BiblePlaces Blog

The Promised Land Includes Transjordan

When I taught in Israel, the faculty was split on the question of whether the Promised Land includes territory on the east side of the Jordan River or not. None of us questioned whether or not God had promised to give the land of Canaan on the west side of the Jordan River to Abraham and his descendants, but we could not agree on whether the land given to Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh should be considered to be in the Promised Land or not.

Today I will present the affirmative side of the debate. Those who believe in a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies will recognize the potential ramifications of this issue.

1. The “land of the Amorites” was included in the original promise (Gen 15:21), and Sihon, king of the Amorites, lived in Transjordan (Josh 12:6).

2. There are specific statements by God that the land inhabited by the Amorite kings in Transjordan would be given to Israel (cf. also Deut 2:12, 24; 3:2, 18).

Deut 2:31. “The Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you; begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.’”
Psalm 136:19-22. “…who slew famous kings…Sihon…and Og…and gave their land as a heritage… to Israel His servant.”

3. By the command of God, cities of refuge and Levitical cities were established east of the Jordan (Num 35; Josh 20, 21). Ten of the forty-eight Levitical cites were in Transjordan. The Levitical cities are on both sides of the Jordan in accordance with divine proscription, impossible if Transjordan territory is not included in the inheritance of Israel.

4. Numbers 34, which designates the Jordan River as the eastern boundary, in context, must specifically refer to the land that yet remained unconquered in Cisjordan. Note especially Numbers 34:2, 13-15. In this passage Moses clearly states that Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh already have their inheritance east of the Jordan. The remaining territory, the Land of Canaan, west of the Jordan, was yet to be divided up by lot to the other nine and a half tribes.

The Jordan River

5. Israel could expand the promise to the point that more cities could be added (Deut 19:8-10).

6. The land that Moses “gave” on the other side was “acquired in accordance with the command of the Lord” (Josh 22:4-5, 9).

7. Manasseh’s “inheritance” is east of the Jordan. This is the same term used for the other tribes (Josh 13:8ff; cf. Judg 11:23-24).

8. A prophecy of the end times speaks of Israel’s presence in Transjordan: The Israelites “will lay hands on Edom and Moab and the Ammonites will be subject to them” (Isa 11:14; cf. Ezek 25:4-14).

The eminent geographer Barry Beitzel is one who holds a view similar to that presented here (The New Moody Atlas of the Bible, 26-29). Tomorrow I will present the arguments for my view.

Tagged Analysis

Q&A: Viewing the Dead Sea from the Mount of Olives

Question: I read in a commentary the claim that the Dead Sea is visible from the top of the Mount of Olives. When I was there we didn’t go all the way to the top. Is this true? –K.P.

Answer: On most days you would not be able to answer this question because the air is so hazy. On a rare clear day, you would have this view just up the slope from Bethphage, with a sliver of the Dead Sea visible below the horizon.

View of the Dead Sea from the Mount of Olives (photo source)

Tagged Dead Sea, Jerusalem

Speculating on the Mysterious Marks in City of David

(Guest post by A.D. Riddle.)

At Urartian sites in northeast Anatolia, archaeologists have discovered geometric “rock signs” that were cut into bedrock. Some 134 signs have been found at 20 different sites (fortresses, canals, graves) in modern Turkey, Armenia, and Iran. The signs are circular, “U”-shaped, “V”-shaped, or sickle-shaped, and they are dated to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. Regardless of location, the signs are all very similar in shape and dimensions to one another, with the signs from the later period being slightly smaller than the earlier ones.

Belli 2001: 365, fig. 2

Belli 2001: 367, fig. 7

It was originally thought the rock signs were used for grape presses, but this has been ruled out. Other ideas included quarries, hieroglyphs, or some religious function, but the conclusion is “there are no definite answers for now” (Belli 2001: 368).

In 2006, Erkan Konyar suggested that the rock signs were molds for shaping wooden chariot parts, and perhaps other wooden implements. (A pdf of his essay can be downloaded here.) He was able to identify the same component parts in depictions of chariots in Urartian and Assyrian reliefs, and the rock signs appear to correspond in shape and dimension to wheels, axle-braces, spokes, yokes, and hooks.

If he is correct, the “V”-shaped signs would have been molds for braces, spokes, and/or yokes.

Belli 2001: 367, fig. 8

The dimensions of the “V”-shaped signs are fairly close to the dimensions given for the “V” marks in the City of David (see here and here). The City of David marks are 5 cm deep and the Urartian rock signs are 4-10 cm deep. The City of David marks are 50 cm in length, and the Urartian “V” rock signs vary between 60 and 70 cm in length.

So, could the City of David marks be molds for shaping wooden implements? The wood would have to be softened in water first, and the marks appear to be conveniently located near Jerusalem’s water source. It would be irresponsible to suggest anything further at this point since we still have not heard many of the details about the marks from the City of David’s excavators, but the similarities with Urartian signs and the interpretation of them by Konyar are intriguing.

REFERENCES

Belli, Oktay.

2001 “Surveys of Monumental Urartian Rock Signs in East Anatolia.” Pp. 365-369 in İstanbul University’s Contributions to Archaeology in Turkey (1932-2000). Ed. O. Belli. Istanbul: İstanbul University Rectorate Research Fund.

Konyar, Erkan.

2006 “An Ethno-Archaeological Approach to the ‘Monumental Rock Signs’ in Eastern Anatolia.”
Colloquium Anatolicum 5: 113-126.

Q&A: Mount Carmel and the Sea

Question: Does your collection include a picture of where Mount Carmel runs into the sea? I recall seeing a picture once showing the impracticability of travel along the sea. –J.B.

Answer: There actually is a narrow strip of land along the water’s edge that is traversable, unlike the cliffs that plunge into the Mediterranean at Rosh HaNiqra. But in ancient times and modern, travelers have preferred the passes through Mount Carmel. One of the reasons for this in antiquity was the difficult, marshy conditions in the Haifa area.

This first photo comes from the “Acco” group on volume 1 of the Pictorial Library of Bible Lands.

This second one comes from the “Haifa” set on volume 1 of the American Colony and Eric Matson Collection.

Both give a sense for the proximity of the edge of Mount Carmel to the sea. You can also check out the view on Google Earth.

Tagged American Colony Photos, Israel's Coast

Your Take: Dever on Israel’s Emergence

While I’m traveling, I thought I might provoke readers with a statement written by William G. Dever in his article “Archaeology, Syro-Palestinian and Biblical,” published in 1992 in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, page 366.

Thus the book of Joshua and the works of the Deuteronomistic historians (Joshua-Kings) portray the emergence of Israel in Canaan as the result of a sudden, unified military conquest of the Twelve-Tribe League under the leadership of Joshua—a miraculous gift of Yahweh. Archaeological evidence, however, shows beyond doubt that most Late Bronze Age Canaanite sites in Palestine were not destroyed ca. 1200 B.C., and that nearly all the identifiable early Israelite settlements were established peacefully on virgin soil (Finkelstein AIS). Therefore, from the point of the secular historian, the ascendancy of Israel was part of a gradual, exceedingly complex process of socioeconomic change on the Late Bronze–Iron I horizon, not a “miracle” at all.

How many problems do you see with this statement? How does bad Bible reading lead him to faulty conclusions? What parts of his statement are true?

Excavations at Bethel (Beitin), once believed to support the late date theory of the conquest
Source: The American Colony and Eric Matson Collection, volume 1

Tagged Analysis, Exodus-Conquest

New Book: The ANE in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE

The proceedings of a conference at Haifa University in 2010 will soon be available in a 620-page book entitled The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, edited by Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren M. Maeir, and Dan’el Kahn.

Some chapters of particular interest to readers of this blog may include:

Walter Dietrich, David and the Philistines: Literature and History

Gershon Galil, Solomon’s Temple: Fiction or Reality?

Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor and Michael G. Hasel, The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa after
four Seasons of Excavations

Moti Haiman, Geopolitical Aspects of the Southern Levant Desert in the 11th–10th Centuries BCE

Larry G. Herr, Jordan in the Iron I and IIB Periods

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Yhwh’s Exalted House Revisited: New Comparative Light on the Biblical Image of Solomon’s Temple

Dan´el Kahn, A Geo-Political and Historical Perspective of Merneptah’s Policy in Canaan

André Lemaire, West Semitic Epigraphy and the History of the Levant during the 12th–10th
Centuries BCE

Aren M. Maeir, Insights on the Philistine Culture and Related Issues: An Overview of 15 Years of Work at Tell es-Safi/Gath

Troy Leiland Sagrillo, Šîšaq’s [Shishak’s] Army: 2 Chronicles 12:2–3 from an Egyptological Perspective

Ephraim Stern, Archaeological Remains of the Northern Sea People along the Sharon and Carmel Coasts and the Acco and Jezrael Valleys

Christoffer Theis and Peter van der Veen, Some “Provenanced” Egyptian Inscriptions from Jerusalem: A Preliminary Study of Old and New Evidence

And there is much more.

HT: Jack Sasson

Tagged 10th Century, Jerusalem, Jordan, Philistines, Resources, Shephelah