Why You Should Read More than the Bible - Part 4: Canaanite and Israelite Material Culture and Cognitive Environment
When we look to the period of the Judges, the Israelite material culture and that of the Canaanites is indistinguishable. Material culture means the culture learned about through the items and objects those cultures made. For example, looking at some Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars that were found at Giloh, we can see that they represent a pottery tradition continuous with the late Bronze Age. [1] Items such as these, the sour-room house, collared-rim stone jars, and hewn cisterns, were all once thought to distinguish the culture of the Israelites in the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys. However, now all these are attested to across the valleys, coast, and the entire extent of the Trans-Jordan. [2] If we look at the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age periods, burial patterns, Arcosolia, and bench tombs, we find that there are two types of rock-cut tombs that are attested to in all these regions across Canaanite and Israelite culture. [3][4]
"Cognitive environment" may broadly be defined as the thought space of a particular culture or society. The environment of how that culture or people think about things (like the world, their god(s), and more) and communicate is shared because they have shared understandings of how things function in the world, shared cultural practice, shared figurative language, and the like. All of this means that we need to have some shared "cognitive environment" in the process of communication if we wish to understand each other.
A modern example would be good for demonstration. In the cognitive environment of English-speaking Western countries, I could lift up my hand in a fist and say "No, I am your father". Most people immediately know that I am referencing Star Wars and can use that knowledge to connect with whatever my communicative intention was by saying that line. However, if we were to go to a Middle Eastern country filled with people who do not watch Western movies, my communicative intention would be lost entirely. Even though the ancient people did not have movies, they still had elements of literature, culture, daily life, and understanding of the way the world works that would form a cognitive environment by which they would be able to communicate ideas and concepts cross-culturally.
The fact that there is substantial material crossover between the Israelites and Canaanites contributes to the cognitive environment understanding, especially the example of the tombs because it shows they had practices, imagery, architecture, and more in common with one another. This, in addition to the study of these cultures, ancient texts, and languages, shows substantially that the peoples of the Ancient Near East (including Israel) had a shared "cognitive environment" which makes comparative study of these peoples and their texts essential if we want to understand the biblical text correctly. This is what it means to get into the mind of the ancient writers and readers of the biblical text in order to interpret the text in its own context. Remember, the Bible was written for us not to us.
If you want to get more into the cognitive environment of the ancient people to better understand the Bible, check out our introduction blog post in this series to learn more.
Stay Tuned.
Footnotes
[1] See A. Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem,” IEJ 31 (1981): 20-27, 32-33; Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? 26, 28; I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 270-91, 337
[2] For a lack of diagnostic features distinguishing Canaanite and Israelite material culture in the Judges period, see Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? 28-35; Callaway, “A New Perspective,” 37-41; W. G. Dever, “The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 235; M. M. Ibrahim, “The Collared Rim Jar of the Early Iron Age,” in Archaeology and the Levant: Essays in Honor of Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr (Warminster, England: Aris & Philips, 1978), 116-26; A. Schoors, “The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument,” in The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovansiensia Analecta 19 (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 78-92. See also G. and O. van Beek, “Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture: The Development and Distribution of Two Styles,” El 15 (1981): 70*-74*. See also the continuity of the practice of terrace agriculture; see S. Gibson, “Agricultural Terraces and Settlement Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine: Is There Any Correlation between the Two?” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 113-46
[3] R. Gonen, “Regional Patterns and Burial Customs in Late Bronze Age Canaan,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (1984-85): 70-74; E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Burials, Israelite,” ABD 1.785-89; idem, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also her essay, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24. See further R. Tappy, “Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah?” BASOR 298 (1995): 59-68.
[4] This information is derived from The Early History of God Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel pg. 58-59. Including the above footnotes.
Why You Should Read More than the Bible - Part 4: Canaanite and Israelite Material Culture and Cognitive Environment
When we look to the period of the Judges, the Israelite material culture and that of the Canaanites is indistinguishable. Material culture means the culture learned about through the items and objects those cultures made. For example, looking at some Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000) cooking pots and storage jars that were found at Giloh, we can see that they represent a pottery tradition continuous with the late Bronze Age. [1] Items such as these, the sour-room house, collared-rim stone jars, and hewn cisterns, were all once thought to distinguish the culture of the Israelites in the highlands from the Canaanite culture of the coast and valleys. However, now all these are attested to across the valleys, coast, and the entire extent of the Trans-Jordan. [2] If we look at the Late Bronze Age and early Iron Age periods, burial patterns, Arcosolia, and bench tombs, we find that there are two types of rock-cut tombs that are attested to in all these regions across Canaanite and Israelite culture. [3][4]
At this point you may be asking yourself, why does this matter? Why does it have significance to reading more than the Bible? The answer is multifaceted. Showing that there was substantial cross culturalization in material culture contributes to the ideas that John Hilber (in Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach), John Walton (in Ancient Israelite Literature In Its Cultural Context), and Michael Heiser (in The Bible Unfiltered Approaching Scripture On Its Own Terms) develop, namely that understanding "cognitive environment" is essential to interpreting and understanding the biblical text.
"Cognitive environment" may broadly be defined as the thought space of a particular culture or society. The environment of how that culture or people think about things (like the world, their god(s), and more) and communicate is shared because they have shared understandings of how things function in the world, shared cultural practice, shared figurative language, and the like. All of this means that we need to have some shared "cognitive environment" in the process of communication if we wish to understand each other.
A modern example would be good for demonstration. In the cognitive environment of English-speaking Western countries, I could lift up my hand in a fist and say "No, I am your father". Most people immediately know that I am referencing Star Wars and can use that knowledge to connect with whatever my communicative intention was by saying that line. However, if we were to go to a Middle Eastern country filled with people who do not watch Western movies, my communicative intention would be lost entirely. Even though the ancient people did not have movies, they still had elements of literature, culture, daily life, and understanding of the way the world works that would form a cognitive environment by which they would be able to communicate ideas and concepts cross-culturally.
The fact that there is substantial material crossover between the Israelites and Canaanites contributes to the cognitive environment understanding, especially the example of the tombs because it shows they had practices, imagery, architecture, and more in common with one another. This, in addition to the study of these cultures, ancient texts, and languages, shows substantially that the peoples of the Ancient Near East (including Israel) had a shared "cognitive environment" which makes comparative study of these peoples and their texts essential if we want to understand the biblical text correctly. This is what it means to get into the mind of the ancient writers and readers of the biblical text in order to interpret the text in its own context. Remember, the Bible was written for us not to us.
If you want to get more into the cognitive environment of the ancient people to better understand the Bible, check out our introduction blog post in this series to learn more.
Stay Tuned.
Footnotes
[1] See A. Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem,” IEJ 31 (1981): 20-27, 32-33; Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? 26, 28; I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 270-91, 337
[2] For a lack of diagnostic features distinguishing Canaanite and Israelite material culture in the Judges period, see Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? 28-35; Callaway, “A New Perspective,” 37-41; W. G. Dever, “The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 235; M. M. Ibrahim, “The Collared Rim Jar of the Early Iron Age,” in Archaeology and the Levant: Essays in Honor of Kathleen Kenyon, ed. R. Moorey and P. Parr (Warminster, England: Aris & Philips, 1978), 116-26; A. Schoors, “The Israelite Conquest: Textual Evidence in the Archaeological Argument,” in The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski, Orientalia Lovansiensia Analecta 19 (Louvain: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1985), 78-92. See also G. and O. van Beek, “Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture: The Development and Distribution of Two Styles,” El 15 (1981): 70*-74*. See also the continuity of the practice of terrace agriculture; see S. Gibson, “Agricultural Terraces and Settlement Expansion in the Highlands of Early Iron Age Palestine: Is There Any Correlation between the Two?” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, with the assistance of G. Mathias, JSOTSup331 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 113-46
[3] R. Gonen, “Regional Patterns and Burial Customs in Late Bronze Age Canaan,” Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society (1984-85): 70-74; E. M. Bloch-Smith, “Burials, Israelite,” ABD 1.785-89; idem, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead, JSOTSup 123, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). See also her essay, “The Cult of the Dead in Judah: Interpreting the Material Remains,” JBL 111 (1992): 213-24. See further R. Tappy, “Did the Dead Ever Die in Biblical Judah?” BASOR 298 (1995): 59-68.
[4] This information is derived from The Early History of God Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel pg. 58-59. Including the above footnotes.