Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of >Biblical Israel·*

(Part 1)
By Nadav N a ’aman

(Tel Aviv University)

Introduction
Since the 1990s, scholars have expressed doubts regarding the premor-
dial unity of the people of Israel, and arguments have been brought for‫־‬
ward that the name >Israel< only came to include the population of the
kingdom of Judah at a very late stage.1A group named Israel is listed in
the Merneptah inscription of his fifth year (1208 BCE) after the names
of three cities (Ashkelon, Gezer and Yenocam).2 However, it is not pos-
sible to deduce from the order of the inscription where it was located,
nor the range of its territory, or who was included in it. Some 350 years
separate this from the next reference to Israel, which had in the mean-
time become an established kingdom, and no doubt during that long
time it underwent extensive changes in its ethnic composition, size and
location. There are other examples of ethnic groups that were sporadi-
cally mentioned in the dawn of their history, and centuries later are
mentioned again, without their late appearance helping to determine
their incipient size or location.3 The gap of centuries between early and
late Israel makes it impossible to create a historical continuity between
them, and we cannot rely on the early mention of >Israel< in a discussion
about the ethnic designation >Israel< in the first millennium BCE.
During the monarchical period the name >Israel< was associated
only with the Northern Kingdom, and quite distinct from the name
>Judah< associated with the kingdom on its south. This is borne out by

* The preparation of the article for publication was made with the generous financial
support of the Israel Science Foundation (ISF).
1 The problem was first raised by P.R. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel, JSOTSup 148,
1992, 11-74.
2 For a recent discussion of the Merneptah stele, see L.D. Morenz, Wortwitz - Ideologie -
Geschichte: »Israel« im Horizont Mer‫־‬en‫־‬ptahs, ZAW 120 (2008), 1 -1 3 , with earlier
literature.
3 N . N a ’aman, The >Conquest of Canaan< in the Book of Joshua and in History, in: I. Fin-
kelstein and N . N a ’aman (eds.), From Nom adism to Monarchy. Archaeological and
Historical Aspects of Early Israel, 1994, 249.

ZAW 121. Bd., S. 2 1 1 -2 2 4 DOI 10.1515/ZA W .2009.014

© Walter de Gruyter 2009
212 Nadav N a ’aman

external documents from the 9th century (the inscriptions of Shalma-

neser III, king of Assyria, Hazael, king of Aram, and Mesha, king of
Moab), in which the Northern Kingdom is called >Israel<. The southern
one is consistently called >Judah< (Ya’udi), and its inhabitants >Juda-
hites< (Ya’udaia), in the Assyrian royal inscriptions of the 8t h7‫־‬th cen-
tury BCE. The seah volume measure of the land of Judah is mentioned
in an Assyrian document from Nineveh, dated to 660 BCE (ADD 148).4
Two published seal impressions bear the inscriptions »belonging to
5hz (son of) yhwtm king of Judah« and »belonging to hzqyhw (son of)
5hz king of Judah«.5 Unfortunately, the seal impressions arrived from
the antiquities market and their authenticity is uncertain. Jerusalem is
described in a Babylonian chronicle from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II,
king of Babylonia, as »city of Judah« (Äl-Yahudu).6Jehoiachin, king of
Judah, who was exiled to Babylonia, is described in economic docu-
ments from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar as »king of Judah« (KUR
Yahudu).7 And a colony of Judahite exiles in the north of Babylonia is
designated in several Babylonian contracts of the second half of the sixth
century BCE by the name Äl-Yahudu, after their country of origin.8
Scholars have also noted that the name >Israel< was used by the 8th
century prophets to signify the Northern Kingdom, and that the appli-
cation of the name >Israel< to the kingdom of Judah in the Books of
Hosea, Amos, Isaiah and Micah appears in late additions.9 Only in the

4 T. Kwasman, N eo Assyrian Legal Documents in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British

Museum, 1988, N o 9 line 3. This capacity measure was possibly brought to Nineveh
by a Judahite merchant.
5 The proposition that the seal engraved with the four-winged scarab emblem was the of-
ficial seal of the kings of Israel rests on its parallel in the recently-published seal im-
pression, showing a two-winged scarab pushing a ball of dung, with the inscriptions
»belonging to hzqyh w (son of) 3hz king of Judah«. See F.M. Cross, King Hezekiah’s
Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery, BAR 25/2 (1999), 4 2 -5 0 , 60; R. Deutsch, First Impres-
sion - What We Learn from King Ahaz’s Seal, BAR 24/3 (1998), 5 4 -5 6 , 62.
6 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 1975, 102, line 12.
7 E.F. Weidner, Jojachin, König von Juda, in Babylonischen Keilschrifttexten, in: Mél-
anges Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud II, 1939, 9 2 5 -9 2 7 .
8 F. Joannès and A. Lemaire, Trois tablettes cunéiformes à onomastique ouest-sémitique,
Transeuphratène 17 (1999), 17-27; R. Zadok, The Earliest Diaspora. Israelites and
Judeans in Pre-Hellenistic Mesopotamia, 2002, 33-35; L.E. Pearce, N ew Evidence for Ju-
deans in Babylonia, in O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the
Persian period, 2006, 399-411; K. Abraham, West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cunei-
form Sources from the Sixth Century BCE, AfO 51 (2005/6), 198-219; idem, An Inherit-
ance Division among Judeans in Babylonia from the Early Persian Period, in: M. Lubetski
(ed.), N ew Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform, 2007, 206-221.
9 J. H 0 genhaven, Gott und Volk bei Jesaja, 1988, 14, 20 -2 2 ; W.D. Whitt, The Jacob
Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis, ZAW 103 (1991), 2 0 -2 3 , with ear-
lier literature.
 Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of >Biblical Israel· 213

7th century did the distinction between them grow blurred, and the
names >Israel< and >Jacob< began to be applied to the kingdom of Judah,
too. It appears that the use of the name >Israel< in reference to the
peoples of both kingdoms began no earlier than the late 8th century
BCE, after the downfall of the kingdom of Israel and its annexation by
Assyria. Only then, when the ancient name >Israel< was left unclaimed,
did scribes in Judah begin to apply it to the peoples of both kingdoms.10
This supports the conclusion that the compositions that describe
the early history of Israel and Judah as a single entity, which took shape
and became unified in its primeval stages and split into two kingdoms
centuries later, could have been written no earlier than the late 8th cen-
tury BCE. The exceptions are works that were composed in the North-
ern Kingdom and use the overall term >Israel< for the described people.
However, it is difficult to demonstrate the northern origin of the biblical
historiography; so, except for the story cycle of Jacob,11 the pre-Deute-
ronomistic story cycle of the Book of Judges,12 and some prophetic
stories in the Book of Kings, most of the biblical historiography was
written by Judahite scribes only after the fall of the Northern Kingdom.

10 For the term >Israel< in post-monarchic biblical texts, see E. Ben Zvi, Inclusion and Ex-
elusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of the Term >Israel< in Post-Monarchic Bib-
lical Texts, in: S.W. H olloway and L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial
Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, JSOTSup 190, 1995, 9 5 -1 4 9 , with earlier literature.
11 A. de Pury, Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origins d’Israël, SVT 43
(1991), 78-96; idem, Situer le cycle de Jacob. Quelques réflexions, vingt-cinq ans plus
tard, in: A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and His-
tory, BETL 155, 2001, 221-2 4 1 ; idem, The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the
Formation of the Pentateuch, in: T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the
Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation,
2006, 5 1 -7 2 , with earlier literature.
12 Following Uwe Becker, I very much doubt that it is possible to reconstruct the pre-
Deuteronomistic story cycles in the Book of Judges; see idem, Richterzeit und König-
tum. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch, BZAW 192, 1990. In spite
of the difficulties in reconstructing an early collection, the geographic horizon of the
stories in Jud 3 -1 2 is set in the Northern Kingdom and points to the original location
of the composition. See T. Römer and A. de Pury, Deuteronomistic Historiography
(DH): History of Research and Related Issues, in: A. de Pury and T. Römer (eds.), Israel
Constructs its History, JSOTSup 306, 2000, 117-119; E.A. Knauf, Does »Deutero-
nomistic Historiography« Exist?, in: de Pury and Römer, ibid., 396. For a suggested re-
covery of a pre-Deuteronomistic >book of saviours< (Retterbuch), see W. Richter, Tradi-
tionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch, BBB 18, 1963; P. Guillaume,
Waiting for Josiah, 2004, 5 -1 0 5 , with earlier literature. I very much doubt Guillaume’s
recent reconstruction of >a book of saviours<, based on what looks like circular reason-
ing (as he himself admits on p. 55). Setting an arbitrary list of criteria for establishing
which element of the story is early and which is late (see p. 41), decides a-priori the re-
suits of the seemingly literary-historical research.
214 Nadav N a ’aman

Why did the Judahite authors start calling the kingdom and the
people amongst whom they composed their works by the name >Israel<
rather than >Judah<? Some solutions have been suggested to this vexed
problem.
Finkelstein and Silberman proposed that a major wave of immi-
grants that poured from Israel into Judah in the late 8th century BCE
dramatically increased the population of the kingdom of Judah and
altered its society, making it broadly Judahite-Israelite. The picture of a
unified kingdom that arises from the story cycle of Saul and David was
due to the desire of the kings of Judah to create a common past and pro-
vide an ideological foundation for the new society that had grown
in Judah at the end of the 8th and early 7th centuries BCE.13 According
to this solution, the kingdom of Judah, which had been unified and
quite homogeneous in the 9th-8‫־‬th centuries, was transformed in a
single generation into a mixed Judahite-Israelite kingdom. The biblical
historiography written in the court of Jerusalem and directed by the
king therefore expressed the ideology and the legitimation of the newly-
created political and social entity.
I have already discussed this solution in detail and suggested that
all the speculation about a mass migration of thousands (or tens thou-
sands) of inhabitants from Israel into Judah following the Assyrian con-
quest in 720, and their prompt settlement all over the kingdom - includ-
ing the Shephelah and Jerusalem -, has no textual or archaeological
evidence to support it. Nor is there any foundation for the >melting pot<
policy attributed to Hezekiah, according to which he settled with un-
precedented speed the masses of refugees who migrated into his realm,
and even took pains to rewrite the Judahite history books in order to

13 I. Finkelstein and N.A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s N ew Vision of

Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, 2001, 2 4 3 -2 4 5 ; idem, David and So-
lomon. In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition,
2006, 129-138; idem, Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the
Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology, JSOT 30 (2006), 259-2 8 5 ; I. Finkelstein, Jerusalem
in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE: A Reply to N adav N a ’aman, Zion 72 (2007),
3 2 5 -3 3 7 (Hebrew). Other scholars also connected the introduction of the concept
o f »biblical Israel< to the mass migration of Israelites to the kingdom of Judah. See
W. Dietrich, The Early Monarchy in Israel. The Tenth Century B.C., 2007, 2 4 7 -2 4 8
(original publication: Die frühe Königszeit in Israel: 10. Jahrhundert v.Chr. [Biblische
Enzyklopädie 3], 1997); idem, Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte, in: A. de Pury and
T. Römer (eds.), Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Neue Ansichten und
Anfragen, OBO 176, 2 000, 59 -6 0 ; W.M. Schniedewind, Jerusalem, the Late Judaean
Monarchy, and the Composition of Biblical Texts, in: A.G. Vaughn and A.E. Killebrew
(eds.), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, 2003, 3 8 0 -8 1 ,
3 8 5 -386; idem, H ow the Bible became a Book. The Textualization of Ancient Israel,
2004, 6 8 -7 3 , 9 4 -9 5 .
 Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of »Biblical Israel· 215

make them feel part of the host kingdom. Biblical historiography was
written for a small group of literate people and it is anachronistic to
compare it to the way modern societies try to integrate new immigrants
in their confines. In sum, solutions of the >deus ex machina< sort should
be avoided, as they tend to give rise to more problems than they claim to
solve.14
Another line of research for the origin of the concept of >biblical
Israel· was suggested by Davies.15 He hypothesized that Benjamin was
the channel through which north Israelite traditions were transmitted
to the kingdom of Judah. His point of departure for the discussion is an
assumed tension between Benjamin and Judah which is reflected in many
parts of the biblical historiography (i.e., the histories of Saul and Ish-
Bacal, the biography of Jeremiah, the episode of Gedaliah at Mizpah, the
episode of the Outrage of Gibeah and the Book of Esther), indicating
a lack of unity in the kingdom of Judah. He suggested that from the
9th century BCE on, the district of Benjamin was included in the terri-
tory of Israel, and that to acknowledge Ahaz’s loyalty to Assyria, Sargon
granted Benjamin to Judah after he had conquered and annexed Samaria
in 720 BCE. Davies suggested that the descriptions of I Reg 12,21-24
and 15,17-22, which clearly indicate that in the late 10th - early 9th cen-
turies Benjamin was part of the kingdom of Judah, are anachronistic.
In his words, »The biblical accounts have retrojected the later Judah-
Benjamin union into the beginnings of the independent Judaean king-
dom itself, severing Benjamin from any recent connection with Israel.«
This bold reconstruction of the history of Benjamin forms the basis
for Davies’ hypothesis of the emergence of the early biblical composi-
tion that focused on the twelve tribes and the unity of early Israel.16 As
the district of Benjamin, which was once part of Israel, became part of

14 For criticism of the mass migration hypothesis, see E.A. Knauf, Bethel: The Israelite
Impact on Judean Language and Literature, in: Lipschits and Oeming, Judah and the
Judeans, 2 9 3 -2 9 4 ; N . N a ’aman, When and H ow Did Jerusalem Become a Great City?
The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the 8th-7th Centuries BCE, BASOR
347 (2007), 21 -5 6 ; idem, The Growth and Development o f Judah and Jerusalem in the
Eighth Century BCE and the Assumed >Melting Pot< Policy Attributed to King Heze-
kiah. A Reply to Israel Finkelstein, Zion 72 (2007), 3 3 8 -3 4 6 (Hebrew).
15 P.R. Davies, The Origin of Biblical Israel, in: Y. Amit et al. (eds.), Essays on Ancient
Israel in Its Near Eastern Context. A Tribute to Nadav N a ’aman, 2006, 141-148;
idem, The Trouble with Benjamin, in: R. Rezetko, T.H. Lim and W.B. Aucker (eds.),
Reflection and Refraction. Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme
Auld, VT.S 113, 2007, 9 3 -1 1 1 .
16 Davies suggested that the earliest comprehensive biblical historiographical work was
written at Mizpah, emphasized the military leadership of Benjamin among the Israelite
tribes (excluding Judah) and stopped with the death of Saul. See idem, Origin of Bib-
lical Israel; idem, Trouble with Benjamin, 1 0 4 -108.
216 Nadav N a ’aman

the kingdom of Judah, it became the channel through which the scribes
of Jerusalem gradually absorbed elements of the Israelite historical and
religious traditions. Benjamin thus played a major role in the creation of
the concept of >biblical Israel·, which had been a unity since ancient time
.and included the inhabitants of both Israel and Judah
What evidence is there to support the assumption that - contrary to
the description in the Book of Kings ‫ ־־‬the district of Benjamin was part
of the territory of Israel until the late 8th century, when it was turned
over to Judah? Is there evidence of tension between Judah and Benjamin
during the monarchical period? Was Benjamin a north-Israelite tribe, so
that it could have been the channel by which northern traditions were
passed to the court of Jerusalem? Did the rivalry between Saul and
David described in the Book of Samuel reflect the tension between Israel
and Judah in the late monarchical period? It is the purpose of this article
to examine these fundamental questions in order to shed light on the
emergence of the concept of >biblical Israel· in Judahite historiography
.of the pre-exilic period

The Border between Judah and Israel

in the Ninth-Eighth Centuries BCE
-Let me open the discussion by clarifying the place of the land of Benja
min vis à vis the city of Jerusalem along the axis of time (the longue
durée). Years ago I discussed this problem in detail and demonstrated
that from the early second millennium BCE the land of Benjamin was
always included in the territory of Jerusalem.17 This is clear from the
analysis of the documentary and archaeological evidence of the second
millennium BCE, as well as the documentary evidence of the Persian and
Hellenistic periods. It is obvious that the district of Benjamin always
had a southward orientation, toward Jerusalem, and was detached from
.the political/administrative entity on its north
-The results of the archaeological excavations and surveys con
ducted in the highland district of Benjamin in the Iron Age II clearly
show that the district of Benjamin was an integral part of the kingdom
of Judah in the 8th-7th centuries BCE. The material culture unearthed
in major Benjaminite cities, such as Tell en‫־‬,Nasbeh (Mizpah), Gibeon
Tell el‫־‬Fûl (Gibeah), Khirbet el‫־‬-Burj (probably Beeroth), and neighbour
ing sites, is identical to that uncovered in Jerusalem and other Judahite
-sites. Let me present a few examples. A large number of Imlk seal im
pressions have been found in sites located all over the district of Benja-

17 N . N a ’aman, Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Sec-
ond Millennium B.C.E., UF 24 (1992), 2 7 5 -2 9 1 .
 Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of >Biblical Israel· 217

min, while only a single seal impression was found north of it.18 Rosette
seal impressions have been found in sites located in the area of Benja-
min, but not a single seal impression was discovered in the area north of
it.19 Numerous Judahite pillar figurines have been discovered in the ex-
cavations conducted in Benjaminite sites, but very few north of it.20
Many burials in hewn caves, which appear in all districts of the king-
dom of Judah, have been discovered in the territory of Benjamin, but
not a single tomb north of it.21 The results of the archaeological research
strongly suggest that the highland district of Benjamin was an integral
part of the kingdom of Judah in the monarchical period, and that its ma-
terial culture differs from that of the hill country of Ephraim.
Both the analysis of the longue durée and the material culture un-
covered in the Benjaminite hill country sites show that - contrary to the
suggestion of Davies (and Knauf; see below) - the district was part of
the kingdom of Judah in the 8th to early 6th centuries BCE. The city of
Jerusalem is located close to Benjamin and the Benjaminites could have
gained much from their proximity to the kingdom’s capital. The capitals
of the Northern Kingdom (Shechem, Tirzah and Samaria), on the other
hand, were located far north. No wonder that, like their Canaanite pre-
decessors, the inhabitants of Benjamin in the Iron Age kept close ties
with the capital of Jerusalem and joined the emerging kingdom of Judah
in the 10th-9th centuries BCE.
According to I Reg 12,21-24, after the division of the monarchy,
Benjamin was included in the kingdom of Judah.22 The account in
I Reg 15,16-22 relates how Baasha, king of Israel, conquered Ramah
(er-Ram), a strategic site located about eight kms north of Jerusalem, on
the main road approaching it from the north. Asa appealed for help to
Ben-Hadad, the Aramean king, who then attacked the northern cities of
Israel, forcing Baasha to rush troops to the north and abandon Ramah.
Asa mobilized his subjects and built Mizpah (Tell en‫־‬Nasbeh) and Geba

18 A.G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of

Hezekiah, 1999, 3 2 -3 8 , 185-197; Y. Magen and M. Dadon, Nebi Samwil (Montjoie),
in: G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcala (eds.), One Land - Many Cultures:
Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda, 2003, 1 2 4 -125.
19 J.M. Cahill, Rosette Stamp Seal Impressions from Ancient Judah, IEJ 45 (1995),
2 3 0 -2 5 2 (esp. 2 4 5-246); Magen and Dadon, Nebi Samwil, 1 2 4 -125.
20 R. Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah, BAR Inter-
national Series 636, 1996, 4 3 -4 8 , 9 5 -9 6 .
21 I. Yezerski, Burial-Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah toward
the End of the Iron Age, Tel Aviv 26 (1999), 2 5 3 -2 7 0 (see map on p. 265).
22 For discussion of the textual and historical problems involved with this passage, see
J.H. Gronbaek, Benjamin und Juda. Erwägungen zu lK ön xii 2 1 -2 4 , VT 15 (1965),
4 2 1 -4 3 6 .
218 Nadav N a ’aman

(Jebac), sites strategically located on the two main roads that led from the
kingdom of Israel to Jerusalem.23 From this time on, the two fortified
cities marked the northern border of the kingdom of Judah (cf. Jer 41,9).
Not all the district of Benjamin was included in the territory of
Judah. According to I Reg 16,34, Hiel of Bethel fortified the city of
Jericho, which was a major town on the road leading to the Mishor and
Gilead on one side and to the land of Moab on the other. Control of this
road was essential to the Omrides, who conquered Moab and ruled over
it until Mesha’s rebellion, and for the Jehuhites, who struggled with
Moab for the domination of the Mishor (see II Reg 13,20-21 ).24
Jericho and Gilgal are mentioned several times in the story cycles of
the two 9th century prophets, Elijah and Elisha (II Reg 2,1.4.5.15.18;
4,38). The 8th century prophets Amos (4,4; 5,5) and Hosea (4,15; 9,15;
12,5) severely criticized the cult practised in Gilgal and Bethel, both
sites which were then important North Israelite cult centres. It is thus
evident that the area of Jericho and the road leading to it from Bethel
were included in the territory of the kingdom of Israel. The road is sche-
matically delineated in the description of the sons of Joseph’s southeast-
ern border (Jos 16,1), and was detected in the excavations and survey
conducted in this area.25 It is possible that the town of Michmash,
situated north of Geba at a road junction, was in Israelite hands. If such
was the case, Michmash was the southernmost Israelite city in the
area, facing Geba, which was the northernmost Judahite city on Judah’s
border with Israel.
Like the road descending from Bethel eastwards to Jericho, so too
the road climbing from the northern Shephelah to the Bethel area was in
Israelite hands. This is indicated by the description of Ephraim’s south-
ern border, which ran from Beth-horon westwards to Gezer and the
sea (Jos 16,3.5-6a). Several biblical references mention the settlement
of Ephraimite families in the area around Gezer (Jos 16,10; 21,20-22;

23 For general discussions, see P.M. Arnold, Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City, JSOT-
Sup 79, 1990, 10 8 -1 0 9 and maps on pp. 8-9; W.M. Schniedewind, The search for
Gibeah: N otes on the Historical Geography of Central Benjamin, in: A.M. Maeir and
P. de Miroschedji (eds.), »I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times«. Archaeological
and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birth-
day, 2006, 7 1 1 -7 2 2 .
24 N . N a ’aman, Royal Inscription versus Prophetic Story, M esha’s Rebellion according to
Biblical and Moabite Historiography, in: L.L. Grabbe (ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise
and Fall of the Omri Dynasty, Library of Hebrew Bible/OTSt 421, 2007, 1 6 6 -176,
with earlier literature.
25 For the road leading from Bethel to Jericho, see A. Mazar, D. Amit, and Z. Ilan, Hurvat
Shilhah: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert, in: J.D. Seger (ed.), Retrieving the Past.
Essays on Archaeological Research and M ethodology in Honor of Gus W. Van Beek,
1996, 193-2 1 1 .
 Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of >Biblical Israel· 219

Jud 1,29.35; I Chr 6,66-68 [=MT 51-53]; 7,21.28). That Gezer was
included in the territory of the kingdom of Israel is evident from a relief
of Tiglath-Pileser III, depicting the Assyrian conquest of this city.26 The
Aijalon-Beth-horon road ran inside the Northern Kingdom^ territory,
not far from Judah5s northern border, and Shishak’s campaign in the late
10th century BCE passed along this route and reached the area north of
Jerusalem.27
To conclude, the southern boundary of the biblical allotment of
Ephraim (Jos 16,1-5) roughly corresponds with the southern border
of the kingdom of Israel with Judah. The kingdom of Israel dominated
the two major roads that rose from the northern Shephelah to the area
of Bethel, and descended eastwards to the area of Jericho. The territory
of Judah was located south of these roads and encompassed most of
the district of Benjamin, except for the Jericho-Gilgal, and possible the
Michmash, areas.
Although the Benjaminite district dominated by Israel was relatively
small, it nevertheless included two important locales - the city of Jer-
icho and the cult place of Gilgal. I have already emphasized the import-
ance of this area for Israel and its frequent mention in the prophetic
stories of Elijah and Elisha and the prophecies of Amos and Hosea. To
these sources we may add the story of Ehud (Jud 3,12-30). Although
it mentions the tribe of Benjamin, the >Benjamin< referred to in the story
is the district included in the Northern Kingdom. The story reflects the
situation on the border of Israel and Moab in the 8th century BCE,
when Jericho was located near the border of Moab, divided by the
Jordan river. Since the Moabites inhabited the plains of Moab, east of
Jericho, the author of the story envisioned an attack from the east, in
the course of which the Moabites defeated Israel and occupied Jericho
(>the city of palm trees<; Jud 3,13). Consequently, Eglon, the king of
Moab, resided in the conquered city and received tribute and gifts from
the Israelites. After delivering the tribute, Ehud approached »the graven
images which are near Gilgal« (v. 19), then returned to the king5s palace.
After killing Eglon, Ehud »had passed the graven images, and escaped
to Seirah« (v. 26), a descriptive designation for the wooded, mountain-
ous uninhabited area (»the shaggy mountain«) of Mount Ephraim.28
»And when he arrived, he blew the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim,

26 R.D. Barnett and M. Falkner, The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II (883 -8 5 9 B.C.),

Tiglath-Pileser III (7 4 5 -7 2 7 B.C.), Esarhaddon (6 8 1 -6 6 9 B.C.) from the Central and
South-West Palaces of Nimrud, 1962, 24, 112.
27 N . N a ’aman, Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps, BASOR 261 (1986),
6 -7 .
28 N . N a ’aman, Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary
Sphere, JNES 45 (1986), 284 n. 45; idem, Canaanite Jerusalem, 288.
220 Nadav N a ’aman

and the people of Israel went down with him from the hill country, hav-
ing him at their head« (v. 27). They took the fords of the Jordan and
smote the fleeing Moabites (vv. 28-29). It is clear that all the topographi-
cal elements included in the story pertain to the territory of the kingdom
of Israel, and that Ehud, although described as Benjaminite of the family
of Gera (v. 15), was depicted in the story as a north Israelite saviour.29

The District of Benjamin in the Prophecies of Hosea

Several locations in the territory of Benjamin are mentioned in Hosea.
Most remarkable is the prophecy in Hos 5,8-10, which might be trans-
lated as follows:
»Blow the horn in Gibeah, the trumpet in Ramah. Raise a shout: >Beth-aven; after
you, Benjamin<! Ephraim shall become a desolation in the day of punishment; among
the tribes of Israel I declare what is sure. The officers of Judah have become like those
who remove the landmark; upon them I will pour out my wrath like water«.

According to this translation, which I defend below, the prophecy in

vv. 8-10 envisages an impending Judahite attack on Israel and Hosea’s
reaction to it.
The interpretation of the episode has been debated by scholars.
Alt suggested that the prophecy refers to the Syro-Ephraimite war of
733 BCE,30 and his analysis was accepted by many scholars.31 Accord-
ing to Alt’s interpretation, in vv. 8-9 Hosea is issuing a warning
about an impending Judahite south‫־‬to‫־‬north attack, directed against the
Benjaminite and southern Ephraimite cities. The Judahite campaign is
a counter-attack to the north-to-south campaign of Rezin and Pekah
against Ahaz, king of Judah, in the course of which the Benjaminite
towns were captured by the Aramean-Israelite army (II Reg 16,5;
Isa 7,1). V. 10 was said after the completion of the Judahite counter-
attack and confirmed the authenticity of the warning in vv. 8-9.

For the anachronistic nature of the story, see N a ’aman, Royal Inscription 29, 1 68 .
:A. Alt, Hosea 5,8-6,6: Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung, in 30
-Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, 1953, 1 6 3 -1 7 4 (originally pub
lished in NK Z 30 ] 1919 [, 5 3 7 -5 6 8 (.
,H.W. Wolff, Hosea. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, Hermeneia 31
original publication: Dodekapropheton. 1: Hosea, BKAT( 1 9 8 2 ,1 1 0 -1 1 4 14/1 , 1965 (;
-H. Donner, Israel unter den Völkern: die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8. Jahr
hunderts v. Chr. zur Außenpolitik der Könige von Israel und Juda, VT.S 1 1 ,1 9 6 4 ,4 7 - 4 8 ;
W. Rudolph, Hosea, KAT 13/1, 1966, 122-129; J.L. Mays, Hosea ‫ ־‬,A Commentary
OTL, 1969, 85-90; F.I. Anderson and D .N . Freedman, Hosea, AB 2 4 , 1980 , 3 9 9 -4 1 6 ;
J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea übersetzt und erklärt, ATD 24 /1 , 1983 , 7 8 -8 1 ;
-G.I. Davies, Hosea, NCBC, 1992, 1 4 5 -148. The book of M. Mulzer, Alarm für Benja
min. Text, Struktur und Bedeutung in Hos 5 ,8 -8 ,1 4 , 2003, is not available to m e .
 Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of >Biblical Israel· 221

Contrary to this interpretation, Jepsen32 and Wolff33 suggested

that Gibeah and Ramah, with most of the territory of Benjamin, were
conquered in the early 8th century BCE by Joash, king of Israel
II Reg 14,11-14), and remained occupied by the Northern Kingdom(
during this century. A similar suggestion was made by Macintosh, who
hypothesized a long struggle for control of the district of Benjamin
-between Israel and Judah following the division of the monarchy.34 Ac
cording to his reconstruction, the territory of Benjamin was dominated
by the Syro-Ephraimite allies, and »Hosea’s words are best interpreted
as serving to depict the alarm raised in Benjaminite territory ... at the
.«menace of the Judaeans
The bone of contention is the interpretation of the text - is it a call
to arms to the (loyal to Israel) Benjaminite towns, or to the (loyal to
,Judah) towns of Benjamin? Most remarkable are the words »after you
Benjamin«, which is a literary allusion to the call to Benjamin to join
the attacking Israelite forces in the Song of Deborah (Jud 5,14).35 To
avoid the straightforward meaning of the text, namely, that it is a call
to Benjamin to join the attack, some scholars suggested correcting
)the text. Thus Wellhausen and Wolff read it (on the basis of the LXX
terrify» )‫ החרד‬or ‫ (החרידו‬Benjamin«.36 Andersen and Freedman and
-Macintosh inserted the words »we are« (»we are behind you, Benja
min«), although there is no »we« in the text.37 In my opinion, in v. 8 the
.prophet >cites< the call to Benjamin to join the Judahite attacking forces
-The verb rw' and the noun trw'h are frequently used in the Bible to sig
nal an attack on a city or enemy (e.g., Jos 6,5.10.20; Jud 7,21 ; 15,14;
I Sam 17,20.52; Isa 42,13; II Chr 13,15).38 V. 8b includes two loud cries:

32 A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches, 2 nd revised ed., 1956, 9 6 -9 7 .

33 Wolff, Hosea, 113.
34 A.A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea, ICC, 1 9 9 7 ,1 9 3 -1 9 9 .
35 A. Caquot suggested that vv. 1 4 -1 7 has been interpolated into the Song of Deborah
and that originally v. 18 came after v. 13. See idem, Les tribus d’Israël dans le cantique
de Débora (Juges 5, 1 3 -17), Sem. 36 (1986), 4 7 -7 0 (esp. 54 -5 5 ). The suggestion was
accepted by N . N a ’aman, Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon
(Judges iv-v), VT 40 (1990), 426. According to this suggestion, the march of the Israe-
lite troops to the place of battle (vv. 1 l b - 1 3) was followed by praise for Zebulun and
Naphtali, the two tribes that participated in the fighting against the Canaanites (v. 18).
The other eight tribes were only secondarily inserted into the song and did not take
part in the historical event.
36 J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt, 4 th ed., 1963, 114; Wolff,
Hosea, 104; Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 47; Mays, Hosea, 85. For criticism, see
Rudolph, Hosea, 126; Jeremias, Hosea, 81.
37 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 399, 406; Macintosh, Hosea, 193, 197.
38 Jeremias (Hosea, 81) correctly emphasized that the verbal form hárfú appears in the
majority of biblical texts as a call for attack and only once (Joel 2,1) as a warning.
222 Nadav N a ’aman

»Beth-aven; after you, Benjamin«, to be uttered by the assaulting army

before the attack on Bethel (Beth-aven). It is evident that the blowing of
the horn and trumpet should be interpreted as a call to arms of the cities
of Benjamin, represented by the two well-known Benjaminite cities of
Gibeah and Ramah.39
We may conclude that in v. 8 the prophet envisions the district of
Benjamin being mobilized to participate in the counter-attack on Bethel.
The emphasis on Benjamin is probably due to the towns5suffering at the
hands of the invading forces of Aram and Israel, and their desire to
avenge their destruction and losses. In v. 9 the prophet justifies the
punishment that would befall Ephraim, and in v. 10 he reproaches the
officers of Judah who crossed their neighbour’s border and pronounces
divine judgment on them. The position of Hosea towards Israel and
Judah in vv. 9-10 is not unlike that of the Deuteronomist in the two epi-
sodes of Baasha’s invasion of the territory of Benjamin in the reign of
Asa (I Reg 15,16-22), and Rezin’s and Pekah’s attack on Jerusalem in
the time of Ahaz. In those two episodes he described critically the invad-
ing Israelite forces and the failure of the invasions, but at the same time
criticized the conduct of the kings of Judah who sent a >bribe< to a
foreign king and caused destruction and subjugation to the kingdom of
Israel.40
Finally, the two references to Gibeah in Hosea should be discussed.
(a) »They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of
Gibeah. He shall remember their guilt, he shall punish their sins«
(Hos 9,9);
(b) »Since the days of Gibeah you have sinned, O Israel. There
they stopped. Shall not war on the children of badness overtake them in
Gibeah?« (Hos 10,9).
I see no grounds for the suggestion that »the days of Gibeah« refers
to the appointment of Saul as king.41 The >offences< attributed to King
Saul did not take place in Gibeah, and the city, known also by the
positive designation Gibeath-elohim,42 is not mentioned negatively any­

39 This was already suggested by Jeremias (Hosea, 81), who noted that »in v. 8 werden
Gibea und Rama zum Gegenschlag gegen das Nordreich gerufen, Bet-El als Tor zum
Nordreich wird als erste Stadt vom Angriff erreicht«.
40 H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings. Histori-
ographic Considerations, Bib. 60 (1979), 4 9 8 -5 0 5 ; N . N a ,aman, The Deuteronomist
and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Kings, JSOT 65 (1995), 4 1 -4 8 .
41 Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten, 125; E. Ben Zvi, Hosea, FOTL XXIA/1, 2005,
2 0 2 ,2 1 8 ; J. Blenkinsopp, Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Persian Period, in: Lip-
schits and Oeming, Judah and the Judeans, 639.
42 For the identification of Gibeath-elohim with Gibeah/Gibeah of Saul (Tell el‫־‬Fûl), see
S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books o f Samuel,
 Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of »Biblical Israel< 223

where in Saul’s history.43 Scholars usually connected Hosea’s words to

the story in Jud 19-21 and to the episode of the outrage of the men of
Gibeah (Jud 19).44 However, Gibeah was a Judahite town and the dis-
trict of Benjamin was in the kingdom of Judah. Hosea must have been
referring to an episode in which Israel, not Benjamin, committed a war
crime near the city of Gibeah.45
The elements of the story in Jud 19-21 that might conceivably be
connected to Hosea’s prophecy are the war crimes that the Israelites
committed against the tribe of Benjamin (Jud 20). It must be empha-
sized that the story in Jud 19-21 is a late post-exilic literary composi-
tion, in which elements of the old tradition were so interwoven and
reworked that it is impossible to reconstruct its historical nucleus.46 The
historical event known to Hosea must have been radically different
from the one narrated in Judges. In Hos 9,9 and 10,9, the prophet
alludes to an episode in which the Israelites slaughtered their enemies,
probably the Benjaminites, near Gibeah. The time and historical back-
ground of the episode are unknown. I would suggest, tentatively, that
the prophet was referring to a war crime that the Israelites had com-
mitted when they invaded the district of Benjamin during the monarchi-
cal period, either in the time of Baasha or Jehoash. The episode reflects
enmity between Israel and Benjamin, contrary to the assumption of
some scholars that cooperation and fraternity reigned between the two
neighbouring entities.
The prophecy of Isa 10,28-32, and its possible contribution to
the geographical-historical discussion, should also be mentioned. In this
prophecy Isaiah envisions a military campaign that will proceed from

1913, 69, 80; B. Mazar, Gibeath H a‫־‬Elohim, BJPES 10 (1944), 7 3 -7 5 (reprint: Cities
and Districts in Eretz Israel, 1975, 80 -8 3 ) (Hebrew); R. de Vaux, Les livres de Samuel,
SBJ, 1953, 52, n. d; 53, n. c; M. N oth, The History of Israel, 1960, 167. For a list of
other proposals, see H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT VIII/1, 1973, 198.
43 For detailed criticism, see A. Caquot, Osée et la Rouauté, RHPhR 41 (1961), 140-142;
Davies, Hosea, 223, 244.
44 See for example: Caquot, Osée et la Rouauté, 142; Wolff, Hosea, 158, 184; Mays,
Hosea, 143; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 5 3 4 -5 3 5 , 564-5 6 5 ; Jeremias, Hosea,
133-134; Davies, Hosea, 223, 244; Macintosh, Hosea, 3 5 7 -3 5 8 , 413.
45 There are two other allusions in Hosea to war crimes committed in the past. The epi-
sode of the »blood of Jezreel« (1,4) is known from the story in II Reg 9 -1 0 , whereas the
historical background of the episode referred to with the words »as Shalman destroyed
Beth-arbel on the day of battle« (10,14) remains unknown.
46 Y. Amit, Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 1 9 -2 1 , in: H.G. Revent-
low, Y. Hoffman and B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitical Literature,
JSOTSup 171, 1994, 2 8 -40; idem, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narratives, 2000,
179-184; C. Edenburg, The Story of the Outrage at Gibeah (Jdg. 19-21): Composition,
Sources and Historical Context (Ph.D. Thesis), 2003 (Hebrew).
224 Nadav N a ’aman

the area east of Bethel (Aiath = Ai), march to Geba and split into two
forces that will advance southwards to Jerusalem, one through Rama
and Gibeah, the other through Anathoth. Various historical situations
have been proposed to account for this campaign, but they are not my
concern here.47 What is significant is that the text describes a line of
march from the area of Bethel to Jerusalem and ignores the stage in
which the envisioned campaign crosses the border of Judah. Thus, the
description in Isa 10,28-32 does not help to define the contour of
Judah5s northern border in the late 8th century BCE.
In conclusion, most of the district of Benjamin was part of the king‫־‬
dom of Judah in the 9th-8th centuries BCE. There is no evidence that it
was in any stage annexed by the Northern Kingdom, and the passage of
Israelite troops through the district towards Jerusalem did not change
its status as the northernmost district of the kingdom of Judah. A state
of vassalage is one thing and annexation is another. Admittedly, some
borders were shifted during the 9th-8th centuries BCE - for example,
the border between Israel and Moab, or the division of the territories of
the fallen Philistine Gath among its eastern and western neighbours.
However, most borders remained stable until Assyria dramatically
changed the rules of the political game. There is no evidence that the
border between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had changed between
Asa5s reign in the early 9th century and the Assyrian annexation of Israel
in 720 BCE. Since the district of Benjamin was a buffer zone between
Israel and Judah, and must have suffered in the course of the military
clashes between the two kingdoms (as may be inferred from Hos 5,8-9;
9,9; 10,9), it might have grown hostile rather than fraternal in its re-
lations with Ephraim, its northern neighbour.

(to be continued)

47 From the rich literature written on the subject, in addition to the commentaries see:
G. Dalman, Palästinische Wege und die Bedrohung Jerusalems nach Jesaia 10, PJb 12
(1916), 37-57; W.F. Albright, The Assyrian March on Jerusalem, Isa. X, 2 8 -3 2 ,
AASOR 4 (1924), 134-140; Donner, Israel unter den Völkern, 3 0 -3 8 , 1 4 2 -1 4 5 , 181;
idem, Der Feind aus dem Norden: Topographische und archäologische Erwägungen zu
Jes. 10,27b -34, ZDPV 84 (1968), 4 6 -54; D.L. Christensen, The March of Conquest
in Isaiah X 2 7 c -3 4 , VT 26 (1976), 385-3 9 9 ; M.A. Sweeney, Sargon’s Threat against
Jerusalem in Isaiah 1 0 ,2 7 -3 2 , Bib. 75 (1994), 4 5 7 -4 7 0 ; K.L. Younger, Sargon’s Cam-
paign against Jerusalem - A Further N ote, Bib. 77 (1996), 1 0 8-110.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.