. In this instance, sophisticated analysis confirmed an aspect of the biblical record that had been previously dismissed by critics. (see evidence of Edom that supports the Bible)
Similarly, we have recently observed the discovery at En Esur, of a whole Canaanite metropolis that lay hidden beneath the soil until just recently. This discovery supports the biblical account of strong and fortified cities in pre-conquest Canaan, and is also cause for a rewriting of history books. As stated by excavation director Yitzhak Paz, “The study of this site will change forever what we know about the emergence [and] rise of urbanization in the land of Israel and in the whole region.” Further, he explained, “And it means that what we know now will change what is written today in the traditional books when people read about the archaeology of Israel.” It seems that this discovery should also be a cautionary tale about the perils of putting archaeology up against the Bible. (see new evidence for a Canaanite metropolis)
Finally, Thinkers will recall the recent definitive archaeological evidence for an early Israelite presence in Shiloh. Even more, it is now clear from the evidence that not only were early Israelites there, but that it was a Levitical site consistent with the biblical record. These dramatic overturns compel one to wonder whether Hannah is on the cusp of her second vindication. (see the latest Shiloh discovery and earlier news of the dig seeking evidence)
The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed. –1 Sam. 2:10 (ESV)
From Dan to Beersheba: The Ancient Northern Border Confirmed?
As far as the northern extremity of ancient Israel is concerned, the situation is a bit trickier, but is getting very interesting of late. Recent Thinker articles have been tracing an emerging narrative from newly discovered archaeological findings. These discoveries are reshaping what scholars have thought about the landscape in northern Israel at and before the time of the conquest. We have also seen the corroboration of Shiloh as an ancient site of Israelite worship.
Now, at an ancient site at the northern tip of Galilee, and only 4.5 miles west of Dan, an interesting discovery has been made. The find is significant enough that it may begin corroborating the map of ancient Israel as described in the Bible, at least back to the 9th or 10th century, much earlier than has been allowed by recent scholarship. Until recently, it was believed that the Galilee was mostly empty. However, this particular location is referenced three times in the biblical text, in connection to events following Absalom’s failed coup attempt (2 Samuel 20:14, 15, 18). This discovery has debunked the theory that Galilee was empty. Even more, this discovery challenges current scholarship on the development of monotheistic Judaism, which wasn’t supposed to have been here, at this time.
In this northern region a dig site on the tel (mound) of the ancient city of Abel Beth Maacah, a jar has been discovered inscribed in paleo-Hebrew script. This site also produced a ceramic head of a biblical king featured in a previous Thinker Update. The writing on the jar gives evidence of Israelite interaction or even habitation of the area. However, the inscription itself tells much more. The letters inscribed on the jar spell a man’s name.
As readers of the Bible are aware, Hebrew names have meaning, and the name of the man discovered on this clay jar is “Benayau.” The name is a theophoric name, meaning that it includes a reference to the deity worshiped either by the man, or his family who named him. In this case, it is a Yahwistic name, meaning that it incorporates letters from the tetragrammaton, or “Yahweh.” The name means “Yahweh has built.” This particular spelling gives clear indication that Yahweh worship was occurring before the Babylonian captivity, and in the place and period of the Northern Kingdom, or even before.
In the end, the least that can be said is that this discovery will challenge views on when and where the worship of Yahweh was taking place. It will also begin the process of challenging how the borders of ancient Israel are viewed. That is why we, KEEP THINKING!
TOP PHOTO: The jar that contained the inscription of Hebrew writing (credit: Prof. Robert Mullins of Azusa Pacific University in Los Angeles)
NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing Thinker articles necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that readers can become familiar with the different arguments involved. – Keep Thinking!
