How fertile is fertile? Response #6

There is so much that we do not understand of the ancient Hebrew culture, Does that significantly skew our view and perception of the Holy Scriptures to the point where our lives look radically different from what they should? I would probably say yes. Should we be quick to glean and reap further comprehension of the Hebrews’ scenario especially by means of those who have poured themselves into studies in this area? Again, I would respond with a yes. However, I am concerned that some of Ellen Davis’s reasoning and assumptions in Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture might be ill founded. In Chapter two she discusses the land and agrarian situation of the early Israelites.  She refers to the land that was promised by Jehovah as a “narrow and precariously balanced ecological niche” (p. 26) and a “steep and semiarid land.” (p. 26) She paints a portrait of ancient Palestine as vulnerable and nearly unsustainable. Now, this works when an author is trying to herald the cause of farming being solely reliant on God and “sustainable” practices (I really do not know how much ancient people cared for the biosphere. I am sure they did not want to die, which required land to be fertile for generations, but I cannot summarize more than that so I won’t.). Anyways, the point I am getting at is the proposed fragility of the land that the Israelites settled that Davis implies. I guess in my mind ancient Israel was a bit more, well, fertile. From reading the Bible (which, I will admit that I probably have some incorrect views and understandings of a lot of it but nevertheless), I thought the Promised Land was “flowing with milk and honey” as God promised (Exodus 3:8, Exodus 33:3, and Leviticus 20:24) and as the Hebrew scouts reported (Numbers 13:27) and where a single cluster of grapes had to be carried by two men on a pole (Numbers 13:20) Wasn’t it actually in the fertile crescent?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_Crescent#/media/File:Map_of_fertile_crescent.svg 

It looks like it was to me. The argument could be made that the Israelites possessed only that tiny portion between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. But, Davis is talking about the inspiration of Scripture as she says, “The Bible as we have it could not be written alongside the irrigation canals of Babylon.” (p. 26) Babylon is situated right on the Euphrates, which, ironically, is exactly where the LORD wanted His people to settle. This is clearly seen when El Shaddai promises Abram’s descendants the “land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.” (Genesis 15:18) and again in Exodus 23:31 where I AM says, “I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River.” This land promised by God actually covers a large portion of the Fertile Crescent. Now, another difficulty might be made for the fertility of the Fertile Crescent over the ages. I have heard that it has lost its productivity over time and so maybe it just wasn’t productive by the time the Hebrews took the land. However, in my BRIEF (I will be honest about this) research into this topic I found otherwise. According to National Geographic, the Fertile Crescent has been drained of its vigor by dams and drains “implemented since the 1970’s” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/05/0518_crescent.html). I would really love to get more people’s insight into this topic to let me know if I am wrong. Because the rest of Davis’s argument makes sense when she talks about having to desperately rely on God for sustenance. The parallels and conclusions drawn seem to be profitable from her accounts. I just think it is worrisome when good advice is grounded in bad soil. Facts, knowledge, and insight would be much appreciated on this topic.