Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Dear List members: Time to some serious discussion. I include some notes on
the supposed liaison between Jacob and Shechem, about methodology, and the
development of scholarly discussions. It is long, but the discussions have
been long and lately without much substance.

NPL


The last few days the ongoing discussion about early Israel has got a new
direction: Jacob and Shechem. The methodology of some of the participants in
this discussion is by now very clear. 

Let's begin with L.D. Barre, whose line of argumentation is:
Data-Evidence-Hypothesis-Evidence-Data (Mail: The Hermeneutical Circle,
Tuesday 08 FEB, 07:27)

He also explains how he works with data: 'Relevant data i<s> isolated from
which arguments are made to support a hypothesis. Time usually produces more
data and therefore new evidence or new evidence may be construed from the
original data.'

Here we encounter the first set of problems. Does the sequence
Data-Evidence-Hypothesis denote a hierarchical arrangement: e.g., from data
to evidence to hypothesis. If so, we miss the 'evidence' in the first
sentence where he jumps from data to hypothesis. Now the sentence 'relevant
data is isolated...' creates problems of its own. What is the criteria for
selecting 'relevant data'? If we possess a series of information, and start
isolating some of it as relevant, we are no longer speaking about data,
because what is a datum. It is in English a new concept covering the old
term 'fact'. However, the moment a 'fact' has been processes in this way, it
is no longer a 'fact', i.e. a piece of self-contained information. It has
already been selected because of a previous conceived hypothesis that makes
it obvious to the researcher that this must be something of interest. 

So if we work with something like the history of Palestine in the second
half of the fourteenth century BCE (within which period the Amarna period is
most likely to be placed), all information from this period whether mute or
written constitute the facts or data. Who can in advance tell what is
relevant and what not. As Liverani once said: any hypothesis covering this
period must be able to explain every fact belonging to this period, or the
hypothesis is wrong. Data do not lie. Explanations might be wrong, data
never are.

So the sequence must be: Facts alias data alias evidence (because there is
no semantic difference between these three words in a scholarly connection)
constitute the foundation of a hypothesis that tries to explain the factual
evidence (you see the semantic cluster). If any datum falls outside the
scope of the explanation, i.e., it does not fit in, then the inevitable
explanation is that the hypothesis is wrong. It has to be substituted with a
new one or amended so as to be able to account for the data that were not
covered by the previous hypothesis.

Now, let's turn to the discussion about Lab'aya-Jacob-Shechem. 

1.      Evidence relating Jacob to a conquest of Shechem in the 14th century
BCE can be found in Genesis 34. Irrespective of the date of this chapter of
Genesis, it is evidence or a datum. Genesis 49:5-7 may also be taken as
evidence, although less important as Shechem is not mentioned. 
2.      Other evidence will be the Amarna references to Shechem, linking
Shechem to Lab'aya. Lab'aya is mentioned in EA 237; 244; 245; 246; 249; 250;
252; 253; 254; 255; 263; 280; 287; 289. 
        a.      EA 237 tells us that 'they' have captured Lab'aya and
attacked the cities of the king of Egypt.
        b.      EA 244 from the hazanu of Megiddo to Pharaoh: Laba'ya seeks
to conquer Megiddo and has started a war against it.
        c.      EA 245 also from the ruler of Megido, but not the
continuation of EA 244: talks about the arrest of Laba'aya and how the ruler
of Hinnatunni (in Galilee) set him free at let him return to his home city
(no name given). 
        d.      EA 246 also from Megiddo, very fragmentary, says that the
two sons of Lab'aya has paid money to the habiru and the Suteans (nomads).
        e.      EA 249: from Addu-qarrad [Moran: Ba'lu-UR.SAG], ruler of
Gitti Padalla (lower Galilee) to Pharaoh: mentions Lab'aya in connection
with Milki-ilu, the ruler of Gezer, who is oppressing him.
        f.      EA 250: From Addu-qarrad to Pharaoh asking for permission to
react against the two sons of Lab'aya who want recompensation for the
killing of their father in Qina (in the Yizreel valley).
        g.      EA 252: From Lab'aya himself to Pharaoh telling Pharaoh that
he is being slandered.
        h.      EA 253: From Lab'aya himself to Pharaoh telling Pharaoh that
he entered Gezer to protect Pharaoh's case.
        i.      EA 254 From Lab'aya himself to Pharaoh telling Pharaoh that
he is the true servant of Pharaoh and that the acts against Gezer was just.
        j.      EA 255 From Mut-Ba'lu, ruler of Pihili [Pella] and son of
Lab'aya, to Pharaoh. Mut-Ba'lu assures Pharaoh that caravans may pass
through his territory in peace.
        k.      EA 263 from NN (Tagi?) to Pharaoh.. in the last fragmentary
line a mentioning of Tagi and Lab'aya.
        l.      EA 280 From Shuwardata, hazanu of Qiltu [Keila in Judah], to
Pharaoh saying that ÌR-Cheba of Jerusalem is no better than Lab'aya, who is
now dead.
        m.      EA 287 From ÌR-Cheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh: Accusations
against Milkilu of Gezer and Tagi and about something awful they committed
in alliance with the sons of Lab'aya, who gave their land to the habiru.
        n.      EA 289 from ÌR-Cheba to Pharaoh about the same incidence,
this time he, however says (ll. 23-24): 'Are we to act like Lab'ayu when he
was given the land of Shakmu to the Hapiru?' (Moran's translation, pp.
332-3).

        In all of the EA correspondance there is only one letter that links
Lab'aya to Shechem. And of course one similar reference to Lab'aya's sons
and Shechem (saying that this is very much a kind of stereotype
information). So, what can we say about Lab'aya and the land of Shechem (NB:
not 'city of' but 'land of')? Not much, and really nothing that links
Lab'aya to Jacob to the killing of the inhabitants of Shechem.

        Next point would be to see if there is other information in the
Amarna letters about Shechem. And there is none!. In conclusion, the Amarna
letters do not even say that there was a city of the name of Shechem around
in those days. End of any theory that links Lab'aya to Jacob to anything in
the OT/HB: Period.

        Then, will there be other written evidence supporting, say the
historicity of Gen 34. The link to Lab'aya was tenuous, not to say
non-existent, now what about the names Joseph-El and Jacob-El sometimes
mentioned in connection with the area surrounding Shechem. Yes, ANET pp.
242, includes these names in a list of conquered localities belonging to
Thutmosis III (no. 78 and 102) (i.e. 15th century or about 200 years before
the Amarna period). No later list mentions these localities. Jacob-'el is
written (Helck, Die Beziehung, p. 132): ja-'-q-b-'-íl, and Josph-el,
ja-s()-p-'()-l<a>. This is important evidence that the names of Jacob and
Joseph were known as early as the 15th cntury, not as PNs by as names of
localities. Joseph-el, however, not linked to Jacob-el (no 78 compared to
Jacob-el no 102), and seems placed in a different region. The context of
Jacob-el is likewise doubtful. Noth believed it to be in the vicinity of
Nablus, but other scholars cannot find evidence that sustain Noth's
hypothesis. The context of the list may point at a site in Syria, probably
not too far from Qadesh (Tell Nebi Mind) on the Orontes.

        So the evidence of the names of these two localities does not really
support any connection with Shechem (the question of names-including
these-has been extensively discussed by Thomas Thompson in his The
Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974, pp. 17-51).

        Now, the last line of defence, if a scholar or layperson thinks it
worthwhile to pursue the quest for historical Jacob based on the narrative
in Gen 34 and Jacob's liaison with Shechem, will be to look at the
archaeological evidence, i.e. excavations of Shechem. Shechem was excavated
at the beginning of the 20th century by the Germans. We need not say that
the results were never published in a decent way. It was extensively digged
between 1957 and 1968 by American archaeologist. So far the results from
these excavations have only partly been published. There are various lexical
descriptions in recent encyclopedias of archaeology. I remain with Larry
Toombs in the ABD (V:1174-86): His sequence is for the LB period: Gap during
LB IA (1550-1450), then stratum XIV LB IB (1450-1400); XIII LB IIAQ
(1400-1310), XII LB IIB (1310-1200), and XI (1200-1125), then gab to X-XI
(975-810). He sees stratum XIII destroyed by the enemies of
Lab'aya-although-as we saw, the link between Lab'aya and the city of Shechem
was tenuous if almost not existant. The subsequent stratum shows a
continuation of the previous city (saying that the inhabitants were mainly
the same as before), only gradually impoverishing.
        Nobody acquainted with archaeology and archaeological reports can
disregard the lack of solid information in Toombs article, and his heavy
biblical archaeology approach. Shechem definitely needs to be digged again
by modern archaeologists with refined methods and less biblical orientation.
However, not even Toombs make a link between the supposed destruction of
Shechem around 1310 and the activity of the Israelites. There are many
reasons for this which is not very interesting in this context.

        So back to the beginning: the data-written as well as unwritten-do
not support a connection between Jacob, the Israelites and Lab'aya. Time to
move on to another discussion of the evidence. And new explanations and
hypotheses. 

        Peter Kirk is right: There is not a single piece of evidence
supporting the theory about Jacob and Shechem/Lab'aya and Shechem. Peter
Kirk has his own ideas liked to biblical chronology Her we could start the
discussion again surveying the evidence. The process of falsification would
be very much the same as in this case. So the line
Data-Evidence-Hypothesis-Evidence-Data should be:
Data-hypothesis-falsification of hypothesis-data-new
hypothesis-falsification of new hypothesis. The falsification of the
hypothesis says that the interpretation of the data was wrong. The data
remains, but a refined hypothesis has to be formulated, and so on. What is
new here: A refined explanation, and a new and better hypothesis. No new
data has been produced, no new evidence has been shown to exist. And this
has been going on and on for the last 200 years. If some among us scholars
at times seem rather impatient with non-professional list-members, it is
because they break into an ongoing process and returns to ideas a long time
ago shown to be incorrect or substituted by better explanations, without
having procured the single necessary element that will force the discussion
to open again: New data.