Margreet Steiner argues that there is little resemblance
between the kingdoms of Saul and Labayu. She also
rightly states that there is no mention of Egyptian sover-
eignty during Saul's time. However, contrary to Steiner's
understanding of the political situation in Palestine during
the Amarna Period and that of the early Israelite kings, a
close study reveals surprising parallels between the two.
Steiner's criticisms can be summarised as three points:

(1) Unlike the princes of Canaan during the Amarna
period, Saul was not an Egyptian vassal.

(2) The political map of Canaan in the Amama period
does not correspond to that of the Israelite Monarchy:
Canaan was politically divided during the Amarna
period, but in Saul's time there were only two main
powers: Saul and the Philistines.

(3) The Philistines are not mentioned in the Letters.

I will only discuss points 1 and 2 here as the Philistine
problem was covered admirably byJohn Bimson in 1990,
and more recently by Bob Porter.'

(1) Was Saul a vassal of Egypt?

(a) lle Amarna Letters

Labayu addresses his letters EA 252-254 to Pharaoh;
Mut-Baal, his son, also writes to Pharaoh (EA 255) as
well as to the Egyptian official Yanhamu (EA 256). EA
254 demonstrates King Labayu's submission to Pharaoh
(probably Akhenaton):

The fact is that I am a loyal servant of the king! I am
not a rebel and I am not delinquent in duty. I have
not held back my payments of tribute; I have not
held back anything requested by my commissioner.

In their letters, Labayu and Mut-Baal both seem eager
to maintain a friendly relationship with Egypt. This is
significant, as their conduct had often been criticised (EA
244, 246, 250, 254, 256, 280). Labayu's neighbours
viewed his conduct as a threat to Egyptian sovereignty
in Canaan. This is well noted by Alt:

There (in the hill-country) reigned the notorious
Labayu, who actually wrote most submissive letters
to Egypt but in the letters of others appears as the
worst enemy of Pharaoh's government in the whole
country?

14

Labayu was a clever diplomat, yet he played a dangerous
game. As long as he could keep Egypt on his side with
flattering words, he could continue his policy of expan-
sion. Several letters inform us that his territory was rapidly
expanding in size. He conquered neighbouring lands and
made vassals out of their former rulers (EA 250). In a
letter recently discovered at Beth-Shan, written by Tagi
of Gath-Karmel, Labayu is addressed as `Lord':

To Labayu, my Lord, speak. Message of Tagi . . .3

Na'aman describes Labayu's influence thus:

First (Shechem's) rulers (Labayu and his sons)
sought to expand to lowland areas on their western
and northern borders; they subjugated neighbour-
ing small city-states, and increased the number of
settlements in their own territory. The power of
Shechem was felt in- such remote Canaanite king-
doms as Jerusalem, Gath(?) (Tell es-Safi), Gezer,
Ginti-Kirmil, and Pihilim . . .4-5

(b) lle biblical hktory of Saul

Neo-Assyrian inscriptions mentioning Israel make it clear
that the biblical authors sometimes left political events
unmentioned when they did not serve their religious pur-
poses! For example, the Bible does not tell us that Ahab
of Israel fought against Shalmaneser I11 at Karkar, north-

Letter EA 252fiom Labayu. British Museum.

JACF VOL. 8



The Black Obelisk' of Shalrnaneser 111 showing Jehu (or his rep-
resentative) bowing down before the Asyian king. British Museum.

ern Syria (853 BC), or that Ahab was one of the strongest
military powers in the Levant during this peri~d.~ It is
not at all surprising that the books of Samuel do not men-
tion the hegemony of Egypt when it is realised that the
author of the books of Kings left unmentioned the fact
that Jehu' (841 BC) and Joash (803 BC) of Israel, and
Manasseh ofJudah (7th century BC) were vassals of the
As~yrians.~ Another important fact is that Saul's story, in
the first book of Samuel, is dealt with very briefly -
especially that part covering his political rise and his
heroic achievements.1°
David is the main player in the books of Samuel, not
Saul. The author wished to make it clear that only David
was destined to be king `after God's own heart' (1 Samuel
13: 14; 1528) - chosen to properly fulfil the requirements
of a king in Israel's theocratic society. To illustrate this,
the author outlines Saul's misconduct. His heroic achieve-
ments are rarely referred to (1 Samuel 11:l-11 - war
against Ammon; 14:20-21- defeat of the Philistines; and
14:47-48, 52 - a list of military victories)."
In summary, Labayu was not a loyal vassal of Egypt.
In fact, he was seen as a clear threat to Egypt's control in
Canaan. We have noted that the Bible does not always
mention foreign overlords - as in the case ofJehu, Joash
or Manasseh - so it is quite conceivable that the writer of
the books of Samuel did not view the Egyptian hegemony
in Saul/Labayu's theatre of political and military opera-
tions as significant. Saul/Labayu's true enemy was not
the Egyptians: during the Amarna Period, Egypt was
incapable of direct military intervention in Palestine.
Pharaoh's loyal vassals - the city-state rulers in Syria and
Canaan - were given the responsibility of maintaining
good order and stability. Only occasionally did Akhen-
aten send archers to support the local rulers. Labayu's

real enemies were the kings of the coastal area and their
allies such as Biridiya of Megiddo and Abdi-Heba of
Jerusalem. In the biblical narrative it is the Philistines
who are the main enemies of King Saul. It is quite under-
standable that the authors of the Bible concentrated on
this conflict with Saul's neighbours, because they were
the real lords of the land (as the overseers of Egyptian
hegemony) and consequently the true enemies of Israel.

(2) The geography of Palestine

Steiner argues that the political map of Amarna-period
Canaan was different from that at the time of Saul. It is
true that Canaan was divided into a number of city-states
such as Hazor, Akko, Gath-Cannel, Ashkelon, Jeru-
salem, etc. But, just as in the books of Samuel, two large
areas were ruled over by independent kings - (a) the
kingdom of Gath and (b) the kingdom of Labayu.

(a) Gath and the Philktines

The Indo-European king of Gath, Shuwardata, competed
with the ruler of Jerusalem, Abdi-Heba, over the city of
Keilah in the mountains of Judah. This city officially
belonged to Gath (as can be deduced from EA 280).
Shuwardata, who already had many cities of his own
(EA 281,283), had expanded his temtory towards the
east and, in doing so, had conquered the city of Rubute
(EA 289, 290; perhaps modern Rabbah, north of the
Valley of Rephaim12). As a result, he became a major
threat to Abdi-Heba ofJerusalem (EA 290). Shuwardata
was also responsible for the death of Labayu, ruler of the
central hill-country (EA 366).

(b) Labayu and his hill-country kingdom

Labayu was no petty ruler. The frontiers of his kingdom
stretched as far as Jerusalem in the south and to Gezer
and Gath in the south-west (EA 253,254,280). To the
north they reached all the way up to the Valley ofJezreel
(EA 243-244,250; cf. also the clay cylinder from Beth-
Shan), and the kingdom also comprised areas beyond
the Jordan in Gilead (EA 255-256).13

By one means or another Labaya was able to
extend his control from the Mediterranean to the
hills of Gilead and from the Esdraelon plain to the
frontiers of Jerusalem . . . and he kept the princes
of Megiddo and Jerusalem in a perpetual state of
apprehen~ion.'~

A military offensive by the Shechemite king
Labayu extended his kingdom east to the Jordan
river and south-west as far as Gezer and Gath in
southern Canaan.I5

JACF VOL. 8

15



JOPP

I

&anaim

"7

Rabbah

-

Saul`s Kingdom (shaded), showing a close correspondence to the area
ruled over by Kinghbayu of the Amam period (ajh G. A. Ahlstrom,
op. cit. [IO], Map 13).

If we now observe how modem scholars view Saul's king-
dom, we find very close parallels to that of Labayu. Diet-
rich gives a detailed description of those areas which were
not controlled by Saul and those which were:

So, it is not only possible but very probable that,
as king of `Israel', Saul did not rule over the whole
territory of Palestine and its inhabitants. The plains
of Canaan were closed to him and he was unable
to unite under him the settlers of the mountain
regions. When Abner, his military commander-
in-chief, enthroned Saul's son Ishbaal as king over
all Israel after his death, what in those days was
regarded as belonging to `Israel' was listed: Gilead,
Ashur, Jezreel, Ephraim and Benjamin (2 Samuel
2:9). This is merely the mountainous area of cen-
tral Palestine with an extension towards the north-
east, in the direction of Gilead and Jezreel.lfi

Steiner's view of the habiru also requires correction.
Although the habiru appear to consist of independent
groups of freebooters, they are also represented as a threat
to the city inhabitants and the tribal populations. They

also serve as auxiliary units in the armies of the city rulers.
The western city-states (EA 287,290) as well as Labayu
and his sons (EA 243,246,254,289) had their own habiru
recruits. In addition, the Bible informs us that both Saul
and the Philistines made good use of them in their battles
against neighbouring enemies (1 Samuel 13:3 (LXX) and
verses 13:6, 14:20 ff, 29:3 ff).17
It seems to me that Margreet Steiner's criticisms do
not lead to a serious undermining of the New Chronology
theory but are more a matter of differing historical inter-
pretations. Indeed, I remain convinced that the Amama
period-United Monarchy synchronism is one of the
strongest pillars of this new synthesis between the biblical
narratives and archaeology. We are dealing with clear
parallels here - there are no real contradictions.

Notes and References

1. J. J. Bimson: `The Philistines: Their Origins and Chronology Reassessed',
JACF4, 1990/1, pp. 58-76; R. M. Porter, `De Aankomstvan de Filistijnen
in Canaan' in Bijbel, Geschiedenis en Archeologie 6,l (1999), forthcoming.
A. Alt: Essays on Old Zistament History and Religion (Shefield, 1989), p.
  153.
W. Horowitz: `An Inscribed Cylinder from Amarna Age Beth Shean' in
IEJ( 1996), p. 210; also, idem: `The Amama Age Inscribed Clay Cylinder
from Beth-Shean' in BA 602 (1997), p. 98.
N. Na'aman: `The Contribution of the AmarnaLetters to the Debate on
Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.' in BASOR
304 (1996), p. 20.
W. Horowitz, op. cit. [3], 1997, pp. 97-98.
Amongst others A. R. Millard: `Story, History, and Theology' in A. R.
Millard et aL (eds.): Faith, Tradition and History - Old Estament Historio-
graphy in Its Near Eatern Context (Winona Lake, 1994), p. 40; D. J.
Wisemann: 7 €92 Kings, Tyndale Old Zistament Commentaries9 (Leicester,
1993), p. 15-18.

7.  See J. B. Pritchard (ed.): `Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts' in

ANET(Princeton, 1969), pp. 278-79.
8. J. B. Pritchard, op. cit. [7], p. 280.
9. J. Kahjin Kuan: Neo-Rrcyrian Historical Inscriptiom and Syria-Palestine,

Jan Duo Dissertution Series 1, (Alliance Bible Seminary, Hong Kong, 1995),
pp. 78-91; Pritchard, op. cit. [7], pp. 291 & 294.
10. G. A. Ahlstrom: ne History of Palestine jom the Palaeolithic Period to
Alexander`s Conquest (Shefield, 1993), p. 435.

11. R. P. Gordon: 1 B 2 Samuel (Old Zstarnent Guides, Sheffield, 1984), p.
54; cf. also: V. Philips Long: `How did Saul become King?' in A. R.
Millard, op. cit. [6], pp. 283-84 and idem: The Art OfBiblical History,
Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 5 (Grand Rapids, 1994), pp.
201-23; W. Dietrich: Die Friihe Konigqeit in Israel - 1O.Jh. U. Chr., Biblische
Enqklopedie3 (Stuttgart, 1997), pp. 46-57; P. Kyle McCarter: ISamuel-
A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8 (1980),
pp. 27-30; R. Rendtorff: ne Old Estament - An Zntroduction (London,
1985), pp. 170-74.
12. J. Fbgerson: LandderBibel- Kunst, Geschichte undLebensformen (Augsburg,
1997), p. 162.
13. His son Mut-Baal possessed (besides Pella) several more areas stretching
all the way up to Bashan, where the cities of Hayunu and Yabiluma
probably belonged to him. Labayu is supposed to have controlled the
caravans of Pharaoh to HanigalbaUMitanni, which hints at the control
over the main trade routes which led through northern Ghor (EA 255),
cf. also Horowitz, op. cit. [3], 1996, p. 217.

14. W. F. Albright: `The Amarna Letters from Palestine' in CAHII (1966),

15. N. Na`aman: `Cow Town or Royal Capital?' in BAR 23,4 (1997), p. 67.
16. W. Dietrich, op. cit. [ 111, p. 157; cf. also G. A. Ahlstrom: op. cit. [lo], map
13 and J. Hayes & M. Millar: A History ofAncientZsrae1 andJudah (Philadel-

phia, 1986), pp. 140-41.

17. For a detailled discussion see: P. G. van der Veen: I Samuel and the
Habiru-A.oblem (unpublished M. Th. thesis, Louvain, 1989); idem: `The
el-Amama Habiru and the Early Monarchy in Israel' inJACF 3 (1989/
90), pp. 72-78.

2.


3.

4.

5.
6.

p. 20.

16

JACF VOL. 8