The question is however, how does the above relate to recent theories of state formation in Israel.
Many of the traditional “histories” of early Israel are in most cases just rehashes of the biblical texts, and due to the lack of clear archaeological evidence for the rise of the monarchy the biblical material takes an important place in attempts to reconstruct its emergence.
Texts such as I Samuel 8.5; 10.19 in which the elders ask Samuel for a king imply the introduction of kingship was a complete break with what had gone before, and the standard hypothesis regarding the introduction of the monarchy also regards it as a distinct break with premonarchic tradition. The emergence of the monarchy is also attributed to the external pressure of the Philistines (8:10.1; 11-15) and many traditional and some more recent theories of state formation also represent the introduction of the moanrch as a reaction Philistines pressure.
A. Kuhrt as an example of more a recent study of Israel, argues that at some point before the emergence of the monarchy segmentary groups linked together to form tribes and these tribes in turn also united together to form a inter-tribal federation, which held their meetings at sanctuaries dedicated to their God Yahweh. Ultiamtely Kurht argues, due to the constant external threat presented, for example, by the Edonmites, Ammonites and the Philistines a charismatic leader emerged or “saviour-Judge” whose function was to protect the tribes from all crisises. The monarchy emerged due to the national crisis created by Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Philistines and their loss of the Ark at Aphek. The need arose therefore, for a continuous leadership which was acceptable to all and from this arises Saul who proves his ability for kingship through his charismatic leadership in war.
The older more traditional accounts of Israel’s history also present the rise of the monarchy in this fashion, for example, S. Herrmann in A History of Israel in Old Testament Times is typical of this view: “All this confirms the common view that the monarchy was a late phenomenon in Israel, forced on it by historical circumstances and essentially alien to its original nature.”
Although on many points M. Noth and J. Bright disagree widely they both too account for the emergence of the monarchy as a reaction the external threat of the Philistines which threatened the existence of Israel itself. Bright tries to reconcile the conflicting notions that although foreign to Israel their monarchy was unique to them, which according to R. B. Coote & K. W. Whitelam (C&W) reveals the fundamental methodological problem common to all traditional histories of early Israel, in that not one is capable of accounting for social change. Other scholars such as Soggin, Mendenhall and Gottwald although quite critically of the biblical accounts they are also unable to explain social change in Israel by no other method but external forces. Therefore, their views on the rise of the monarchy do not deviate significantly from the standard approach, although Gottwald purports however, that the Philistine influence was as only one of many factors contributing to the social changes in Israel. On the whole however, many traditional and some more recent models of state formation in Israel present the monarchy as an alien institution.
C&W point out that care has to be taken when using biblical texts as historical data especially in relation to the rise of the monarchy (I Samuel 8-12) as this is written from a Deutrononmitic standpoint which reinforces the prophetic view that the monarchy was an alien institution. C&W goes on to argue: “It is not sufficient to assume the existence of the monarchy as some kind of alien institution, but rather to ask how and why the transition occurred.” They also emphases the need to address the continuities between premonarchic Israel and that of the state, without which one cannot make sense of the development of the monarchy.
Premonarchic Israel according to C&W was a segmentary society made up of a loose federation of groups or tribes, so the question is therefore, what were the internal circumstances that made the fragmented occupants of Canaan accept the leadership of a king.
According to C&W the best approach to the origin of the state is to adopt the method advocated by Cohen. He proposes that the prestate polities like the chiefdoms had a tendency to fission when subjected to a certain levels of friction, and that states were only formed when fission was unacceptable or impossible or where a particular group gained the advantage over the others by opening up their resources. Cohen goes on to question what then were the factors which made the premonarchic groups of Israel fuse into to a state rather than breaking up. C&W suggests that Carneiro’s circumscription theory may help to explain the processes that led to an Israelite state in the early Iron Age.
Circumscription which means to enclose, is according to Carneiro’s theory a combination of environmental and/or social practices which can counter any tendency for a society to fission.
Israel’s position in the central highland of southern Palestine was circumscribed by environmental factors such as arid steppe lands and desert, and such environmental factors were important influences in how the peoples in these areas adapted to these conditions. The Israelites were also socially circumscribed by lowland city states, the assault of nomadic raiders and the Philistines from the coast. Therefore, according to C&W through a combination of this environmental and social circumscription also other internal and external factors the Israelite state was formed, and as such the rise of the monarchy was not an alien institution: “ ...the Monarchy was not a paradox, as has been intimated, but the result of the same major shift in highland infrastructure that marked the success of Israel’s emergence.”
F. S. Frick also argues that the tribal society of premonarchic Israel may have suffered from continous social disintegration through their inability to absorb large groups of outsiders as they were seem as a threat to the tribes constitutions and culture. The chieftain he continues emerged through the desire to incorporate and avoid social fission, the position of which represented stability through the presence of a permenent political structure. Service questions how a chiefdom can be discriminated from a state, but Frick argues that even within a Chiefdon fission can occur although this is rarer than in a segmentary soceity.
According to C&W over a long period of time and through a lengthily train of events and changing circumstances the hill country and the Palestian margins were changed from a decentralised area of low production and low military costs, to an area of institutionalised intensification over which the monarchy ruled, and the reasons for this shift were numerable.
Israel emerged in the midst of a decline in trade but made us of the developing economic base of agriculture. Commitment to agriculture encouraged settled village life rather than social disintegration, as terrace farming and tree crop’s particulary demanded long term investment, commitment and residential stability. F. S. Frick argues that this agricultural intensification necessitated the development of specialisation for more labour efficiency, and that a hierarchical organisation or chiefdom emerged when the labour needs required an efficiency beyond what could be supplied by the household or residential group. So in order to avoid social disintegration the chief would direct and organise exchange between the differing sections of society which insured the stability of production.
The developing intensification of agriculture therefore it is suggested led to the implementation of a hierarchical structure which gave rise to the chief. The implication of which suggests a social stratification within premonarchic Israel as opposed to the strict egalitarian society suggested in Biblical narratives. C&W suggest however, that there are indications of social stratification in the stories of the Judges, for in many places there are stories of rich rulers or chiefs. With such literature as already signified care has to be taken with the Deuteronomistic bias, but scholars such as Halpern still consider it evidence of stratification in early Israel.
Frick identifies Saul and David as chiefs, and it is speculated by W. Richter when Samuel (1 Samuel 9-10.16) uses the term nagid or prince when anointing Saul, argued that nagid was the successor to the saviour figures or Judges of the premonarchic period but more significantly Schmidt argues that nagid was referring to a chief of the tribal militia.
C&W maintain therefore, that the monarchy arose based upon an already existent social structure, which had been in place and developed from Israel’s emergence.
Frick continues that the adoption of chiefdoms and their use of clientship, that is those who are dependent upon the chief and loyalty is to him, by tribal Israel was the first step to centralisation. Loyalty Chief may occur because they are successful in obtaining and distributing resources, because they are successful as leaders in war, or because they are successful in being viewed as ‘charismatic’ persons. The appointment of non kin rather than relatives was also a vital step towards statehood as this created a central beaurocracy in which membership depended on loyalty to the one who did the appointing, rather than family ties.
Archeological evidence has also served as evidence of the rise of a centralised state, and according to Ahoroni the emergence of fortified sites such as Tel Ira and Negev were in a very different vein than what had gone before it, the understaking of which would have required a centralised political adminstation of a monarchy.
Centralisation according to C&W could have been a ploy of a elite minority to preserve the power that their developing wealth had created. Bibilical material also seems to reflect a struggle between the wealthy landowners and the pooerer villages represented by the rural priesthood. This might help to explain the bias of the priesthood against the monarchy in for example, I Samuel 8-12. The monarchy therefore may have been the means whereby an emergent upper class exacted the costs of national defence from the villages and smallholders whilst also controlling internal trade.
Frick also argues that centralisation also gave the incentive to wage war , but the latter also necessitated for a strong military leadership and an efficient admistrative machine in order to perform the functions of taxing in order to keep a standing army.
To conclude, the biblical texts on one hand present the monarchy as being an alien institution and a break with premonarchic Israel. Recent theories on state formation however believe this to be a fallacy, although modern scholars such as Kurht argue that state formation in Israel was primarily due to the external pressure of the Philistines. It is argued however, that the monarchy was not a break with any pre-state tradition, but the result of a natural evolution and social change within Isrealite soceity due to social and enviromental circumscription, which may have possible been spurred on at the last due to external pressure. The evidence of a standing army in the biblical accounts, for example is suggestive of the existence of a developed machine in which taxes could be collected to maintain it.
If such as machine existed this is indicative of a developing centralised authority, something which could not be created over night through the whims of the people for a king. Could, however, such a sophisticated organisation have existed prior to the monarchal age in the midst of the mostly troublesome Israelite tribes?
It has been suggested the monarchy came about through the ploy of an elite minority and in this sense Saul’s enthronment could not be seen as a popular choice, but perhaps it was made acceptable by attributing his kingship to divine will.
Saul’s enthronment may have occured through a personality cult For is Saul is to be seen as a chief, which Frick suggests he may have been, loyalty was gained by clients through many chracteristics but partcularly their charamatic leadership and their ability in war. This is particularly siginificant to the rise of Saul for through his ability in war against the Ammorites he gained the allegiance of the Israelites and was proclaimed king at Gilgel.
B.C.Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy, Scholars Press, 1976, p. xi.
V. P. Long, The Reign and Rejection of king Saul, Scholars Press, 1989, p. 175.
N. P. Lemche, Ancient Israel, JSOT Press, 1988, p. 120.
D. V. Edelman., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, Sheffield: Jsot Press, 1991, p. 37.
A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC (Vol 2), London: Routledge Press, 1995, p. 438-450.
S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times, SCM Press, 1975, p.132.
R. B. Coote & K. W. Whitelam, The Emergence of Early Israel, Sheffield: Almond Press, p.139-140.
F. S. Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel, Almond Press, 1985, p.58-69.
F. S. Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel, Almond press, 1985, p. 199-202.
K. Ralph, 1 Samuel: Word Biblical commentary, Waco: Word Books, 1983, p.88.
