Tell el Amarna and the Bible

by Charles F. Pfeiffer

Many of the strongholds held by the rulers of Canaanite city states had been fortified in Hyksos times. Egyptian control, however, was maintained through commissioners appointed by the Pharaoh to collect taxes and supervise the compulsory labor groups which worked on roads, tended the Lebanon forest preserves, or worked in the Valley of Esdraelon where wheat was grown for the royal court. Under strong Pharaohs, the interests of the Empire were carefully guarded, but the Amarna Age was a period during which Egyptian prestige was in eclipse and local rivalries became increasingly bitter. Only in extreme instances did Egypt interfere, and then it was usually too late to rectify matters.

A brief letter from Biridya of Megiddo indicates that forced labor (corvée) was expected of the subject states. Many, however, sensing the loss in Egyptian power failed to provide laborers for the royal projects:

To the king, my lord and my sun, say: Thus Biridya, the true servant of the king, my lord and my sun, seven times and seven times I fall. Let the king be informed concerning his servant and concerning his city. Behold I am working in the town of Shunama, and I bring men of the corvée, but behold the governors who are with me do not as I do; they do not work in the town of Shunama; and they do not bring men for the corvée, but I alone bring men for the corvée from the town of Yapu. They come from Shunama and likewise from the town of Nuribda. So let the king be informed concerning his city.[46]

The ‘Apiru

The identity of the ‘Apiru (also written in cuneiform SA GAZ) has puzzled scholars since the discovery of the Amarna tablets. Some categorically affirmed that the ‘Apiru are identical with the Biblical Hebrews, or Israelites, and that the Amarna tablets reflect the Canaanite version of events described in the Biblical book of Joshua.[47] Most scholars now agree that the ‘Apiru cannot be identified with the Biblical Hebrews, although many suggest that the peoples are related. A strong argument against identification comes from the fact that ‘Apiru appear in a wide variety of places of which there is no hint in the Biblical narrative. They appear in Sumer during the Ur III dynasty (ca. 2050 B.C.), in Larsa during the reigns of Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin (ca. 1770-1698 B.C.), in Hammurabi’s Babylon (ca. 1728-1686 B.C.), in Mari during the reign of Zimri Lim (ca. 1730-1700 B.C.). They are mentioned in the large bodies of texts from Nuzi, Ugarit, and Bogazkoy. None of these references bear any relationship to the people of Israel.

In the Mari tablets the ‘Apiru are described as a semi-nomadic people settled in the area between the Habur and the Balikh rivers, north of the Euphrates. The tablets from Alalakh mention that King Idrimi lived seven years among ‘Apiru soldiers. Studies in the personal names of individuals designated ‘Apiru in the Amarna and the Nuzi tablets have shown that they do not belong to any one ethnic group, although West Semitic names are most common in the Amarna texts.

There is considerable evidence that the ‘Apiru were regarded as a social rather than an ethnic group. At Bogazkoy they are listed among the social classes and appear to have been classified between freemen and slaves. Wherever they appear they have one common trait—they are beyond the jurisdiction of the established authority. They frequently appear as a landless people who enter into dependent status as agricultural workers or soldiers in exchange for maintenance. The ‘Apiru of the Amarna tablets are never described as invaders. They are people within the land who occupy areas not controlled by the larger towns. In a time of weak central government they sought to profit from the general confusion by challenging the city-states. Whatever their ethnic origins, they were doubtless joined by a variety of peoples from the oppressed elements of the population. To the rulers of Canaan, the ‘Apiru were lawless bandits, a menace to society. Although ‘Apiru is a much more inclusive term than Israel, the citizens of the city-states of Canaan probably thought of Joshua’s army much as they regarded the ‘Apiru of the Amarna Age.

Although the place names of the Amarna texts are parallel to those of the Old Testament, the personal names are totally different. In Joshua we read of Adoni-zedek, not Abdi-Khepa, as king of Jerusalem, and a number of other kings are named for the period of the conquest (cf. Josh. 10:3). Meredith G. Kline, who holds to the early date of the Exodus (1440 B.C.) has suggested that the conquest of Canaan by Joshua precedes the Amarna Age and that the ‘Apiru of the Amarna letters may actually be the forces of Cushan Rishathaim, Israel’s first oppressor during the time of the Judges. He concludes that the ‘Apiru are not to be associated with Israel, but rather must be regarded as oppressors—the first of a series of such oppressors described in the Book of Judges.[48]

Most contemporary scholars date the conquest of Canaan after the Amarna Age, suggesting some time around 1280 B.C., as the probable date of the Exodus.[49] This would place the Amarna Age in the period between Joseph and Moses. Aside from the fact that Israel was in Egypt during this time, and that they lost the favored position which they enjoyed in the days of Joseph, Scripture passes over this period with complete silence.

While we may not be able to pinpoint the exact chronology, the description of events in Canaan during the Amarna Age lends perspective to Biblical history during the years before the Monarchy. Local and tribal loyalties were more meaningful than imperial government, and centralized government was looked upon with suspicion (cf. Judg. 9:7-15).