The Story of Ezer and Elead (and What It Means for the Exodus)

Tucked away amidst the genealogies of Chronicles almost no one reads, the tale of two cattle-rustling brothers from Ephraim might just be the most obscure story in the Bible. Like many such tales in the Old Testament, this one is brief and contains only the most essential details:

The sons of Ephraim…Ezer and Elead. Now the men of Gath, who were born in the land, killed them, because they came down to raid their cattle. And their father Ephraim mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him. He went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son; and he named him Beriah, because evil (beraah) had befallen his house. His daughter was Sheerah, who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon, and Uzzen-sheerah. (1 Chr. 7:20-24)

In its larger context, the Chronicler is describing the family trees of the tribes and clans of Israel. Here, after listing the descendants of Ephraim’s first son Shuthelah, he relates a folktale about Ephraim’s second and third sons¹, named Ezer and Elead, who “go down” to Gath one day — that is, they descend from the hill country of Ephraim to the coastal plain of Gath — in order to steal the Gittites’ cattle. Some locals catch them in the act, and they are executed for their crimes. Ephraim, their father, mourns them for many days, and when his wife bears him another son sometime later, the child is given the name “Beriah” (which resembles the Hebrew word for “evil”) to remind the family of their loss. Such folk etymologies are common in Bible stories, though rarely (if ever) true. Beriah’s daughter Sheerah must have been a remarkable woman, for she founds three Ephraimite cities. Even more significantly, the national hero Joshua is born nine generations later, Beriah’s direct descendant (v. 27).

Perhaps you have already spotted the problem. Whatever the Chronicler’s sources, he is giving a version of Ephraim’s history in which the sojourn in Egypt and the exodus never took place! This is not the Ephraim who was born to Joseph in Egypt (Gen 41:52), and whose descendants spent 400 years in Egypt and another 40 in the wilderness before conquering the land of Ephraim². Although Chronicles is usually seen as a late work, this tradition seems to pre-date the canonical Pentateuch, portraying Ephraim and his immediate family as indigenous settlers of the land named after him³. In her commentary on Chronicles, Sara Japhet writes:

…the story as a literary work deals with the individual Ephraim, the son of Joseph – an approach emphasized by ‘their father’, ‘his brothers’, ‘his wife’, etc. The events described transpired in the land; this is where the historical emphasis of the narrative lies. The depiction of Ephraim as a real individual, settled in the land, is not a passing remark here but a fundamental element, and this is true also of ‘his brothers’, whose coming to comfort Ephraim in his grief reminds the reader of the story of Job’s friends…. Furthermore Ephraim’s daughter Sheerah is the builder of three cities, two of which are well-known Ephraimite localities. … The individual Ephraim, his sons, brothers, wife and daughter, are all here in the land, and as a person he could not have lived in both Egypt and Israel. The close bond established between Joseph and the land should be regarded as the Chronicler’s alternative to the Hexateuch tradition. (pp. 181-182)

Locations mentioned in the story of Ezer and Elead

Geography of Ephraim and the story of Ezer and Elead

The Aramean Heritage of Manasseh

The tale of Ezer and Elead isn’t the only biblical text oblivious to the exodus. When we look at the genealogy of Manasseh in the same chapter of 1 Chronicles (7:14-19), we see the same paradigm in effect. The Chronicler presents the tribe of Manasseh as having a strong Aramean character, for both of Manasseh’s sons are born to his Aramean concubine, Gilead’s wife⁴ has the Aramean name Maacah, and Manasseh’s daughter has the Aramean name Hammolecheth. In other words, the Chronicler describes a family whose women are all Aramean, implying the tribe itself is half Aramean — which makes sense, given its location in northeast Israel near the Aramean kingdoms, but only if we ignore the Pentateuchal story, in which Manasseh and many generations of his offspring live their entire lives in Egypt. As Japhet notes:

The Chronicler, by contrast, conceives of the bond between the Manassites and the Aramaeans as going back to the person of Manasseh himself. …ignoring the intermediate phase of sojourn in Egypt, it presents a continuity of territorial occupation. (p. 178)

It is, in fact, the same with all the Chronicler’s genealogies. At every step of the way, from the tribal patriarch down the line, these names, ostensibly presented as individuals, actually represent ethnic groups and place-names in Palestine; the Chronicler structures his genealogies according to his understanding of real-world geographic and ethnic relationships. It is impossible to conceive that these complex relations, including ties with non-Israelite neighbors, originated during a four-century period of slavery in Egypt.

Excursus on Asriel, son of Manasseh

There’s something else of interest in Manasseh’s genealogy. The Chronicler gives the patriarch Asriel a prominent place as Manasseh’s first-born son. In the Pentateuchal version (Num 26:31), by contrast, he is merely a fourth-generation descendant.

Who is Asriel? There are no stories about him, and no towns or regions by that name. According to André Lemaire (see references), who conducted a linguistic study of the spellings found in the Hebrew and Greek versions as well as two Samarian ostraca and several ancient stelae, Asriel is simply a spelling variant of Israel. He survives as a cultural memory of the original tribe of Israel first mentioned by the Merneptah Stele as Ysrir. The tribe’s territory lay on the border between Manasseh and Ephraim and probably included the religious sanctuary at Shiloh. In time, its name became synonymous with the kingdom of Israel, whose core territory consisted of Ephraim and Manasseh. These origins are lost in the exodus story, which makes Israel the ancestor of all twelve patriarchs in Egypt.

Arent de Gelder, Judah and Tamar (1681)

Arent de Gelder, Judah and Tamar (1681)

Judah Settles in Canaan

More examples of biblical traditions that preclude the Egyptian sojourn can be found, and not just in Chronicles. We have a strange story about Judah in Genesis 38 that disrupts the story of Joseph’s abduction and rise to power in Egypt. Abandoning his brothers, Judah settles in Canaan, finds a wife, and has several sons. His two oldest sons are killed by Yahweh in adulthood — Er for unspecified wickedness, and Onan for failing to fulfill sexual obligations toward his brother’s widow Tamar⁵. When Judah withholds his third son from Tamar, she poses as a prostitute and seduces Judah, producing twin sons. These events take place in various Judahite towns and clearly tie Judah and his descendants to that land. The chronology is irreconcilable with the exodus story. Egyptologist Donald Redford (see references) writes:

There is no time span between the end of chapter 37 and the beginning of chapter 39…to justify the presence of a digression. And yet the only reasonable explanation of the present order of the chapters must be chronological: chapter 38 could not follow the Joseph Story, since Judah is then in Egypt for the rest of his life, while the setting of 38 is in Palestine. It could not precede the Joseph Story, for Judah is an old grandfather at the close of 38, while at the outset of the Joseph Story he is still a young man. It should here be noted that no matter where chapter 38 be placed an insurmountable difficulty remains. Judah is there pictured as himself an aged patriarch, peacefully settled in Palestine. In the Joseph Story, however, he remains among the brothers and is apparently without wife or children, i.e. is still a young man. (p. 17)

The Exodus and Archaeology

One of the most significant developments in biblical archaeology over the past several decades is the near-universal conclusion, based on physical evidence, that the biblical exodus story never actually took place. Despite a few conservative holdouts, nearly all experts agree that the evidence from Palestine shows Israel developing in full cultural, material, and linguistic continuity with its Canaanite forebears; on the other side of the coin, there is zero evidence for Hebrew enslavement in Egypt, a large-scale migration through Sinai, or a violent conquest of Canaan. As archaeologist William Dever recently wrote:

To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds “biblical archaeology’s” conquest model. Various theories of indigenous origins prevail, in which case there is neither room nor need for an exodus of significant proportions. To put it succinctly, if there was no invasion of Canaan by an “Exodus group,” then there was no Exodus. …the ancestors of the majority of ancient Israelites and Judeans had never been in Egypt. They were essentially Canaanites, displaced both geographically and ideologically. (Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, p. 404)

It is, perhaps, surprising how long it took for archaeologists and biblical scholars to arrive at this conclusion, when diverse and irreconcilable versions of Israel’s origins have been present in the Bible all along. For the majority of the Bible’s existence, however, interpretation has been entrusted to those who assumed there had to be a harmonized reading that made sense of it all. Rabbinical commentators had a variety of creative (if implausible) explanations for most discrepancies they found, and “Bible answer books” that propose solutions to the most obvious difficulties continue to find audiences today — particularly in evangelical and fundamentalist circles. But for those who take the Bible seriously, the findings of archaeology and other scientific fields can no longer be ignored; and the findings, though startling for many Christians, have freed us at last to read the text with a renewed open mind.

David Roberts, Departure of the Israelites, between 1827 and 1829

David Roberts, Departure of the Israelites, between 1827 and 1829


Special thanks to regular commenter John Kesler for inspiring this article!

Footnotes

  1. Possibly Ephraim’s eldest son Shuthelah is included, but this seems unlikely, since an important line of descendants goes through him, and his name is separated from Ezer and Elead in the text.
  2. The names of the sons of Ephraim listed by the Chronicler don’t even match those given in the Pentateuch (Num 26:35-36). The Chronicler’s version may be older, since Ephraim’s son Becher in Num 26:35 seems to originate as a son of Benjamin (Gen 46:21, 1 Chr 7:6).
  3. The reality, of course, is that eponymous ancestors are fictional characters named after the territories or tribes they represent.

  4. Here, I’m going by Japhet’s interpretation of the somewhat corrupted text.

  5. Er died childless, and a tribal tradition similar to  levirate marriage required the next brother to have sex with the widow and impregnate her (actual marriage was apparently not required; see Westermann, Genesis, p. 269). 1 Chronicles 4:21–22 has another version of the Judah tradition that makes Er the grandson of Judah with offspring of his own. Nevertheless, the Chronicler’s version still places Judah’s immediate family in the region of Judah; Er, for example, is the founder (“father”) of Lecah, his brother is the founder of Mareshah, and other family members establish the linen industry at Beth-ashbea.

References

Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles (Old Testament Library), 1993.

André Lemaire, “Asriel, Sr’1, Israel et l’origine de la confédération israélite”, VT 23, 1973.

Donald B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50), 1970.

William G. Dever, “The Exodus and the Bible: What Was Known; What Was Remembered; What Was Forgotten?”, Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, 2015.

Additional Reading

Dr. Rabbi David Frankel, “The Book of Chronicles and the Ephraimites that Never Went to Egypt

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “The Story of Ezer and Elead (and What It Means for the Exodus)

  1. “diverse and irreconcilable versions of Israel’s origins have been present in the Bible all along. ”

    Yes, but as the bible is inerrant that just means that all contradictory accounts are still equally true if you compartmentalize enough.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. […] Peter, one of the regular readers here, pointed my attention to a post that shows a discrepancy in what the Bible claims about Jacob’s descendants spending 400+ years in Egypt. I won’t try to summarize it here — I wouldn’t be able to do it justice. Just check it out for yourself: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/the-story-of-ezer-and-elead-and-what-it-means-for-… […]

    Like

  3. Paul wrote: Special thanks to regular commenter John Kesler for inspiring this article!

    You are welcome. Thanks for all the thought-provoking articles you produce. The only thing is, Paul, you showed how fast you can write one, so we’ll expect them to appear more frequently now. 😉

    …Asriel a prominent place as Manasseh’s first-born son. In the Pentateuchal version (Num 26:34)…

    Do you mean verse 31?

    The chronology [of Genesis 38] is irreconcilable with the exodus story.

    It’s even worse than Redford states, because we learn that Perez, one of Judah’s sons by Tamar, had sons named Hezron and Hamul (Numbers 26:21; 1 Chronicles 2:5; Genesis 46:12). The last passage is the most damaging to Bible inerrancy, because Genesis 46 lists Hezron and Hamul as part of the 70/75 members of the house of Jacob who entered Egypt (vv:8, 27). The problem is that there is no way to squeeze in enough time between Genesis 38 and Judah’s grandsons’ entry into Egypt, since only 22 years elapsed in the life of Joseph (cf, Genesis 37:2f, 41:46f, 45:6).

    As somewhat of an aside, the Chronicler mentions that some Israelites came out of Egypt (1 Chron. 17:21; 2 Chron. 5:10, 6:5, and 7:22), but he gives no numbers or states when this occurred, and he omits the chronological marker in 1 Kings 6:1a (cf. 2 Chron 3:1-2).

    Like

    • Do you mean verse 31?

      Yes, thanks. Corrected. Good point about Hezron and Hamul as well!

      The Chronicler clearly knows the Pentateuch and exodus story in some form, but he doesn’t treat them as authoritatively as some of his other sources.

      Like

  4. Even I picked up on the Judah thing long ago; he can’t live out his life both in Canaan and in Egypt. This other stuff was new to me, though.

    Like

  5. Very insightful post.

    This highlights why the bible is so interesting!! Not because it is the inerrant dictation of a god but because it is a tapestry of legends, fables, truths, lies and at times the whispers of a long forgotten people who’s stories snuck past the scribes.

    Forget overated Sherlock on bbc – the bible is where the real mysteries are at!

    Like

      • By coincidence, I just wrote another article for consideration by my local newspaper in which I make the argument that the Bible is much more than people realize. If anyone is interesting in reading a published article–keep in mind I’m writing for the general public–go to tinyurl.com/keslergazette1.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. You know, this article reminds me of something I noticed a while back–but I am not an anthropologist or a scholar.

    The “children of Eber” took possession of the Promised Land no fewer than three times!

    1. When Abraham moved in from Ur of the Chaldeans.

    2. When Jacob (Israel) and his sons moved in from Paddan-Aram.

    3. When Joshua led the Israelites there from their massive trek in the desert.

    What does this mean? Aramaic (Syrian) was spoken more consistently by the “Hebrews” than Hebrew was; does the legend of Israel deriving from Paddam-Aram reflect some tradition of the Israelites deriving from Syria?

    Similarly, Abraham coming from the land of the Chaldeans seems ironic (just as his alliance with the king of the Philistines is). Is there a historical reason he comes from there?

    And, of course, the massive, mighty nation of Israel pouring out from Egypt in a nearly-perfectly formed manner…surely this must mean that SOMEBODY came from Egypt. Is there a tradition that there had been some sort of migration from there?

    Like

    • The main reason Abraham is said to come from somewhere other than Canaan is to “historically” establish that the Israelites were not Canaanites, even though, As Paul has mentioned, evidence suggests that they were. Why is Abraham specifically to by from Ur of Chaldeans? I’ll quote from Steven DiMattei at http://contradictionsinthebible.com/where-is-abrahams-birthplace.

      So P has radically shaped the narrative so that it now speaks to its exilic community, and has in short set Abraham up as a mirror and example for them to follow in their own present circumstance. They too are second generation Israelites in captivity in Babylon, who are returning to Canaan, with hopefully wives from their own people. The reference to Ur of Chaldeans is another give-away. The term Chaldeans as a synonym for Babylonia did not come into vogue until the 6th century BC. Thus the Priestly writer has painted Abraham in the same plight as his exilic audience. The main storyline of Abraham leaving upper Mesopotamia and migrating to the land promised by Yahweh to his descendants would have resonated with exilic Jews in Babylon as a narrative of hope and comfort.

      As far as the Exodus is concerned, I think that there was an exodus of Levites to Egypt, and this gave rise to the later notion that they and the native Canaanites/Israelites shared a common experience in Egypt. This is discussed at Peter Kirby’s BCH forum: http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1533&start=20#p41160

      Like

      • So my guess was on the right track. Abraham coming from “the Chaldeans” is related to the conquering and exile of Jerusalem by the Chaldean Empire. I imagine Abraham’s dealings with Abimelech, King of the Philistines, was specifically to have the Philistines acknowledge that Abraham (and by extension, the tribes) are the true inheritors of the Philistine land (despite the lack of archaeological evidence that the Hebrews ever controlled Gaza).

        As far as the Levites being the only tribe to enter Canaan from Egypt…this presupposes that the Levites were a “tribe” rather than a “profession.” I learned ON THIS WEBSITE that the ancient Levites were not actually a tribe. (They didn’t even get a piece of real estate in Joshua.) Still…the story had to come from somewhere.

        Like

    • Several OT scholars have developed the theory that Samaria/Israel had two competing origin stories: the Aramean story (Jacob) and the Egyptian story. Abram was a folktale hero/patriarch in Judah. The compilers of Genesis and the hexateuch basically stitched all these patriarchal legends into one story, adding the Babylonian component to Abraham (as John describes above) and making everyone related to each other. I’ll try to write more on this eventually.

      Like

  7. Andy Poe wroteAs far as the Levites being the only tribe to enter Canaan from Egypt…this presupposes that the Levites were a “tribe” rather than a “profession.” I learned ON THIS WEBSITE that the ancient Levites were not actually a tribe. (They didn’t even get a piece of real estate in Joshua.) Still…the story had to come from somewhere.

    You are referring to Paul’s article here: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-twelve-or-so-tribes-of-israel at which he writes the following:

    There are reasons to think that “Levite” originally designated a member of a cultic profession rather than a clan or tribe member. For one thing, the name itself may mean “a person pledged for a debt or vow” (i.e. to a deity).³ In Judges 17:7, we have a Levite who is clearly said to be of the tribe of Judah, and his professional skills as a Levite priest are a focus of the story.⁴ In Exodus 4:14, Yahweh speaking to Moses calls his brother “Aaron the Levite”—an appellation that only makes sense if Levite is to be equated with a priestly caste or group rather than an ethnic group. Under this reasoning, we can assume that the idea of Levites being a tribe was a later innovation.

    If you follow the link to the BCH forum that I posted, you will see that I agree. See http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1533&sid=9948838ca62ed65b41161199510c2da7&start=30#p41812

    Like

    • Oh, I think I should have focused on clarity rather than on cheekiness.

      It would be easier for me to imagine an exodus of Levites from Egypt if the Levites were actually a tribe or a clan or some sort of cohesive sociocultural body. But the Levites weren’t this; they were a cultic profession. It’s more difficult for me to imagine a bunch of religious leaders hanging out with each other and all deciding to travel together than it is for me to imagine a nomadic or semi-nomadic nation deciding to seek their fortune elsewhere.

      For example, I am more likely to believe a history involving, say, the Navajo, relocating and bringing with them their language and legends than I am to believe, say, the just the “medicine men” making this relocation. This is what I am not understanding.

      Like

  8. John wrote:It’s even worse than Redford states, because we learn that Perez, one of Judah’s sons by Tamar, had sons named Hezron and Hamul (Numbers 26:21; 1 Chronicles 2:5; Genesis 46:12). The last passage is the most damaging to Bible inerrancy, because Genesis 46 lists Hezron and Hamul as part of the 70/75 members of the house of Jacob who entered Egypt (vv:8, 27). The problem is that there is no way to squeeze in enough time between Genesis 38 and Judah’s grandsons’ entry into Egypt, since only 22 years elapsed in the life of Joseph (cf, Genesis 37:2f, 41:46f, 45:6).

    Paul replied …Good point about Hezron and Hamul as well!

    It get better: Look at 1 Chronicles 2:21-22:

    21 Afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir father of Gilead, whom he married when he was sixty years old; and she bore him Segub; 22 and Segub became the father of Jair, who had twenty-three towns in the land of Gilead.

    How could Hezron have gone into Egypt with Jacob’s family (see above), yet have a grandson who received 23 cities after the conquest of Canaan! Plus note that Hezron is listed as only 60 when he married the daughter of Machir, and this was not his first wife or grandchildren–see v:9f.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Amazing. It’s remarkable to me how it is that preconceived notions can prevent literally *everyone* for hundreds or thousands of years from reading what it is that a text actually says.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Is William Dever a reliable scholar? I’ve seen several people I respect cite him, but the only thing of his was a video where he repeated the long-discredited canard that the word “Easter” derives from “Ishtar”, which made me write him off as a charlatan… Was I mistaken about him? Was that just a gaffe in an otherwise-respectable oeuvre?

    Like

  11. Is William Dever a reliable scholar? I’ve seen several people I respect cite him, but the only thing of his I’ve seen was a video where he repeated the long-discredited canard that the word “Easter” derives from “Ishtar”, which made me write him off as a charlatan… Was I mistaken about him? Was that just a gaffe in an otherwise-respectable oeuvre?

    Like

    • William Dever is one of the most famous and respected biblical archaeologists in the world, and is known for being quite conservative. (That’s one reason why it was significant when even he abandoned the idea of an exodus and Canaanite conquest.)

      Like

  12. Hi Paul,
    I’ve done some checking into this passage and would like to submit some alternative interpretations for your consideration.

    1. To interpret these verses to say that two Israelite men were the aggressors in this narrative against the men of Gath seems counter intuitive to me. Doesn’t it seem quite foolhardy that two lone Hebrews would venture into Philistine territory to steal livestock? As herdsmen and shepherds, these Israelites would have had their own livestock. Why would they risk ‘life and limb’ to steal from the Philistines? I can’t find any other instance in scripture where a couple of Israelite men acted as you’re suggesting that Ezer and Elead did. Wiki has a list of Israel’s encounters with the Philistines, and they’re *all* battles.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

    2. Further in Wiki, “Excavations in Ashkelon, Ekron, and Gath reveal dog and pig bones which show signs of having been butchered, implying that these animals were part of the residents’ diet.” So, I would submit that the men of Gath did not tend and butcher their own cattle; they were not herdsmen. Rather, it seems most likely from archaeological evidence that they would have been the ones to attack and kill the Hebrews, so they could steal the Hebrews’ cattle.

    Moreover, the men of Gath would have “gone down” (geographically speaking) from Palestine to Egypt in order to steal livestock from the Hebrews.

    3. The Bible, similar to any other piece of narrative literature, rests on plot, setting, as well as characterization. The men of Gath were known to be a warlike people, given to spoil and plunder, whereas the Hebrews were the shepherds and herdsmen. To try to reverse the roles is contrary to the overall depiction of these two nations. I think it’s very hard to justify it in terms of characterization.

    As per the following article, the Philistines had highly developed weapons which proved a threat to the Israelites, and according to the biblical narrative, the Israelites took the southern route rather than ‘The way of the Philistines’ in the north in order to avoid encountering the Philistines.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-philistines

    4. Regarding Sheerah, the word ‘daughter’ can mean female descendant in Scripture, not just immediate offspring. I think it’s interesting to note that the name, Sheerah, means ‘kinswoman.’ So it would appear from the meaning of her name that she’s not a daughter in the sense of an immediate offspring but rather that she’s a relative or a descendant of some forebears. I would venture to say her forefather/ancestor was Ephraim, and that this detail in v24 is simply a later addendum because Sheerah was a descendant (a kinswoman) of the tribe of Ephraim.

    http://www.thenamemeaning.com/sheerah/

    Finally, I’ve read that rabbi’s article re: 1 Chronicles 7 and find his explanations very convoluted and implausible.

    Joyce

    Like

    • Thanks for the comment, Joyce.

      To interpret these verses to say that two Israelite men were the aggressors in this narrative against the men of Gath seems counter intuitive to me.

      Nevertheless, that is what the text says. Every scholarly work I have that mentions this passage agrees that it describes a raid by Ezer and Elead against Gath. They include Japhet’s leading commentary as well as the ABD, HBD, and Shinan & Zakovitch (2012). Raiders going up from the coastal lowlands to the interior hill country could not be described as going “down”.

      Doesn’t it seem quite foolhardy that two lone Hebrews would venture into Philistine territory to steal livestock?

      Livestock raids in general are certainly not implausible. The folktale told here is extremely bare bones, with few details. Within the context of the story, though, it got them killed, so some foolhardiness may be implied.

      So, I would submit that the men of Gath did not tend and butcher their own cattle; they were not herdsmen.

      Two responses:

      1. The actual husbandry practices of the Gittites do not grant us license to alter what the text says, unless you assume that the text must be an inerrant journalistic account of events rather than a story written down for the writer’s own purposes.
      2. The Philistines’ diet did, in fact, include sheep, goats, and cattle. Cattle remains are found in large amounts throughout their territory. (See, for example, Maeir, Hitchcock and Horwitz, “On the Constitution and Transformation of Philistine Identity”, OJA 32/1 [2013].) Wikipedia is not a very good source for scholarly research.

      The men of Gath were known to be a warlike people…

      The Bible’s polemical and tendentious treatment of Philistines in such passages is of limited historical value, and it is a non sequitur to suggest that a nation that fought wars could not herd cattle. In any case, it is irrelevant to the Chronicler’s story. He wrote what he wrote.

      So it would appear from the meaning of her name that she’s not a daughter

      In the context of the story, which is the only thing I’m interested in here, she seems quite clearly to be the daughter of Ephraim.

      http://www.thenamemeaning.com/sheerah/

      Baby name sites are not an academic source. 🙂 I’m not an expert on Hebrew, but I believe kinswoman (literally “flesh”) is spelled שאר‎, without the ה‎ and with different vowels, so it’s a slightly different word. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew does not associate her name with “kinswoman” or vice versa. At any rate, it would not change the story that the Chronicler actually wrote.

      Dr. Rabbi David Frankel’s article seemed very articulate and well-reasoned to me. Rather than being implausible, it reflects the general consensus of the scholarly community.

      Like

      • Hi Paul,

        Thanks for your prompt and detailed reply to my comments.

        You (and some scholars) interpret the text of 1 Chronicles 7:21-24 to mean that the Hebrews were the aggressors in the incident. The RSV translation indicates that this is the case, but some others translations (eg. NET) render the verse more ambiguously such that the pronouns in the text could be interpreted to mean that the men of Gath were the aggressors and that the two Hebrew men were killed while trying to protect their property: “….Ezer and Elead were killed by the men of Gath, who were natives of the land, when they went down to steal their cattle.” (NET). So, I would interpret v21 as follows, “Ezer and Elead were killed by the men of Gath, who were natives of the land, when they (the men of Gath) went down to steal their (the Hebrews’) cattle.”

        This interpretation is one espoused by Matthew Henry in his commentary on the Bible. Of course, I realize his interpretation wouldn’t bear weight with you because it’s theologically based while you base your interpretation on what many scholars (mostly biblical minimalists) say. But I think I could also argue for this interpretation from a ‘literary’ perspective.

        I question the interpretation of scholars who deny that there ever were any Israelites in Egypt and therefore, there was no need for an exodus to occur. To date, there is ‘little’ evidence in this regard, but Dr. Ted Wright of http://www.epicarchaeology.org has proposed that Pharaoh Amenhotep II (15th century BC) may be the Pharaoh at the time of the biblical exodus. Austrian archaeologist, Manfred Bietak, has been excavating the ancient city of Avaris in the Nile region for a number of years. He says this city, the military garrison for Amenhotep II, shows evidence of Semitic habitation for hundreds of years before his reign. But in the ninth year of his reign, excavation is ‘blank,’ indicating something unusual happened at that time. It is known that he issued orders to overthrow many Egyptian priests during that year, also overthrowing the Egyptian god, Amon Ra. Amenhotep II was not a firstborn son, and his firstborn son did not succeed him. All of these cumulative facts *may* be evidence to support the biblical narrative of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt.

        I listened to the following interview with NT scholar, Craig Evans, recently, and he says (around 42:00) that only about 5%of the biblical world has been excavated. Of those sites, most are only 10-20% excavated. (He didn’t cite a source for these numbers.)

        I would venture to say, then, that in terms of archaeology supporting the biblical account of Hebrews in Egypt and a subsequent exodus, I think ‘the jury’s still out.’

        Re: the article by Maeir, Hitchcock and Horwitz, “On the Constitution and Transformation of Philistine Identity”, OJA 32/1 [2013], I checked for it online but am unwilling to pay a minimum of $6 to rent for 2 days of viewing! Guess I’ll have to take your word for it regarding the diet of the Philistines containing cattle. But I’m still not convinced that they raised their own livestock; I think it’s still possible *they* were the cattle rustlers!

        Yes, I understand the pitfalls of consulting Wikipedia, but the information I noted re: the bones of pigs and dogs, indicating that they were part of the Philistines’ diet was footnoted from publications by Lawrence Stager who is an American archaeologist and academic, specialising in Syro-Palestinian archaeology and Biblical archaeology (Google). Since 1985 he has overseen the excavations of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon, the Philistine port city. I would hope his data and assessment of the data would be fair and trustworthy as it relates to the Philistines’ diet.

        Re: the meaning of the name Sheerah. I’m not a Hebrew scholar either and so must rely on other sources. I do have Strong’s Exhaustive concordance so checked what it says:

        1. kinswoman is #7607. Meaning is (near) kin (-sman, -swoman) near [of kin]

        2. Sheerah is #7609. Meaning is the same as 7608 which says feminine of 7607; female kindred by blood: near kinswomen

        As far as I can tell, there is only one letter that’s different (as per your comment). The vowel markings are also different as you noted, but the meanings are still very closely related, in fact, virtually the same.

        So, based on Strong’s, I would conclude that the name Sheerah means kinswoman. Therefore, I would re-submit that the text in 1 Chronicles 7:24 would not necessarily have to mean that .Sheerah is an immediate offspring of Ephraim; she could be a descendant (a kinswoman) of the tribe of Ephraim. I still think, then, that this piece of information about Sheerah could have been an added addendum by a later scribe when the Israelites were settled in Canaan following the exodus and conquest.

        Further questions:
        1. Why would the Chronicler, a Hebrew writer, record this incident in direct contradiction of the rest of the Hebraic history in the books of Genesis and Exodus (if your interpretation is, in fact, correct)?
        2. On what basis are you critical of (as you say) the Bible’s “polemical and tendentious treatment of Philistines,” casting doubt on the historical value of its portrayal of the Philistines? Are you aware of extra-biblical evidence that demonstrates they were *not* as the Bible describes them?

        Thanks for an interesting discussion.
        Joyce

        Like

      • “Ezer and Elead were killed by the men of Gath, who were natives of the land, when they (the men of Gath) went down to steal their (the Hebrews’) cattle.”

        This doesn’t make much sense to me. The men of Gath were natives of what land? (Surely the land where the cattle were stolen.) And where did they go “down” to?

        Of course, I realize his interpretation wouldn’t bear weight with you because it’s theologically based…

        Theology must come from the text; otherwise, it simply says whatever you want it to. Anyway, Henry was a 17th-century minister who predated critical study of the Bible.

        All of these cumulative facts *may* be evidence to support the biblical narrative of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt.

        I see no facts concerning the Israelites at all there.

        The weight of archaeology is heavily against any sort of exile in Egypt or mass exodus. There are very few hold-outs. In addition to the complete paucity of material evidence, the Israelites developed in linguistic, religious, and cultural continuity with the societies that preceded them in Palestine. They were Canaanites with a Canaanite religion and language through and through.

        You are welcome to favour the biblical story, but this is obviously a major question that has been answered only after tremendous discussion and debate, often quite heated.

        1. Why would the Chronicler, a Hebrew writer, record this incident in direct contradiction of the rest of the Hebraic history in the books of Genesis and Exodus (if your interpretation is, in fact, correct)?

        The stories of the Old Testament are replete with contradictions. It evidently concerned ancient authors very little to group stories related by topic together even if the narrative discontinuity would bother a modern reader.

        On what basis are you critical of (as you say) the Bible’s “polemical and tendentious treatment of Philistines,” casting doubt on the historical value of its portrayal of the Philistines?

        It’s a large topic, but here’s a quote from Emanuel, “Dagon our God: Iron I Philistine Cult in Text and Archaeology”, JANER 16 (2016):

        …Ashdod thrived as an urban center that, like the other cities of the Philistine pentapolis, was home to what Stager has termed “a diverse community of warriors, farmers, sailors, merchants, rulers, shamans, priests, artisans, and architects.”

        These sophisticated aspects of Philistine culture are difficult to find in the Hebrew Bible, which dedicates some of its strongest polemic to this group. During the Iron I and IIa … both were striving for autonomy over their respective geographic areas and the people within them, while simultaneously struggling to maintain their own distinctive ethnic cultures.

        …this conflict would feed centuries of negative portrayals of the Philistines, who are represented across their 294 mentions in the Hebrew Bible as being guilty of virtually every quality, trait, and action that the Israelites found unsettlingly different or abhorrent, including, inter alia, paganism, idol worship, lack of circumcision, and consuming unclean animals. Some of the biblical authors’ accusations were true of the Philistines, of course, and some were not. … However, the Bible’s demonization of this “ideological foe” was so thoroughly and completely accomplished that the term “Philistine” is still used to this day to refer to an uncultured or uneducated individual or population.

        All that said, if the story is supposed to take place in the Bronze Age, then it would be prior to the Philistine settlement of the costal plain. Tel Erani (Gath) was purely Canaanite throughout most of the Bronze Age.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s