Collected Essays, Volume 3: Ancient Israel's History and Historiography: The First Temple Period

Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography The First Temple Period Coll...

Author: Na'aman | Nadav

83 downloads 1051 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography

Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography The First Temple Period

Collected Essays Volume 3

Nadav Naªaman

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2006

ç Copyright 2006 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Typeset by Susan Efrat , Rehov Ben-Gurion 38/4 POB 5039, 70800 Gan Yavne, Israel

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Naªaman, Nadav. Ancient Israel and its neighbors : interaction and counteraction : collected essays / by Nadav Naªaman. v. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-57506-108-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Jews—History—To 70 A.D. 2. Palestine—History—To 70 A.D. 3. Jews—History—953–586 B.C. 4. Assyria—History, Military. I. Title. DS121.3.N33 2005 933—dc22 2005009376 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. †‘

To My Mother Leah Na’aman

Contents Preface .....................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. xi List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................... xiii 1. The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE ............................................... 1 2. The Kingdom of Ishbaal ................................................................................. 18 3. Sources and Composition in the History of David .................................... 23 4. In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors ........................................................................................... 38 5. The List of David’s Officers (šālîšîm) ........................................................... 62 6. Ittai the Gittite ................................................................................................ 71 7. “Hebron Was Built Seven Years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numbers 13:22) ...............................................................................................74 8. Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon .............................. 79 9. Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System in Palestine ..................................................................... 102 10. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the Tenth Century BCE ................................. 120 11. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel .......... 139 12. Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides ............................................................................................147 13. Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela From Tel Dan ....................................... 166 14. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan ......................... 173 15. King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy.................. 187 16. The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source .................................................. 198 17. Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah ............................................................................................... 211 18. Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel .............................................. 228 19. Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the 8th Century BCE .............................................................. 236 20. On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings .................. 256 21. The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers ........ 259 vii

viii


22. The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in Light of Historical and Archaeological Research ...................................................274 23. “The House-of-no-Shade Shall Take Away its Tax from You” (Micah 1:11).................................................................................................... 291 24. “The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of YHWH where Women Weave Coverings for Asherah” (2 King 23:7) ................. 303 25. The Fire Signals of Lachish Revisited ........................................................ 307 26. No Anthropomorphic Graven Image. Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-exilic Period ................................................................................311 27. The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site near Shechem ......................................................................................................... 339 28. Lebo-hamath, Ṣubat-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of the Land of Canaan ...................................................................................... 359 29. Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies of Asher and Ephraim....................................................................................... 386 Index of Ancient Personal Names .................................................................... 396 Index of Places ..................................................................................................... 401 Index of Biblical References .............................................................................. 408

Preface This volume is the last in a series of three, each of which contains a number of articles of mine that dealt with particular well-defined periods and themes. The present volume focuses on the broad theme of biblical historiography and its possible contributions, as well as limitations to the reconstruction of the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the First Temple period. A few of the articles are devoted entirely to historiographical problems, but the majority combines history and historiography. It is necessary to combine the two in order to introduce each historical discussion that rests on biblical evidence with a lengthy source analysis. Extra-biblical sources are also analyzed wherever available, and archaeological data hold a central place in many discussions. The various themes discussed in the articles include political history and historiography, textual and literary problems, historical geography, society, administration, cult and religion. The first nine articles discuss biblical problems that are related to the time of the United Monarchy. It is widely accepted today that the cycle of stories about Saul, David and Solomon was composed hundreds years after the time of these figures, by authors who had no written sources dating from that early period. The historical authenticity of the stories about the early Israelite kings, thus, is questionable, and many of today’s scholars avoid using them for historical reconstruction. It is with this background in mind that readers should approach the first part of the book, which addresses such questions as the sources available to the late authors; the reality behind the narratives relating the history of the United Monarchy; the effect of the reality of the author’s time on the composition of the histories of Saul, David and Solomon; and the contribution of archaeology to the study of the tenth century BCE. There are no extra-biblical written sources that can throw light on the period of the United Monarchy; the earliest available external source is the topographical inscription of Shishak of Egypt (945-924 BCE), written after his campaign to Palestine. Other Assyrian, Moabite and Aramaic royal inscriptions from the ninth-eighth centuries BCE that have been discovered relate various events in the histories of the two kingdoms. These inscriptions are examined in detail, vis à vis the parallel biblical descriptions, in an effort both to evaluate the scope of the sources available to the author of Kings and, to some extent, the reliability of his history. ix

x


Viewed as a source for a modern historical study, the biblical history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Book of Kings has obvious limitations. It has become a commonplace idea that any historical examination of the book required, first of all, a thorough critical investigation. Among the questions discussed in the articles are: What sources were available to the author(s) when writing the history of the two kingdoms? When were those sources written? Did they date from the events they described? Were they based on an oral tradition or some kind of written record? What literary genres are embedded in the biblical text, and how useful are they for the historical reconstruction? Along with asking these questions, some articles seek to define the characteristics of biblical historiography— both the qualities that it has in common with other historiographies written in ancient times and those that are unique to it. A few articles focus on specific problems, such as the debated historicity of Hezekiah’s cult reform (No. 22); the question of anthropomorphic cult statues of YHWH in Israelite and Judahite temples (no. 28); Micah’s lament on the imminent catastrophe to towns in the Shephelah, not far away from his place of birth (Moresheth-gath) (No. 23); the interpretation of letter No. 4 uncovered at Lachish (No. 25); the history of the northern boundary of the land of Canaan from the mid-second millennium BCE to the Persian period (No. 28); and the genealogies of Asher and Ephraim in the Book of Chronicles (No. 29). Of the 29 articles, three were published in the 1980s (Nos. 5, 7, 19), but the majority appeared during the last 15 years. There was therefore no need to revise the articles in order to take into account more recent works and the present state of knowledge, as was the case in the previous two volumes. All the articles in the volume were edited according to a unified style for references and bibliography. The system selected was that of Tel Aviv, so only articles previously published in this journal did not receive some modifications. In many articles, this has meant changes in the enumeration of the footnotes, because strictly bibliographical references that appeared in the original publications are now included in the text. It remains for me to thank those who have helped me carry out the project. Ms. Liat Steir undertook the task of unifying the style for references and bibliographies. Ms. Susan Efrat prepared a camera-ready version of the volume. Ms. Rachel Yurman prepared the indices. Special thanks are due to Ms. Yael Lotan, who edited many of the articles reproduced in this collection and, with her skills and clarity, made them more accessible for a wider audience. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Jim Eisenbraun for accepting the book for publication and for bringing the project to fruition. Nadav Na’aman

Tel Aviv University

Acknowledgments Thanks are due, as indicated below, for permission to republish the following articles: To the Publication Office of the American Schools of Oriental Research Publications for 1. “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304 (1996), 17–27. To the editor of Biblische Notizen for 2. “The Kingdom of Ishbaal,” Biblische Notizen 54 (1990), 33–37; 6. “Ittai the Gittite.” Biblische Notizen 94 (1998), 22–25; 13. “Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan,” Biblische Notizen 79 (1995), 17–24; and 24. “‘The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of YHWH where Women Weave Coverings for Asherah’ (2 Kings 23:7),” Biblische Notizen 83 (1996), 17–18. To T & T Clark International for 3. “Sources and Composition in the History of David,” in V. Fritz and P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States ( Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228), Sheffield 1996, 170–186; 16. “The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999), 3–17; 21. “The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 65 (1995), 37–53; and 29. “Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies of Asher and Ephraim,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49 (1991), 99–111. To the Israel Exploration Society for 4. “In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours,” IEJ 52 (2002), 200–224; 14. “Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” IEJ 50 (2000), 92– 104; and 15. “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 37 (1997), 83–92. To the editor of Vetus Testamentum for 5. “The List of David’s Officers (šālîšîm),” VT 38 (1988), 71–79; 7. “‘Hebron was Built Seven Years before Zoan in Egypt’ (Numbers 13:22),” VT 31 (1981), 488–492; 17. “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah,” VT 48 (1998), 333–349; 18. “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel,” VT 43 (1993), 227–234; 19. “Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in xi

xii


the Eighth Century BC,” VT 36 (1986), 71–91; and 23. “‘The House-of-no-Shade Shall Take Away its Tax from You’ (Micah 1:11),” VT 45 (1995), 516–527. To Brill Academic Publishers for 8. “Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon,” in L.K. Handy (ed.), The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, Leiden 1997, 57–80. To the editors of Ugarit-Forschungen for 9. “Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System in Palestine,” UF 33 (2001), 419–436; 26. “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image. Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-Exilic Period,” UF 31 (1999), 391–415; and 28. “Lebo-hamath, Ṣubat-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of the Land of Canaan,” UF 31 (1999), 417–441. To the editor of Tel Aviv for 10. “Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century BCE,” Tel Aviv 19 (1992), 71–93; 11. “Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel,” Tel Aviv 24 (1997), 122–128. To the Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana and the Editrice Pontificia Istituto Biblico for 12. “Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides,” Biblica 78 (1997), 153–173. To the Editor of Theologische Zeitschrift for 20. “On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings,” TZ 55 (1999), 44–46. To Walter de Gruyter for 22. “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995), 179–195; and 27. “The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site near Shechem,” in S.L. McKenzie and T. Römer (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, Berlin and New York 2000, 141–161. To the editor of the Palestine Exploration Quarterly for 25. “The Fire Signals of Lachish Revisited,” PEQ 131 (1999), 65–67.

List of Abbreviations AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature ANET Pritchard, J. B. ed. 1955. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton. AnOr Analecta Orientalia AnSt Anatolian Studies AOAT Alte Orient und Altes Testament ARM Archives Royales de Mari. ARMT Archives Royales de Mari Transcrites et Traduites ArOr Archiv Orientálni BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society; continuation of BJPES BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis BJPES Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society BMB Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth CAD Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago CAH Cambridge Ancient History EI Eretz-Israel Enc. Miqr. Encyclopaedia Miqra’it (Encyclopaedia Biblica). Jerusalem (Hebrew) ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

xiii

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Kbo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1916–. Leipzig and Berlin KUB Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1912–. Berlin MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft MVAG Mitteilungen der VorderasiatischÄgyptischen Gesellschaft New Enc Arch. Exc. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem 1993 OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Or Orientalia PEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, continuation of PEFQSt PJb Palästinajahrbuch QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale RB Revue Biblique RHA Revue Hittite et Asianique RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie VT Vetus Testamentum WO Die Welt des Orients ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAS Zeitschrift für die ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins

The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE1 Introduction From the early days of modern historical research, until recently, the scholarly consensus was that Jerusalem was the center of a state from the time of David onward. The histories of David and Solomon, as related in the Books of Samuel and Kings, were considered unequivocal evidence of the establishment of Jerusalem as capital of a state in the tenth century BCE. It was first the center of a large kingdom whose districts are enumerated in 1 Kgs. 4:7–19, and, following the division of the monarchy, it became the center of the kingdom of Judah. Throughout, it was a capital city and the seat of a royal dynasty for approximately 400 years, from David’s conquest in the early tenth century until the Babylonian conquest and captivity of 587/586 BCE. This consensus was disrupted recently. It is accepted widely today that historical writing in Israel did not develop before the eighth century BCE at the earliest and that the Deuteronomistic history was composed no earlier than the late seventh century BCE. The histories of David and Solomon were written hundreds of years after the death of the two kings. Thus, some scholars suggest that these descriptions should not be analyzed as sources for the history of the tenth century BCE. Non-biblical sources and archaeological evidence are the main sources for the early history of Israel (the 12th–9th centuries). By analyzing the results of the archaeological excavations and surveys conducted in the areas of the kingdom of Judah and using “modern” sociological definitions, these scholars suggest that Jerusalem became the center of a state no earlier than the eighth century BCE (Jamieson-Drake 1991:138–145; Knauf 1991a:171–184; Thompson 1992:409–411; Davies 1992: 67–70; Lemche 1994:183–184; Lemche and Thompson 1994). Let me cite a few examples of the conclusions reached by some advocates of this “minimalist” school of thought. Jamieson-Drake (1991) analyzes the re-

1. Reprinted with permission. BASOR 304 (1996), 17–27.

1

2


sults of the archaeological excavations and surveys conducted in the areas of modern Israel. From settlement size and distribution, and from social stratification evident in public works and luxury items, he concludes that Judah became a state, and Jerusalem a major administrative center, no earlier than the eighth century BCE. “There is little evidence that Judah began to function as a state at all prior to the tremendous increases in population, building, production, centralization and specialization which began to appear in the 8th century,” he writes (Jamieson-Drake 1991:138–139). In the tenth-ninth centuries, Judah may be defined as a chiefdom, which is still far from an incipient state. “Under our polythetic classification scheme, Judah was a small state in the 8th–7th centuries, but not before” (Jamieson-Drake 1991:139; for similar conclusions, see Knauf 1991a:171–172; 1991b:39; Lemche 1994:184–185). Thompson (1992:409–411) went a step further, suggesting that “during the first part of Iron Age II, Jerusalem was a small provincial town at best, not significantly superior to such Shephelah towns as Lachish and Gezer.” Prior to the seventh century, Jerusalem competed with the other towns for the kingdom’s resources and products. Only in the course of the seventh century BCE did Jerusalem acquire the character of a regional state capital. The existence of the Bible’s “United Monarchy” during the tenth-century is not only impossible because Judah had not yet a sedentary population, but also because there was no transregional political or economic base of power in Palestine prior to the expansion of Assyrian imperial influence into the southern Levant (Thompson 1992:412).

Davies (1992:69) suggests that it is quite likely that Judah was formed as a secondary state perhaps in the 9th century, and possibly by the Assyrians. . . . The range of indices considered by JamiesonDrake make it necessary for us to exclude the Davidic and the Solomonic monarchies, let alone their “empire” from a non-biblical history of Palestine.

Finally, Lemche and Thompson (1994:19–20) conclude that “in the history of Palestine . . . there is no room for a historical United Monarchy, or for such kings as those presented in the biblical stories of Saul, David or Solomon. The early period in which the traditions have set their narratives is an imaginary world of long ago that never existed as such.

There could not have been a kingdom in the tenth century, because there were not enough people or enough towns. Jerusalem at this time can hardly be described as a city. It was still centuries away from being able to challenge any of the dozens of more powerful small authonomous towns. “It first took on the form and acquired the status of a city, capable of being understood as a state capital, sometime in the middle of the seventh century.” Many problems raised by these scholars deserve further critical investigation. I will limit my criticism to two major points: the evaluation of the

The Contribution of the Amarna Letters

3

results of the archaeological excavations conducted in Jerusalem and the contribution of the Amarna tablets to the debate about the emergence of a kingdom in Israel. I will try to show that their evaluation of the excavations in Jerusalem is inadequate, leads to erroneous conclusions and ignores the lesson that may be learned from the investigation of the Amarna tablets for the study of Jerusalem’s political position in the tenth century BCE.

Excavations of the Ophel Hill: Legitimate and Illegitimate Conclusions Deposits of pottery of Iron Age IIA and the remains of a few walls of this period were discovered in the excavations conducted in the Ophel Hill (=the City of David; Tarler and Cahill 1992:55–56, with earlier literature). Kenyon (1974:92, 114–115) exposed a tenth century wall fragment on the northeastern side of the Ophel Hill, which she identified as part of a casemate fortification (Wightman 1993:33–35). Shiloh (1984:27) dated the stepped stone structure in area G to the tenth century and suggested that it was built as the southeastern corner of the royal compound erected then in Jerusalem. However, Tarler and Cahill (1992:55–56) suggested recently that the stepped stone structure was constructed in the 13th–12th century BCE. Jerusalem’s occupation in the Iron Age IIA is known from only a few remains centered on the Ophel Hill, and no pottery of this period was found in other excavated areas of Jerusalem. The results of the excavations at the site of old Jerusalem were taken by some scholars as an indication that it was no more than a small provincial town until the expansion of settlement to the Western Hill in the eighth century BCE (note, in particular, Thompson 1992:331–333; Lemche 1994:184–185). However, they did not consider the many problems involved in excavating this site. First, the area of Jerusalem’s public buildings is under the Temple Mount and cannot be examined. The most important area for investigation, and the one to which the biblical histories of David and Solomon mainly refer, remains terra incognita. Second, there is an uninterrupted continuity of settlement in the Ophel Hill from the tenth to the early sixth century BCE. As is well known, conquest, destruction and desolation leave distinct marks that archaeologists can easily expose; uninterrupted continuity of settlement, on the other hand, leaves only a few remains of the earlier building activity. No wonder, then, that the remains of the tenth-ninth-centuries city were discovered mainly in fills or building fragments and that the city destroyed in 587/586 is the best known. Third, the old city of Jerusalem, built on terraces and bedrock, was settled for thousands of years, each new city erecting its foundations on bedrock and destroying what was underneath. The old buildings were utterly destroyed by later building activity, their stones robbed and reused. In light of this discussion, one may ask if it is legitimate to draw negative conclusions about tenth century Jerusalem on the basis of the archaeological

4


excavations conducted at the site. To clarify this problem, I will first present two archaeological instances from other periods in the history of Jerusalem and then will draw the logical conclusions. First, According to the Amarna letters, Jerusalem (Urusalim) was the seat of a local king in the 14th century BCE. However, hardly any LB II building remains have been unearthed, despite the many excavations conducted in the Ophel Hill. The paucity of LB II remains led Franken and Steiner (1992) to doubt the identification of the Amarna city of Urusalim with Jerusalem. Nonetheless, Urusalim is undoubtedly identical with Jerusalem, as is evident inter alia from its name, its neighborhood with Gezer and Qiltu-Keilah, along with the road leading from Urusalim westward passing through Aijalon (EA 287:53–57). Also, there is no other site in the highlands and surroundings that matches the written data of Urusalim in the Amarna tablets. The two scholars were unaware of the problems of excavating this highland site and drew illegitimate conclusions on the basis of negative evidence. The second example shows that no trace of the fortification wall built under Nehemiah and described in great detail in his “memoirs” (Neh 3:1–22) has been identified positively in the excavations. The city of the Persian period, described so vividly in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, is known only from fills and building fragments and is identified mainly because it is sandwiched between the debris of the Iron Age and the Hellenistic strata (Tarler and Cahill 1992:59–60, with earlier literature). This is another indication of the difficulties involved in recovering strata that developed peacefully and did not end with catastrophe. In conclusion, one should be extremely cautious in trying to draw negative inferences on the basis of the archaeological excavations of old Jerusalem. Moreover, these excavations can neither prove nor disprove the political position of the city in the tenth century BCE. Some other indications are necessary, and they will be presented below.

The Kingdoms of Shechem and Jerusalem in the Amarna Age Scholars of the “minimalist” school of thought have examined the emergence of the Israelite state and the place of Jerusalem in it mainly on the basis of socio-archaeological criteria. But one important aspect often discussed in recent archaeological and historical research — that of the long-range perspective (la longue durée) — is missing from their works. In what follows, I will suggest that comparing the political formations and socio-economic conditions of the LB II with that of Iron Age IIA and examining the long-term changes within an identical ecological setting are instructive for the study of Jerusalem’s political position in the early first millennium BCE. The discussion will focus on the central highlands of Canaan in LB II, because only for this period do we have both contemporaneous documentary


5

evidence (i.e., the Amarna tablets, written in the second half of the 14th century BCE) and detailed archaeological data (i.e., the results of the excavations and surveys conducted in recent years). Two Canaanite kingdoms occupied almost all of the central hill country: Shechem and Jerusalem. This is the area where the Israelite state emerged and which was the core of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah for hundreds of years. Thus, the investigation of the two Canaanite kingdoms is an ideal model for the study of the emergence and development of the Israelite kingdom in the early first millennium. Shechem was a powerful Canaanite kingdom in the Amarna Age. It was the major power in the central hill country and its territory extended between the Jezreel Valley in the north and Naḥal Shiloh (near Shiloh = Khirbet Seilun) in the south and between the Jordan Valley in the east and the Sharon plain in the west (Na’aman 1992a:281, 288). Its rulers sought to expand to lowland areas on their western and northern borders; these rulers subjugated neighboring small city-states and increased the number of settlements in their territory. The power of Shechem was felt in such remote Canaanite kingdoms as Jerusalem, Gath(?) (Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi), Gezer, Ginti-kirmil and Piḫilum (Campbell 1965; Na’aman 1975:27–46).2 The picture of the city and land of Shechem in LB II as it emerged from the archaeological investigation is quite different. The area of the city was about 4–4.5 hectares; its public buildings (fortifications, gates and a temple) were mainly restorations and rebuildings of those of the MB III. Taking into account the areas occupied by public buildings, no more than 800 people lived in the town. The number of LB II sites discovered in the detailed surveys conducted in the Shechemite territory is approximately 23–25, compared with about 240 sites in MB II and in Iron Age I (Zertal 1994:50–59; Finkelstein 1988– 89:140–144; 1991:27–30; 1994:159). On the basis of the archaeological evidence alone, scholars would have suggested that LB II Shechem was the center of a medium-sized Canaanite city-state and that the highlands were mainly occupied by independent rural and pastoral population groups. Only the evidence of the Amarna tablets enables us to correctly evaluate the historical reality of that time.

2. The suggestion of Adamthwaite (1992) to relocate Lab’ayu to Pella (Piḫilum) is unlikely. His discussion of EA 289 is erroneous, because he does not correctly appreciate the inner structure of the text. The letter is divided into several passages, each of which opens with a description of a certain episode and ends with the author’s reaction to the new situation. For a correct translation of lines 18–24, based on such understanding of the passage, see Moran 1992:332–33. Moreover, the scope of Lab’ayu’s operations does not fit a remote Transjordanian town like Pella. There can be no doubt that Lab’ayu ruled at Shechem, as has been recognized by all scholars from the early days of research on the Amarna letters.

6


According to the Amarna tablets, Jerusalem was the seat of a king nominated by the Pharaoh (EA 286:9–13; 287:25–28; 288:13–15; Moran 1975; Na’aman 1975:88–118; 1992a:287–88). He lived in a palace (bītu) (EA 287:33– 37, 73–75), and an Egyptian garrison of about 50 soldiers was stationed in the place temporarily.3 Egyptian messengers came quite often to the court of Jerusalem (EA 286:16–20; 287:45–50; 288:16–22; 289:30–33, 37–40), and the king sent rich caravans with tributes and gifts to the Pharaoh (EA 287:53– 56; 288:12, 14–22; Na’aman 1981:175–77, 183). Jerusalem’s territory extended from south of Bethel in the north to Hebron in the south and from the Jordan in the east to the Shephelah hills in the west (Na’aman 1992a). The place of Jerusalem in the Egyptian province of Canaan was similar to that of other lowland Canaanite city-states, although its society, economy and internal organization must have been quite different from those of its western neighbors. The picture as revealed by the archaeological research is entirely different. As noted above, only a handful of LB II pottery and a few building fragments were unearthed in the excavation of the Ophel Hill. A fragment of an Egyptian stele bearing hieroglyphic inscription, possibly of the time of the 19th Dynasty, was found north of the Temple Mount, but its original context is unknown (Scheil 1892; Barkay 1990). Only two or three sites were discovered in the extensive surveys conducted in the territory of Jerusalem (Kochavi 1972:10, 19–22; Ofer 1994:100). On the basis of the archaeological evidence alone, scholars would have assumed that a few small rural communities, plus isolated pastoral groups and refugees, lived in the highlands of Judah and Benjamin in LB II. However, in light of the documentary and archaeological evidence, the city of Jerusalem may be defined as a highland stronghold dominating a territory occupied by pastoral groups and isolated rural communities. 3. A cadre of 50 soldiers, or multiples thereof, was the standard unit of Egyptian troops according to the Amarna letters (Pintore 1972:102–104, with earlier literature). Fifty is also the standard unit for manning a garrison (maṣṣartu) (EA 139:32; ,238:11; 295:rev. 6). This was the number of troops that were garrisoned in Jerusalem, and, when those troops left, ʽAbdi-Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, asked for the dispatch of a similar garrison (EA 289:42–44): “And so may the king send fifty men as a garrison to protect the land. The entire land of the king has deserted.” The “land” and “the land of the king” in this context are the territory of Jerusalem. Of the 50 soldiers sent back from Jerusalem to Gaza, 20 were immediately dispatched to Egypt (EA 289:30–35). It seems to me that the fragmentary passage in letter EA 286:26–31 relates what happened to the rest of the garrison unit. It may be partly restored thus: “May the king my lord know that (though) the king my lord stationed a garrison, Enḫamu has taken i[t al]l away [and . . .] thirty [men he s]en[ds ([yu-u]š-ši-[ru]) from . . . to] Egypt.”


7

The Amarna letters indicate that Shechem and Jerusalem were the seats of local dynasties. Canaanite rulers were considered by the Egyptian administration as mayors (ḫazannu), like the governors of Egyptian towns (ḥ3ty-c), and were obliged to take the oath in the king’s name (Helck 1971:246–247; Redford 1990:28–29; 1992:198–99). Their title reflects the Egyptian ideology, according to which only the “Sun-God” was a king and his subjects were called by a lesser title; moreover, it emphasized the fact that their position depended on the approval of their overlord and that they were royal appointees (Liverani 1990:144–149, 180–186, 230–239). In non-Egyptian correspondence, these rulers were called “kings” (šarru). This is indicated in letters written by “Great Kings” (i.e., the kings of Babylonia [EA 8:25] and Mitanni [EA 30:1]) and by local rulers (for a list of references, see Na’aman 1988:182–83, n. 18). Also, in a tablet recently discovered at Beth-shean, Tagu, ruler of Ginti-kirmil, addresses Lab’ayu, ruler of Shechem, by the title “king” (Horowitz 1995). The problem of succession in the Canaanite kingdoms requires clarification. Formal approval by the Pharaoh was required in every instance of a change of rule, stemming from the nature of the personal oath by which the vassal was bound to his overlord. However, in reality, the Egyptian authorities acknowledged the dynastic principle and, in most cases, approved the designated heirs to the throne. For example, Lab’ayu, king of Shechem, wrote to the Pharaoh as follows: “[Behold, I a]m a servant of the king [like] my [fathe]r and my [gr]andfa[th]er, a servant of the king from l[on]g a[g]o” (EA 253:11– 15). The Pharaoh intervened only in exceptional events and set his own candidate — always a son of the local dynasty — on the royal throne (Na’aman 1975:179–181). For example, following the murder of the king of Tyre (EA 89), the Pharaoh intervened and placed Abimilku on the throne of Tyre. That Abimilku was a son of the local dynasty of Tyre is indicated by one of his letters, in which he refers to past events by twice recalling “my fathers” (EA 150:35–36). cAbdi-Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, who had spent his youth in Egypt, was nominated as king of Jerusalem at the intervention of the Pharaoh, possibly on the occasion of a crisis in succession at the city (Moran 1975:155–156; Na’aman 1975:89–91). That he was an heir of the local dynasty is evident from two letters in which he mentions that it was the Pharaoh who had placed him in “my father’s house” (EA 286:9–13; 288:13–15). We may conclude that the Canaanite rulers were considered, similarly in intrastate relations, in internal relations within Canaan and in relations with their subjects, as kings who came to power through the dynastic principle and would, in turn, leave the throne to their heirs. Each king had a capital city; a palace; a court, attendants and servants; a temple in which he held a central role; and an ideology that established his position as head of state. Each court had a scribe (although some remote courts shared a single scribe),

8


who was in charge of the diplomatic correspondence with the Egyptian authorities. Although the internal organization, society and economy of the kingdoms of Shechem and Jerusalem were quite different from those of the lowland city-states, they shared all the characteristics of power and legitimation with the other Canaanite kingdoms. This is the more impressive in light of the above-mentioned results of the archaeological research conducted in their territories. To cite one more example for the incompatibility of the archaeological excavations and the documentary evidence, six letters sent by the king of Jerusalem to the Pharaoh, exhibiting the diplomatic sophistication of his court and the quality of his scribe, were found in the Amarna archive. On the other hand, scholars would never have guessed from the excavations of Jerusalem that any scribal activity took place there in LB II. This discord between the results of the archaeological research of highland sites and the documentary evidence conducted in the core areas of the future Israelite state must be taken into account when discussing the place of Jerusalem in the emergence of the Israelite kingdom in the tenth century BCE. With these conclusions in mind, it is important to note the difference between the self-perception of the people of the Late Bronze Age and modern scholarly definitions. The importance of studying an ancient civilization in its own terms and within its own system of values has been commonly accepted by scholars since Landsberger’s seminal study (1926) on the conceptual autonomy of the Babylonian world. In contemporaneous concepts, the territorial highland entities were regarded as kingdoms and their rulers as dynastic kings (above). Anthropologists and sociologists, on the other hand, use more “objective” criteria for defining such entities. According to their criteria, the major second millennium BCE highland sites were classified as “strongholds,” that is, government centers for the ruling elite. These central sites are usually fortified and have a palace, cult building(s) and storehouses. The political formations in the highlands in the Late Bronze Age are defined as chiefdoms, that is, political centers governing territories with mixed sedentary and pastoral populations (Finkelstein 1992:206–207). This discrepancy between contemporaneous concepts and our modern definitions should be taken into account when discussing the political position of Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE.

Tenth Century Jerusalem: The Problem of the Written Sources In his socio-archaeological study of the Kingdom of Judah in Iron Age II, Jamieson-Drake (1991:26–47) uses a sociological model and establishes baseline parameters to analyze the archaeological data of the Kingdom of Judah. He suggests clear definitions both for a chiefdom and for a state, as well as


9

criteria for the transition from one stage to another (1991:138–145). On the basis of these criteria, he defines tenth-ninth century Judah as a chiefdom. He further discusses the development from chiefdom to statehood and concludes that Judah began to function as a state only in the eighth century BCE. Throughout his work, Jamieson-Drake uses technical sociological nomenclature and presupposes a general definition of “chiefdom” and “state” according to settlement size, distribution, and social stratification. His conclusions are sound and reasonable and accord well with the survey conducted recently in the area of the Kingdom of Judah (Ofer 1994). Jamieson-Drake does not dismiss the biblical descriptions of David and Solomon, but he minimizes them and assumes that the two kings set in motion the institutional forces that evolved and developed gradually into a full-blown state in the eighth century BCE (Jamieson-Drake 1991:140–45). Although Jamieson-Drake draws a clear line between biblical and socioarchaeological definitions and data, the line is less clear in the works of his followers. Broadly speaking, they all adopt his conclusion that a state (in the “modern” sociological sense) centered around Jerusalem emerged in the early eighth century BCE at the earliest. However, they tend to draw farfetched inferences from negative evidence (e.g., the excavations of Jerusalem and the lack of tenth century original documents) and then use Jamieson-Drake’s socio-archaeological conclusions to dismiss most, or even all of the biblical data about tenth century Israel (Knauf 1991a:172–184; Thompson 1992; Davies 1992:67–70; Lemche 1994:168–171, 183–191; Lemche and Thompson 1994:15–20). This brings us to the problem of the sources for the study of the tenth century BCE. Although the subject is too broad to be covered in detail, the following five points illuminate some important aspects. First, Hieratic numerals and signs appear in epigraphic documents of both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE, but do not appear in documents of Israel’s neighbors. Goldwasser (1991:251– 252) showed that these signs must have entered the Hebrew script before the division of the monarchy, namely, in the tenth century BCE. According to her reconstruction, this peculiar and isolated variation of hieratic developed locally from the Egyptian scribal tradition in Canaan itself. After the decline of the Egyptian empire. . . many Egyptians, or Egyptian-trained Canaanite scribes, lost their means of existence, and may have offered their scribal and administrative knowledge to the new powers rising in the area, first the Philistines and then the Israelites (Goldwasser 1991:251).

It is evident the writing had already entered the court of Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE. Second, the account of Shishak’s campaign against Jerusalem in Rehoboam’s fifth year, the handing over of Solomon’s golden shields and their replacement

10


by copper shields (1 Kgs. 14:25–28) all must have been taken from a written text (Na’aman 1992b:85). Otherwise, the memory of the Egyptian campaign, which was conducted in Shishak’s late years, about 300 years before the time of the Deuteronomistic historian, would have fallen into oblivion. This is clear evidence of writing in the court of Jerusalem in the late tenth century BCE. Third, some lists that are included in the histories of David and Solomon must have been drawn from old written sources (e.g., 2 Sam. 8:16–18; 20:23–26; 23:8– 39; 1 Kgs. 4:2–19; 9:15–18). The installation of the office of scribe in the courts of David and Solomon is related in three of these lists (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:3). These three instances, when combined, lead to the conclusion that writing was introduced in the court of Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE, in the time of David or Solomon. Scribes operated in the court of Jerusalem as the king’s private secretaries and as officials in the administration of the kingdom. Other officials enumerated in the above-mentioned lists may indicate the emergence of a court in tenth century Jerusalem. The need for a court at this early period will be apparent from a comparison of the distribution of settlement in the tenth century with that of the LB Age II (below). The fourth source consists of many biblical descriptions, written at different times and using different genres (e.g., historiography, prophecy, hymn, liturgy). They describe David as the conqueror of Jerusalem and the founder of the royal dynasty that lasted until the end of the Judean monarchy. The new stele from Tel Dan indicates that the Kingdom of Judah was called BethDavid in the second half of the ninth century BCE (Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995). The eponymic/dynastic name “Bīt-PN” is typical of many of the new West Semitic kingdoms that emerged in the Fertile Crescent in the early first millennium BCE. The “son” (mār) of a tribal eponym, or of the founder of a dynasty, is designated “of bīt PN” (Ungnad 1906). Thus, it is evident both that David was already regarded as the founder of the local dynasty of Judah in the ninth century BCE and that the name Beth-David for the Kingdom of Judah fits perfectly the ancient Near Eastern usage of names attribution (Na’aman 1995, with earlier literature). This lends further support to the biblical account of David as conqueror of Jerusalem and as founder of the Kingdom of Judah and its royal dynasty. Fifth, The building and dedication of the temple of Jerusalem is described in great detail in the Book of Kings. I agree with Van Seters (1983:309–310) that the description of the temple with all its appurtenances is the work of the Deuteronomistic historian and reflects the temple of the late Judean monarchy. Still, the memory of Solomon as builder of the temple in its initial stage must be authentic, and it is even possible that the historian had seen a Solomonic building inscription from the dedication of the original temple.


11

Moreover, Mesopotamian royal inscriptions dealing with old buildings that needed restoration frequently surveyed their history and mentioned their founder’s name. Even when the text speaks of a new building intended to replace or improve an old edifice, it opens with a survey of the past (Hurowitz 1992:131–133). Thus, the historian, when briefly surveying the history of the temple, might have consulted late building inscription(s) that mentioned Solomon. These facts strongly support the biblical claims (a) that David conquered Jerusalem and made it his capital; (b) that he founded the royal dynasty of Jerusalem; (c) that Solomon built the temple (though on a much smaller scale than the one built in the late monarchial period); and (d) that a court was established in the new capital with scribes among its officials. An ideology of a divine guidance of the king and his dynasty quickly arose, and the new rulers used propaganda to consolidate their thrones and royal status. We may further assume that, like all Syro-Palestinian rulers, those of the Jerusalemite dynasty were considered kings both by their neighbors and by the inhabitants of the kingdom. Isa. 7:17a “The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ehpraim departed from Judah.” The prophecy is original Isaianic and is an independent witness of the break-up of a united monarchy of Judah and Ephraim, parallel to the detailed narrative of the division of the kingdom at Solomon’s death (1 Kgs. 12:16–24).

Tenth Century Jerusalem and the Emergence of the Israelite State What was the number of settlements and the scope of population governed from the new court of Jerusalem? Recent surveys supply this essential information. Overall, about 255 Iron Age I sites have been discovered in the central hill country of Palestine (Zertal 1994:54–59; Ofer 1994:102; Finkelstein 1994:159). It is more difficult to determine the number of settlements in Iron Age IIA (the tenth century), due to the well-known problem of the inner division of Iron Age II pottery. Taking into account a moderate increase of settlement, we may assume that the overall number of sites in the Cisjordanian central highlands was approximately 300–350 (compared with about 30 sites in LB II). Even if we assume for a moment that the United Monarchy encompassed only the highlands on both sides of the Jordan, the large number of settlements within its confines required the creation of administrative apparatus to manage the districts of the new kingdom. Tenth century Jerusalem must have been a highland stronghold. Like the Canaanite highland centers of the second millennium BCE and other forts found in Western Asia in recent times (Rowton 1976; 1977:190–198), Jerusalem

12


served as a seat of the ruling dynasty and the governing elite, hence, the name “the stronghold of Zion” for the City of David (2 Sam. 5:7; 1 Chr. 11:5). The biblical evidence of the building of a temple, of the establishment of a court, and of the role of scribes in the new court of Jerusalem fit well the socio-archaeological picture that emerged from the new surveys of the highlands. The scope of settlement in the highland areas is also relevant for the discussion of the so-called “Davidic empire.” According to the biblical account, David conquered Philistia, Aram, Ammon, Moab and Edom and brought all these kingdoms under his yoke. But the great kingdom was short-lived and fell apart immediately after David’s death (1 Kgs. 9:11–13, 16; 11:14–25). Some “minimalist” scholars assume that it is impossible that such an “empire” (i.e., great kingdom) was conquered by David and governed from Jerusalem (Garbini 1983:1–16; 1988:21–32; Jamieson-Drake 1991:136–145; Knauf 1991a:170–180; Thompson 1992:331–334, 409–412; Davies 1992:69). But is it really impossible? By way of comparison, we may recall the offensive of Lab’ayu, king of Shechem. Although his kingdom had about 25 settlements, his offensive spread from Piḫilum, east of the Jordan, to Gezer and Gath in southern Canaan. The Iron Age IIA highland settled population on both sides of the Jordan was approximately 15–20 times larger than that in LB II Shechem, and David also might have conquered some lowland districts and mustered their population. The abundance of manpower enabled David to mobilize a great army and conquer large areas. The conquest was short-lived, and the “empire” fell apart immediately after the conqueror’s death. Therefore, no established administration was set up in the subjugated areas. Only the might of David and the fear of his army might have kept them under his dominion. There are many historical analogies for short-lived conquests of large territories that ended with the death of the conqueror. There is, therefore, nothing impossible about the biblical account of David’s conquest. Unfortunately, there is no other source with which to verify the historicity of the biblical account of David’s wars and his territorial expansion. In his discussion of the symbolic attainment of the world order, Liverani (1990:59) wrote as follows: At the ideological level, the physical presence of the king in a remote country is sufficient (although necessary) to demonstrate his political control thereon. A victorious raid, even a pacific one, an expedition aiming at knowledge more than at conquest, is the required symbolic achievement — not an effective administrative organization (which could in case eventually follow). It is in fact unbelievable that an area where the king freely walks, receives tributes, subdues people, should not be a part of the organized world, whatever be the local political system.

This ideological concept, which is supported by many historical examples, may well explain the biblical description of David’s great kingdom, pro-


13

vided that, at a certain moment in his career, he actually reached the remote areas attributed to him in biblical historiography. What happened in the stronghold of Jerusalem after the rebellion and the establishment of the Northern Kingdom? According to the (yet unpublished) new surveys, 17 Iron Age I sites have been discovered in the hill country of Judah (Ofer 1994:102) and 10 sites in the district of Benjamin (Finkelstein and Magen 1993:26). Ofer (1994:102–104) suggests that 34 Judean highland sites were settled in Iron Age IIA. The number of Iron Age IIA sites in the territory of Benjamin is unknown. We may assume that, following the division of the monarchy, Jerusalem governed about 35–45 highland sites, as well as a few more sites in the Shephelah and the Beer-sheba Valley. There must have been a sharp reduction in its power and influence, and yet it was still able to govern more settlements and muster more people than the kingdom of Shechem in LB II. On the establishment of the Kingdom of Judah, Thompson (1992:312) writes, There is . . . little basis for affirming the existence of a kingdom of Judah in the South. Not until well after the time that tradition marks out for the “United Monarchy” was the population of Judah sufficiently stable to support a comprehensive regional political entity. This must have occurred at the earliest sometime during the course of the ninth century.

Further on he writes (Thompson 1992:331): It is unlikely, in this early period of settlement during the final decades of Iron I and the early part of the Iron II period, that any single regional center in southern Palestine had held sufficient power or density of population to dominate other established centers of population.

And he concludes (Thompson 1992:332): This same isolation restricted its (i.e., Jerusalem) power and political influence largely to its own region, and the small subregions contiguous to it. The limited excavations in Jerusalem confirm this picture of a small provincial commercial center.. . .

We may ask on what Thompson bases these far-reaching conclusions. He neither discusses the archaeological data in detail nor examines the longue durée; he doesn’t compare the Iron Age IIA data to other documented periods. His conclusions neither take into account all the available evidence nor do justice to the complexity of the problem. On the basis of the data presented above, I would suggest that Judah in the late tenth-ninth centuries BCE was a peripheral small and powerless kingdom governed by its local dynasty from the highland stronghold of Jerusalem. Its rulers considered themselves kings and were so regarded by their neighbors and inhabitants. According to “mod-

14


ern” sociological definitions, late tenth-ninth century Judah should be defined as a chiefdom whose center was the stronghold of Jerusalem, whose territory encompassed hilly and neighboring lowland and Negebite areas, and whose population was a mixture of rural and pastoral elements.

Conclusions An understanding of the problems involved in the excavations of multilayered highland sites and an examination of the long-range perspective are essential for the correct appreciation of the political position of Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE. Several conclusions are appropriate. (a) No negative conclusions about Jerusalem in the Late Bronze II and Iron Age I-IIA may be drawn from the results of the excavations conducted on the Ophel Hill. Its political position in the hill country in these periods may be established only by the examination of other data. (b) The lesson learned from the Amarna letters is very important for the discussion. These letters enable us to reconstruct in some detail the territorial, political, social and economic situation in the highlands of Canaan in the 14th century BCE and to compare it with the LB II archaeological data. Setting the documentary evidence vis à vis the archaeological data in this period is the point of departure for making inferences to other periods in which the documentary evidence is either lacking or full of difficulties. Such a diachronic and synchronic study is particularly instructive in cases where the ecological background is identical — as either, for example, the comparison between the highlands of Canaan in LB Age II and Iron Age IIA or the interpretation of the Iron Age IIA archaeological data. (c) The surveys conducted in the hill country indicate the enormous growth of settlement and population between the LB II and Iron Age IIA. In contrast to the shortage of manpower in Late Bronze Age kingdoms, there was an enormous population increase in the Iron Age, which enabled the emerging states to mobilize many people and send them on military operations and corvée work (2 Sam. 20:24; 1 Kgs. 4:6; 5:27–28; 9:15; 11:28; 12:3–14, 18). (d) A careful analysis of some biblical references and archaeological evidence, coupled with the lessons learned from the Amarna tablets, leads to the conclusion that Jerusalem must have been a governing center of a kingdom in the tenth century BCE. The “stronghold of Zion” was the seat of the Davidic dynasty and the ruling elite. From their highland stronghold, they governed the central hill country on both sides of the Jordan and possibly some lowland districts in the vicinity. The precise extent of the kingdom in the tenth century BCE is difficult to define and depends on the analysis of the histories of David and Solomon. It is even possible that David formed a short-lived great kingdom, as related in the Bible, although this cannot be established with certainty.


15

(e) Following the division of the monarchy, the dynasty of Jerusalem governed only the southernmost parts of its former kingdom, but the number of settlements in its domain was greater than that of the LB II highland kingdom of Shechem. The Aramaic stele recently discovered at Tel Dan further supports the account of the Book of Kings about ninth century Judah and accords well with the picture of a small peripheral kingdom that arises from the analysis of the archaeological evidence. According to “modern” socio-archaeological criteria, Judah was a polymorphous chiefdom in the late tenth-ninth centuries and was transformed to a state only in the eighth century BCE. (f) scholars must always take into account the gap between our modern definitions of states and societies and the self-perception of ancient societies. A clear line must be drawn between the two sets of terms, and scholars should state explicitly which terminology they are using. It is best to present the two definitions side by side and explain the differences. Modern definition may be the more “scientifically” accurate, but it is equally important to analyze ancient societies according to their own terms and self-perceptions.

References Adamthwaite, M.R. 1992. Lab’aya’s Connection with Shechem Reassessed. Abr-Nahrain 30: 1–19. Barkay, G. 1990. A Late Bronze Age Egyptian Temple in Jerusalem? IEJ 46: 23–43. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Campbell, E.F. 1965. Shechem in the Amarna Archive. In: Wright, G.E. ed. Shechem: The Biography of Biblical City. London: 191–97. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 148). Sheffield. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Finkelstein, I. 1988–89. The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980–1987: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 15–16: 117–183. Finkelstein, I. 1991. The Central Hill Country in the Intermediate Bronze Age. IEJ 41: 19– 45. Finkelstein, I. 1992. Middle Bronze Age “Fortifications”: A Reflection of Social Organization and Political Formation. Tel Aviv 19: 201–220. Finkelstein, I. 1994. The Emergence of Israel: A Phase in the Cyclic History of Canaan in the Third and Second Millennia BCE. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 150–178. Finkelstein, I. and Magen, Y. eds. 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Franken, H.J. and Steiner, M.L. 1992. Urusalim and Jebus. ZAW 104: 110–111. Garbini, G. 1983. L’impero di David. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Series III 13: 1–20.

16


Garbini, G. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. London. Goldwasser, O. 1991. An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Tel Aviv 18: 248–253. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2nd revised ed. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 5). Wiesbaden. Horowitz, W. 1995. Trouble in Canaan — A Letter of the el-Amarna Period on a Clay Cylinder from Beth-Shean. Qadmoniot 27: 84–86 (Hebrew). Hurowitz, V.(A.) 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 115). Sheffield. Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archaeological Approach. (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 9). Sheffield. Kenyon, K.A. 1974. Digging Up Jerusalem. London. Knauf, E.A. 1991a. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. In: Lipiński, E. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44). Leuven: 167–186. Knauf, E.A. 1991b. From History to Interpretation. In: Edelman, D.V. ed. The Fabric of History. Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 127). Sheffield: 26–64. Kochavi, M. 1972. The Land of Judah. In: Kochavi, M. ed. Judaea Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: 19–90 (Hebrew). Landsberger, B. 1926. Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der Babylonischen Welt. Islamica 2: 355– 372. (Trans. from German. Jacobson, T. Foster, B. and von Siebenthal, H. 1976. The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World. Sources and Monographs of the Ancient Near East 1: 157–171). Lemche, N.P. 1994. Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8: 165–190. Lemche, N.P. and Thompson, T.L. 1994. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 3–22. Liverani, M. 1990. Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 B.C. Padova. Moran, W.L. 1975. The Syrian Scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna Letters. In: Goedicke, H. and Roberts, J.J.M. eds. Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Baltimore and London: 146–166. Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London. Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1981. Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of Canaan. IEJ 31: 172– 185. Na’aman, N, 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–193. Na’aman, N. 1992a. Canaanite Jerusalem and Its Central Hill Country Neighbours in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291. Na’aman, N. 1992b. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 9: 71–93. Na’aman, N. 1995. Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 79: 17– 24. Ofer, A. 1994. “All the Hill Country of Judah”: from a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 92–121.


17

Pintore, F. 1972 Transiti di truppe e schemi epistolari nella Siria Egiziana dell’età de elAmarna. Oriens Antiquus 11: 101–31. Redford, D.B. 1990. Egypt and Canaan in the New Kingdom (Beer-Sheva IV). Beer-sheva. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Rowton, M.B. 1976. Dimorphic Structure and the Tribal Elite. In: Al-Bahit. Festschrift Joseph Henninger. St. Augustin: 219–257. Rowton, M.B. 1977. Dimorphic Structure and the Parasocial Element. JNES 36: 181–98. Scheil, V. 1892. Varia. Revue Biblique 1: 116–117. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I. (Qedem 19). Jerusalem. Tarler, D. and Cahill, J.M. 1992. David, City of. In: Freedman, D.N. ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2, New York: 52–67. Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources. Leiden, New York and Köln. Thompson, T.L. 1995. “House of David”: An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh as Godfather. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9: 59–74. Ungnad, A. 1906. Jaua, mār Ḫumrî. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 9: 224–226. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. Wightman, G.J. 1993. The Walls of Jerusalem. From the Canaanites to the Mamluks. (Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 4). Sydney. Zertal, A. 1994. “To the Land of the Perizzites and the Giants”: On the Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 47–69.

The Kingdom of Ishbaal1 The territories over which Ishbaal son of Saul reigned from his capital of Mahanaim are described in 2 Sam. 2:9. Five areas are listed: Gilead, ’šwry, Jezreel, Ephraim and Benjamin; the overall territory is defined as “Israel in its entirety.” The inclusion of Gilead, Ephraim and Benjamin in the district list is self-evident; the appearance of ’šwry and Jezreel, on the other hand, involves serious problems. Various solutions have been offered by scholars to overcome these difficulties, but none of them was able to explain why the author selected these two toponyms to define Ishbaal’s territory. All scholars agree that the plain of Jezreel was under Philistine and Canaanite control before the Israelite-Philistine battle near Mount Gilboa (but see Aharoni 1961:114–115; 1967:255–257) and that following the great victory over Saul, the Philistines strengthened their grasp on the plain (see 1 Sam. 31:7). The assumed Israelite district of Jezreel cannot refer to the plain, because it was located outside of Ishbaal’s kingdom. Most scholars suggested that the region of “Jezreel” centered around the town of Jezreel that was located on a southern hill overlooking the valley (Herrmann 1975:144, n. 34; McCarter 1984:87; Edelman 1985:87–88; Miller and Hayes 1986:139). It remains entirely unclear however, why this small area was mentioned alongside the other well-known and larger districts of Gilead, Ephraim and Benjamin. Some scholars suggested that Jezreel was a town of Issachar (Josh. 19:18) and that the text reflects a kind of Israelite claim over the tribal inheritance (Alt 1953:116–117; Soggin 1975:42; Donner 1984:181; see Ahlström 1986:91). The suggestion, however, is unlikely. First, most of the inheritance of Issachar (Josh. 19:17–23) was located in the plain of Jezreel and north of it, in areas situated outside the kingdom of Ishbaal. It was conquered by David and incorporated into the Israelite kingdom and only then settled by Israelite families (Gal 1982; Na’aman 1986:93–94). The concept of a tribal allotment of Issachar cannot reflect the reality of Ishbaal’s time. Second, the assumption that biblical texts reflect early Israelite hypothetical claims on tribal territories is doubtful (see Na’aman 1986:83–84, 88–95, with earlier literature in p. 83, n.

1. Reprinted with permission. Biblische Notizen 54 (1990), 33–37.

18

The Kingdom of Ishbaal

19

20). The author of 2 Sam. 2:9 intended to describe a historical reality and not hypothetical claims. The tribe of Manasseh is not mentioned in the list. Kallai (1986:31), noting its absence, has suggested that “Jezreel” refers primarily “to the northern parts of Manasseh, or to the whole territory of Manasseh, in so far as it existed, minus the region of Dor.” This bold suggestion is not supported by any biblical reference to Jezreel and reflects a desperate attempt to make territorial sense out of the list of five regions in 2 Sam. 2:9. Even more problematic than the place of Jezreel is the location of ’šwry. The versions offer conflicting testimonies, but the gentilic form is preserved in most witnesses and is probably original (McCarter 1984:82–83). The majority of scholars read it hā’āšērî (Targum: ‘1 dbyt ’šr; see Judg. 1:23), i.e., “the Asherite” (see the literature cited by Edelman 1985:90, notes 4–5, Donner 1984:181; Kallai 1986:31). However, the inclusion of the Galilean tribe of Asher in the list is unlikely. First, the gentilic form remains inexplicable in this solution. Second, there is no evidence to support the assumption that Asher was a name for the entire area of Galilee. The clans of Asher were situated in the western Galilee, between the Acco plain in the west and the Upper Galilee mountainous range in the east, having only a marginal place among the north “Israelite” groups. It is hardly conceivable that the area of Galilee was called by this “tribal” name. Third, the Philistines and the Canaanites remained in control of the plains of Jezreel and Beth-shean throughout the reigns of Saul and Ishbaal. The Galilee region was cut off from the kingdom of Saul and could not have been part of the Israelite state at that time (Edelman 1985:86–88). Some scholars suggested adopting the Syriac and Vulgate versions ges(s)uri, “the Geshurites,” and assumed that the region of Geshur was either under Ishbaal’s control or was claimed by Israel (see the literature cited by Edelman 1985:90, n. 6; Miller and Hayes 1986:139–140, 169). It is clear, however, that Geshur was an independent small kingdom situated on the northeastern border of the kingdom of Ishbaal and cannot have been part of his kingdom (Edelman 1985:85). For the doubtful assumption of early Israelite hypothetical claims on adjacent regions, see the criticism above. Edelman (1985) suggested reconstructing an early consonantal text h’šyry, identifying it with an Asherite enclave supposedly situated in the frontier region west of Benjamin and Ephraim (see Ahlström 1986:88–89). The assumed location of the “Asherites” in this area, which was an integral part of the inheritances of the two tribes, is inferred from the analysis of the Asherite genealogy of 1 Chr. 7:30–39 (Edelman 1988, with earlier literature in p. 21, n. 1). Elsewhere (Na’aman 1991:100–105), I suggested that originally the genealogy of 1 Chr. 7:31b–39 had nothing to do with the Asherite genealogy in vv. 30–31a. Its affiliation with Asher is the work of the Chronicler who identified

20


Heber, the son of Beriah and grandson of Asher (Gen. 46:17; Num. 26:44–45), with Heber, the founder of the genealogy in 1 Chr. 7:32–39, thus, assigning the latter genealogy to the Galilean tribe of Asher. There is no basis for the assumption of an Asherite enclave situated in the region west of Benjamin and Ephraim. The area was inhabited by various Ephraimite and Benjaminite clans and families and was included within the inheritance of Ephraim and Benjamin in the district list of 2 Sam. 2:9. In light of the problems involved with the mention of Jezreel and ’/gšwry within the district list of Ishbaal, a fresh examination of the text is desirable. As a point of departure, I would like to emphasize that the list of areas that comprised the Israelite kingdom under Ishbaal appears within the overall description of the history of Saul and David and forms an integral part of the chain of development. It is against the background of the overall story that the place of Jezreel and ’/gšwry in 2 Sam. 2:9 should be interpreted. In the story of Saul’s defeat near Mount Gilboa, it is mentioned explicitly that the Philistines camped in the plain of Jezreel (1 Sam. 28:4; 29:11), and Saul and his troops camped by the spring at Jezreel, near Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 28:4; 29:1). Following their victory, the Philistines settled in the towns of the plain formerly held by the Israelites (1 Sam. 31:7). The Israelites, according to the story, withdrew from both the plain and its periphery. Thus, the words w‘1 yzr‘’l in the description of Ishbaal’s kingdom can only mean, “and up to (the border of) Jezreel.” A somewhat similar solution may also be applied to ’/gšwry. The gentilic form strongly supports the reading hgšwry (“the Geshurites”) adopted by the Syriac and Vulgate versions. I would suggest tentatively transcribing v. 9a thus: wymlkhw ‘l hg1‘d |gbwl|? hgšwry; “and he made him king over Gilead boundary? of the Geshurites.” The preposition ‘d was possibly omitted due to haplography; the noun gbwl was subsequently “corrected” into w‘l in accordance with the overall structure of the description in v. 9. For the reconstructed text note particular Josh. 12:5: . . . wbkl hbšn ‘d gbwl hgšwry whm‘kty wḥṣy hg1‘d gbwl syḥwn mlk ḥšbwn; “. . . and over all Bashan to the boundary of the Geshurites and the Maacathites and over half Gilead the boundary of Sihon king of Heshbon” (see e.g., Noth 1953:66; Barthélemy 1982:22). Common to the two texts are the omission of ‘d due to haplography with g1‘d and the delimitation of a certain territory by the “boundary of the Geshurites.” Compare also: (a) Josh. 13:11 . . . whgl‘d wgbwl hgšwry whm‘kty; “and Gilead and the region of the Geshurites and Maacathites.” (b) Deut. 3:14 . . . kl ḥbl ’rgb ‘d gbwl hgšwry whm‘kty; “all the region of Argob to the boundary of the Geshurites and Maacathites.” The Place of Geshur within the borders of Ishbaal’s kingdom fits well into the story of David’s rise to power. It was emphasized above that the scope

The Kingdom of Ishbaal

21

of Ishbaal’s kingdom is an integral part of the description of the history of his time. And indeed, the kingdom of Geshur and its king, Talmai, play a distinctive role in the story. David married Maacah, Talmai’s daughter, in the first years if his kingship in Hebron. Their son, Absalom, is David’s third son born in Hebron (2 Sam. 3:3). Later, Absalom found it necessary to seek refuge in the kingdom of Geshur (2 Sam. 13:37). According to the story he stayed there for three years (2 Sam. 13:38) before he got permission to return to Judah. Geshur is portrayed in the story of David as an independent kingdom bordering Israel on its northeastern boundary (Mazar 1961). Its place in the district list of Ishbaal serves as a kind of introduction to the story of David, just as the mention of Jezreel in the district list is closely linked with the story of Saul’s last battle against the Philistines. The territory governed by Ishbaal from his capital of Mahanaim is described in 2 Sam. 2:9 thus: “and he made him king over Gilead boundary? of the Geshurites, and up to (the border of) Jezreel, and over Ephraim and over Benjamin, that is, over Israel in its entirety.” Ishbaal’s kingdom encompassed three main districts: (a) the Gilead, i.e., the Transjordanian Israelite areas bordering Geshur on its northern side; (b) Ephraim, i.e., the hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh up to the Plain of Jezreel; and (c) Benjamin, i.e., the territory of the king’s tribe. The whole area was regarded by the author as “Israel in its entirety” (compare 2 Sam. 3:12, 21), as sposed to “the house of Judah” (2 Sam. 2:4, 7, 11), which was ruled by David, Israel’s rival and future king.

References Aharoni, Y. 1961. The Districts of Israel and Judah. In: Malamat, A. ed. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Jerusalem: 110–131. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahlström, G.W. 1986. Who Were The Israelites? Winona Lake, IN. Alt, A. 1953. Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. In: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel 1. München: 89–125. (Original publication: 1925. Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig). Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Aneien Testament. vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Donner, H. 1984. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. Vol. 1: Von den Anfängen bis zur Staatenbildungszeit. Göttingen. Edelman, D. 1985. The “Ashurites” of Eshbaal’s State (2 Sam. 2.9). PEQ 117: 85–91. Edelman, D. 1988. The Asherite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:30–40. Biblical Research 33: 13– 23. Gal, Z. 1982. The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations. Tel Aviv 9: 79–86. Herrmann, S. 1975. A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. London.

22


Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and Leiden. McCarter, P.K. 1984. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City. Mazar, B. 1961. Geshur and Maacah. JBL 80: 16–28. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. London. Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1991. Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies of Asher and Ephraim. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49: 99–111. Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Soggin, J.A. 1975. The Reign of ’Ešba‘al, Son of Saul. In: Old Testament and Oriental Studies. (Biblica et Orientalia 29). Rome: 31–49.

Sources and Composition in the History of David1 1. The Introduction of Writing in the Court of Jerusalem The date of the introduction of writing is a major problem for the evaluation of the sources regarding the history of David. Both the installation of the office of scribe in the courts of David and Solomon and several lists that were possibly drawn from original documents are usually regarded as indications of writing in the tenth-century court of Jerusalem. Many scholars assume that the Deuteronomistic historian had before him original documents from the time of the two kings. Recently, however, some scholars have questioned this assumption. They suggested instead that (a) Jerusalem did not become the center of a state before the eighth century BCE and (b) writing in the court of Jerusalem did not antedate that century. They concluded that the history of the United Monarchy was composed only on the basis of oral traditions and is devoid of historical foundations (Jamieson-Drake 1991:138–145; Knauf 1991a:39; 1991b:172; Thompson 1992:409–410; 1995; Davies 1992:67–70; Lemche 1994:183–189; Lemche and Thompson 1994). No extra-biblical source mentions either David or Solomon. This is not surprising. Detailed accounts on first millennium intra-state events appear for the first time in the ninth century BCE. All Syro-Palestinian inscriptions of the tenth century refer to local affairs and shed no light on international affairs. Even if David and Solomon accomplished the deeds attributed to them in the Bible, no source would have mentioned their names. The silence of tenth century sources neither proves nor disproves the biblical account of the United Monarchy (contra Garbini 1988:16; Knauf 1991b:171–172). There is one exception to the local nature of tenth century inscriptions: the topographical list of Shishak. The Egyptian king left a long list of places conquered in the course of his Asiatic campaign. An analysis of the topographical list indicates that the campaign was directed against Israel and the non-Judahite parts of the Negev, avoiding almost entirely the kingdom of Judah. 1. Reprinted with permission. In: V. Fritz and P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 228), Sheffield 1996, 170–186.

23

24


1 Kgs. 14:25–28 refers to Shishak’s campaign. The text makes it clear that it deals largely with the handing over of Solomon’s golden shields to Shishak and their replacement by copper shields. Details of the Egyptian campaign are minimal, and the description of the campaign is schematic. What might have been the source used by the historian for the description? In my opinion, it must have been a text in which a datum appeared indicating that, in the fifth year of Rehoboam, golden shields were delivered to Shishak, king of Egypt, and were replaced by copper shields. The historian logically interpreted the datum to mean that Shishak’s campaign, about which he had no other source, was directed against Jerusalem and that the treasures of the palace and the temple were then delivered to Egypt. He wrote long after the conclusion of the campaign he described and was, therefore, entirely dependent on his sources. His interpretation of Shishak’s campaign may look incomplete and even misleading, but it does not conflict with historical reality: The campaign indeed reached the area of Jerusalem and a heavy tribute was paid to Egypt on that occasion (Na’aman 1992:79–86, with earlier literature). The account of Shishak’s campaign in the Book of Kings indicates that scribal activity took place in the court of Jerusalem in the late tenth century BCE. One would naturally assume that it was not introduced by a petty king like Rehoboam, but rather by one of his ancestors, either David or Solomon. Indeed, royal scribes are mentioned in David’s and Solomon’s lists of high officials (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:3). This accords with some records that are included in the history of Solomon and were probably drawn from old written sources. For example: 1. The list of Solomon’s high officials (1 Kgs. 4:2–6). 2. The list of Solomon’s twelve officers and their districts (1 Kgs. 4:9–19). 3. Details of Solomon’s building activity in Jerusalem and elsewhere in his kingdom (1 Kgs. 9:15, 17–18). The list of David’s officers (šālīšîm) (2 Sam. 23:8–39) is certainly drawn from a very old document. The lists of David’s wives and sons (2 Sam. 3:2–5; 5:14–16) might have been extracted from an original list. The lists of his officials (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 20:23–26) might go back to an old document, but equally might have been drawn from the list of Solomon’s officials, because most of the names in the latter were sons of those mentioned in the former. I would like to suggest epigraphic evidence that supports the assumption that scribal activity had already taken place in Jerusalem by the tenth century BCE. A widespread use of hieratic numerals and signs appear in Israelite and Judean ostraca and weights of the eighth-seventh centuries BCE. They do not appear in documents of Israel’s neighbors, only in texts written in the Hebrew script. Egyptian relations with the Philistine and Phoenician kingdoms were much closer in the ninth-early eighth centuries than with Israel

Sources and Composition in the History of David

25

and Judah, and it is hardly conceivable that hieratic signs would then have entered only the Hebrew script. Moreover, no definite eighth-seventh century paleographical parallels have been found in Egypt for many hieratic signs (Lemaire and Vernus 1983), and use of the so-called “abnormal hieratic” was waning in Egypt at that time (Goldwasser 1991:251, n. 2). It is clear that the hieratic signs entered the Hebrew script before the ninth century BCE. Writing in hieratic is known from southern Canaan in the late thirteenthtwelfth centuries BCE. Goldwasser (1991:251–252), therefore, has suggested that Egyptian or Egyptian-trained scribes, cut off from their homeland in the late twelfth century, educated local Canaanite scribes, who in their turn passed on their knowledge to the new court of Israel, probably in the Age of the United Monarchy.2 The long gap in the use of hieratic between the late twelfth and early eighth centuries is greatly narrowed by the assumption that scribes entered the court of Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE, gradually developed the Hebrew script and spread their knowledge to north Israelite centers. Canaanite centers like Gaza, Ashkelon or Gezer could have been the transmitters of the proto-Canaanite scribal tradition in the early Iron Age.3 We may conclude that the appearance of hieratic numerals and signs in the Hebrew script of Israel and Judah supports the assumption that scribal activity was introduced in the court of Jerusalem no later than the time of Solomon and possibly by David’s time. It is commonly accepted today that historiography developed in Judah no earlier than the eighth century BCE and that the Deuteronomistic history was composed either in the late seventh or early sixth century BCE. The earliest Judean inscriptions are dated to the second half of the eighth century and the spread of alphabetic writing in the kingdom took place only in the seventh century. Writing in the tenth-ninth centuries BCE must have been confined to a small group of scribes in the court of Jerusalem and was mainly used for administration and for diplomatic exchange.

2. The Chronicle of Early Israelite Kings The majority of the narratives about David’s rise to power and his time on the throne are not susceptible to source analysis. These stories may be exam2. There is also a possibility that the borrowing of hieratical signs and numerals took place directly from Egypt during the tenth century BCE (Goldwasser 1991:251, n. 2). 3. A somewhat similar problem is involved with the migration of the script from south Canaan to south Arabia. The latest proto-Canaanite inscriptions date from the twelfth century, and the earliest Sabaean inscriptions are no earlier than the eighth/seventh century BCE (Knauf 1989).

26


ined according to literary, ideological and theological criteria. Their use as historical sources depends mainly on the trust of a scholar in the authenticity of biblical literature, on the assumption that they rest on oral traditions and are not mere literary novels, and on the belief that they include at least some germs of truth. There are other accounts that relate historical episodes in a way that enables us to try analyzing them as historical sources. As my subject is “composition and redaction,” rather than the history of the United Monarchy, I will concentrate on tracing the sources that could have reached the author and allowed him to describe the history of David in a fairly reliable manner. The historicity of the accounts will be discussed only sporadically and briefly. a. David’s Wars with the Arameans David’s rival in his wars with the Arameans is called “Hadadezer ben Rehob king of Zobah” (2 Sam. 8:3, 12). Scholars have long recognized that “ben Rehob” does not refer to Hadadezer’s father, but rather to his land of origin and that he was a king of Beth-rehob and Zobah. Two biblical references (Num. 13:21; Judg. 18:28) indicate that Beth-rehob covered most of the Beqa‘ of Lebanon, from the area north of Dan up to Lebo-hamath. Zobah is located in the northern Beqa‘ and northern Anti-Lebanon region, south of the kingdom of Hamath. Winckler (1895:141–143; 1901:150) was the first to note the parallel between Hadadezer’s epithet and that of Ba’asa “mār Ruḫūbi KUR Amanaya” of the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III. It is well known that the Assyrians referred to many kingdoms by eponymic or dynastic names, and that the combination mār Ruḫūbi should be rendered “son of Bīt-Ruḫūbi” (Ungnad 1906). Forrer (1932a:134; 1932b:328) proposed identifying KUR Amana with the Anti-Lebanon mountain range and referring the text to the kingdom of Zobah located there. Thus, Hadadezer and Ba’asa were natives of Beth-rehob,s and their kingdom encompassed the regions of Beth-rehob and Zobah/Amana. The two dedication inscriptions to Hazael from Samos and Eretria (for recent discussions, see Bron and Lemaire 1989; Eph‘al and Naveh 1989) should be translated as follows: “That which Hadad gave our lord Hazael from ‘Unqi in the year that our lord crossed the River.” When discussing the two inscriptions, I suggested that it was Hazael who unified the Aramean kingdom of Damascus with the kingdom of Beth-rehob and Zobah for the first time. According to my analysis, Hadadezer and Ba’asa were natives of Beth-rehob, and their ancestral kingdom included two regions: Beth-rehob and Zobah/ Amana (Na’aman 1995).


27

It seems to me that the figure of Hadadezer, “ben Rehob, king of Zobah,” was modeled upon the historical figure of Hazael, his most successful heir to the throne of Beth-rehob. Several distinct features are common to the two kings: 1. The area under their hegemony extended from Transjordan in the south to the Euphrates. The extent of Hadadezer’s domain in the south is indicated by the dispatch of his troops to help the Ammonites against David (2 Sam. 10:6–7) and in the north by his ability to mobilize troops from “Aram, which is beyond the River” (2 Sam. 10:16). Ēber ha-nāhār is identical to Assyrian Ebirnāri, which refers to the areas west of the Euphrates. Also, David conducted a surprise attack on Hadadezer when he was on his way “to leave/erect his stela on the River” (2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Chr. 18:13). “The River” is, of course, the Euphrates. Hazael’s hegemonic power in all the areas west of the Euphrates is indicated in several inscriptions and in the Bible (Lemaire 1992:101–106, with earlier literature; 1993). 2. Both rulers headed a coalition of vassal kings. Thus, according to 2 Sam. 10:16, following the Aramean defeat at Helam all the kings who were vassals of Hadadezer became Israel’s vassals (2 Sam. 10:16). The list of Hazael’s vassals is indicated by the stela of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Lua‘sh (see Lemaire 1993). 3. Both were able to recruit an enormous number of chariots and troops for battle. 4. Aram Damascus was under their power. As suggested above, Hazael took over Damascus and usurped its throne and, therefore, was called by an Assyrian scribe “the son of nobody.” No king of Damascus is mentioned in the account of David’s wars. The absence of a king is explained by the assumption that the author deliberately described Damascus as a conquered district in Hadadezer’s kingdom that sent troops to support its lord after his defeat (2 Sam. 8:5–6). It was only after David’s death that Damascus became the seat of its own king (2 Kgs. 11:23–24). Hazael reigned in the second half of the ninth century BCE. Details of his political and military achievements were hardly known in the time of the Deuteronomistic historian (the late seventh or early sixth century BCE). The triple designation “Hadadezer ben Rehob king of Zobah” (2 Sam. 8:3, 12) is known only from the ninth century, and the elliptic form mār PN to designate kingdoms (“son of Bīt-PN”) scarcely appears after the eighth century BCE. I, therefore, suggest that a “chronicle of early Israelite kings” was composed in the eighth century BCE, when the historical achievements of Hazael were still very much alive. Details of David’s wars with the Arameans must have been quite vague at that time and the author of the chronicle tried to fill in the gaps with details borrowed from the late history of Hazael’s king-

28


dom. This early chronicle must have been one of the main sources on which the Deuteronomistic historian based his work (see below). Clearly, our source about David’s wars with the Arameans is problematic. Only the name of David’s major enemy, his kingdom, the names of his general (Shobach) and his allies, the location of the battle fields, and the ultimate Israelite success in battle, may date back to the time of David. Unfortunately, there can be no unqualified certainty due to the great antiquity of these historical events. b. David’s Wars with the Philistines The point of departure for the analysis is the discrepancy between the accounts of the United Monarchy and the reality of the time of the Deuteronomistic historian. According to biblical historiography, five Philistine kingdoms, each headed by a seren, ruled in the pre-monarchial and early monarchial periods. They were united in a kind of confederation and fought against Israel until David defeated them and broke their power. On the other hand, the Assyrian inscriptions and the biblical prophecy (Jer. 25:20; Amos. 1:7–8; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5–6) mention only four Philistine kingdoms: Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron. The city of Gath, which appears as primus inter pares among the five Philistine kingdoms in David’s early career, was a border city of Ashdod from the mid-eighth century BCE. One may ask, what could have been the source available to the historian that caused him to depict the Philistines in a way that differed from the reality of his own time? To answer this question, let me examine the words of Amos (6:2) about Gath: Pass over to Calneh, and see; and thence go to Hamath the great; then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are you better than these kingdoms? Or is their territory greater than your territory?

Gath appears in the text alongside two other capital cities — Calneh and Hamath. It is evident that the text refers to the three kingdoms of ‘Unqi/ Patina, Hamath and Gath. Gath lost its power before the time of Tiglath-pileser III; the prophet has been recalling past events that were better known to his audience than to us. Scholars usually examine the available sources, namely, the Assyrian inscriptions of the second half of the eighth century BCE, and assume that the text refers to events in the time of either Tiglath-pileser or Sargon II. The scholars, therefore, attribute the verse to a later disciple or redactor of Amos (Wolff 1977:275; Paul 1991:201–204; Blum 1994:32–34, with earlier literature). However, relying on these late sources is like searching under the lamppost. Despite the paucity of sources, to interpret the prophecy properly we must look for events that took place before the prophet’s time.


29

The history of Kullani (Kinalua) between its conquest by Dayyan-Ashur in 831 BCE and Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign of 738 is unknown (Michel 1955– 56:224–227; Hawkins 1974:81–83). However, it is evident that Arpad expanded in the late ninth-early eighth century BCE and that ‘Unqi/Patina lost its former power and parts of its territories (Elliger 1947; Ponchia 1991:91–96; Weippert 1992:58–59). Amos could have been referring to the destruction and decline of Kullani in the course of the struggle for the hegemony of northern Syria during that time. The capital of the kingdom of Hamath was transferred north, to the city of Hadrach (Ḫatarikka), during the late ninth century BCE. Hadrach remained the capital of the kingdom until its conquest and annexation by Tiglath-pileser III in 738 (Sader 1987:216–226, with earlier literature; Ponchia 1991:96– 97). The background for the transfer of the capital and the long decline of Hamath remains unknown (but see below). We may, therefore, speculate that it was the (possible) destruction and decline of Hamath to which the prophecy alludes. According to the account of 2 Kgs. 12:17, Hazael king of Aram marched to Philistia and captured the city of Gath. It seems to me that this violent conquest put an end to the status of Gath as an independent state (see Hammershaimb 1970:97–99). Later, it was taken by Ashdod and became a border town within Ashdod’s territory (2 Chr. 26:6; Fuchs 1994:134, line 250; 220, line 104). One may further suggest that Hazael likewise conquered and partly destroyed Hamath, Damascus’s northern neighbor — an event that led to Hamath’s long decline.4 We may conclude that the warning words of Amos could be a reference to the destruction and desolation of three SyroPalestinian capital cities in the late ninth century BCE. The biblical scribe who described Gath as an independent kingdom governed by its own seren must have recalled the city’s status prior to the time of Hazael. Therefore, he must have lived long before the time of the Deuteronomistic historian. The source available for the historian is again the chronicle of early Israelite kings, whose author lived in the eighth century BCE, not long after the time of Hazael. According to 2 Sam. 5:17–25 (and 1 Chr. 14:8–16), David fought two decisive battles against the Philistines. The first was launched in the valley of Rephaim, and David won by a frontal attack. The second battle apparently took place near Gibeon and David launched a surprise night attack and smote

4. It is tempting to restore in the ivory inscription from Arslan Tash “. . . in the year of the [captu]re of Ha[math]” (see Puech 1981). Unfortunately, the restoration cannot be verified.

30


the Philistines “from Gibeon to Gezer” (1 Chr. 14:16) (Na’aman 1994:253–254, with earlier literature). These two victories of David are referenced by the prophetic words of Isa. 28:21: “For the Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim, he will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon.” Mount Perazim refers to Baal-perazim (replacing Baal by the common noun “mount”), where David launched his first victory (2 Sam. 5:20; 1 Chr 14:11); the valley of Gibeon is the location of the second battle (1 Chr. 14:13, 16). Evidently, David’s victories over the Philistines were still commemorated in the time of Isaiah (the late eighth century BCE). 2 Sam. 8:1 summarizes David’s later wars with the Philistines thus: “After this David defeated the Philistines and subdued them and David took meteg hā-ammâ out of the hand of the Philistines.” The opening words (“after this”) may have appeared originally after 5:25; the sequential relationship of the two episodes is self-evident. It seems to me that 2 Sam. 5:17–25 is an expanded and elaborated description of the chronicle of early Israelite kings and that the text of 8:1 is a verbatim copy of the old text. It probably mentioned the five Philistine serānîm and was the source for numerous narratives about the Israelite wars with the Philistines. The early chronicle must have been the main source for the historian. He used it in different ways: sometimes he copied it verbatim, other times he expanded and elaborated it, and, in still other cases, it formed the narrow core around which a whole new story was built. c. David’s Wars against Israel’s neighbors The text of 2 Sam. 8:1 may help us to reconstruct the early form of the chronicle. It first summarizes the results of David’s wars with the Philistines, and then relates that he seized meteg hā-ammâ from them. Various suggestions have been made to decipher this enigmatic term (see, e.g., Driver 1913:279– 280; Mittmann 1983:327–332, with earlier literature; Kobayashi 1992:800). It seems to me that meteg hā-ammâ refers to a distinct booty, similar to other distinct spoils mentioned at the close of episodes that describe David’s wars against Israel’s neighbors. Thus, following his victory over Zobah, David took the quivers of gold carried by the servants of Hadadezer (2 Sam. 8:7); following the conquest of Rabbah, he took the crown of the god Milkom (2 Sam. 12:30) (for discussion, see Horn 1973; Barthélemy 1982:263–264). It seems to me that the conclusion of every war with a reference to a distinct booty is an original trait of the early chronicle and was adopted by the Deuteronomistic historian. A good parallel is offered by the Mesha inscription in which the capture of important towns culminates in the taking of a distinct spoil and its dedication to the god as his preferential share in the booty (’r’l dwdh; the vessels of YHWH).


31

What could have been the text of the chronicle that served as the main source for the long narrative of David’s war with the Ammonites? Isolating the old core in chapters 10–12 is impossible, and the first part of the early chronicle’s account cannot be reconstructed. Its closing part was possibly copied verbatim in 2 Sam. 12:29–30aα: “And David gathered all the people together and went to Rabbah, and fought against it and took it. And he took the crown of Milkom from his head.” The core of the episode of the envoy from Hamath (2 Sam. 8:9–10) should also be attributed to the early chronicle. Only a scribe who was acquainted with the realities of the tenth-eighth centuries would have described so accurately both the relationship of Damascus and Hamath and the common interests of Israel and Hamath vis à vis Aram. In the time of the Deuteronomistic historian, the former kingdoms of Damascus and Hamath were split into several provinces, and the ancient situation was forgotten. The name of the king of Hamath, and possibly some details about the delegation, could have been derived from an old memory of the historical event, but this cannot be established with certainty. Did the episodes of the wars against Moab and Edom (2 Sam. 8:2, 13–14) derive from the early chronicle? The two kingdoms were well established in the early eighth century BCE. Moreover, the episode of David’s victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (vv. 13–14) looks like a reflection of Amaziah’s victory over them in the early eighth century (2 Kgs. 14:7). In my opinion, this is another example of the device of borrowing military outlines of an actual event to depict an episode of the early history of Israel. Provided that this suggestion is acceptable, then the reign of Amaziah (about 799–771) provides a terminus post quem for the composition of the chronicle. The depiction of David’s extreme cruelty in his war with Moab (v. 2) is a reflection of the way in which the Moabites treated Israel in the time of Mesha. It looks like a literary compensation for what the Moabites had done in their wars with Israel. In the framework of literary revenge, the author attributed the subjugation of Moab and the killing of large part of its population to David. The text must have originated from a time in which the desire for revenge was strongly felt in Israel. In the time of the Deuteronomistic historian, on the other hand, the memory of bloody wars between Moab and Israel were already forgotten, and the author had no account to settle with Moab. It seems, therefore, that the core of the two episodes of Moab and Edom should also be attributed to the chronicle of early Israelite kings.

3. The Library of the Deuteronomistic Historian Few texts from the time of David and Solomon could have survived and reached the Deuteronomistic historian in their original form. They were all

32


lists originally recorded for administrative purposes. Van Seters (1983:4, 40– 51, 195–199) noted that, as far as we know, historians of the old world did not consult archives when they wrote their histories (see Momigliano 1966:212– 217). He questioned the commonly held opinion that biblical authors consulted archives and retrieved information of great antiquity from old sources. It should be noted that documents are quoted in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah for determining rights, reflecting the use of archival sources at that time (Bickerman 1946; Momigliano 1977:31–33). However, there is no evidence of a similar use of archival documents in earlier works. So, the assumption that the Deuteronomistic historian had searched in the archives of the palace and temple for source material for his composition cannot be sustained. Some other explanation must be sought for the lists which are included in the histories of David and Solomon. I would like to suggest that these lists, and many other documents, originated from the Jerusalemite palace or temple library, where they were used for the education and training of scribes.5 Redford (1986:206–228) has examined the contents of temple libraries that existed in Egypt in the second half of the first millennium BCE and concluded that they encompassed a wide range of materials with which the fully-trained scribe was supposed to be familiar (e.g., king lists, “annals,” inventories, letters, stories, ritual literature, reference compendia, etc.). This rich source material enabled Manetho to reconstruct the ancient history of Egypt in his Aegyptiaca. A Babylonian temple library (or libraries), which had a rich variety of texts (e.g., Sumerian and Akkadian myths and epics, king lists, chronicles, ritual literature, etc.), likewise enabled Berossus to write the history of the country in his Babyloniaca (Komoróczy 1973; Drews 1975; Burstein 1978; Kuhrt 1987:32–48). The contents and scope of private libraries in Assyria in the seventh century BCE were studied by Parpola (1983:8–10). He noted that they exist in considerable numbers in this period and could be quite comprehensive, containing hundreds of tablets. He further suggests (1983:10) that the libraries of specialists in a given field by no means consisted of only their professional material but could include hundreds of works outside their field of specialization. This certainly indicates the broad education and, in some cases, deep learning of the individuals in question.

It may further be noted that about one-fifth of the 30,000 tablets and 5. Jamieson-Drake (1991:148–149, 151) made the plausible suggestion that scribal training took place primarily, if not exclusively, in Jerusalem and that all professional administrators were trained exclusively in Jerusalem. For a different opinion, see Lemaire 1981:46– 54; 1984:274–281.


33

fragments in the private library of Ashurbanipal (see Lieberman 1990) are non-literary texts (e.g., legal and administrative texts, letters, reports, etc.) (Parpola 1983:6; see Oppenheim 1964:15–24). The library also contains the so-called “epic literature,” fables, proverbs, etc. This indicates the wide range of texts that may be found in a royal library in the late Iron Age period. The range of texts in the library of Jerusalem was certainly narrower than the rich palace and temple libraries of Mesopotamia and Egypt, but included all that was necessary for the education of scribes and for their manifold functions in the kingdom (see Lemaire 1981:72–82, with earlier literature; for a different opinion see Haran 1993). We may assume that sign lists, letters, judicial texts, inventories, cultic texts, literary and historical works, all of which were essential for the education and function of royal Judean scribes, were part of the Jerusalem library. Jerusalem was the capital of Judah for four centuries, and the contents of its library must have reflected this long continuity. Some old texts were apparently used for educational purposes and copied many times, and so they survived until the destruction of 587/586 BCE. Some of those texts might have been attributed — correctly or not — to prominent past figures like David and Solomon and might have been transferred with this attribution into the stream of scribal learning. The chronicle of early Israelite kings and king lists must have been part of this educational corpus. Likewise, stories such as the pre-Deuteronomistic narratives of King Saul and David’s rise to power might have been included in this corpus. Thus, when the historian composed his work, he used this corpus as his main source for writing the history of Israel, just as Manetho and Berossus were able to use temple libraries for composing their respective Aegyptiaca and Babyloniaca. The attribution of texts to particular rulers may go back to old scribal traditions; their attribution by the historian may reflect his trust in the words of his sources. This may explain why his work was accepted by the scholarly elite of Jerusalem. Inasmuch as he collected all the available sources and integrated them in his work, his description of the past did not conflict with what was known to other scholars. His competence as historian and the clear and coherent picture that he drew made his work an authoritative source for all future study of the history of Israel. Are we free to attribute the lists of David’s officers and officials, and of his wives and sons, to his time? Certainty cannot be achieved in this matter. All that can legitimately be said is that the lists of names and the toponyms mentioned therein are very old and belong to an early stage of the Judean monarchy; furthermore, the historian could have had textual indications that caused him to attribute these lists to the era of David.

34


The chronicle of early Israelite kings was the major source from which the historian extracted details for the reconstruction of the chain of events in the time of the United Monarchy. The brief descriptions of Saul’s kingship (1 Sam. 14:47–48) were perhaps extracted verbatim from that source. The passage about the coronation of Ishbaal, the son of Saul (2 Sam. 2:8), possibly was drawn from it. The episodes of David’s reign in Hebron (2 Sam. 2:1– 3), his struggle with Ishbaal, the conquest of Jebus (2 Sam. 5:6–9), the wars with the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17–25), and his wars with Israel’s neighbors — all these could have originated in the chronicle. Also, the episodes of the uprisings against Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:14-28, 40) possibly were drawn from the same source. The Deuteronomistic historian sometimes cited the chronicle verbatim and, in other instances, used it according to his literary, ideological and theological objectives. Thus, in certain episodes, we are able to reconstruct the original source, whereas in others it is worked into a whole narrative and cannot be reconstructed. This evaluation of the source material shows plainly how complicated the task of modern historians is when they try to reconstruct the history of David. I will conclude my discussion with one example: the problem of the great kingdom attributed to David in biblical historiography. According to the biblical account, the great kingdom was short lived and fell apart after David’s death. We are dealing with an episode that lasted perhaps for only a few years, and there are no contemporary documents either to support or invalidate it. Thus, a clear-cut decision cannot be achieved. Let us compare it, for example, with the successive great kingdoms established by Yaḫdunlim, by Shamshi-Addu, and by Zimrilim in northern Mesopotamia in the late nineteenth-early eighteenth century BCE. Each of these kingdoms lasted for a few years and then disappeared. We are fortunate in having rich documentation for the three kingdoms, because otherwise their memory would have fallen into oblivion. They indicate the dynamic of changes at the stage of early state formation, and one can easily add many other examples to illustrate the phenomenon of the rapid growth and decline of states at that stage. In such a fluid situation, a talented and successful leader may conquer vast areas. It was not even necessary to have a permanent urban basis for such an achievement. The historical test is whether the conqueror and his heirs were able to keep the conquered areas and establish a permanent administration. The opinion expressed by some scholars of the impossibility of a Davidic great kingdom governed from Jerusalem (Garbini 1983:1–16; 1988:21–32; Jamieson-Drake 1991:136–145; Knauf 1991b:170–180; Thompson 1992:331– 334, 409–412; Davies 1992:69) is, in my opinion, too rash. There is nothing impossible about the account of David’s conquests — the only problem is


35

whether or not it really happened. Unfortunately, the sources for the this episode are of such a nature that we are unable to answer the question with either a definite “yes” or “no.”

References Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Bickerman, E.J. 1946. The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1. JBL 65: 249–275. Blum, E. 1994. “Amos” in Jerusalem. Beobachtungen zu Am 6,1–7. Henoch 16: 23–47. Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. 1989. Les inscriptions Araméennes de Hazaël. RA 83: 34–44. Burstein, M.B. 1978. The Babyloniaca of Berossus. (Sources from the Ancient Near East 1/5). Malibu, CA. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 148). Sheffield. Drews, R. 1975. The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus. Iraq 37: 39–55. Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. (2nd revised ed.). Oxford. Elliger, K. 1947. Sam’al and Hamat in ihrem Verhältnis zu Hattina, Unqi and Arpad. Ein Beitrag zur Territorialgeschichte der norsyrischen Staaten im 9. Und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. In: Fück, J. ed. Festschrift für Otto Eissfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag. Halle: 69–108. Eph‘al, I. and Naveh, J. 1989. Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions. IEJ 39: 192–200. Forrer, E. 1932a. Aramu. RLA I: 131–139. Forrer, E. 1932b. Ba’asa. RLA 1: 328. Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen. Garbini, G. 1983. L’impero di David. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 13: 1–20. Garbini, G. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. London. Goldwasser, O. 1991. An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Tel Aviv 18: 248–253. Hammershaimb, E. 1970. The Book of Amos: A Commentary. Oxford. Haran, M. 1993. Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 22: 51–61. Hawkins, D.J. 1974. Assyrians and Hittites. Iraq 36: 67–83. Horn, S. 1973. The Crown of the King of the Ammonites. Andrew University Seminary Studies 11: 170–180. Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archaeological Approach. (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 9). Sheffield. Knauf, E.A. 1989. The Migration of the Script and the Formation of the State in South Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 19: 79–91. Knauf, E.A. 1991a. From History to Interpretation. In Edelman, D.V. ed. The Fabric of History. Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 127). Sheffield: 26–64. Knauf, E.A. 1991b. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. In: Lipiński, E. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44). Leuven: 167–186. Kobayashi, Y. 1992. Methegh-ammah. Anchor Bible Dictionary 4: 800.

36


Komoróczy, G. 1973. Berosos and the Mesopotamian Literature. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21: 125–152. Kuhrt, A. 1987. “Berossus” Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia. In Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. eds. Hellenism in the East. London: 32–56. Lemaire, A. 1981. Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’Ancien Israël. Fribourg and Göttingen. Lemaire, A. 1984. Sagesse et écoles. VT 34: 270–281. Lemaire, A. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In Charpin, D. and Joannès, F. eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris: 91–108. Lemaire, A. 1993. Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat. La SyriePalestine vers 800 av. J.-C. Eretz Israel 24: 148*–157*. Lemaire, A. and Vernus, P. 1983. L’ostracon paléo-hébreu N° 6 de Tell Qudeirat (QadeshBarnéa). In: Görg, M. ed. Fontes atque Pontes. Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5). Wiesbaden: 302–326. Lemche, N.P. 1994. Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8: 165–190. Lemche, N.P. and Thompson, T.L. 1994. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 3–22. Lieberman, S.J. 1990. Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection. In Abusch, T., Huehnergard, J. and Steinkeller, P. eds. Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: 305–336. Michel, E. 1955–56. Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824). WO 2: 137–157, 221–233. Mittmann, S. 1983. Die “Handschelle” der Philister (2Sam 8,1). In Görg, M. ed. Pontes atque Fontes. Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5). Wiesbaden: 327–341. Momigliano, A. 1966. Historiography on Written Tradition and Historiography on Oral Tradition. Studies in Historiography. London: 211–220. Momigliano, A. 1977. Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish, and Greek, Historiography. Studies in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Oxford: 25–35. Na’aman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Na’aman, N. 1994. The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History. In Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 218–281. Na’aman, N. 1995. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-Rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Oppenheim, A.L. 1964. Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago. Parpola, S. 1983. Assyrian Library Records. JNES 42: 1–29. Paul, S.M. 1991. Amos (Hermeneia). Minneapolis. Ponchia, S. 1991. L’Assiria e gli stati transeufratici nella prima metà dell’VIII sec. a.C. Padova. Puech, E. 1981. L’ivoire inscrit d’Arslan-Tash et les rois des Damas. RB 88: 544–562. Redford, D.B. 1986. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day-Books. Mississauga. Sader, H.S. 1987. Les états Araméens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur transformation en provinces Assyriennes. Beirut. Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources. Leiden, New York and Köln. Thompson, T.L. 1995. “House of David”: An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh as Godfather. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9: 59–74.


37

Ungnad, A. 1906. Jaua, mâr Ḫumrî. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 9: 224–226. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. Weippert, M. 1992. Die Feldzüge Adadniraris III. nach Syrien: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen. ZDPV 108: 42–67. Winckler, H. 1895. Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, I. Leipzig. Winckler, H. 1901. Besprechungen zu Kittel, R. Die Bücher der Könige übers. u. erklärt. OLZ 4: 141–152. Wolff, H.W. 1977. Joel and Amos (Hermeneia). Philadelphia.

In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors1 Introduction The biblical history of David conveys detailed descriptions of his relationships with neighboring kingdoms. On his northwestern, front he had a commercial relationship with Hiram, king of Tyre (2 Sam. 5:11). Early in his career, he married Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, a kingdom located in the southern Golan (2 Sam. 3:3; 13:37–38). Tyre and Geshur are not mentioned among the participants in David’s wars and, by inference, may be considered his allies. On all other fronts David conducted campaigns against his neighbors. Among his enemies were the Amalekites; the five Philistine kingdoms of Gath, Ekron, Gaza, Ashkelon and Ashdod; the three transjordanian kingdoms of Moab, Ammon and Edom; and the four Aramaean kingdoms of Beth-rehob — Zobah, Damascus, Maacah and Tob. David won battles on all fronts, vanquished his enemies and subjugated them to his yoke. For many years the biblical history of the United Monarchy was considered a safe point of departure for the reconstruction of the history of Israel. Historians described the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon in a way that was quite similar to their description in biblical narratives.2 However, beginning in the 1990s, scholars began questioning the historicity of these narratives and raising doubts concerning the historical authenticity of the biblical descriptions of the United Monarchy.3 Among the reasons for this reevaluation are the embellished literary character of many of these narratives; the lack of archaeological evidence for a tenth-ninth century city in Jerusalem;4 the relatively late development of urbanism in the kingdom of Judah (mainly since the eighth century) (Finkelstein 2001, with earlier literature); the rela1. Reprinted with permission. IEJ 52 (2002), 200–224. 2. See, for example, the following works: Noth 1960:163–208; Bright 1960:163–208; Malamat 1963; Aharoni 1967:254–280; Herrmann 1975:131–186; Soggin 1977:332–380; Miller and Hayes 1986:120–217; Ahlström 1993:455–542. 3. For early works that questioned the validity of the biblical description of the United Monarchy, see Friis 1986; Garbini 1988; Jamieson-Drake 1991; Knauf 1991; Thompson 1992. 4. Steiner 1994; Steiner, Cahill and Na’aman 1998; Finkelstein 1999:40, with earlier literature.

38

In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars

39

tively late spread of literacy in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (only from the eighth century BCE onward) (Jamieson-Drake 1991:149–159; Na’aman 2002:17–31); the comparison with the development of urbanism and states and with the spread of literacy in other Syro-Palestinian kingdoms (Mazzoni 1995:181–191; 2000: 31–59, with earlier literature); the unifying name “Israel” for the inhabitants of Israel and Judah (Davies 1992); the gradual development of the Israelite religion in the First Temple period;5 and the late date in which the history of the United Monarchy was composed.6 Many scholars think that the biblical description of the United Monarchy can neither serve as a basis for describing the history of Israel in the tenth century BCE nor be used as a point of departure for reconstructing the history of Israel in the ninth-eighth centuries BCE.7 Today, the mainstream of biblical scholars accept the main outlines of the hypothesis, first defined by Martin Noth in 1943 (English translation: Noth 1981), that a comprehensive historical work, conventionally known as “the Deuteronomistic history,” once encompassed the books of Deuteronomy and the Early Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). Its original scope and messages, as well as the exact date of its composition, are controversial. However, most scholars agree that it was written either in the late seventh century BCE or in the early exilic period. Therefore, we may suggest that the author of the history, the Deuteronomist, lived in the late seventh-early sixth century BCE in Jerusalem, and, even if he were later deported to Babylonia, he was, for many years, an eyewitness to the reality prevailing in the cis- and transjordanian regions. Assuming, for the moment, that the history of David was written for the first time in the late monarchical period on the basis of oral traditions alone, one naturally would assume that the political-territorial disposition of David’s time, as depicted in the history, would be similar to that of this late period. After all, authors can hardly distance themselves from the reality of their own time and place. They assume that the situation in ancient time was not unlike their own and, thus, tend to depict the remote past in an anachronistic manner.

5. Dietrich and Klopfenstein 1994; Edelman 1996; van der Toorn 1997; Weippert 1997. 6. These factors, all of which are of great importance for dating the beginning of historical writing in ancient Israel, are only superficially treated in Halpern’s new book on King David. The decision on the issue of historical reliability is made mainly on the basis of the author’s a-priori belief in the authenticity of the biblical history of David. See Halpern 2001. 7. For late works that discuss critically the historicity of the United Monarchy, see Niemann 1993; Fritz and Davies 1996; Handy 1997; Dietrich 1997; Lemche 1999.

40


Let us examine the above assumption of a seventh-century composition, whose author was dependent solely on orally transmitted narratives. For comparison, we shall take the political situation of the seventh-early sixth century BCE vis à vis the political reality as described in David’s history. It goes without saying that many parts of these narratives do not lend themselves to such analysis, but some elements embedded in the stories may be investigated scientifically.

Late Eighth-Seventh Century Documents and David’s History The territory of the former kingdom of Aram-Damascus was annexed by Assyria in the time of Tiglath-pileser III (732 BCE) and was divided into three provinces (Damascus, Zobah and Qarnini). Unlike the territorial situation in southern Syria in the seventh century, which was characterized by imperial provincial organization, the history of David depicts independent Aramaean entities (Beth-rehob — Zobah, Damascus, Tob, Geshur and Maacah) that play important role in the chain of events. These latter entities (except for Damascus) are missing from all the sources written in the eighth-sixth centuries BCE, and the political-territorial situation in the seventh century was entirely different from that reflected in David’s history. Four Philistine kingdoms (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron) are mentioned in the eighth-seventh centuries Assyrian royal inscriptions and in the biblical prophecy of the eighth-fifth centuries (Jer. 25:20; Am. 1:6–8; Zeph. 2:4; Zech. 9:5–6). The city of Gath appears in the annals of Sargon II as a secondary city in the territory of Ashdod (Fuchs 1994: 134, line 250; 220, line 104). In the narratives of David’s rise to power, on the other hand, Gath is described as the leading power among the five Philistine kingdoms and its king as primus inter pares in relation to the other Philistine rulers. Gath’s ruler, Achish, is called a “king” (mēlēk) (1 Sam. 21:11; 27:2), whereas the other rulers are called “lords” (seerānîm) or “officials” (śārîm) (1 Sam. 29:3–4, 9).8 The prominent place of Gath in the history of David is in marked contrast to the city’s political position in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE. Finally, the Amalekites are not mentioned in the Assyrian royal inscriptions that refer to contacts with nomadic groups situated on the periphery of the empire. The nomads are called by the collective name “Arabs” and sometimes “Qedarites,” and, among the groups that are mentioned in the Assyrian sources, many are known from biblical genealogies (Adbeel, Ephah, Massa, Nebaioth, Napish, Sheba and the Me’unites).9 Neither the names Arabs and 8. Ikaushu (’kyš), king of Ekron in the seventh century, carried the title śar according to a dedication inscription discovered in the city. See Gitin, Dothan and Naveh 1997:9–11. 9. Eph‘al 1982: 215–230; Zadok 1982; Knauf 1983.


41

Qedarites, nor the names of the above-mentioned tribal groups, are known from the history of Saul and David (Sheba is known from the legendary story of Solomon and the queen of Sheba). The prominent place of the Amalekites in the periphery of south Palestine in the histories of Saul and David does not fit what we know of nomadic groups in this region in the late eighth-seventh centuries BCE. The political-territorial situation in the fifth-fourth centuries BCE, when the Persian empire ruled the Syro-Palestinian area, has nothing in common with that described in the history of David. All the kingdoms that survived the Assyrian annexations of the late eighth-seventh centuries BCE had disappeared by that time, and a set of relatively small provinces surrounded the province of Yehud (Samaria, Megiddo, Dor, Ashdod, Idumea, Moab?, Ammon, Gilead?).10 The description of David’s wars with neighboring kingdoms has not one element in common with the political-territorial situation prevailing under the Persian or Hellenistic empires. Inventing a historical environment that has nothing in common with the reality of the time of the author seems so unlikely that the assumption that the history of the United Monarchy was first composed in the Persian or Hellenistic periods must be considered untenable.11 In light of these results, we must investigate the political-territorial reality of the tenth-ninth centuries in an effort to discover whether it fits better the description of Israel’s neighbors as related in the history of David.

Ninth Century Inscriptions and David’s History Detailed accounts of first millennium intra-state events appear for the first time in the ninth century BCE. The empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia were in decline in the eleventh-tenth centuries, and inscriptions written there give no information on the regions mentioned in the history of David (Shishak’s topographical inscription is the exception12). All Syro-Palestinian inscriptions of the tenth century refer to local matters and shed no light on international affairs. Even if David and Solomon accomplished the deeds attributed to them in the Bible, no source would have mentioned their names. The silence of the sources should be taken as neither positive nor negative evidence concerning the biblical description of the United Monarchy. 10. For a detailed discussion of the system of provinces in the fifth-fourth centuries BCE, see Lemaire 1990. 11. Davies 1992:67–70; Thompson 1992:383–399; 1999:179–225; Lemche 1993:163–193; 1994:183–189; 1998:86–132. 12. For Shishak’s campaign to Palestine, see Noth 1938; Hughes 1954:pls. 2–9; Kitchen 1973:293–300, 432–447; 2001; Na’aman 1998, with earlier literature.

42


Archaeological research and comparison with the development of other Near Eastern states are our main extra-biblical scientific tools for analyzing the authenticity of the histories of David and Solomon. Ninth century Assyrian, Aramaic and Moabite inscriptions that have been discovered refer to various events in the histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Their number is small, and they do not directly shed light on the descriptions of David’s wars with his neighbors. Even when taken together, they supply only a fragmentary picture of the political disposition and intrastate relationships in southern-Syria and Palestine in the ninth century BCE. However, a few details that appear in David’s history may be investigated in light of these inscriptions. Thus, the correspondences between David’s history and ninth century extra-biblical sources should be carefully examined, one by one. 1. Beth-rehob and Zobah in the Ninth Century David’s rival in his wars with the Aramaeans is called “Hadadezer ben Rehob king of Zobah” (2 Sam. 8:3, 12). Scholars recognized both that “ben Rehob” does not refer to Hadadezer’s father, but is an abbreviated form of “ben (Beth)-rehob,”13 and that his kingdom included two regions: Beth-rehob and Zobah. Two biblical references (Num. 13:21; Judg. 18:28) indicate that Beth-rehob covered most of the Beqa‘ of Lebanon, from the area north of Dan up to Lebo-hamath (modern Lebwe).14 Zobah was located in the northern Beqa‘, north of Lebwe, and in the area north of Mt. Anti-Lebanon, bordering in the north with the kingdom of Hamath.15 The monolith from Kurkh of Shalmaneser III gives a detailed list of the members of the coalition that participated in the battle of Qarqar (853 BCE).16 In the last place appears Ba’asa “mār Ruḫūbi KUR Amanaya.” Winckler was the first to note the parallel between the descriptions of Hadadezer and Ba’asa of the Kurkh monolith (Winckler 1895:141–143; 1901:150). It is well known that the Assyrians sometime referred to kingdoms by eponymic or dynastic names, and that the combination mār Ruḫūbi should be rendered “son of (Bīt)ruhūbi.”17 Some scholars equated KUR Amana with biblical Ammon.18 However,

13. This was already pointed out by Ungnad 1906. 14. See recently, Na’aman 1995a:384–385; Dion 1997:174–175. 15. For the territory of the Assyrian province of Ṣubat/Ṣubite, see recently Na’aman 1999:421–425, with earlier literature; Dion 1997:175–176; Charpin 1998:89–92. 16. For the battle of Qarqar, see recently Yamada 2000a:150–163, with earlier literature. 17. For the construction Bit-X in the names of kingdoms, see recently Couturier 2001: 72–78, with earlier literature.


43

the kingdom of Ammon is rendered consistently in Neo-Assyrian sources as Bīt Ammān, with the bīt element and with doubled –mm-.19 Moreover, Bethrehob (Bīt-Ruhūbi) is located in the Beqa‘ of Lebanon, far north from the kingdom of Ammon. In the light of the comparison with the title of Hadadezer (2 Sam. 8:3, 12), the location of Beth-rehob and the biblical references to Amana (2 Kgs. 5:12; Cant. 4:8), Forrer identified KUR Amana with Mt. Anti-Lebanon and suggested that Shalmaneser’s inscription refers to the kingdom of Zobah located in its vicinity (Forrer 1932a:134; 1932b). Other scholars offered additional arguments in support of his suggestion.20 Ba’asa’s kingdom must have encompassed two entities: Beth-rehob and Zobah/Amana, and his title mār Ruḫūbi KUR Amanaya should be translated “of Beth-rehob (and) Amana” (compare Zakkur’s title “king of Hamath and Lu‘ash”; see Donner and Röllig 1966–69: No. 202, lines 1–2; Gibson 1975:8–9). We may conclude that Hadadezer’s kingdom, as described in 2 Sam. 8:3, 12, was governed in the mid-ninth century by Ba’asa, who participated in the coalition that fought Shalmaneser in 853 BCE. 2. The Kingdom of Geshur in the Ninth Century According to Shalmaneser’s inscriptions of his 21st year (838 BCE), he crossed the Euphrates, received tribute from the kings of Hatti, advanced southward along Mt. Lebanon, probably along the Ḥoms-Baalbek route, and crossed Mt. Anti-Lebanon eastward, apparently along the route of BaalbekZabedani-Damascus.21 He then ravaged the territory of Hazael of Damascus, conquering four of his fortified cities, the names of only two of which have survived (Danabu and Malaḫa). The captured cities must have been located east of Mt. Anti-Lebanon. Indeed, Lemaire identified Danabu with modern Duneibeh (in the region of Nawa), and Malaḫa with Malaḥ ez-Ezra‘, both situated in Bashan, not far from the northeastern border of the kingdom of Israel.22 18. For the equation, see recently Rendsburg 1991; Yamada 2000a:159–161, with earlier literature. 19. For references to Bīt Ammān in the Neo-Assyrian texts, see Parpola 1970:16, 76. In one text the Ammonites are called KUR ba-an Am-ma-na-a-a (“children of Ammon”) and in another (probably a school text) Ammon is written uruAm-ma-a-[na] (with an URU rather than KUR sign). 20. Hübner 1992:183, n. 116, with earlier literature; Na’aman 1995a:385–386; Dion 1997: 176. 21. For the texts and the reconstruction of the campaign, see Yamada 2000a:206–207; 2000b:80. 22. Lemaire 1991a:100–101; Dion 1997:198, with earlier literature in n. 120; Yamada 2000a:207–208, with earlier literature in notes 445–446.

44


Following the conquest of Hazael’s four cities, Shalmaneser wrote that “Ba’il of [KU]R Z/G[i-x-r]a-a-a seized my feet. I received his tribute. My royal image I placed in the temple in Laruba, his fortified city, and received the tribute of the men of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos” (Yamada 2000a:206–207; 2000b: 80). What might have been the land’s name that is partly preserved in the annals? The suggested restoration “[Ty]re” (Ṣ[urr]aya) is unlikely in view of the recently published facsimile of the inscription (Yamada 2000a: 206–207 and n. 449). Lipiński (1999) suggested restoring it “Ṣimirra” (Ṣ[í-mir-r]a-a-a). However, not only does Ṣimirra appear always as a city and not as a land (with one exception written long after it became an Assyrian province), but its name is consistently written with the ṢI-sign and never with the ZI-sign.23 Moreover, Ṣimirra does not fit the route of a campaign conducted east of Mt. Anti-Lebanon. In light of these considerations, I suggest restoring the land’s name as Geshur (G[i-šu(r)-r]a-a-a). Geshur was a small Aramaean kingdom located in southern Golan, on one of the routes that connected the Bashan with the Phoenician coast (Ma‘oz 1992, with earlier literature). It appears in the boundary descriptions of the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua as a land located near the border of the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Deut. 3:14; Josh 12:5; 13:11, 13).24 David married Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (2 Sam. 3:3). Their son Absalom took refuge in Geshur for three years after assassinating Amnon, his brother (13:37–38; 14:23, 32; 15:8). Geshur is not mentioned in the Bible after David’s time, and some scholars assume that it was annexed by Aram-Damascus in about the mid-ninth century BCE.25 However, the lack of mention of a kingdom in ninth century sources may be due to the paucity of textual evidence. Similar to the kingdom of Beth-rehob — Zobah — Geshur must have maintained its independence in the time of Adad-idri (Hadadezer), only later to have been incorporated into the kingdom of Damascus. An ostensible obstacle for my text restoration is the hypocoristic name Ba’il, which is typically Phoenician. However, the onomasticon of the Geshurites is quite unknown. All we know are the three names mentioned in the Bible (Talmai, Ammiḥur/Ammihud and Maacah), and a few names inscribed on ves23. For references to Ṣimirra in the Neo-Assyrian texts, see Parpola 1970:323–324. 24. In Deut. 3:14 and Josh. 12:5 Geshur is described as a territory that borders the Israelite allotments in Transjordan. In Josh. 13:11, 13, on the other hand, Geshur is included in the land of Bashan that was conquered by the Israelites, hence, the statement that “the Geshurites and the Maacathites dwelt in the midst of the Israelites until this day” (v. 13). 25. Mazar 1961:25–26; 1962: 105–106; Ma‘oz 1992. For criticism, see Miller 1969.


45

sels discovered in the excavations of et-Tell/Bethsaida (‘qb’, mky, zkryw), none of which is typically Aramaic.26 Moreover, names with the theophoric element Ba‘al are not confined to the Phoenician coast alone and are known, inter alia, in the eighth century BCE onomasticon of the kingdom of Israel (Lemaire 1977:47–56). The name of the king in no way contradicts my suggestion that Ba’il was the king of Geshur. Provided that the land’s restoration is acceptable, Laruba, Ba’il’s city, must be sought in the Geshurite territory, on the route from the Bashan to the kingdom of Tyre.27 Laruba is described as Ba’il’s “fortified city” (āl dannūti). In their inscriptions, the Assyrian kings distinguished between the designations “royal residence” (āl šarrūti) and “fortified city” (āl dannūti) (Ikeda 1979: 75–87). Although fluidity between the two terms is not uncommon (Yamada 2000a:142–143), Laruba was probably Ba’il’s stronghold, rather than his capital. Two fortified cities of the ninth century BCE were excavated near the Sea of Galilee — Khirbet el-‘Ashiq/‘En Gev (Mazar 1993; Kochavi 1993:188–190; 1996:192–193) and et-Tell/Bethsaida (Arav and Freund 1995; Arav and Bernett 2000:47–81, with earlier literature in n. 12). The latter was certainly the seat of the king of Geshur. Provided that Laruba was indeed a stronghold and not the capital city, it may tentatively be identified with ‘En Gev, a c. 25 dunam site located on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee. From the southwestern area of Bashan, Shalmaneser proceeded southwestward, possibly along the line of the Roman road connecting the Bashan and Golan, reached the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, turned westward and arrived at the Phoenician coast, where he received the tribute of the men of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos. He then proceeded to the land/mountain of Muṣuruna, which may tentatively be identified with the ridge of Nahr elKalb, c. 10 km. north of Beirut, where a relief of a royal image, possibly representing Shalmaneser III, was discovered.28 Nahr el-Kalb probably marked the northern border of the kingdom of Sidon. In the late eighth-seventh century BCE, the small kingdom of Samsimuruna was located north of it, bordering on the north with the kingdom of Byblos (Na’aman 1995b:108–109). In my opinion, the small ninth century kingdom of Muṣur/Meṣri (which is mentioned

26. For the epigraphic findings from et-Tell/Bethsaida, see Arav 1999:88. For the rendering of the inscribed inscription lšm+the ‘nḫ-sign (Arav 1999:84), see Wimmer 2000. 27. Tentatively (and with a big question mark), we may suggest identifying Laruba with the Riblah (hāriblāh) mentioned in the description of the land of Canaan’s eastern border in Num. 34:11. The metathesis of the letters in the latter text may be the result of the equation of the unknown lrbh* with the well-known city of Riblah, located near the Orontes river. 28. Weissbach 1922:23–25. Because of the poor state of the Assyrian relief, Weissbach’s suggestion cannot be verified.

46


beside Byblos in the monolith from Kurkh and beside Tyre and Sidon in the Calah throne base of Shalmaneser III) occupied the same territory, between the borders of Byblos and Sidon.29 3. Hazael of Damascus and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob and Zobah The history of Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, was recently discussed in detail in several works.30 This “son of nobody” (as Shalmaneser slanderously calls him) was apparently a scion of the royal house of Damascus, although not the designated heir to the throne. In circumstances still unknown, he seized the throne of Damascus after Adad-idri’s death. Joram of Israel and Irḫuleni of Hamath, former allies of Adad-idri of Damascus, apparently refused to renew their alliance with him (Na’aman 1991:82–83). Hazael launched an offensive against the kingdom of Israel, and its ally, the kingdom of Beth-David (Judah), won the battle and killed the two kings.31 However, he did not succeed in forcing his neighbors to send troops to his aid. Thus, when Shalmaneser III conducted campaigns against Damascus in the years 841 and 838 BCE, Hazael stood alone against the Assyrian onslaught. He managed to retain his power and kingdom and resumed his offensive soon after the Assyrian withdrawal from southern Syria. In a series of campaigns, the details of which are as yet unknown, he became the dominant figure in Syria and once even succeeded in crossing the Euphrates.32 During those years, he managed to subjugate all the Palestinian kingdoms on both sides of the Jordan, up to the border of Egypt. Hazael’s hegemonic power in all the areas west of the Euphrates, including Transjordan and the Philistine coast, is indicated both in Assyrian and Aramaic inscriptions and in the Bible (2 Kgs. 10:32–33; 12:18–19; 13:3, 7, 22) (Jepsen 1941–1944: 167–168; Lemaire 1991a: 101–106; 1993: 150*–153*).

29. For the identification of Muṣur/Meṣri mentioned in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III with Egypt, see Yamada 2000a:157–158 n. 281, 253–254, 340–341, with earlier literature. The suggestion of Lemaire (1993:152*) that KUR Muṣrāya of the Kurkh Monolith is a mistake for KUR Ṣumurāya is unlikely, because, in the first millennium, the kingdom’s name was rendered Ṣimirra, not Ṣumur. Moreover, Ṣimirra appears always as a city, not as an independent kingdom. 30. Pitard 1987:145–160; Lemaire 1991a; 1993: 150*–153*; Na’aman 1995a; Dion 1997: 191–204, with earlier literature; Yamada 2000a:310–320. 31. For Hazael’s inscription from Tel Dan, see, e.g., Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995; Lemaire 1998a; Dion 1999; Na’aman 2000a, with earlier literature; Ehrlich 2001. 32. For Hazael’s inscriptions from Eretrie and Samos, see Charbonnet 1986; Kyrieleis and Röllig 1988; Eph‘al and Naveh 1989; Bron and Lemaire 1989; Na’aman 1995a: 381–384; Amadasi-Guzzo 1996.


47

Several features are common to Hazael of Damascus and to Hadadezer, David’s main rival in his wars with the Aramaeans.33 1. The area under their hegemony extended from Transjordan in the south to the Euphrates. The extent of Hadadezer’s domain in the south is indicated by the dispatch of troops from three Aramaean kingdoms (Bethrehob — Zobah, Maacah and Tob) to support the Ammonites in their war with David (2 Sam. 10:6–7). The extent of his hegemony in Syria is indicated by his ability to mobilize troops from “Aram, which is beyond the River” (2 Sam. 10:16). In addition, David conducted a surprise attack on Hadadezer when the latter was on his way “to leave/erect his stele on the River” (2 Sam. 8:3; 1 Chr. 18:13).34 The “River” is, of course, the Euphrates, and “beyond the River” (‘ēber hannāhār) is the Assyrian and Persian name of the territory of Eber nāri, i.e., the lands west of the Euphrates. 35 2. Both rulers led grand coalitions of vassal kings. According to 2 Sam. 10:16, Hadadezer mobilized troops from all the west Euphrates areas and sent them to battle under the leadership of Shobach, his chief commander. In addition, according to 2 Sam. 10:19, following the Aramaean defeat at Helam, all the kings who had been vassals of Hadadezer became Israel’s vassals. The list of Hazael’s vassals may be inferred from the stele of Zakkur, king of Hamath and Lu‘ash. Bar-Hadad II, Hazael’s son and heir, is described as the head of a large coalition of at least 16 kings, encompassing the entire area from Melid and Gurgum in the north to the Phoenician coast in the south.36 3. Both kings were able to muster an enormous number of chariots and troops. According to 2 Sam. 8:4, David captured 1,700 cavalry and 20,000 soldiers from Hadadezer (according to 1 Chr. 18:4, he captured 1,000 chariots, 7,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot soldiers). The many thousands of Aramaean chariots, cavalry and foot soldiers that supposedly took part in the battle of

33. I have already discussed the similarity between Hadadezer and Hazael in two works. See Na’aman 1995a:390–393; 1996:173–175. 34. For the problems involved with the interpretation of the two texts, see Driver 1913: 281; Rudolph 1955:134; McCarter 1984:243–44, 247–48. 35. Lipiński 1979:64–65. From the point of view of the people residing west of it, “beyond the River” means literally east of the River (i.e., the Euphrates), and this is how some scholars understood it. See, e.g., Elliger 1936:61; Malamat 1963:3 n. 10. It is preferable to interpret it as the established territorial name by which the areas west of the Euphrates were known from the late eighth century BCE onward. The author of the text used this wellknown name, originally coined by people residing east of the Euphrates, and did not notice that from western point of view the description might be interpreted differently. 36. Lemaire 1993:150*–153*. Lemaire suggested that a second group of the “seven kings of Amurru” also participated in the siege of Hadrach.

48


Helam are recorded in 2 Sam. 10:18 and 1 Chr 19:18.37 Details of Hazael’s forces at the height of his power are missing. According to Shalmaneser III’s annals, after his victory over Hazael in 841, he killed 16,000 of his foot soldiers and captured 1,121 chariots and 470 cavalry (Yamada 2000a:229, 234). In the annals of his sixth year (853 BCE), Shalmaneser relates that the military power of Adad-idri of Damascus consisted of 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, and 20,000 foot soldiers (Yamada 2000a: 368, 378). All these numbers are greatly exaggerated, but there is a marked similarity — in both the categories (chariots, cavalry and foot soldiers) and the large numbers — between Hadadezer and the kings of Damascus in the ninth century BCE.38 It seems to me that the figure of Hadadezer “ben Rehob, king of Zobah” was modelled upon the figure of Hazael, king of Aram. The author built up the early, vague figure of Hadadezer along the lines of the better-known king of Damascus. By borrowing outlines from concrete events that had taken place in later times, he was able to add a sense of authenticity to the narratives.39 The selection of Hazael as a model for David’s adversary is not accidental. He was the most powerful and successful king in the history of AramDamascus; defeating such a powerful king as Hazael portrays David in the light that suited the historiographical objectives of the author. Whether the name of Hadadezer was “borrowed” from that of the mid-ninth century ruler of Damascus (i.e., Adad-idri) or reflects a genuine memory of David’s tenth century adversary remains unknown. It is remarkable that the memory of Hazael’s achievements was still vivid when the account of David’s history was first composed in writing. It is impossible to estimate how long the figure of Hazael was recollected vividly in the court of Jerusalem, but we should not allow for a very long time.40 The choice of Hazael, whose reign covered most of the second half of the ninth century, for shaping the figure of Hadadezer, David’s main rival, is an important clue for the date in which the account of David’s wars with his neighbors was first written.

37. For the differences of the figures in the MT and versions, see McCarter 1984:269. 38. Lemaire (1998b) suggested that the numbers of Israelite chariots in the Assyrian royal inscriptions and in the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan are authentic. For a critical approach to large numbers in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, see De Odorico 1995; see also Postgate 2000:96. 39. For a similar strategy used by the author of the Book of Joshua, see Na’aman 1994: 251–260. 40. Dion (1995:485) drew attention to the words of Josephus (Ant., IX 93–94) that even in his days, on account of their great deeds, the people of Damascus revered Ben-Hadad and Hazael “as gods.”


49

4. Gath of the Philistines It has already been noted that the Assyrian royal inscriptions and biblical prophetic texts from the mid-eighth century onward mention only four Philistine kingdoms (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron) and that Gath, which appears as the leading power among the five Philistine kingdoms in the biblical narratives of David’s early career, is mentioned as a border town of Ashdod in Sargon II’s inscriptions. The question to be addressed is: When did Gath lose its military power and political status and become a secondary town in the territory of Ashdod? The text of Am. 6:2 runs as follows: “Pass over to Calneh, and see; and thence go to Hamath the great; then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are you better than these kingdoms? Or is their territory greater than your territory?” Here Gath is mentioned side by side with two other capital cities: Calneh (the capital of Unqi/Patina) and Hamath. Scholars investigating the historical background of the text examined the Assyrian royal inscriptions and suggested that verse 2 refers to events in the time of either Tiglath-pileser III (745–727) or Sargon II (721–705). These kings ruled after the prophet’s time; thus, they attributed the verse to a later disciple or redactor of Amos.41 However, the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser and Sargon mention only four Philistine kingdoms (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron).42 It is clear that Gath had lost its power and political status before their time and that Amos’s prophecy that mentions Gath alongside two other capital cities recalls events that took place before his time. According to the account of 2 Kgs. 12:17, Hazael, king of Aram, marched to Philistia and captured the city of Gath. The short biblical account does not indicate what the significance of the conquest was. Some scholars considered it as an isolated operation with no political consequences, and others assumed that, on that occasion, Hazael subjugated all the Philistine kingdoms.43 A few scholars suggested that Hazael’s conquest marked the end of Gath’s independence.44 According to the latter assumption, following Gath’s destruction and decline, it was annexed by its western neighbor Ashdod and became a border town on the latter’s boundary with Judah.

41. See, e.g., Wolff 1977:275; Paul 1991:201–204; Blum 1994:32–34, with earlier literature; Jeremias 1998:114–115. 42. For Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions, see Tadmor 1994; for Sargon’s inscriptions, see Fuchs 1994. 43. Pitard 1987:158; Na’aman 1987:211–214; Lemaire 1991a:103; Ahlström 1993:610. 44. This was already noted by Jepsen 1941–1944: 162 n. 30. For detailed discussion, see Na’aman 1996:176–177; cf Hammershaimb 1970:97–99.

50


Details of the history of Calneh/Kullani/Kinalua (Tell Ta‘yinat) in the period between its conquest by Dayyan-Ashur in Shalmaneser III’s 28th palû (829 BCE)45 and its conquest and annexation in Tiglath-pileser III’s eighth palû (738 BCE) are not known.46 What is known is that Hazael took booty from Unqi “in the year that our lord crossed the river.”47 It seems that Hazael first conquered Unqi/Patina, then proceeded northeastward and crossed the Euphrates. Moreover, in the late ninth-early eighth century BCE, the kingdom of Bīt Agusi/Arpad expanded westward, and Patina/Unqi lost a considerable part of its territory.48 Finally, in the late ninth century, there is a shift in the material culture of Tell Ta‘yinat, with the destruction of Neo-Hittite monuments and the emergence of a new culture, which some scholars connected to the rise of the Aramaeans (Mazzoni 1994: 326–329, 333–335; Harrison 2001:124– 129). Amos must have referred to the decline of Calneh/Kullani as a result of Hazael’s campaign against Unqi/Patina and the taking of its territories by Arpad in the late ninth-early eighth century BCE. In the late ninth century BCE, Bar-Hadad, the son of Hazael, besieged Zakkur, the king of Hamath and Lu‘ash, in Hadrach (Hatarikka), the latter’s capital.49 The background of the transfer of the capital from the city of Hamath, in the central Orontes valley, to Hadrach, in the center of the land of Lu‘ash, is not mentioned explicitly anywhere.50 It may be explained by Hazael’s conquest of Hamath and its temporary decline (end of stratum E2), on the one hand, and the rise to power of Zakkur, on the other (Sader 1987:220; Mazzoni 1994:325). Zakkur was an Aramaean usurper (whose origin is disputed among scholars),51 who seized the throne of the kingdom of Hamath by force and 45. For the dating, see Yamada 2000a:59–67; for the campaign see Yamada 2000a:221–223. 46. For a recent summary of the evidence, see Harrison 2001:115–132. 47. For the text of Hazael’s inscriptions, see note 32 above. I withdraw my suggestion (1995a:382–384) that ‘mq of Hazael’s inscriptions refers to the land of ‘Amqi, i.e., the Beqa‘ of Lebanon. 48. The drastic redaction of the borders of Patina in the east was noted by Elliger 1947. For the borders of Arpad in the eighth century, see Lemaire and Durand 1984:59– 80; Ponchia 1991:91–96. For the conclusions drawn from the Antakya stele, see Weippert 1992:58–59 and n. 97; Wazana 1996:62–65. 49. For the Zakkur inscription, see Donner and Röllig 1966–69: No. 202; Greenfield 1969:174–191; Gibson 1975:6–17; Reinhold 1989:250–265. 50. For the suggestion of identifying Tell Afis with Hadrach, see Dion 1997:139–143; Mazzoni 1999:9–19; 2001:99–114, with earlier literature. 51. Millard suggested interpreting ’š ‘nh in the Zakkur stele in the sense of “a man of ‘Anah,” i.e., a native of a city in the Middle Euphrates. See Millard 1990:47–52; Dion 1997:149–150. Recently, Lipiński (2000:137) suggested that Zakkur was from ‘Anah, the region of the ancient Ḫana tribe at the confluence of the Habur river. Most scholars assume that Zakkur was a native of Lu‘ash and translate ’š ‘nh, “a humble man.”


51

transferred the capital to Hadrach, a city located in the center of a region where Aramaeans formed the majority of the population. Hadrach probably retained its position as the kingdom’s capital until its conquest and annexation by Tiglath-pileser III in 738.52 Only then was Hamath restored to its former position as a capital city, although the territory under its rule was drastically reduced. Amos probably referred to Hamath’s decline as a result of Hazael’s conquest and the transfer of the kingdom’s capital to Hadrach in the late ninth-early eighth century BCE. We may conclude that the words of Amos 6:2 apparently allude to the destruction and decline of three Syro-Palestinian capital cities in the late ninthearly eighth century, having suffered defeat and possibly destruction in the course of Hazael’s campaigns. The author(s) of David’s history, who described Gath as the leading power among the five Philistine kingdoms, must have recalled the city’s status prior to Hazael’s campaign against the city. The recent excavations of Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi) seem to confirm this historical reconstruction (Maeir 2001:111–129). The site of Gath appears to be one of the largest tells in Palestine, covering an area of c. 100–125 acres. The extent of the city in the Iron Age is still unknown. The prosperous Iron II city was utterly destroyed, an event dated by the excavator to either the late ninth or the early eighth century BCE (Maeir 2001:114, 121–126). However, inasmuch as the excavations are only in an initial stage, more data are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the rise and fall of Gath in the Iron Age. 5. David’s Conquest of Moab and Mesha’s Conquest of Israelite Territories David’s war with Moab is related as follows (2 Sam. 8:2): “And he defeated Moab, and measured them with a line, making them lie down on the ground: two lines he measured to be put to death, and one full line to be spared. So the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute.” What might have been the background of David’s extreme cruelty in his war with Moab? It seems to me that the verse reflects a kind of literary compensation for what Mesha, king of Moab, had done in his wars with Israel. Details of Mesha’s wars and building operations appear in the stele he erected in his capital, Dibon, in a late stage of his reign, possibly in the 30s– 20s of the ninth century BCE.53 The inscription relates in detail the conquest 52. For the history of Hamath in the first half of the eighth century BCE, see Dion 1997: 154–156, 162–163. 53. For Mesha’s stele and his wars with Israel, see Dearman (ed.) 1989, with earlier literature; Lemaire 1991b:143–169; Smelik 1992; Müller 1994; Na’aman 1997; Rainey 1998:244– 251; Niccacci 1999:226–248; Routledge 2000:221–256.

52


of some Israelite centers, the destruction of cities, the slaying of thousands of men, women and children, the enslavement of Israelite captives and their employment in building operations in his capital. Mesha took advantage of Hazael’s offensive against Israel and its subjugation to Damascus in the time of Jehu, king of Israel (c. 842–814 BCE), attacked the Israelite territories and expanded the Moabite kingdom by incorporating extensive Israelite areas in the Mishor. As far as we know, these wars were the bloodiest and most destructive in the course of the Israelite-Moabite relations in the ninth-early seventh centuries BCE. Israel was defeated and never recovered its lost territories. As a kind of literary revenge, the author of the account of David’s wars attributed to him the subjugation of Moab and the massacre of its population. The memory of the bloody wars between Moab and Israel in the second half of the ninth century must have been retained for some decades and then gradually faded and forgotten; therefore, biblical prophecy does not allude to these wars. The author of 2 Sam. 8:2 must have lived at a time when the desire for revenge was still strongly felt, not very long after the events to which he reacted in his work. 6. Did David’s Conquest of Rabbah Reverse a Late Ninth Century Ammonite Expansion Westward? 2 Sam. 10 describes how hostilities erupted between Israel and Ammon (vv. 1–5); how war was waged near the gate of Rabbah between the Israelite army and the Ammonites, supported by Aramaean troops who came to their aid (vv. 6–8); and how the Israelites won the battle (vv. 9–14). After a second victory over the Aramaeans, David sent Joab, commander of the army, to conquer Rabbah, and he besieged the city (2 Sam. 11:1). After an unspecified time, Rabbah was captured, its booty taken, and the Ammonites were consigned to forced labour (2 Sam. 12:26–31). No extra-biblical text sheds light on the relationship between Israel and Ammon in the ninth century BCE. In his prophecy against the foreign nations, Amos accused the Ammonites that “they have ripped open pregnant women of Gilead that they might enlarge their border” (Am. 1:13). Joash and Jeroboam, the kings of Israel in the first half of the eighth century, were powerful kings who fought the Aramaeans and extended the borders of Israel, and it is unlikely that Amos was referring to events of their reigns. I would suggest attributing the Ammonite attack to which Amos alludes to the time of Hazael, when Aram-Damascus subjugated Israel, and Moab conquered the Israelite territories in the Mishor, not far from the Ammonite southern border. We may further speculate that the description of the Aramaean troops that arrived to help the attacked Ammonites and were defeated in bat-


53

tle (2 Sam. 10:6–14) is an inversion of the events of the late ninth century, when Aramaean troops helped the Ammonites to defeat Israel and enlarged the Ammonites’ western border. It is, thus, possible that, like the account of David’s war with the Moabites, the description of his war with the Ammonites is also a kind of literary compensation for what the Ammonites had done to Israel. According to this interpretation, admittedly uncertain, the words of Amos regarding the crimes of the Ammonites are a genuine recollection of events in the 30s–20s of the ninth century. 7. David’s and Amaziah’s Victories over Edom in the Valley of Salt 2 Sam. 8:13 describes David’s wars with Edom as follows: “When he returned from smiting Aram (sic!) in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand (people)” (2 Sam. 8:13). 54 The victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt looks like a duplicate of Amaziah’s victory over them on the same site in the early eighth century BCE (2 Kgs. 14:7). This is an example of the device, which has certain other parallels, of borrowing outlines from a later concrete event to depict an episode of the early history of Israel.55

The Antiquity of the Account of David’s Wars with His Neighbors As noted in the introduction, only a small part of the account of David’s wars with Israel’s neighbors can be investigated with the help of extra-biblical sources. My analysis indicates that a few entities mentioned in this account could have disappeared in the course of Hazael’s reign in the second half of the ninth century BCE and that the earliest account of David’s wars was written after the reign in Hazael, probably in the first half of the eighth century. The two kingdoms of Beth-rehob — Zobah and Geshur, which are mentioned in the annals of Shalmaneser III — were probably annexed by Hazael in his efforts to consolidate his rule in southern Syria and to make Damascus the major power in the Syro-Palestinian arena. Hence, their depiction in David’s history as independent kingdoms (2 Sam. 3:3; 8:3, 12; 13:37–38) reflects the memory of the time prior to Hazael’s annexation. The image of Gath as foremost among the Philistine kingdoms also reflects a memory of the time before Gath’s destruction by Hazael and the loss of its independence. Other elements in the account of David’s wars probably reflect the time of Hazael’s offensive during the 40s–20s of the ninth century. Among these elements are: (a) the shaping of the figure of Hadadezer, David’s main rival,

54. For the text, see Barthélemy 1982:251–52. 55. For other examples, see note 39.

54


as “a second Hazael”; (b) David’s conquest of Moab and his massacre of the Moabites as a literary revenge for what Mesha had done to the inhabitants of the Mishor; and (c) the defeat of the Ammonites and David’s conquest of their capital as a literary “compensation” for what the Ammonites had done to the inhabitants of the Gilead. Finally, it seems that Amaziah’s victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt served as model for the account of David’s victory over the Edomites. Provided that this is acceptable, the reign of Amaziah (c. 799–771) supplies a terminus post quem for the composition of the account of David’s wars in 2 Sam. 8. The account of David’s wars with Israel’s neighbors was not an isolated composition. Elsewhere, I have suggested that an early work, which I called “the chronicle of early Israelite kings,” was written in about the mid-eighth century BCE (Na’aman 1996:173–179). The chronicler collected oral stories of the early monarchical period that he had heard and described them in a dry, matter-of-fact manner. Only vague memories of David’s wars with Israel’s neighbors were still recollected, and the chronicler filled in the gaps — consciously or unconsciously — with details borrowed from Israel’s later history. In this manner, he was able to write a seemingly unbroken account of the history of David and other early kings of Israel (Saul, Ish-bosheth and Solomon).56 This chronicle was probably the main source from which late authors extracted concrete details for their narratives on the United Monarchy. Although they lived hundreds of years after the events they recounted, having a source of such great antiquity enabled them to describe the heroes of their narratives with elements from this great antiquity. Thus, for example, the author of the so-called “Succession Narrative” introduced his long narrative with elements borrowed from the chronicle. 57 The Deuteronomist, writing in the late seventh or early exilic period, integrated large parts of the chronicle in his work. We may safely assume that the late authors expanded the old account according to their own interpretation and creative imaginations; thus, it is not always clear what was extracted from the chronicle and what was an invention or elaboration of the late authors. 2 Sam 8 is unique in its presentation of a long chronicle-like description, whereas some other parts of the chronicle are embedded in compositions written in different genres that are included in various parts of the biblical history of the United Monarchy.

56. For more details, see Na’aman 1996:177–178, 182. 57. For the succession Narrative, see the articles recently published by de Pury and Römer 2000; Prolov 2002, with earlier literature.


55

What might be said of the historical David in light of the source analysis suggested above? There are a few elements in David’s history (e.g., the account of the conquest of Jebusite Jerusalem and the driving of the Philistines from the central hill country) that, in my opinion, reflect genuine memories of his deeds. However, these accounts lie beyond the scope of the present article. There is no way to establish whether the names of David’s enemies, the location of the battlefields or details of his wars reflect genuine memories of the tenth century BCE. The exceptional spoils of war that David took as booty — such as the Meteg hā-ammāh (2 Sam. 8:1), the bow-case of gold (2 Sam. 8:7) and the crown of the god Milkom (2 Sam. 12:30) — hypothetically could have been kept in Jerusalem’s temple treasury and been seen by the chronicler.58 But this is a far-fetched speculation and cannot be verified. We must admit that nothing can be said with certainty about David’s wars with his neighbors. Let me give an example of the short limits of historical memory in the account of David’s wars with Israel’s neighbors. The excavations conducted at Tel Miqne-Ekron, located in the northern Shephelah c. 15 km. west of the central hill country, unearthed a strongly fortified and prosperous Iron I city of 50 acres. They revealed the power and wealth of the Philistines and their military and economic advantages vis à vis their highland eastern neighbors.59 Ekron was destroyed utterly in the first half of the tenth century and shrank dramatically, its population restricted to a small part of the formerly large city.60 In the history of the United Monarchy, there is no reference either to the political and military power of Ekron or to its destruction. It is clear that when the earliest account of the history was written, the dominant power of Ekron in the eleventh-early tenth centuries in the northern Shephelah, near the western border of Judah, had been forgotten. The author of this account remembered only the later stage, that of the ninth century, when Gath held the leading role near Judah’s western border. In summary, it is clear that the history of David’s wars with Israel’s neighbors reflects a reality that is quite different from that of the seventh-early

58. For the suggestion that the early chronicle has references to distinct booty taken at the end of each war, see Na’aman 1996:178. 59. For the excavations of Tel Mine-Ekron, see Dothan and Gitin 1987; 1993, with earlier literature; 1994; Dothan 1989. 60. Dothan and Gitin (1987:202–205; 1993:1053–1055) dated Ekron stratum IV (the latest Iron I city) to the late eleventh-early tenth centuries and its destruction to the early tenth century BCE. However, in light of Finkelstein’s low chronology, I prefer dating the destruction and abandonment of the Iron I city of Ekron (Stratum IV) to the mid-tenth century (Na’aman 2000b:4–5, with earlier literature).

56


sixth century BCE. I have tried to show that the Deuteronomist worked on the basis of early sources, the earliest account — which I have called “the chronicle of early Israelite kings” — probably having been written in the first half of the eighth century BCE. His sources enabled him to base his work on relatively early data, some of which antedated his time by hundreds of years. However, very little of this data may be assigned tentatively to the time of the historical David. I, therefore, suggest that the detailed history of David, including his wars and achievements, be left in the hands of able writers and novelists who can make full use of the magnificent narratives of the life and adventures of this great literary hero who lived and operated at the dawn of Israelite history.

References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahlström, G.W. 1993. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. Sheffield. Amadasi-Guzzo, M.G. 1996. Le harnais des chevaux du roi Hazaël, in Bacchielli, L. and Bonanno Aravantinos, M. eds. Studi di antichità in memoria di Sandro Stucchi I (Studi Miscellanei, 29). Rome: 329–338. Arav, R. 1999. Bethsaida. Qadmoniot 32: 78–91. (Hebrew). Arav, R. and Bernett, M. 2000. The bīt ḫilāni at Bethsaida: Its Place in Aramaean/Neo-Hittite and Israelite Palace Architecture in Iron Age II. IEJ 50: 47–81. Arav, R. and Freund. R. eds. 1995. Bethsaida: A City by the Northern Shore of the Sea of Galilee. I. Kirksville. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Blum, E. 1994. “Amos” in Jerusalem. Beobachtungen zu Am 6,1–7. Henoch 16: 23–47. Bright, J. 1960. A History of Israel. London. Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. 1989. Les inscriptions Araméennes de Hazaël. RA 83: 34–44. Bunnens, G. ed. 2000. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, 7). Leuven. Charbonnet, A. 1986. Le dieu aux lions d’Érétrie. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico, Sezione di Archeologia e Storia Antico 8: 117–156. Charpin, D. 1998. Toponymie amorrite et toponymie biblique: la ville de Ṣībat/Ṣobah. RA 92: 79–92. Couturier, G. 2001. Quelques observations sur le bytdwd de la stèle araméenne de Tel Dan, in: Daviau, P.M.M., Wevers J.W. and Weigl M. eds. 2001. The World of the Aramaeans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 325). Sheffield: 72–78. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of “Ancient Israel” (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (Supplement Series, 148). Sheffield. Dearman, J.A. ed. 1989. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta.


57

De Odorico, M. 1995. The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (State Archives of Assyria Studies 3). Helsinki. Dietrich, W. 1997. Die frühe Königszeit in Israel: 10. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 3). Stuttgart. Dietrich, W. and Klopfenstein, M.A. eds. 1994. Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Freiburg. Dion, P.-E. 1995. Syro-Palestinian Resistance to Shalmaneser III in the Light of New Documents. ZAW 107: 482–489. Dion, P.-E. 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales. Paris. Dion, P.-E. 1999. The Tel Dan Stele and Its Historical Significance. In: Avishur, Y. and Deutsch, R. eds. Michael. Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: 145–156. Donner, H. and Röllig, W. 1966–69. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Wiesbaden. Dothan, T. 1989. The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan. In: Gitin, S. and Dever W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology (AASOR, 49). Winona Lake: 1–14. Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 1987. The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines. BA 50: 197–222. Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 1993. Tel (Ekron). New Enc. Arch. Exc. III: 1051–1059. Dothan, T. and Gitin, S. 1994. Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Rise and Fall of a Philistine City. Qadmoniot 27: 2–28. (Hebrew) Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. (2nd revised ed.). Oxford. Edelman, D.V. ed. 1996. The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Grand Rapids. Ehrlich, C.S. 2001. The bytdwd-Inscription and Israelite Historiography: Taking Stock after half a Decade of Research. In: Daviau, P.M.M. Wevers J.W. and Weigl M. eds. 2001. The World of the Aramaeans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 325). Sheffield: 57–71 Elliger, K. 1936. Das Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids. PJb 32: 34–73. Elliger, K. 1947. Sam’al und Hamat in ihrem Verhältnis zu Hattina, Unqi und Arpad. Ein Beitrag zur Territorialgeschichte der nordsyrischen Staaten im 9. und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. In: Fück, J. ed. Festschrift Otto Eissfeldt zum 60 Geburtstag. Halle: 69–108. Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden. Eph‘al, I. and Naveh, J. 1989. Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions. IEJ 39: 192–200. Finkelstein, I. 1999. State Formation in Israel and Judah. Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 35– 52. Finkelstein, I. 2001. The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: the Missing Link. Levant 33: 105–115. Forrer, E. 1932a. Aramu. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 1: 131–139. Forrer, E. 1932b. Ba’asa. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 1: 328. Friis, H. 1986. Die Bedeutung für die Erichtung des Davidischen Reichs in Israel und seiner Umwelt. Heidelberg (original publication: Copenhagen 1968). Fritz, V. and Davies, R. eds. 1996. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 228). Sheffield. Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen. Garbini, G. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. London. Gibson, J.C.L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions II. Oxford. Gitin, S., Dothan T. and Naveh, J. 1997. A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 47: 1–16.

58


Greenfield, J.C. 1969. The Zakir Inscription and the Danklied. Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem: 174–191. Halpern, B. 2001. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids. Hammershaimb, E. 1970. The Book of Amos: A Commentary. Oxford. Handy, L.K. ed. 1997. The Age of Solomon — Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden. Harrison, T. 2001. Tell Ta‘yinat and the Kingdom of Unqi. In: Daviau, P.M.M., Wevers J.W. and Weigl M. eds. 2001. The World of the Aramaeans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 325). Sheffield: 115–132. Herrmann, S. 1975. A History of Israel in Old Testament Time. London. Hübner, U. 1992. Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur und Religion eines transjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Hughes, G. 1954. Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak. III: The Bubastite Portal. Chicago. Ikeda, Y. 1979. Royal Cities and Fortified Cities. Iraq 41: 75–87. Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archaeological Approach. Sheffield. Jepsen, A. 1941–1944. Israel und Damaskus. AfO 14: 153–172. Jeremias, J. 1998. The Book of Amos — A Commentary (Old Testament Library). Louisville. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster. Kitchen, K.A. 2001. The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 93: 3–12. Knauf, E.A. 1983. Supplementa Ismaelitica. Biblische Notizen 20: 34–36. Knauf, E.A. 1991. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. In: Lipiński, E. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible. Leuven: 167–186. Kochavi, M. 1993. Notes and News: The Land of Geshur Project 1992. IEJ 43: 185–190. Kochavi, M. 1996. The Land of Geshur: History of a Region in the Biblical Period. Eretz Israel 25: 184–201. (Hebrew). Kyrieleis, H. and Röllig, W. 1988. Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus dem Heraion von Samos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 103: 37– 75. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. 1: Les ostraca. Paris. Lemaire, A. 1987. Notes d’épigraphie Nord-Ouest Sémitique. Syria 64: 205–216. Lemaire, A. 1990. Populations and territoires de la Palestine à l’époque perse. Transeuphratène 3: 31–74. Lemaire, A. 1991a. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In: Charpin, D. and Joannès, F. eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris: 91–108. Lemaire, A. 1991b. La stèle de Mésha et l’histoire de l’ancien Israël. In: Garrone D. and Israel, F. eds. Storia e tradizioni di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin. Brescia: 143– 169. Lemaire, A. 1993. Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat. La SyriePalestine vers 800 av. J.-C. Eretz Israel 24: 148–157. Lemaire, A. 1998a. The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 81: 3–14. Lemaire, A. 1998b. Chars et cavaliers dans l’ancien Israël. Transeuphratène 15: 165–182. Lemaire, A. and Durand, J.-M. 1984. Les inscriptions Araméennes de Sefiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-Ilu (Hautes Études Orientales, 20) Genève-Paris. Lemche, N.P. 1993. The Old Testament — A Hellenistic Book? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7: 163–193.


59

Lemche, N.P. 1994. Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8: 165–190. Lemche, N.P. 1998. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Louisville. Lipiński, E. 1979. Aram et Israël du Xe au VIIIe siècle av. N.É. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 49–101. Lipiński, E. 2000. The Linguistic Geography of Syria in Iron Age II (c. 1000–600 B.C.). In: Bunnens, G. ed. 2000. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, 7). Leuven: 125–142. Lipiński, E. 1999. Ba’il. In: Radner, K. ed. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, vol. 1 Part II: B-G. Helsinki: 242b. McCarter, P.K. 1984. II Samuel (The Anchor Bible). Garden City. Maeir, A. 2001. The Philistine Culture in Transformation: A Current Perspective based on the Results of the First Seasons of Excavations at Tell eṣ-Ṣafī/Gath. In: Maeir, A.M. and Baruch, E. eds. Settlement, Civilization and Culture: Proceedings of the Conference in Memory of David Alon. Ramat Gan: 111–129. Malamat, A. 1963. Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon. JNES 22: 1–17. Ma‘oz, Z.U. 1992. Geshur. In: Freedman, D.N. ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary 2. New York: 996. Mazar, B. 1961. Geshur and Maacah. JBL 80: 16–28. Mazar, B. 1962. The Aramean Empire and Its Relations with Israel. BA 25: 97–120. Mazar, B. 1993. En Gev, Excavations on the Mound. In: New Enc. Arch. Exc. II: 409–411. Mazzoni, S. 1994. Aramaean and Luwian New Foundations. In: Mazzoni, S. ed. Nuove fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente antico: Realità e ideologia. Pisa: 319–340. Mazzoni, S. 1995. Settlement Pattern and New Urbanization in Syria at the Time of the Assyrian Conquest. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di Geografia Storica, 5). Rome: 181–191. Mazzoni, S. 1999. Une nouvelle st le d’époque araméenne de Tel Afis (Syrie). Transeuphratène 16: 9–19. Mazzoni, S. 2000. Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In: Bunnens, G. ed. 2000. Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement, 7). Leuven: 31–59. Mazzoni, S. 2001. Tell Afis and the Lu‘ash in the Aramaean Period. In: Daviau, P.M.M., Wevers J.W. and Weigl M. eds. 2001. The World of the Aramaeans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 325). Sheffield: 99–114. Millard, A.R. 1990. The Homeland of Zakkur. Semitica 39: 47–52. Miller, J.M. 1969. Geshur and Aram. JNES 28: 60–61. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia. Müller, H.-P. 1994. König Mêša‘ von Moab und der Gott der Geschichte. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 373–395. Na’aman, N. 1987. The Historical Background of the Battle between Amaziah and Jehoash. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9: 211–217. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1991. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West. In: Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem: 80–98. Na’aman, N. 1994. The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and in History. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 218–281.

60


Na’aman, N. 1995a. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Na’aman, N. 1995b. Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5). Rome: 103–115. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz and Davies 1996: 170–186. Na’aman, N. 1997. King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy. IEJ 47: 83– 92. Na’aman, N. 1998. Shishak’s Campaign to Palestine as Reflected by the Epigraphic, Biblical and Archaeological Evidence. Zion 63: 247–276. (Hebrew) Na’aman, N. 1999. Lebo-Hamath, Ṣubat-Hamath, and the Northern Boundary of the Land of Canaan. Ugarit-Forschungen 31: 417–441. Na’aman, N. 2000a. Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 50: 92–104. Na’aman, N. 2000b. The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware from Lachish and Tel MiqneEkron to the Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery. BASOR 317: 1–7. Na’aman, N. 2002. The Past that Shapes the Present. The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late First Temple Period and After the Downfall (Yeriot 3). Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Niccacci, A. 1999. The Stele of Mesha and the Bible: Verbal System and Narrativity, Orientalia 63: 226–248. Niemann, H.M. 1993. Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat. Tübingen. Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien. IV: Schoschenkliste. ZDPV 61: 277–304. Noth, M. 1943. (19673). Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen. Noth, M. 1960. The History of Israel. London. Noth, M. 1981. The Deuteronomistic History. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 15). Sheffield. (Original publication: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Tübingen 1943; 19673). Paul, S.M. 1991. Amos (Hermeneia). Minneapolis. Parpola, S. 1970. Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 6). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pitard, W.T. 1987. Ancient Damascus. Winona Lake. Ponchia, S. 1991. L’Assyria e gli stati transeufratici nella prima metà dell’VIII sec. a.C. Padova. Postgate, J.N. 2000. The Assyrian Army in Zamua. Iraq 62: 89–108. Prolov, S. 2002. Succession Narrative: A “Document” or a Phantom? JBL 121: 81–104. de Pury, A. and Römer, T. eds. 2000. Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 176). Freiburg and Göttingen. Rainey, A.F. 1998. Syntax, Hermeneutics and History. IEJ 48: 239–251. Reinhold, G.G.G. 1989. Die Beziehungen Altisraels zu den aramäischen Staaten in der israelitischjudäischen Königszeit. Frankfurt. Rendsburg, G.A. 1991. Baasha of Ammon, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 20: 57–61. Routledge, B. 2000. The Politics of Mesha: Segmented Identities and State Formation in Iron Age Moab. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43: 221–256. Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbücher (Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 21). Tübingen. Sader, H. 1987. Les états araméens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur transformation en provinces Assyriennes. Beirut.


61

Smelik, K.A.D. 1992. King Mesha’s Inscription between History and Fiction, Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 28). Leiden: 59–92. Soggin, J.A. 1977. The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom. In: Hayes J.H. and Miller, J.M. eds. Israelite and Judaean History. Philadelphia. Steiner, M. 1994. Re-dating the Terraces of Jerusalem. IEJ 44: 13–20. Steiner, M., Cahill, J. and Na’aman, N. 1998. David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality? Biblical Archaeology Review 24/4: 24–44. Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Jerusalem. Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources. Leiden. Thompson, T.L. 1999. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York. van der Toorn, K. ed. 1997. The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven. Ungnad, A. 1906. Jaua, mâr Ḫumrî. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 9: 224–226. Wazana, N. 1996. Water Division in Border Agreements. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 10: 55–66. Weippert, M. 1992. Die Feldzüge Adadniraris III. nach Syrien: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen. ZDPV 108: 42–67. Weippert, M. 1997. Jahwe und die anderen Götter. Tübingen. Weissbach, F.A. 1922. Die Denkmäler und Inschriften an der Mündung des Nahr el-Kelb. Leipzig and Berlin. Wimmer, S. 2000. Zu einer kurzen Ritzinschrift aus et-Tell Beth Saida. Biblische Notizen 102: 33–34. Winckler, H. 1895. Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen. I. Leipzig. Winckler, H. 1901. Besprechungen zu Kittel, R. Die Bücher der Könige übers. u. erklärt. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 4: 141–152. Wolff, H.W. 1977. Joel and Amos (Hermeneia). Philadelphia. Yamada, S. 2000a. The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 3). Leiden Yamada, S. 2000b. Peter Hulin’s Hand Copies of Shalmaneser III’s Inscriptions. Iraq 62: 65– 87. Zadok, R. 1982. Remarks on Ezra and Nehemiah, ZAW 94: 296–298.

The List of David’s Officers (Šālîšîm)1 The biblical term šālîš was discussed recently in great detail by B. A. Mastin (1979:125–154). He credibly rejected the commonly held interpretation of the šālîš as the third man of the chariot and succeeded in demonstrating that every occurrence of šālîš in the Old Testament referred to an officer. As he points out, the šālîš was sometimes of relatively high rank, and the three individual šālîšîm who are mentioned in the Book of Kings were adjutants (2 Kgs. 7:2, 17, 19; 9:25, 15:25).2 A number of qāṭîl formations are titles of officials; thus, Mastin considers it likely that šālîšîm were high-ranking officers who were called “of the third rank,” simply because they came after the king and his senior officers (pp. 153–154). Alternatively, the title “of the third rank” may have referred to the army hierarchy; i.e., they came after the king (the official head of the army) and his chief of staff. It seems to me that this interpretation of the term šālîš is the key to the solution of the frequently discussed problem of David’s “mighty men” (gibbôrîm) (2 Sam. 23:8–39; 1 Chr. 11:10–41a).3 In the early days of modern biblical research, O. Thenius (1864:275–284; see Keil 1875:385–386) defined 2 Sam. 23 as a list of David’s “knights” (šālîšîm). He described the šālîšîm as “die vornehmsten, die Könige oder Oberfeldherrn zunächst umgebenden Krieger,” suggesting that the term appears in vv. 8, 9, 13, 18, 22, 23, 24. This suggestion was abandoned, unhappily, in favor of the vocalization šelôšîm (“Thirty”), which is followed by the Revised Standard Version and recent versions of the Bible; the list was interpreted as referring to the collegium of the Three and Thirty mighty men (gibbôrîm).4 The most comprehensive discussion of the text is that of K. Elliger (1935:29–75). He divided it into two sections: first the names and deeds of sev1. Reprinted with permission. Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988), 71–79. 2. This term is translated in various English versions of the Bible as lord/captain/ lieutenant “on whose hand/arm the king leaned,” or simply as “aide.” 3. In addition to the commentaries, see the following works: Marquart 1896:15–22; Elliger 1935:29–75, reprinted in Elliger 1966:72–118; Klein 1940:95–106; de Vaux 1961:218– 222; 1961:218-222; Mazar 1963:310–320; Zeron 1968; Garsiel 1970:149–159. 4. See for example: Wellhausen 1871:212–216; Smith 1899:383–388; Budde 1902:318– 326; Driver 1913:362–372; Segal 1956:386–395; McCarter 1984:487–501.

62

The List of David’s Officers (Šālîšîm)

63

eral well known heroes (vv. 8–23) and then the list of the Thirty (vv. 24b–39). The stylistic difference between the two parts is obvious: The first gives full description of the heroes’ exploits; the second is merely a roster of names. Elliger emphasized that the text refers to a certain institution (“eine bestimmte Einrichtung”) called “the Thirty,” whose number of members was not necessarily limited to thirty. He compared the institution of the Thirty to the Egyptian m‘b3yt; however, because the latter is a juridical body, the comparison is not particularly relevant (Redford 1972:141–142, n. 2). Mazar (1963:310) similarly compared the Thirty with pre-monarchical Israelite traditions “where there is frequent mention of thirty companions, or sons, who were associated with a charismatic personality or with the head of a clan.” The institution of the Thirty was regarded by Elliger (1935:68) as the staff (“Stab”) of the king’s most loyal men, who served as his bodyguard. Mazar (1963:310) likewise defined the Thirty as a “military elite” that “had formed a kind of supreme command.” The institution was established, according to Elliger (1935:69–75), at the time of David’s flight from Saul, probably at Ziklag, when David was a vassal of Achish, king of Gath. In his opinion, only the first 23 mighty men (vv. 14b–35) belong to the original Thirty, whereas the seven at the end of the list joined David later, during his reign at Hebron. Mazar (1963:317–319) assumed that the institution of the Thirty was already well established at the beginning of David’s wanderings. He suggested that Amasai (1 Chr. 12:18) and Ishmaiah (1 Chr. 12:4) were the heads of David’s band of Thirty in the desert of Ziph and at Ziklag. The list of the “military elite” of 2 Sam. 23:14–39 was dated by him to the beginning of David’s reign in Hebron. It was composed of two groups: the first thirty heroes (including the Three) and the last seven, the latter serving as officers over the foreign mercenary units. The general consensus is that the Three were high officers, each commanding one of the three units of the regiment. Ish-bosheth (MT yšb bšbt; 1 Chr. 11:11 Jashobeam), who opens the list, was chief of the Three. Abishai is regarded as head of the Thirty, whereas Benaiah acquired high command among David’s thirty mighty men. This interpretation, however, is not free of philological and historical problems. First, it would require several textual alterations. This is particularly clear in the case of Abishai, brother of Joab, who is described in both 2 Sam. 23:18–19 and 1 Chr. 11:20–1 (MT and Authorized Version) as the commander of the Three, not the Thirty. It is questionable whether it is legitimate to substitute “thirty” for “three” in so many places. Second, Abishai is regarded as the commander of the Thirty; yet, he appears only in fourth place in the list after the Three. Moreover, Ish-bosheth’s deeds are superior to those of Abishai. If Abishai was indeed the highest officer, one would have

64


expected him to head the list and to surpass all others in his deeds. Third, the assumed institution of the Thirty is mentioned nowhere else as a permanent body during the monarchical period. The supporters of this theory, therefore, are bound to the assumption that the institution disappeared not long after its establishment. Fourth, when one reads šelôšîm (“thirty”) in vv. 8, 13, 23, 24 (instead of šālîšîm = officers, as suggested below), there is no textual indication of the status of the thirty-seven gibbôrîm. The suggestion that they were high-ranking officers or general staff may be a logical inference, but is not supported by the other references to the gibbôrîm in the stories of David and Solomon. The gibbôrîm are mentioned as a corps of professional troops who fought under David in all his skirmishes and battles. They appear side by side with the conscripted army (2 Sam. 10:7, 16:6). In these passages and another passage (1 Kgs 1:8–10), they seem to be the same as the Cherethites and Pelethites (de Vaux 1961:220). In one instance, however, they are mentioned as fighting together with the latter (2 Sam, 20:7). The gibbôrîm were apparently both a royal bodyguard and the spearhead of the army in time of war (2 Sam. 10:7; 11:11, 16–17, 23–24). After the early days of Solomon, they are rarely mentioned as a professional corps or bodyguard (cf. Jer. 26:21; Neh. 3:16). However, units of this kind, under different names, are attested in the books of Samuel and Kings (de Vaux 1961:121–124, 218–222). The variety of names applied to these units probably was due to the character of the sources and historiographical motivations, rather than an attempt to make a technical distinction between the nature and functions of the armed bodies. Taking into account the historical place of the gibbôrîm in David’s wars and the role of such professional troops after the foundation of the Monarchy, one may safely conclude that they were organized in units that contained more than thirty-seven men listed in 2 Sam. 23:8–39. Unfortunately, the commonly accepted interpretation of this passage leaves undefined the nature of these thirty seven gibbôrîm. All these problems disappear once we realize that the list of mighty men refers to David’s officers (šālîšîm). The term originally appeared in vv. 8, 13, 19a, 23, 24. The assumed original vocalization differs from the received pointing of these verses; the reasons for preferring a different vocalization will be advanced below. In what follows, I shall try to clarify the structure of the list according to this interpretation. The text opens with Ish-bosheth “chief of the officers.” The reading šālîšîm is supported by the Qere to 1 Chr. 11:11. His place at the head of the list and the enormous number of enemies slain by him “at one time” justify his position as commander of the corps.


65

Following the chief come the Three: Eleazar, Shammah and Abishai. The latter is described as follows (2 Sam. 23:18–19a):5 “Now Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief of the three (šelôšāh). And he wielded his spear against three hundred men and slew them, and won a name among the three. He was the most renowned of the officers (šālîšîm) and became their commander.”

The logical structure of the original list of officers — headed by the commander and the Three — was corrupted by a redactor who tried to incorporate in it an old story of the courageous deeds of three anonymous heroes near the gate of Bethlehem (vv. 13–17). The episode originally opened with the words “and three of the officers (šālîšîm) . . .” (v. 13).6 Both the meaning of šālîšîm in this context and the structure of the text were no longer clear to the interpolator, who mistakenly regarded Abishai as commander of thirty (šelôšîm) mighty men, no doubt on account of his future career. He, therefore, inserted the story of the three heroes into the wrong place, separating Abishai from his two companions in command (Eleazar and Shammah). This redactor is probably responsible for the addition of the words, “but he did not attain the three” (v. 19b) at the end of Abishai’s description. The insertion was intended to corroborate his interpretation of the text, according to which Abishai, chief of the Thirty, succeeded the Three (Ish-bosheth, Eleazar and Shammah); the additional words were copied from the parallel description of Benaiah (v. 23). The interpolation of vv. 13–17 and 19b, which distorted the structure of the list, is the main reason for its subsequent misinterpretation. The Three were the commanders of the three sub-units of the corps of professional soldiers (see above) (Elliger 1935:74; Gordon 1955:83; Mazar 1963:314; Bartlett 1969:3; cf. Mastin 1979:148). Such a threefold division is also seen in the guard of the palace and the temple in Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion against Athaliah, when each unit was headed by a centurion (2 Kgs 11:4–7).7 The description of Abishai as “the most renowned of the of5. For this passage, the literary style of the RSV is followed. The “three” of v. 18 is supported by the MT (cf. Authorized Version) and the parallel description in 1 Chr. 11:20. The reading šālîšîm in v. 19a is based on the parallel description in v. 23a (and 1 Chr. 11:25) and the versions of the Targum and the Peshiṭta; see Thenius 1864:281. 6. The reading šālîšîm is based on the Targum and the Peshiṭta; see Thenius 1864:279; Sperber 1959:208. 7. It is worth noting that the pair of the Carites and the rāṣîm (RSV “guards”) who took the leading part in the rebellion against Athaliah (2 Kgs. 11:4, 19) exactly matches the pair of the Cherethites and Pelethites and the gibbôrîm who took the leading part in the pursuit after Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Sam. 20:7). The foreign mercenaries (Cherethites and

66


ficers” who “became their commander (śar)” is an integral part of the original text: The author, who knew of Abishai’s subsequent career, openly referred to it. Next came Benaiah who was assigned many heroic deeds (vv. 20–21), on account of which he won a name beside the Three (v. 22). “He was renowned among the officers (šālîšîm), but he did not attain to the three. And David set him over his bodyguard.” (v. 23). Some of Benaiah’s exploits may have taken place after the hypothetical original roster of 37 names was compiled. The episodes were probably portrayed by the author of the text, again on account of the hero’s subsequent high position at court. His post as commander of David’s personal bodyguard (mišma‘at)8 alludes to his appointment to command the Cherethites and Pelethites (2 Sam. 8:18; 20:23; 1 Chr. 18:17). The date of this appointment is unknown, but it is certainly linked with the defeat and subduing of the Philistines (2 Sam. 8:1) (de Vaux 1961:219; Wildberger 1972:472; Delcor 1978:409–422). There are no compelling reasons to regard the entire passage referring to Benaiah (vv. 20–3) as an interpolation, as has recently been suggested (Zeron, 1978:20–27). The “updating” of the officers’ list reflects the time in which the original list of names was transformed into a descriptive text, where the heroic deeds of the first five officers were portrayed. Dating the officers’ roster of names is a vexed problem. The appearance of Uriah the Hittite, who was killed at Rabbah of the Ammonites (2 Sam. 11:17), establishes a terminus ante quem for the list. The episodes of Pas-dammim (1 Chr. 11:13; 2 Sam. 23:9 improved text) (Driver 1913:365; McCarter 1984:487, 490, 494–495) and of Lehi (2 Sam. 23:11) cannot be dated with certainty. The episode of the three unnamed heroes at the well of Bethlehem (vv. 13–17) belongs to David’s wars with the Philistines (2 Sam. 5:17–21); as noted above, the entire passage was not part of the original text. Several notes about Abishai and Benaiah are late, and it is not clear whether or not the comment about the latter’s appointment over David’s bodyguard (5:23) reflects an event that was contemporary with the composition of the name list of officers. The absence of Joab from the list is conspicuous, because he was the commander of David’s band during his reign in Hebron, subsequently becoming the head of the Israelite army. The term šālîš means “of the third rank”; thus, the chief of staff would have no place in it. The list of šālîšîm can, therefore, be safely dated later than Joab’s promotion. In my opinion, the officers’ roster of names should be dated to David’s reign in Jerusalem. The list was compiled either prior to David’s first list of high offiPelethites, Carites) were sometimes described alongside other units of the professional army and sometimes as identical corps (see de Vaux 1961:220). 8. On the meaning of mišma‘at, see Budde 1902:323; Driver 1913:181; de Vaux 1961:220.


67

cials (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Chr. 18:15–17) or about the same time. It reflects the organization of the professional army after David made Jerusalem his capital, an organization accompanied by the appointment of officers over the troops. V. 24 of the list notes that “Asahel the brother of Joab was one of the officers (šālîšîm).” The slaying of Asahel by Abner during David’s reign in Hebron is portrayed in 2 Sam. 2:18–23. Ostensibly, this event supplies a terminus ante quem for the list of officers (Mazar 1963:318). Elliger (1935:34; Hertzberg 1964) pointed out that the description of Asahel is exceptional, suggesting that his name was inserted into the text to commemorate the name of Joab’s and Abishai’s brother, who belonged to David’s band and was killed in battle. However, the description of Asahel is similar to that of his brother Abishai (v. 18), both descriptions referring to their elder brother, Joab. Was Asahel killed during the early days of David’s reign in Hebron? A fresh analysis of 2 Sam. 2:12–32 may shed more light on this problem. The parties in the battle of Gibeon are Abner and “the servants of Ish-bosheth the son of Saul” on the one hand and Joab and “the servants of David” on the other (vv. 12–13). Following the “play” of the “young men” (vv. 14–16), there was a fierce battle ending with the defeat of Abner and his men (v. 17). The narrative is interrupted at this point by an episode with a different theme and different opponents (vv. 18–24). However, it finds its direct continuation in vv. 25–31, 32b: the same leaders (i.e., Abner and Joab) reappear, but the death of Asahel is not mentioned in their dialogue (vv. 26–7). The end of the conflict, when each party returns to its point of departure (vv. 29, 32b), closes the narrative, which opened with each of them leaving his respective capital. It is clear that the episode in vv. 18–24 + 32a had nothing to do with the original story of the battle of Gibeon. There are several unreliable elements in the description of the slaying of Asahel (vv. 18–24). Both the dialogue during the pursuit and the two warnings pronounced by Abner to his would-be assassin are artificial, representing a biased account by the author, rather than historical events. The description of the actual killing (v. 23) and the subsequent pursuit by Joab and Abishai (v. 24) are apparently a reworking of the episode of Amasa’s death at the hand of Joab (2 Sam. 20:10–12). The entire episode in vv. 18–24 is historically dubious. F.H. Cryer (1985:392) suggested that it was inserted to provide Joab with a motive for murdering Abner. The interpolation is part of a redactional stratum that attempts to establish David’s innocence of the killing of Saul, Abner and Ishbaal.9 Its authenticity is no greater than that of the

9. Grønbaek 1971:225–234; Lemche 1978:2–25; McCarter 1980:489–504; VanderKam 1980:521–539; Langlamet, 1982:11–17; Cryer 1985:385–94.

68


interpolated episode in 2 Sam. 1:5–10, 13–16, which portrays in an unauthenticated manner the death of Saul at the hands of an Amalekite.10 In my opinion, the mention of another brother of Joab and Abishai (whose memory is nowhere else mentioned) in 2 Sam. 23:24 is the point of departure for the episode in 2 Sam. 2:18–24. The absence of details of this brother’s fate was filled in by the interpolator,11 who assigned his slaying to Abner, thus, fabricating a motive for Joab’s subsequent murder of Abner and brushing aside the historical motive of this murder (2 Sam. 3:24–25). The date of the interpolation is not clear, but it is certainly much later than the events. The interpolator apparently felt free at that time to manipulate the old stories to fit them into his own historiographical approach. We may conclude that the story in 2 Sam. 2:12–32 is not an obstacle to our dating of the list of officers to David’s early reign in Jerusalem. In summary, it is evident that by reading šālîšîm (in place of šelôšîm) in vv. 8, 13, 19a, 23, 24, many of the problems involved with the understanding of 2 Sam. 23:8–39 (and 1 Chr, 11:10–41a) are clarified. Numerous textual corrections suggested in the past, thus, become unnecessary. The structure of the list, which opens with the highest ranking commander, followed by the Three, the commander of the king’s bodyguard and the rest of the officers, is clear and logical. The evasive “institution of the Thirty” lacks any textual support in the text. The mention of groups of Thirty in the Book of Chronicles (1 Chr. 11:42, 12:4, 18, 27:6) is, in my opinion, no more than a variation of the Chronicler on the text of 2 Sam. 23, according to his own biased interpretation and historiographical aims.12 The assumed institution of the Thirty was reconstructed as the result of a misunderstanding of the text of 2 Sam. 23; its authority is, in my opinion, no greater than that of scribal errors. The corps of the gibbôrîm and their officers was first crystallized in Ziklag, when David was vassal of Achish of Gath. Its number has grown gradually, subsequently becoming the nucleus of David’s professional army. The list of the officers of these troops during David’s early reign in Jerusalem came down to us and must be regarded as an important source for the emergence of the professional army in Israel. 10. For another example of a non-historical episode that was inserted into the court history of David, see Veijola 1979:230–250. 11. For the filling in of many details that remained undefined in the stories of the Old Testament by late Jewish writers, see Heller 1939:170–184. 12. To emphasize unanimous Israelite support for David from the time of his escape from Saul, the Chronicler portrayed several groups that ostensibly came to Adullam, Ziklag and Hebron from all parts of Israel. Sometimes he called the leaders of these groups “heads of thirty,” a title borrowed from the corrupted text of 2 Sam. 23. For the arrangement of the material in 1 Chr. 11–12, see Williamson 1981:164–176.


69

References Bartlett, J.R. 1969. The use of the word r’š as a Title in the Old Testament. VT 19: 1–10. Budde, K. 1902. Die Bücher Samuel erklärt. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 8). Tübingen and Leipzig. Cryer, F.H. 1985. David’s Rise to Power and the Death of Abner. An Analysis of 1 Samuel xxvi 14–16 and its Redaction-Critical Implications. VT 35: 385–394. Delcor, M. 1978. Les Kéréthim et les Cretois. VT 28: 409–422. Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2nd revised ed.). Oxford. Elliger, K. 1935. Die dreissig Helden Davids, PJb 31: 29–75. (Reprint: 1966. Kleine Schrtften zum Alten Testament. [Theologische Bücherei 32]. München: 72–118). Garsiel, M. 1970. The gibbôrîm of David. In: Ben-shem, I., Gevaryahu, H.M. and Luria, B.Z. (eds.), Joseph Braslavi Jubilee Volume. Jerusalem: 149–159. (Hebrew). Gordon, C.H. 1955. Homer and the Bible. The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature. Hebrew Union College Annual 26: 43–108. Grønbaek, J.H. 1971. Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1. Sam. 15–2. Sam. 5): Tradition und Komposition. Copenhagen. Heller, B. 1939. Die Scheu von Unbekanntem, Unbenanntem in Agada and Apokryphen. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 83: 170–184. Hertzberg, H.W. 1964. I and 11 Samuel: A Commentary. London. Keil, C.F. 1875. Die Bücher Samuel. (Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament; 2nd ed). Leipzig. Klein, S. 1940. David’s Mighty Men. BJPES 7: 95–106. (Hebrew). Langlamet, F. 1982. David, fils de Jessé. RB 89: 5–47. Lemche, N. P. 1978. David’s Rise. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 10: 2–25. Marquart, J. 1896. Fundamente israelitischer und jüdischer Geschichte. Göttingen. Mastin, B.A. 1979. Was the šālîš the Third Man in the Chariot? Supplement to VT 30: 125– 154. Mazar, B. 1963. The Military Elite of King David. VT 13: 310–320. McCarter, P.K. 1980. The Apology of David. JBL 99: 489–504. McCarter, P.K. 1984. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible 9). Garden City. Redford, D.B. 1972. Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the First Millennium B.C. I: The Taxation System of Solomon. In: Wevers, J.W. and Redford, D.B. (eds.). Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World Presented to Professor F. V Winnett. Toronto: 141–156. Segal, M.H. 1956. The Books of Samuel. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Smith, H.P. 1899. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Sperber, A. 1959. The Bible in Aramaic II The Former Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Leiden. Thenius, O. 1864. Die Bücher Samuels. (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4; 2nd ed). Leipzig. VanderKam, J.C. 1980. Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study. JBL 99: 521–539. de Vaux , R. 1961. Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions. London. Veijola, T. 1979. Salomo — der erstgeborene Bathsebas. Supplement to VT 30: 230–250.

70


Wellhausen, J. 1871. Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht. Göttingen. Wildberger, H. 1972. Jesaja. 1: Jesaja 1–12 (Biblischer Kommentar X/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Williamson, H.G.M. 1981. “We Are Yours, O David”: The Setting and Purpose of 1 Chronicles XII 1–23. Oudtestamentische Studiën 21: 164–176. Zeron, A. 1968. The List of David’s Heroes. M. A. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Zeron, A. 1978. Der Platz Benajahus in der Heldenliste Davids (II Sam 23, 20–23). ZAW 90: 20–28.

Ittai the Gittite1 The dialogue between King David and Ittai the Gittite is the first of five dialogues reported in the narrative of David’s escape from Jerusalem, his capital, at the time of Absalom’s revolt (2 Sam. 15:13–16:14). Just before the retreat from the city, David reviewed the troops that remained loyal to him. A contingent of six hundred men from Gath marched after the professional troops of the Cherethites and Pelethites. David urged their leader Ittai to turn back to Jerusalem, “for you are a foreigner, and also an exile from your home. You came only yesterday, and shall I today make you wander about with us, seeing I go I know not where?” (v. 20). But Ittai remains loyal to the fleeing king and swears to share his fate (v. 21 “As the Lord lives, and as my lord the king lives, wherever the lord my king shall be, whether for death or for life, there also will your servant be”). His loyalty is in marked contrast to the conduct of Absalom, the king’s son, and the people of Judah who rebelled against their lord. It is clear that the author deliberately chose a foreigner so as to emphasize the treachery of the king’s son and his followers, in contrast with the foreigner’s devotion and loyalty (in addition to the commentaries, see Fokkelman 1981:175–183; Görg 1991; Ehrlich 1996:36, 122–125). Ittai is, no doubt, a literary figure devised by the author to play a particular role in the narrative and to convey certain messages about the king and his adversaries. The etymology of his name is unclear, although we may expect a non-Semitic origin (see Delcor 1978:411–413). What kind of social background did the narrator have in mind in the portrait of Ittai? He led a contingent of six hundred men “who came after him from Gath” (v. 18b). “After him (brglw),” as the MT stands, can refer only to David, but such interpretation makes little sense, and a reference to Ittai is wanted here. It seems, therefore, that Ittai’s name fell due to haplography, and that he was the original subject of “after him” (see e.g., Smith 1899:344; Driver 1913:313). In biblical historiography, a unit of six hundred men stands for a brigade/ band (gedūd) (Malamat 1954:432–433; 1970:9). There is an unmistakable parallel between David and Ittai. The former was a leader of a band of six hundred men (1 Sam. 23:13; 27:2; 30:9) who fled from the king of Israel and sought shel1. Reprinted with permission. Biblische Notizen 94 (1998), 22–25.

71

72


ter in the territory of Achish of Gath; the latter was a man of Gath who came with his band to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Ittai’s image as a leader of a band of outlaws is supported by 2 Sam. 15:22b: “So Ittai the Gittite passed on, with all his men and all the little ones (ṭaf) who were with him.” The combination of a contingent of warriors plus women and children is typical of bands and is mentioned several times in the stories of David’s wanderings (1 Sam. 27:2–3; 30:2–3, 18–19; 2 Sam. 2:2–3). The migrating Danites are likewise depicted as a brigade of six hundred armed men, as well as children (ṭaf), cattle and chattels (Judg. 18:11, 16–17, 20). The narrator described the Danites’ behavior as more brigand-like than a pastoral clan, and their way of life does not differ from that of other bands of outlaws depicted in the Bible (i.e., the bands of Jephtah, David, Gaal, and Sheba) (Na’aman 1986: 278–285, with earlier literature). The migrating bands are known in the ancient Near Eastern sources by the name ‘Apiru (see Bottéro 1972–75; 1980; Lemche 1992, with earlier literature). People designated as ‘Apiru were uprooted from their original political and social background and forced to adapt to a new environment. The organization of the fugitives in a band under a prominent leader was one way of adapting to the new circumstances in a foreign land. The predatory nature of such bands resulted from their social status. In the course of time, members of bands married, had children, and their numbers increased. Hence the inclusion of women and children among the members of the band, and the need to find shelter and protection in the framework of more stable social and political entities. Of all the scholars who discussed the Ittai’s social status, Smith (1899:343) came the closest to the target when he wrote: “He (i.e., Ittai) was . . . a soldier of fortune, who had just enlisted in David’s service with a band of followers.” Classifying Ittai as a leader of a migrating band at once clarifies his figure as described in 2 Sam. 15:18–22. David calls him a “foreigner” addressing him as “exile from your home,” thereby defining his social status as an uprooted migrant. He and his band (gedūd) of six hundred men, with their wives and children (ṭaf), found shelter in David’s court and served as mercenaries, hence, their place beside the professional troops of the Cherethites and the Pelethites in David’s review of his troops. The appointment of Ittai to command over third of the troops that fought against Absalom, along with Joab and Abishai (2 Sam. 18:2), was the king’s reward for his loyalty. As noted above, the figure of Ittai is literary and was created to convey messages about both the care of the king for those who served him and the devotion of the foreigner in contrast to the treachery of the king’s son and his followers (Fokkelman 1981:179–183). Ittai, the leader of a band of outlaws, is in a situation similar to that of David in his youth, and this accounts

Ittai the Gittite

73

for the sympathy that David must have felt for him (as noted correctly by Fokkelman). Moreover, on leaving Jerusalem, David was embarking on a second exile, and he would naturally feel close to another person who had left his homeland. In creating the secondary figure of Ittai, the author of the story deliberately devised one who shares common elements with the main hero, David, thereby making the substance of his narrative richer.

References Bottéro, J. 1972–75. Ḫabiru. Reallexikon der Assyriologie IV: 14–27. Bottéro, J. 1980. Entre nomades et sédentaires: Les Ḫabiru. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 6: 201–213. Delcor, M. 1978. Les Kéréthim et les Cretois. VT 28: 409–422. Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. (2nd revised ed.). Oxford. Ehrlich, C.S. 1996. The Philistines in Transition. A History from ca. 1000–730 BCE. Leiden, New York and Köln. Fokkelman, J.P. 1981. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel — A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. I: King David (II Sam. 9–20 & I Kings 1–2). Assen. Görg, M. 1991. Ittai aus Gat. BN 60: 20–23. Lemche, N.P. 1992. Ḫabiru, Ḫapiru. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, III. New York: 6–10. Malamat, A. 1954. gedūd. Encyclopaedia Biblica, II. Jerusalem: 432–433. (Hebrew). Malamat, A. 1970. The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative Pattern. Biblica 51: 1–16. Na’aman, N. 1986. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere. JNES 45: 271–288. Smith, H.P. 1899. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC). Edinburgh.

“Hebron Was Built Seven Years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numbers 13:22)1 In Num. 13:22, the building of Hebron is linked to the founding of Zoan (Tanis) by a gloss added to the name of Hebron in the story of the spies (Numbers 13–14). For many years, this was considered an allusion to the foundation of the Hyksos city of Avaris in the Middle Bronze Age, a theory based on two suppositions: (a) that Tanis was a late designation for Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos, and Pi-Ramesse, the capital of the XIXth-XXth dynasties; and (b) the existence of an “era” for the city of Tanis. In the words of W.F. Albright (1957:242–243): It is impossible to separate the tradition quoted in Num. 13:22, according to which Hebron was founded seven years before Tanis, from the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, and difficult to separate the Hyksos era of Tanis, according to which 400 years had elapsed at a time shortly before the accession of Ramesses I (1310 B.C.), from the 430 years assigned in Ex. 12:40 for the duration of the Israelite sojourn in the district of Tanis.2

However, both of these assumptions have been severely shaken by recent studies. It is clear now that Tanis and Avaris/Pi-Ramesse are two different sites. Tanis has been identified with San el-Hagar on the Tanitic arm of the Nile, and recent research has shown that Avaris and Pi-Ramesse were located on the Pelusic arm of the Nile, in the vicinity of modern Qantîr.3 Moreover, the new excavations conducted at Tanis clearly demonstrate that the site was not occupied before the XXIst dynasty (Yoyotte 1965:391–398, 1967:590– 601; 1970:32–40); consequently, the tradition of Num. 13:22 can have nothing to do with the Hyksos period, which antedated by several centuries the actual foundation of the city of Tanis.4 Furthermore, the very idea of an “era” 1. Reprinted with permission. Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981), 488–492. 2. For the same line of thought, see Mazar (Maisler) 1949:50–52; Rowley 1950:74–77; Mowinckel 1954:185–194. 3. Van Seters 1966:127–151; Uphill 1968:291–316; 1969:15–39; Bietak 1979; cf. the words of von Beckerath (1970:312): “It seems now almost certain that the site of the Ramesside palaces was near the modern Qantîr where the rulers of the XXIst dynasty took most of the monuments away to Tanis (Sân), their own residence.” 4. The suggestion of Ahituv (1971:744) that Tanis — even if located at a different site — might nevertheless have been considered as the heir of Avaris/Pi-Ramesse and that the

74

Hebron Was Built Seven Years before Zoan in Egypt

75

(e.g., the era of the city of Rome) prevailing for hundreds of years was unknown in the ancient Near East before the Hellenistic period. The statements of “time spans” mentioned in Babylonian and Assyrian sources, for example, are demonstrably no more than retrospective calculations based solely on chronological data preserved by the Mesopotamian scribal circles, who simply counted backward to whatever event they wished to commemorate (Poebel 1942:290–306; Landsberger 1954:39–41, 70, n. 181; Rowton 1958:107– 109; Tadmor 1970:69–71, 75). D.B. Redford (1970:22–31) has demonstrated that the so called “era” of the 400 years stele was the same type of mechanical computation of the beginning of the Hyksos rule in Egypt, based on the same chronological data available to the compiler of the Turin Canon. In the same manner, the biblical “chronologies” of the Pentateuch are actually multiplications of numbers of generations according to various estimations of the length of a single generation (Tadmor 1962:247–249). Accordingly, the very concept of an “era” for either Hebron or Tanis, which is claimed to be reflected in our verse, should be dropped out of hand. Consequently, not only is the old proposal for Num. 13:22 no longer tenable, but a solution based on a different foundation must be sought. This new basis should be linked with the methods used for calculating dates in the past, which were common to all the ancient Near Eastern “chronologies.” In my opinion, the “building” of Hebron and Tanis in our verse refers to the rebuilding of these cities as capitals of their respective kingdoms, Israel and Egypt. That the transformation of a city into a capital involved an extensive rebuilding to meet the requirements of a new administrative and cultic center is self-evident. The root bnh (“to build”) is intimately connected with the foundation of a new capital city in several biblical verses. See, in particular, the reference to the rebuilding of Shechem and Penuel as successive capitals of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs. 12:25: “Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim and dwelt therein, and went out from thence and built Penuel.” Similarly, the foundation of Samaria as Omri’s capital is described in 1 Kgs. 16:24 by the words: “And he bought the hill of Samaria . . . and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built . . . Samaria.” Tanis most probably became the capital of Egypt in the days of Smendes I (ca. 1069– 1043), after having been governed by him for a time as a port of Pi-Ramesse (Kitchen 1973:256–257, 267–268). Of Hebron, it is said in 1 Kgs. 2:11: “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; seven years reigned he in Hebron and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem” (cf. 2 Sam.

antiquity of Hebron might still be related to the foundation of Avaris in the Middle Bronze Age is very unlikely.

76


2:11, 5:4–5; 1 Chr. 29:27). The seven years that David reigned in Hebron are identical with the seven years by which Hebron antedates the city of Tanis. In other words, the calculation according to which Hebron was built seven years before Tanis is derived from a tradition that synchronizes the foundation of Jerusalem and Tanis as capitals of Israel and Egypt. Strictly speaking, the synchronism is slightly inaccurate, because the Egyptian XXIst dynasty antedated by several decades the kingdom of David. However, this is not a concrete historical date, hut only a vague memory of the past that emerged later on in the court of Jerusalem.5 The background of this “synchronism” will be traced in the following paragraphs. It is only from the reign of Solomon, who married an Egyptian princess (1 Kgs. 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 24, 11:1; 2 Chr. 8:11), that we are informed of friendly relationships between the Hebrew kingdom and the Tanitic court.6 A rather strained situation seems to have prevailed under David, who conquered the neighboring countries and subjugated the Philistine kingdoms, a focal point of interest for the Egyptians in Asia. This might explain the Tanitic attitude towards the Edomite Hadad, who fled to Egypt seeking refuge there (1 Kgs. 11:14–22). Early in the days of Solomon, an Egyptian king (probably Siamun) (see the chronological discussions of Kitchen 1973:280, with n. 221; Green 1978) embarked on a campaign against him, his main aim being perhaps to return Philistia to the Egyptian sphere of influence.7 The campaign appears to have succeeded, and the Egyptians were able to hold the Philistine coast until a peace treaty, reinforced by a royal marriage, was signed between the two kingdoms. Gezer was transferred back to Israel as a kind of a “dowry” (for the Egyptian point of view of the dowry, see Redford 1973:5 n. 21a) and, being now a border town of the kingdom, was subsequently fortified (1 Kgs. 9:15), while the Egyptians kept their political influence in the Philistia coast. Accordingly, when Shishak conducted his campaign to Palestine, he was able to march along the coast unopposed until the southern border of the kingdom of Israel.

5. Such an artificially contrived “synchronism” is known also from Mesopotamian chronography. The foundation of the dynasty of Hammurabi of Babylonia and the dynasty of Ilushuma of Assyria were tied together in a Babylonian chronicle and an Assyrian synchronistic king-list, though Ilushuma antedated the dynasty of Hammurabi (Landsberger 1954:71, n. 184). 6. Grdseloff 1947:88–95; Malamat 1963:8–17; Horn 1967:3–17; Kitchen 1973:273–275, 280–3; Redford 1973:3–6; Lance 1976:209–223; Green 1978:353–367. 7. For the various explanations offered for the Egyptian campaign, see Grdseloff 1947: 88–95; Malamat 1963:8–17; Horn 1967:3–17; Kitchen 1973:273–275, 280–3; Redford 1973:3–6; Lance 1976:209–223; Green 1978:353–367; Aharoni 1967:272; Fritz 1969:159–160.

Hebron Was Built Seven Years before Zoan in Egypt

77

The alliance made between Solomon and the Tanitic dynasty was probably maintained throughout most of the Judahite monarchy. Shishak seems to have avoided attacking the kingdom of Judah, his campaign being directed mainly against the kingdom of Israel, on the one hand, and against the dwellers of the desert and the Negeb on the other.8 Apart from the episode of Zerah “the Cushite” (2 Chr. 14:8–14), the peaceful relationship between Jerusalem and Tanis continued for a long time. This might well have created the feeling that both capitals had been allies from the very beginning, eventually resulting in the notion that they were also founded at one and the same time. Thus, when a late editor re-worked the spies story, he may have been trying to add more color to it by stressing the antiquity of the city of Hebron, which figured prominently in the story (cf. Josh. 11:10). This he accomplished in a rather sophisticated manner. Being aware of the tradition that Jerusalem and Tanis became capital cities at the same time and having before him the verses stating that David’s rule in Hebron antedated by seven years his reign in Jerusalem, he expressed the antiquity of Hebron by omitting both names of David and Jerusalem from the scene, thus providing a remarkable and welldisguised “past event” for the city: “Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.” 8. The only Judahite sites mentioned in the topographical list of Shishak are Arad and Ezem, both situated in the southern border of the kingdom. Even Beer-sheba, the center of the Negeb district of Judah, is not mentioned by Shishak. The identification of biblical Beth Anath and Ashnah (both in the Judean hills) with similar toponyms in the list of Shishak (Kitchen 1973:297, 434, 440–441) does not correspond at all with the geographical context of either town in the list.

78


References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1971. Zoan. Enc. Miqr. VI: 744–747. (Hebrew). Albright, W.F. 1957. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Monotheism and the Historical Process. (2nd ed.). Garden City, NY. von Beckerath, J. 1970. Review: The Hyksos. A New Investigation, by John Van Seters. New Haven and London 1966. JAOS 90: 309–313. Bietak, M. 1979. Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Proceedings of the British Academy 65. London: 225–290. Fritz, V. 1969. Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Josua 12. ZDPV 85: 136–161. Grdseloff, B. 1947. Édom, d’après les sources égyptiennes. Revue de l’Histoire Juive en Égypte 1: 69–99. Green, A.R. 1978. Solomon and Siamun: A Synchronism between Early Dynastic Israel and the Twenty-first Dynasty of Egypt. JBL 97: 353–367. Horn, S.H. 1967. Who Was Solomon’s Egyptian Father-in-Law? Biblical Review 12: 3–17. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B.C.). Warminster. Lance, H.D. 1976. Solomon, Siamon and the Double Ax. In: Cross, F.M., Lemke, W.E. and Miller, P.D. eds. Magnalia Dei. The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. New York: 209–223. Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31–73, 106– 133. Malamat, A. 1963. Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon. JNES 22: 1–17. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1949. Kiriath-arba which is Hebron. In: Baer, Y.F., Gutman, I. and Schwabe, M. eds. Dinaburg Jubelee Volume: Studies Presented to Ben-Zion Dinaburg. Jerusalem: 310–325. (Hebrew). Mowinckel, S. 1954. Die Gründung von Hebron. In: Gren, E.I.T. ed. Donum Natalicium: H.S. Nyberg Oblatum. Uppsala: 185–194. Poebel, A. 1942. The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad. JNES 1: 247–306, 460–492. Redford, D.B. 1970. The Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition. Orientalia 39: 1–51. Redford, D.B. 1973. Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the First Millenium B.C. II. The Twenty-Second Dynasty. JAOS 93: 3–17. Rowley, H.H. 1950. From Joseph to Joshua. London. Rowton, M.B. 1958. The Date of Hammurabi. JNES 17: 97–111. Tadmor, H. 1962. Chronology. Enc. Miqr. IV: 245–310. (Hebrew). Tadmor, H. 1970. The Chronology of the Ancient Near East in the Second Millennium B.C.E. In: Mazar, B. ed. 1970. The Patriarchs. (The World History of the Jewish People I: Ancient Times II). Tel Aviv: 63–101, 260–269. Uphill, E.P. 1968. Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance. JNES 27: 291–316. Uphill, E.P. 1969. Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance. JNES 28: 15–39. Van Seters, J. 1966. The Hyksos: A New Investigation. New Haven and London. Yoyotte, J. 1965. Reprise des fouilles de Tanis (Avril-Mai 1965). Compte rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 391–398. Yoyotte, J. 1967. Les fouilles de Tanis (XXIIIe campagne, aout-october 1966). Compte rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 590–601. Yoyotte, J. 1970. Travaux de la mission française des fouilles de Tanis en 1968–1969. Compte rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 32–40.

Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon1 1. The Advent of Writing in the Court of Jerusalem The histories of David and Solomon, as delineated in the Books of Samuel and Kings, were regarded for many years as evidence for extensive writing in the tenth-century court of Jerusalem. Numerous details seem to support this assumption, for example: (a) The office of scribe, who must have been a state scribe and a personal secretary of the kings, among the officials of David and Solomon (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:3); (b) the establishment of a state, with its foreign, political and commercial connections requiring a system of administration in which writing had a prominent place; (c) the references to Solomon’s wisdom, which were interpreted as evidence of a foundation of a school of scribes and learning in Jerusalem; (d) “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:41), which was regarded as an official text written in the court of Jerusalem. Many scholars accepted a tenth-century date for the beginning of historical writing in Israel.2 However, these claims of extensive writing in the courts of David and Solomon and of an early development of historiography in Israel have been dismissed in recent research and can no longer be upheld. It is widely accepted today that the Deuteronomistic history was composed either in the late 7th century BCE or immediately after the destruction and exile of 587/586 and that the development of historical writing in Israel did not antedate the 8th century BCE. So when was writing introduced into the court of Jerusalem? Determining this date is essential for the evaluation of our sources on the history of Solomon. Several lists that might have been drawn from original documents are usually regarded as indications of writing in Israel as early as the tenth century. Many scholars assume that these sources suggest that the biblical historians had before them original documents of the time of the United 1. Reprinted with permission. In: L.K. Handy (ed.), The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, Leiden 1997, 57–80. 2. See, for example Rost 1926; von Rad 1944:1–42; 1953:120–127; Mowinckel 1963:4– 26; Liver 1967:75–101; Gray 1970:14–22; Mettinger 1976; Langlamet 1976:518–528; McCarter 1980:23–30; 1984:9–16; Schmidt 1982:55–73; Ishida 1982:175–187.

79

80


Monarchy. Recently, however, some scholars have questioned these assumptions. They suggest that Jerusalem did not become the center of a state before the 8th century and that writing in Jerusalem did not antedate the establishment of the state. In their opinion, the history of the United Monarchy was composed purely on the basis of oral traditions and is devoid of historical foundation.3 No extra-biblical sources mention either David or Solomon. This is not surprising. There are no detailed accounts of historical events in the first millennium before the 9th century BCE. All Syro-Palestinian inscriptions of the 10th century refer to local affairs and shed no light on international relationships. Even if David and Solomon accomplished the deeds attributed to them in the Bible, no source would have mentioned their names. The silence of 10th century sources neither proves nor disproves the biblical account of the United Monarchy (Contra Garbini 1988:16; see Knauf 1991a :171–172). There is one exception to the local nature of tenth century documents: the topographical list of Shishak. The Egyptian king left a long list of places conquered in the course of his Asiatic campaign. An analysis of the list indicates that the campaign was directed against the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the non-Judahite Negevite areas, avoiding almost entirely the kingdom of Judah (Na’aman 1992:79–86, with earlier literature). 1 Kgs. 14:25–28 refers to Shishak’s campaign . The text clearly deals chiefly with the handing over of Solomon’s golden shields to Shishak and their replacement by copper shields. Details of the Egyptian campaign are minimal, and its description is schematic. What could have been the source upon which the author drew for his description? In my opinion, it must have been a chronicle (composed on the basis of earlier sources), which mentioned that, in the fifth year of Rehoboam’s reign, golden shields were delivered to Shishak, king of Egypt, and were replaced by copper shields. The Deuteronomist (henceforth Dtr) logically interpreted this statement to mean that Shishak’s campaign, about which he had no other source, was directed against Jerusalem and that the treasures of the palace and the temple were then delivered to Egypt. He wrote long after the conclusion of the campaign he described and was entirely dependent on his sources. His interpretation of Shishak’s campaign may look incomplete and even misleading, but it illuminates part of the historical reality: The campaign did indeed reach the environs of Jerusalem, and a heavy tribute was paid to Egypt on that occasion.4 3. The fundamental study of the emergence of the Judean state is Jamieson-Drake 1991, esp. pp. 138–45. See also Knauf 1991a:39; 1991b:172; Davies 1992:67–70; Thompson 1992: 409–410; 1995:59–74; Lemche 1994:183–189; Lemche and Thompson 1994:3–23. 4. Some scholars have recently suggested that, contrary to the text of Kings, Shishak’s

Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon

81

The account of Shishak’s campaign in the Book of Kings indicates that there was some kind of scribal activity in the court of Jerusalem in the late 10th century BCE. One would naturally assume that it was not introduced by a petty king like Rehoboam, but rather by one of his ancestors, either David or Solomon. The installation of the office of scribe in the courts of David and Solomon, as related in three official lists (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:3) supports this conclusion. It also accords with some records that are included in the history of Solomon and might have been drawn from late copies of old documents, for example: (a) the list of Solomon’s high officials (1 Kgs. 4:2–6), (b) the list of Solomon’s district officers (1 Kgs. 4:7–19),5 (c) details of Solomon’s building activity in his kingdom (1 Kgs. 9:15, 17–18). The evidence presented so far for scribal activity in the 10th century court of Jerusalem may be supported further by epigraphic evidence. Goldwasser has suggested that the hieratic numerals and signs, common in epigraphic documents of Israel and Judah in the 8th–7th centuries BCE, which do not appear in documents of Israel’s neighbors, entered the Hebrew script before the 9th century BCE. It passed from Egyptian scribes in the 12th century to local Canaanite scribes, who, in turn, passed on their knowledge to the new court of Israel (Goldwasser 1991:248–253). Egyptian influence on the Hebrew script supports the above conclusions that scribal activity had already been introduced into the court of Jerusalem at the time of the United Monarchy.

campaign should be dated to the late years of Solomon. See Garbini 1988:29–30; Knauf 1991b:181–182; Redford 1992:315. They did not, however attempt either to analyze the text of Kings or to discuss the problem of sources and composition in the history of Rehoboam. In my opinion, the suggestion is arbitrary and lacks a concrete foundation. The date of the campaign as recorded in the Book of Kings must have been drawn from a written source and can be used as a safe point of departure for dating the division of the monarchy. 5. For a recent discussion, see Ash 1995:67–86, with earlier literature. It must be noted that Ash’s textual analysis does not differ from the analysis of many other scholars who observed that the text, in its present form, includes numerous interpolations and glosses. That the data in the text is pre-Dtr is also common knowledge. The new element in the article is the outcome of the observation made recently by scholars that writing in the tenth century court of Jerusalem was quite limited and could hardly have produced the records necessary for this kind of document. It is from this observation that Ash draws his conclusions, namely, that the district list was drawn from an oral transmission and that no early source was available for the Dtr historian. However, it is unlikely that the kind of information immersed in the district list was transmitted orally; the historian must have drawn it from a written source. Moreover, the original geographical list is reasonably coherent, and Ash’s claim of confusion of names and places in the list is greatly exaggerated. The nature of the source used by the historian, its date and original function, remain unknown. See Fritz 1995:19–26.

82


We may conclude that writing began in the court of Jerusalem in the 10th century, in the reign of either David or Solomon. Scribal activity was first limited to administrative records, and the scribes were personal secretaries of the kings, rather than state functionaries. This situation lasted for many decades, and only in the 8th century BCE did writing spread beyond the bounds of the royal and temple courts. Until that time, learning and scribal activity were confined to the courts of Israel and Judah. Only there were texts produced, partly for the training and educating of pupils. We may further assume that even in later times, scribal training in the Kingdom of Judah took place primarily, if not exclusively, in Jerusalem, and that all professional administrators were trained there (Jamieson-Drake 1991:148–149, 151. For a different opinion, see Lemaire 1984:274–281). Elsewhere I have suggested that the corpus of texts of the Jerusalemite “high school” was the main source used by the Dtr for his composition of the history of Israel (Na’aman 1996:180–183; see Lemaire 1984:72–82, with earlier literature). This corpus, which formed the “library” of the Jerusalem temple, included all that was essential for the education and function of royal and temple Judean scribes. It reflected the continuity of Jerusalem as the capital of Judah for four centuries, and some of the texts in the corpus could have been very old, copied by the scribes from generation to generation. Other texts might have been composed relatively late, and attributed to prominent past figures. They were then transferred with these attributions into the stream of scribal learning. Analyzing the source material of the Dtr historian, therefore, is an extremely complicated problem. Each and every text must be examined separately in an effort to trace its possible source, and only then can we decide whether it may be used for the historical reconstruction. In what follows I will try to analyze the text of 1 Kgs. 3–11, in an effort to determine the sources that could have reached the historian and the way in which he integrated them into his work.

2. The Rebellions Against Solomon (1 Kgs 11:14–28, 40) From the text of 1 Kings 11, it is evident that the revolts of Hadad the Edomite and Rezon the Aramean took place early in Solomon’s reign and that Jeroboam’s revolt took place in the latter half of his reign. However, in their present place, the three revolts form a coherent unit, which serves as a divine retribution for the sins of Solomon. God’s wrath with Solomon is expressed by external and internal enemies. As suggested by Knoppers (1993:164), the Dtr develops parallels between Jeroboam’s rise to power and the revolts of Hadad and Rezon. They all shared a common sequence of events: being forced to flee from their homeland, they stay for a while in a foreign land, and with


83

the death of the king of Jerusalem are able to return home and rise to power as adversaries of the new king. This suggestion supports the claim that verse 25aβb is the original conclusion of the story of Hadad. On the basis of the MT and LXX, we may reconstruct it thus: “and this is (˙‡Ê) the evil which Hadad (did). And he abhorred (ı˜ÈÂ) Israel, and he reigned over Edom” (Barthélemy 1982:361–362; Na’aman 1992:76–77; Knoppers 1993:160–161). In a recent article (Na’aman 1996:173–179), I suggest that a “chronicle of early Israelite kings” was composed in the 8th century BCE and that it was the major source from which the Dtr derived details for the reconstruction of the chain of events in the time of the United Monarchy. The brief description of Saul’s kingship (1 Sam. 14:47–48), the reign of Ishbaal (2 Sam 2:8–9), the conquest of Jebus, the wars with the Philistines, and the wars with Israel’s other neighbors — all these could have originated in the chronicle. It seems to me that the three uprisings against Solomon were drawn from this source and, moreover, that the given sequence of the three revolts reflects their original order in the chronicle. By adopting this sequence of events, the historian established a meaningful background for the next episode of Jeroboam’s rise to power and the division of the monarchy. Reconstructing the Hadad and Jeroboam episodes is complicated, because both were transmitted in an incomplete form. The story of Hadad is cut after 11:22, and the conclusion (11:25aβb) was taken out of its original context and placed erroneously after the Rezon episode. The Jeroboam episode is cut after 11:28, and only its conclusion appears in 11:40. In between, the Dtr inserted the episode of the prophetic prediction of Ahijah (11:29–39), which is part of his theological explanation of the division of the monarchy. Evidently, the historian made use of an old written source, on which he partly worked (the Hadad episode was probably expanded in 11:18, 20, 22) and from which he omitted certain details, possibly because they did not fit his view of Solomon’s reign. The episodes of Rezon and Hadad are explicitly connected to David’s wars against Hadadezer of Zobah (2 Sam. 8:3–4) and the slaying of the troops of Aram Damascus (2 Sam. 8:5); 1 Kgs. 11:15 refers directly to 2 Sam. 8:13, as is evident from comparison of the two texts: When he returned from smiting Aram [sic] in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand (people) [2 Sam 8:13] (Barthélemy 1982:251–252). For when David was in Aram [sic], when Joab the commander of the army went up to bury the slain, he slew every male in Edom [1 Kgs. 11:15].

We may further note that the revolts of Rezon and Hadad took place in the same territories where, it is explicitly stated, David stationed governors after conquering these territories (2 Sam. 8:6, 14). This is not accidental. It may be explained by the way that the Dtr manipulated his sources. He

84


found in the chronicle that early in Solomon’s reign Aram and Edom revolted against Israel. He drew the reasonable conclusion that governors and garrisons must have been stationed there before the revolt and filled in these details within the history of David. Filling in the gaps of his sources by logical inferences is typical of the Dtr’s historical work and will be noted in the discussion below.

3. Solomon and Pharaoh’s Daughter Another episode that may have been derived from the “chronicle of early Israelite kings” is Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh.6 The record of Solomon’s Egyptian wife is now dislocated in five different places (1 Kgs. 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24; 11:1), but the original source from which the author derived his data may be tentatively restored thus (RSV): Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and captured Gezer and burnt it with fire, and had slain the Canaanite who dwelt in the city, and had given it as dowry to his daughter (9:16abα). Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt; he took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had finished building his own house (3:1abα). Then Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her own house which Solomon had built for her (9:24a).

The passage refers to a background episode of the marriage (the capture of Gezer and its transfer to Solomon as dowry), the matrimony, and the temporary stay of the Egyptian princess in the City of David, until the completion of her house. The Dtr dislocated the account and separated it into three isolated notes, which he placed carefully in his history of Solomon. One note opens the history of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs. 3:1) and is part of the negative slant on Solomon in this introduction (1 Kgs. 3:1–3). A second note appears as a gloss after the name of Gezer, one of the cities built by Solomon (1 Kgs. 9:16), and a third note was inserted after the end of Solomon’s building in Jerusalem (1 Kgs. 9:24). He further worked the episode and wrote a new note, in which he described the building of the princess’ house (1 Kgs. 7:8). Finally, her name was inserted into the list of Solomon’s foreign wives (1 Kgs. 11:1), as part of an anti-Solomonic critical passage (Cohen 1984–85:23–37, with earlier literature p. 26 n. 8). The motif of a marriage with an Egyptian princess appears for a second time in the episode of Hadad the Edomite that, as suggested above, was also derived from the “chronicle of early Israelite kings.” The interest of the au-

6. See Malamat 1982:198–204, with earlier literature; Schulman 1986:122–135, with earlier literature; Kitchen 1988:110–111; Redford 1992:311 and n. 117–118.


85

thor of the chronicle in the relationship with Egypt is evident from the note about Jeroboam’s flight to Shishak (1 Kgs. 11:40)7 and the account of Shishak’s campaign against Rehoboam (from which the historian drew the details of the campaign). Contacts between Egypt and Israel in the period of the late XXIth-early XXIIth Egyptian Dynasties must have been quite extensive, and the chronicler collected several episodes of this time and included them in his work.8

4. The Exchange of Letters between Hiram and Solomon The passage of 1 Kgs. 5:15–26 (English 5:1–11) relates the diplomatic exchange between Solomon and Hiram on the building of the temple and the conclusion of a commercial agreement. From an early stage of modern biblical research, scholars noted that the passage contains several Deuteronomic expressions (in particular, the references to the house for the name of YHWH, and the rest all around from the enemies in 5:17–19). Opinions were divided on the question of whether Dtr contributed the entire pericope, only these expressions, or the verses in which these expressions appear.9 A close analysis of the passage seems to confirm the suggestion that it is a combination of a pre-Dtr source with a Dtr redaction. The extent of the source-material is not easily determined. Tentatively, I would suggest that the introduction (1 Kgs. 5:15a, 16), the end of Solomon’s letter (5:20), Hiram’s letter to Solomon (22–24), and the agreed commercial terms (5:25) were copied from an earlier source. The original words of Solomon in 5:17–19 were entirely reworked by the Dtr, in accordance with his theological ideas, and cannot be restored. The Dtr additions include a reference to the relations of Hiram and David (5:15b), the motif of divine wisdom (5:21, 26a), and the conclusion of a peace treaty between Solomon and Hiram (5:26b), which also served as a bridge for the next pericope (5:27–32).10 Assuming that the historian reworked a written source, what might have been its form? Some scholars suppose that an original letter from the time

7. According to the text of LXX (1 Kgs. 3:12e), Jeroboam also married an Egyptian princess. However, the story in 1 Kgs. 3:12a-z is apparently a late midrashic text; the episode of Jeroboam’s marriage is a reworking of the Hadad episode in 1 Kgs. 11:19b–22. See Talshir 1989, with earlier literature; McKenzie 1991:21–40. 8. For the relationship beteween Egypt and Israel in the tenth century, see Kitchen 1973: passim; Redford 1992:309–315, with earlier literature. 9. See the commentaries; also O’Brien 1989:148–151; Hurowitz 1992:171–173; SchäferLichtenberger 1995:287–292, with earlier literature. 10. For the interpretation of verse 26, see Fensham 1968:71–87; Mettinger 1976:226– 227; Hurowitz 1992:175–179, with earlier literature; Briquel-Chatonnet 1992:40–47.

86


of Solomon had survived in the palace archive of Jerusalem and was worked by the Dtr. Thus, these scholars reconstruct the Israelite-Tyrian relations in the time of Solomon on the basis of this source.11 However, this assumption is fraught with many difficulties. First, alphabetic writing was introduced into the court of Jerusalem only in the 10th century, and it is questionable whether diplomatic letters were exchanged at this early time between Tyre and Israel. Second, the words of the text have no archaic features, and it is doubtful that they reflect the language of the 10th century BCE. Third, as far as we know, historians of the old world did not consult archives when they wrote their histories (Van Seters 1983:40–51, 195–199). The assumption that the Dtr had systematically searched in archives for old documents cannot be sustained. The source worked by the historian could hardly have been an original 10th century diplomatic letter. It seems to me that the historian reworked a literary letter formerly used for training scribes in the “high school” of Jerusalem. Literary letters (often called “model letters” by Egyptologists, as some of them were used as school texts) are known from Egypt, where the majority of them date from the New Kingdom (Caminos 1954; 1982:243–244, with earlier literature). Some might have been genuine letters selected by Egyptian scholars, but the majority were artificial writings, either imitating real administrative letters or using the letter as a new frame for various subjects. The model letters were designed to introduce the pupils to different kinds of letters, with their formulae, structures and polite expressions, and thereby develop their epistolary style. Literary letters are also known from Mesopotamia and were composed by scribes in the second and first millennia BCE.12 Like 1 Kgs. 5:15–25, the sending side and the addressee are sometimes kings (e.g., the letters seemingly exchanged between Assyrian and Babylonian kings) (Röllig 1987–90:58a, with earlier literature). The place of these letters in the Mesopotamian scribal education system is not always clear, but they must have been composed for purposes similar to those of the Egyptian literary letters. The literary letters are fictious compositions, although certain elements, such as names, political situations and social/cultural background, may be authentic. The authors might have collected variegated elements and used them in composing their works. I would suggest that the pre-Dtr author of

11. See, for example, Fensham 1968:71–79; Katzenstein 1973:96–101; Bunnens 1976:1– 31; Briquel-Chatonnet 1992:40–47. For a more balanced position, see Hurowitz 1992:134, 220–223. 12. Borger 1975:57–58; Michalowski 1981–85:51–59, with earlier literature; Röllig 1987– 90:57–58.


87

the letter under discussion worked in a similar manner. He was apparently a master scribe in the “high school” of Jerusalem and composed a literary letter in which he described the exchange of letters between the courts of Israel and Tyre. The epistolary language, the diplomatic and legal terminology and the commercial details were all borrowed from the reality of his time and outwardly look authentic.13 However, the letter is non-historical and, save for a few details (e.g., the contemporaneity of Hiram and Solomon and their possible commercial relationship), mainly illustrates the outlines of negotiation and the conclusion of commercial agreements in the author’s time. It seems that this literary letter entered the stream of scribal learning (possibly as part of a larger composition) in the “high school” of Jerusalem and was thus known to the Dtr. When writing his historical composition, he reworked it according to his theological ideas and used it as a source for the history of Solomon. The attribution of the letter to Solomon may reflect his trust in his source and his dependence on old texts for the reconstruction of the history of the monarchy.

5. Solomon’s Land Sale to Hiram According to 1 Kgs. 9:10–14, Hiram supplied Solomon with timber and gold for twenty years. Then Solomon ceded to Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee and in return Hiram sent him 120 talents of gold.14 Verse 11, which opens the account of the transaction, links it with the commercial agreement of Solomon and Hiram (1 Kgs. 5:24), except for the mention of “gold,” which refers forward. Verse 12 opens with an introductory time phrase, (’az — “then”) and relates the ceding of towns “in the land of Galilee.” Verses 12–13 is a name etiology that combines Hiram’s displeasure when he sees the towns, with the etymology of the toponym Cabul. Verse 14 relates Hiram’s payment of 120 talents of gold for the twenty cities. The core of the episode is a land sale: twenty towns with their territories for 120 talents (about 3.6 tons) of gold. In the wider context of the history of Solomon, it illustrates his commercial ability: He obtained an enormous amount of gold in exchange for a poor, hilly territory. Cabul has recently been identified at Khirbet Ras ez-Zeitun, 1.5 km northeast of the Arab village of 13. For a detailed analysis of the letter in light of ancient Near Eastern texts, see Hurowitz 1992:174–220. 14. Some scholars suggest that verse 14 (Hiram’s repayment for the cities) is a late gloss, inspired by the mention of “gold” in verse 11a. See, for example, Benzinger 1899:67; Stade and Schwally 1904:111; Würthwein 1977:106–107. However, not only does the suggestion lack textual support, it seems that the opposite is true, and that “gold” was added to verse 11a because of the text of verse 14 (see the discussion below).

88


Kabul (Gal 1985:114–127). The land of Cabul is apparently the peripheral hilly region of western Galilee bordering on the west with the Acco plain. What could have been the source used by the Dtr? It seems to me that the episode was “borrowed” from the so-called “book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:41). The “Acts” must have been a school text that described Solomon’s success in consolidating his kingdom and making it flourish. By way of a name etymology, combined with the dissatisfaction of Hiram with the deal, and by exaggerating the sum paid by the Tyrian king, the author of this preDtr composition portrayed Solomon as an able merchant, who made a good profit from the sale of a peripheral hilly area (hence, the emphasis on the regional description “land of Galilee”). The Dtr must have derived the main outlines of the deal (a sale of twenty cities in the area of Cabul for an enormous amount of gold) and the name etiology, from this source.15 The “Acts” might also have been the source of the literary letter discussed above. When composing his history, the Dtr attached the letter to the preparations for the building of the temple, thereby explaining how Solomon was able to secure the needed material for the operation. He then integrated the land sale after the completion of the temple and palace, thereby explaining how Solomon was able to finance his enormous building projects. He introduced the land sale by a chronological note (1 Kgs. 9:10), which is an artificial combination of the time it took to build the temple (7 years) and palace (13 years), and added a note (9:11) that combines the early (1 Kgs. 5:24) and new (1 Kgs. 9:14) agreements. The combination of the cedar and juniper timber with the gold in the introductory sentence (9:11) was made by the Dtr to emphasize Solomon’s ability to obtain all he needed for his building projects. Some scholars interpreted the episode as reflecting an imbalance in the commercial relationship between Solomon and Hiram and the former’s inability to pay for the timber and gold (see, for example, Bright 1960:201; Aharoni 1967:275; Soggin 1977:375–376; Miller and Hayes 1986:216). The interpretation takes for granted the Dtr’s dating of the land sale and the authenticity of the episode and, in my opinion, rests on tenuous foundations. The background of the sale (provided it really took place, which, of course, is uncertain) remains unknown, and no historical conclusion regarding Solomon’s economic situation should be drawn from the episode. Equally unconvincing is the suggestion that 1 Kings 9 marks the beginning of Dtr’s criticism of

15. Contra Noth 1968:211–212), who assumed that the etiology of the name “land of Cabul” is a post-Dtr addition. Noth’s opinion was accepted by Würthwein 1977:107; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995:330–332.


89

Solomon, and hence his decline.16 Part of the arguments rests on the erroneous assumption that Solomon is portrayed in this episode as the troubled partner, who is obliged to sell land to obtain the needed gold. Rather, the text describes Solomon’s commercial ability and his achievement in the transaction with Hiram of Tyre.

6. The Conscription of Laborers for Building Operations It seems to me that the records of the mobilization of thousands of workers for Solomon’s building projects was derived from the “Acts” and that the original text encompassed 5:27–29 + 9:15, 17b–18, 23a + 5:30. The Dtr integrated part of this pericope before the temple’s foundation and the other part after the temple’s dedication. The original sequence of 9:15, 17b–18, 23a is interrupted twice in the MT: once, by a note about the history of Gezer (9:16, with a resumptive repetition in verse 17a), and second by post-Dtr notes (9:19–22), whose purpose is to clear Solomon of the offense of mobilizing his Israelite subjects for state labor.17 The account of the “Acts” seems to have opened with notes of the conscription of 30,000 laborers for service in Lebanon and the levy of 10,000 laborers to hew stones and carry them to Jerusalem and other building sites (1 Kgs. 5:27–29). It was followed by a list of Solomon’s major building projects in his capital and elsewhere (9:15, 17b–18) and concludes by describing the organization of overseers which supervised the workers (9:23a + 5:30). This closing part may originally have run thus (RSV): These were the chief officers who were over Solomon’s work: five hundred and fifty; besides Solomon’s chief officers who were over the work: three thousands three hundred who had charge of the people who carried on the work.

We may further suggest that this reconstructed text originally followed the list of Solomon’s twelve officers and their districts (4:7–19, 5:7). If this is the case, the account of the “Acts” opened with Solomon’s list of high officials (4:1–6), his twelve district officers (4:7–19, 5:7), the mobilization of peo-

16. Noth 1981:60–61; Parker 1988:23–25. For the suggestion that the critique of Solomon in l Kgs. 9:10–10:29 is implied and not explicit, see Frisch 1991a:6–12; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995:330–341, 363, 373. For the suggestion that the criticism opens in 9:26, see Brettler 1991:87–97. See also Sweeney 1995:607–622; Wallis 1995:471–493. For criticism of these suggestions, see Jobling 1991:57–76 and Knoppers 1993:124–127. 17. See Dietrich 1986:7–16. Verse 19 is a redactional expansion of Solomon’s building operations enumerated in vv. 15–18. It is written with the post-Dtr image of Solomon as ruler of an empire that extended from the Euphrates to the Nile. For further details, see Part 11 below.

90


ple for work, the main building projects, and the organization in charge of the workers.

7. Solomon’s Trade in Horses and Chariots The text of 1 Kgs. 10:28–29 describes Solomon’s central role in the trade in horses between Egypt and southern Anatolia: On the one hand, he imported horses and chariots into his country and on the other, exported them to the “Hittite” and Aramean kingdoms.18 Some scholars regarded this as an authentic description of Solomon’s overland commercial activity. They debated whether Solomon had a monopoly on the Syrian trade or acted as a middleman in the commerce between southern Anatolia and Egypt. They have even tried to reconstruct the mechanism by which he gained his central position in the international trade of his time.19 However, the entire picture of Solomon’s involvement with overland trade and his role as a middleman is non-historical. The passage under discussion is not applicable to the time of Solomon. Solomon’s role in the trade, as depicted in 1 Kgs. 10:28–29, is part of his portrait as an economically successful ruler who was able to obtain supplies through international connections. Egypt and Que were two export centers of horses and chariots in the 8th–7th centuries BCE (Postgate 1974:11; Na’aman 1976:100–101, n. 24). The role of Solomon’s traders as middlemen in the international trade in horses is “borrowed” from those of the tamkāru in the NeoAssyrian empire (see Postgate 1979:206–207; Deller 1987:1–29; Elat 1987:233– 254). It is evident that the author depicted Solomon’s trade in terms of the overland trade in horses and chariots in his own time. Like many other descriptions written long after the period in question, it reflects the reality of the author’s time and has little in common with the period to which it is attributed. It seems to me that the passage dealing with Solomon’s trade in horses and chariots was originally part of a larger pericope that described the building of the Israelite chariotry. It was broken by the Dtr and its parts integrated before and after the building of the temple. It is possible that the original ep-

18. Schley (1987:595–601) suggests a poetic form for 1 Kgs. 10:28 and 2 Chr. 1:16b that is not convincing. The massoretic accents in these verses are the result of misunderstanding the meaning of the toponym “Que” and cannot support the assumed poetic structure; see Barthélemy 1982:359–360. The literary quality of certain parts of the text (10:23–25, 27) is not applicable to verses 28–29. The cited passage is written in dry factual manner, as assumed by all commentators. 19. Elat 1977:198–203; 1979:540–541; Ikeda 1982:215–238, with earlier literature; Donner 1984–86:219.


91

isode encompassed 1 Kgs. 10:26, 28–29 and 5:6, 8abα, and it may be reconstructed as follows (RSV with some changes indicated by an asterisk*): And Solomon gathered together chariots and chariot horses*; he had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand chariot horses*, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem (10:26). And Solomon’s import of horses was from Egypt and Que, and the king’s traders received them from Que at a price (10:28). A chariot could be imported from Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty; and so through the king’s traders they were exported to all the kings of the Hittite and the kings of Aram* (10:29). And* Solomon had forty thousand teams of horses* (Davies 1989:25–37) for his chariots, and twelve thousand chariot horses* (5: 6). Barley also and straw for the horses and teams of horses* they brought to the place where it was required (5:8abα).

8. Solomon and the Queen of Sheba A new inscription of the governor of Suḫu (a middle Euphrates kingdom), written in the mid–8th century BCE, has recently been published (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990:343–357). It relates the plunder by the troops of Suḫu of a large caravan of 200 camels coming “from Teima and Sheba” to the district of Ḫindanu (Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990:346–347, lines 26–38; 351, 357). The trade goods listed include purple-dyed textiles, iron and alabaster. By analyzing the Assyrian royal inscriptions of the 9th century BCE, Liverani has demonstrated that from the early ninth century BCE, Ḫindanu’s rulers delivered products imported from south Arabia (myrrh, antimony, musukkannu-wood) as tribute to Assyria (Liverani 1992:111–115). It is evident that no later than the early ninth century BCE, Ḫindanu was the outlet for the main caravan road leading from Arabia to Mesopotamia.20 Liverani (1992:112–114) characterized the biblical story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs. 10:1–10, 13) as a “true and proper ‘foundation legend’ for the south-Arabic trade in the north.” He concludes that “[a] starting phase of the South-Arabian trade in the second phase of the 10th century would perfectly agree, both with the Old Testament traditions and with the Assyrian royal inscriptions.” The early date of the south Arabian trade indicates that commercial relations between the courts of Jerusalem and Sheba might (or might not) have begun already in the second half of the 10th century BCE. However, the south Arabian trade continued to flourish in later periods and reached its zenith in

20. Before the publication of the Suḫu inscriptions, scholars assumed that the southArabian trade with Syria and Mesopotamia began no earlier than the second half of the 8th century BCE. See, for example, Eph‘al 1982:88–89; Knauf 1988:29–31.

92


the 7th–6th centuries BCE, when Assyria and Babylonia established their respective empires over all the Fertile Crescent and secured the caravan routes leading therein (for a detailed survey, see Eph‘al 1982:75–169). The biblical description of the Queen of Sheba reflects the reality of the developed stages of the commerce rather than its incipience. Which author is responsible for the composition of the story? Most commentators attribute it to a pre-Dtr source, which the Dtr has worked and integrated into his history (see the literature cited by Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995:337, n. 627). It is more likely, however, that the story was composed by a post-Dtr redactor (Scott 1955:266–272; Würthwein 1977:337–338). This later redactor tried to magnify the figure of Solomon and, by inserting the legend of the queen’s visit to Jerusalem, managed to portray Solomon as a great king, who enjoyed an outstanding prestige among the rulers of his time. The episode of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (1 Kgs. 10:1–10, 13) is closely related to the description of Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kgs. 5:9–14), which should also be attributed to the same post-Dtr redactor (Scott 1955:266–269; see the literature cited by Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995:337, n. 633). The account of the Israelite-Tyrian naval expeditions sent to Ophir originally comprised 1 Kgs. 9:26–28 and 10:11–12 and was cut by the interpolation of the Queen of Sheba episode. The text originally continued in verses 16– 22, but again was cut by the insertion of verses 13–15. The original pericope in the Dtr composition (9:26–28 + 10:11–12, 16–22) relates how Solomon obtained much gold and exotic trees and lists the artifacts made from the goods brought from Ophir. The coherence of the original Dtr pericope of the Red Sea trade seems to indicate that it was the Dtr who wrote this episode. No sign of an early source can be detected in the account.

9. The Description of Solomon’s Temple Many scholars have noted the centrality of the building of the temple and its dedication (1 Kings 6–8) in the history of Solomon. We have already noted that the Dtr split various episodes that he derived from his sources and integrated them before and after this central episode. What might have been the source from which he drew the details of the building of the temple (and palace)? Sometimes, it has been suggested that the Dtr made use of either an old building inscription or archival records, from which he drew some details of the Solomonic temple (Hurowitz 1992:224–259, 311–321, with earlier literature). However, Van Seters (1983:301, 309–310) has argued convincingly that the kind of details recorded in 1 Kings 6–7 never appear in ancient Near


93

Eastern documents. The assumption of Solomonic source(s) for the detailed description in 1 Kings 6–7 is refuted by the following considerations: (a) Syro-Palestinian building inscriptions of the 10th–9th centuries BCE describe the dedicated buildings in a short and schematic manner. They are altogether different from the detailed account in the history of Solomon. 10th century building inscriptions could not have been the source from which the author drew details of Solomon’s temple. (b) Royal building inscriptions include some general phrases about the building and its decorations, but not precise details of the kind given in 1 Kings 6–7. Details of the outlook of any particular building were redundant, because the inscription was erected within its confines. It is only the comprehensive historical composition that is detached from any specific location for which such a detailed description is needed. (c) No ancient Western Asiatic archive produced a document similar to the account of the temple of Solomon. Temple inventories list various objects and are fundamentally different from the description of 1 Kings 6–7. Some Neo-Babylonian and Hellenistic descriptions of Babylon and its sacred buildings have certain features in common with the Solomonic temple (Hurowitz 1992:251–253). However, these are literary works, not archival sources. Moreover, these compositions were produced hundreds of years after the construction of the Solomonic temple, in a scribal center that had nothing in common with Solomon’s court. These late descriptions are hardly relevant for the study of scribal activity in Jerusalem in the early monarchial period. As noted in the introduction, literacy spread in Judah no earlier than the 8th century BCE, about two centuries after the time of Solomon. Moreover, the detailed description of the temple with all its appurtenances and vessels might have been written only as part of a comprehensive historical work, and no comprehensive work antedated the Dtr history. It is evident that the details of the temple (and the palace) were written by the Dtr, and reflect the reality of his time. What might have been the idea that led the Dtr to reconstruct the original Solomonic temple on the basis of the temple in his own time? I believe that the answer lies in the concept of an uninterrupted continuity between the temples of Solomon and Josiah. In the Book of Kings, the historian never ascribes changes in the temple of Jerusalem to reformer kings. Rather, the kings who carried out extensive reforms in the temple were Ahaz and Manasseh, the two major apostate kings of Judah; it is the righteous king Josiah who purged the temple and restored everything to its original purity. In the Book of Kings, this “original purity” pertains to the time of Solomon, when the temple was built and all the sacred objects and vessels fixed therein (Na’aman 1995:46–47). Having the concept of continuity in mind, it is no wonder that

94


the historian, (who apparently lived in the time of King Josiah), felt free to depict the Solomonic temple according to the temple of his own time. His description is so accurate and full of details because he was an eye witness to what he depicted. Van Seters (1983:310 n. 68) has noted the great similarity between the list of the temple objects taken by the Babylonians as booty (2 Kgs. 25:13–17; Jer. 52:17–23) and the furnishings of Solomon’s temple. It is clear that, according to the second Deuteronomistic historian (Dtr2) (the author of 2 Kings 24–25), the temple described in 1 Kings 6–7 is the same temple that was despoiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BCE.

10. The Sources Available for the Dtr Historian A systematic analysis of the biblical text and the isolation of the original sources are necessary for the historical evaluation of the material. In the past, many scholars were overly optimistic concerning the antiquity of large parts of the history of Solomon. They assumed that the author had before him contemporaneous old sources that he integrated into his work and that could easily be isolated and used for the historical reconstruction. As a result, they wrote descriptions that sometimes were no more than paraphrases of the history as delineated in the Book of Kings. At the other end stand scholars of what may be called the “minimalist” school of thought. They skip over the stage of detailed analysis of the problem of sources and composition and immediately conclude that Solomon’s history is fictive and cannot be used for historical reconstruction.21 It goes without saying that avoiding the complexity of a text is hardly the proper way to handle it, certainly not with a composite and multi-layered text such as the history of Solomon. Noth (1968:48, 208–209, 263) claimed to have recovered a pre-Dtr Solomonic history, which can be isolated by a systematic analysis of 1 Kings 1–11. However, his reconstruction of this hypothetical historical work is not convincing and was not followed by other scholars (for other reconstructions of a pre-Dtr Solomonic history, see the literature cited in O’Brien 1989:143– 145, notes 48, 51). It seems that the Dtr wrote his composition on the basis of sources that he revised, edited, and integrated into his history of Israel (this had already been suggested by Van Seters 1983:301–302, 307–312). His main sources for the history of Solomon seems to have been the “chronicle of early Israelite kings” and the “Acts of Solomon.”

21. Garbini 1982:21–32; Jamieson-Drake 1991:136–145; Knauf 1991a:39; 1991b:170–180; Davies 1992:67–70; Thompson 1992:331–334, 409–412; 1995:59–74; Lemche 1994:183–189; Lemche and Thompson 1994:3–23.


95

Clearly, the decision on the nature, scope, and contents of any pre-Dtr source depends on the evaluation of a non-existing document. Such details will always remain hypothetical, and there will never be any concrete data to establish them with certainty. The criteria suggested in this paper for the attribution of the origin of certain episodes, either to the chronicle or to the “Acts,” are: (a) their splitting in the Dtr history and the joining of several isolated notes to a coherent unit; and (b) their incomplete state, and the internal evidence that they were cut short by the Dtr. A few additional accounts are also attributed to one of these sources, on the basis of an analysis of their form and contents, along with the relationship with the other episodes in the reconstructed sources. It seems to me that the three episodes of the rebellions against Solomon in 1 Kings 11 and the episode of Solomon’s marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh (and the account of Shishak campaign to Jerusalem as well) were derived from the “chronicle of early Israelite kings.” The work may have been composed in the 8th century BCE by a Judean author (Na’aman 1996:173– 179). The most detailed source of the Dtr must have been the “Acts of Solomon.” The “Acts” was apparently a school text, written in the “high school” of Jerusalem and used for educational and tutorial purposes. The central theme of the work was Solomon’s achievement in bringing stability and prosperity to his kingdom. The work may have included the following episodes: Solomon’s mobilization of the people and the building of the capital city and peripheral towns; the lists of officials and district officers; the building of a chariot force; the sale of the land of Cabul; and, possibly, Solomon’s negotiation with Hiram as well (1 Kgs. 5:15–26).

11. The Age of Solomon as the Golden Age of Monarchial Israel The “Acts of Solomon” depicted him as a successful king who built and consolidated his kingdom. The Dtr adopted the figure of the king as it was portrayed in his main source, reworked and reorganized it, and expanded it wherever he felt it necessary for his composition. The description of the building of the temple and palace and the temple’s dedication (1 Kings 6–8), is one of the Dtr’s major contributions to the history of Solomon. He wrote this entire section and made it the focal unit of Solomon’s history. He organized the rest of the material around this central core.22 Sometimes he integrated his source material in its complete original form and sometimes broke

22. Porten 1967:93–128; Parker 1988:19–27; 1991:15–21; Frisch 1991a; 1991b:21–24; Brettler 1991:87–97.

96


episodes into pieces and inserted them before and after the building of the temple. The Dtr “borrowed” the figure of Solomon from the image of successful rulers in his time. Among the achievements that he attributed to him (partly derived from his sources) were the building of a magnificent capital, at the center of which were the seats of the national god and the king; the building of cities all around his kingdom, and the mobilization of the people for the building projects; the building of an enormous chariotry; the development of commercial relations with neighboring and distant kingdoms, and the building of a fleet and the expeditions to faraway lands. The second major contribution of the Dtr to the history of Solomon is the division of his reign into two parts: the period of flourishing and the period of decline, when the king was old. To this end, he first attributed to Solomon religious sins, to which YHWH reacted with a speech that prophesied the division of the monarchy as punishment for his apostasy. He then integrated the three episodes of the rebellions against Solomon, derived from the chronicle; these, in their new context, appear as punishment for religious sins. Following these episodes, he wrote the passage of the meeting of Jeroboam and the prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs. 11:29–39), in which he repeated the message of the division of the monarchy after Solomon’s death. The motif of wisdom as the key for rendering true justice and for a successful rule is the third major contribution of the Dtr. He wrote the episodes of the dream in Gibeon and the judgement of the two women and integrated them at the beginning of Solomon’s reign. He inserted the motif of wisdom to his source of the correspondence between Hiram and Solomon (1 Kgs. 5:21, 26). Finally, he added it to the reference of his main source (1 Kgs. 11:41) to create the impression that the episodes in which the motif of wisdom appear also stem from an old source. Plainly, most of the material in the Dtr history of Solomon has nothing to do with Solomon’s time. Rather, it reflects the reality either of the time of the author of the “Acts” or the time of the Dtr historian. The figure of the king mainly reflects the image of successful rulers of the time and the Dtr’s ideology of worthy and unworthy kingship. Solomon’s deeds were written and shaped to portray the glory of Israel in the early monarchial days, and his misdeeds serve as a warning against apostasy and its disastrous consequences. At later time, numerous episodes were inserted into the Dtr Solomonic history. One late text is the passage 1 Kgs. 4:20–5:5 (English 4:20–25), according to which Solomon’s kingdom extended from the Euphrates to the Nile. Solomon thus was depicted as the ruler of an enormous kingdom, whose extent was equal to the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian territory of eber nāri (“Beyond the River”). Other related post-Dtr texts claim that his building op-


97

erations extended to Syria and Lebanon (1 Kgs. 9:19), that all the kings who lived in this vast area were his tributaries, and that rulers who lived on its periphery treated him with great respect and sent him gifts (1 Kgs. 10:15, 23–25).23 Another post-Dtr text is 1 Kgs. 5:9–14 and 10:1–10, 13–15 (see part 8 above). It developed the motif of wisdom and described Solomon as a supreme sage of humankind (See Scott 1955:271). Still another interpolation is 1 Kgs. 9:20–22, which contrasts the texts of 1 Kgs. 5:27–30 and 9:15–18, 23 and which was written to clear Solomon of the offense of laying corvée work on his Israelite subjects.24 Finally, 1 Kgs. 9:1–9 was written and interpolated to account for the exile and the destruction of the temple. The extensive redaction of the Solomonic history develops motifs that appear in the Dtr history of Solomon, but went much further than the original composition. It is only in the redaction that Solomon is presented as the ruler of an empire and as a supreme sage. The image of Solomon as a kind of emperor whose capital was the center of power and learning for all kings of his time first was born in this late redaction.25 A similar image of Solomon is presented in Ps. 72:8–10, both reflecting the image of the king in the Persian period (See Saebø 1983:22–31). It is evident that Solomon’s figure was gradually transformed in the course of time. Only an analysis of sources, composition and redaction makes it possible to trace the development of the figure of the king. But we must keep in mind that even the earliest sources available to us were written long after the age of Solomon and, thus, were far removed from the reality of his time.

23. For l Kgs. 10:23–25, see Scott 1955:266–269, and the literature cited by SchäferLichtenberger 1995:340, n. 653. 24. See Dietrich 1986:7–16. Verse 19 is a redactional expansion of Solomon’s building operations enumerated in vv. 15–18. It is written with the post-Dtr image of Solomon as ruler of an empire that extended from the Euphrates to the Nile. 25. For the image of Solomon in 1 Kings 3–10, see Younger 1990:157–175; Jobling 1991: 57–76. However, the two scholars treated the text as a coherent unit and did not address the problem of composition and redaction. For a criticism of Younger’s historical interpretation, see Miller 1991:29–31.

98


References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ash, P.S. 1995. Solomon’s? District? List. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 67: 67–86. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament). Freiburg, Leipzig and Tübingen. Borger, R. 1975. Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur III. Inhaltliche Ordnung der sumerischen und akkadischen Texte. Anhang: sekundärliteratur in Auswahl. Berlin. Brettler, M. 1991. The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 49: 87–97. Bright, J. 1960. A History of Israel. London. Briquel-Chatonnet, J. 1992. Les relations entre les cités de la côte Phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. (Studia Phoenicia XII). Leuven. Bunnens, G. 1976. Commerce et diplomatie phéniciens au temps de Hiram Ier de Tyr. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 19: 1–31. Caminos, R.A. 1954. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. London. Caminos, R.A. 1982. Musterbriefe. In: Helck, W. and Otto, E. eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV: 243–244. Cavigneaux, A. and Ismail, B.K. 1990. Die Statthalter von Suhu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr. Baghdader Mitteilungen 21: 321–456. Cohen, S.J.D. 1984–85. Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 16–17: 23–37. Davies, G.I. 1989. ’Urwōt in 1 Kings 5:6 (EVV. 4:26) and the Assyrian Horse Lists. Journal of Semitic Studies 34: 25–38. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 148). Sheffield. Deller, K. 1987. Tamkāru-Kredite in neuassyrischer Zeit. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 30: 1–29. Dietrich, W. 1986. Das harte Joch (1 Kön 12,4). Fronarbeit in der Salomo-Überlieferung. Biblische Notizen 34: 7–16. Donner, H. 1984–86. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen I-II. Göttingen. Elat, M. 1977. Economic Relations in the Lands of the Bible c. 1000–539 B.C. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Elat, M. 1979. The Monarchy and the Development of Trade in Ancient Israel. In: Lipiński, E. ed. State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5). Leuven: 527–546. Elat, M. 1987. Der Tamkāru im neuassyrischen Reich. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 30: 233–254. Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Border of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden. Fensham, F.C. 1968. The Treaty between the Israelites and Tyrians. Supplement to VT 17: 71–87. Frisch, A. 1991a. Structure and Its Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1–12.24). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51: 3–14.


99

Frisch, A. 1991b. A narrative of Solomon’s Reign: A Rejoinder. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51: 21–24. Fritz, V. 1995. Die Verwaltungsgebiete Salomos nach 1Kön. 4,7–19. In: M. Görg, ed. Meilenstein. Festgabe für Herbert Donner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 30). Wiesbaden: 19–26. Gal, Z. 1985. Cabul, Jiphthah-El and the Boundary between Asher and Zebulun in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. ZDPV 101: 114–127. Garbini, G. 1988. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. London. Goldwasser, O. 1991. An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms. Tel Aviv 18: 248–253. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd revised edition. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Hurowitz, V.(A). 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115). Sheffield. Ikeda, Y. 1982. Solomon’s Trade in Horses and Chariots in Its International Setting. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 215–238. Ishida, T. 1982. Solomon’s Succession to the Throne of David — A Political Analysis. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 175–187. Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach. (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity 9). Sheffield. Jobling, D. 1991. “Forced Labor”: Solomon’s Golden Age and the Question of Literary Representation. Semeia 54: 57–76. Katzenstein, H.J. 1973. The History of Tyre from the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). Warminster. Kitchen, K.A. 1988. Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C. Supplement to VT. 40: 107–123. Knauf, E.A. 1988. Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Knauf, E.A. 1991a. From History to Interpretation. In: Edelman, D.V. ed. The Fabric of History. Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 127). Sheffield: 26–64. Knauf, E.A. 1991b. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. In: Lipiński, E. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44 = Studia Phoenicia XI). Leuven: 167–186. Knoppers, G.N. 1993. Two Nations Under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. 1. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Atlanta. Langlamet, F. 1976. Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de I Rois, I-II. RB 83: 321–379, 481–528. Lemaire, A. 1981. Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’Ancien Israël. Fribourg and Göttingen. Lemche, N.P. 1994. Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8: 165–190. Lemche, N.P. and Thompson, T.L. 1994. Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 3–23 Liver, J. 1967. The Book of the Acts of Solomon. Biblica 48: 75–101. Liverani, M. 1992. Early Caravan Trade between South-Arabia and Mesopotamia. Yemen. Studi atcheologici, storici e filologici sull’Arabia meridionale 1: 111–115.

100


McCarter, P.K. 1980. I Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible 8). Garden City. McCarter, P.K. 1984. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible 9). Garden City. McKenzie, S.L. 1991. The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. (Supplement to VT 42). Leiden. Malamat, A. 1982. A Political Look at the Kingdom of David and Solomon and its Relations with Egypt. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 189–204. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1976. King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 8). Lund. Michalowski, P. 1981–85. Königsbriefe. RLA VI: 51–59. Miller, J, M. 1991. Solomon: International Potentate or Local King? PEQ 123: 28–31. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia. Mowinckel, S. 1963. Israelite Historiography. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 2: 4–26. Na’aman, N. 1976. Two Notes on the Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III from Kurkh. Tel Aviv 3: 89–106. Na’aman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Na’aman, N. 1995. The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 65: 37–53. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz, V. and Davies P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 228). Sheffield: 170–186. Noth, M. 1968. Könige. (Biblischer-Kommentar: Altes Testament 9/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Noth, M. 1981. The Deuteronomistic History. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 15). Sheffield. (Original publication: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Tübingen 1943). O’Brien, M.A. 1989. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 92). Freiburg and Göttingen. Parker, K.I. 1988. Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1–11. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42: 19–27. Parker, K.I. 1991. The Limits to Solomon’s Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51: 15–21. Porten, B. 1967. The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 3–11). Hebrew Union College Annual 38: 93–128. Postgate, J.N. 1974. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 3). Rome. Postgate, J.N. 1979. The Economic Structure of the Assyrian Empire. In: Larsen, M.T. ed. Power and Propaganda. A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen: 193–221. von Rad, G. 1944. Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 32: 1–42. English trans. 1966. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: 166–204. von Rad, G. 1953. Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma. Supplement to VT 1: 120–127. English trans. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: 292–300. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Röllig, W. 1987–90. Literatur. RLA VII: 35–66. Rost, L. 1926. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Stuttgart. Saebø, M. 1978. Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich. VT 28: 83–91.


101

Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 1995. Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. (Supplement to VT 58). Leiden. Schley, D.G. 1987. 1 Kings 10:26–29: A Reconsideration. JBL 106: 595–601. Schmidt, W.H. 1982. A Theologian of the Solomonic Era? A Plea for the Yahwist. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 55–73. Schulman, A.R. 1986. The Curious Case of Hadad the Edomite. In: Lesko, L.H. ed. Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker. Hanover and London: 122–135. Scott, R.B.Y. 1955. Solomon and the Beginning of Wisdom in Israel. Supplement to VT 3: 262– 279. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. Soggin, J.A. 1977. The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom. In: Hayes, J.H. and Miller, J.M. eds. Israelite and Judaean History. Philadelphia: 332–380. Stade, B. and Schwally, F. 1904. The Books of Kings: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text Printed in Colors. (The Sacred Books of the Old Testament). Leipzig. Sweeney, M.A. 1995. The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History. JBL 114: 607–622. Talshir, Z. 1989. The Duplicate Story of the Division of the Kingdom (LXX 3 Kingdoms XII 24a-z). (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6). Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources. (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East IV). Leiden. Thompson, T.L. 1995. “House of David”: An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh as Godfather. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9: 59–74. Veijola, T. 1983. Davidverheissung und Staatsvertrag. ZAW 95: 9–31. Wallis, J.T. 1995. The Characterization of Solomon in First Kings 1–5. CBQ 57: 471–493. Würthwein, E. 1977. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Könige 1–16. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/ 1). Göttingen. Younger, K.L. 1990. The Figurative Aspect and the Contextual Method in the Evolution of the Solomonic Empire (1 Kings 1–11). In: Clines, D.J.A., Fowl, S.E. and Porter, S.E. The Bible in Three Dimensions. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 87). Sheffield: 157–175.

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System in Palestine1 1. Introduction Following the list of the high officials serving under Solomon (1 Kgs. 4: 2–6) is a list of prefects appointed to administer the twelve districts of his kingdom (vv. 7–19). The name of each official is followed by a short description of the district’s location. Occasionally, a more elaborate demarcation was given. These short descriptions have been a stumbling block for scholars, and many works have been written in an attempt to locate the districts and interpret the list (Alt 1913; Abel 1938:79–83 and map 5; Albright 1925:25–36; Wright 1967; Noth 1968:55–58; 66–75; Pintore 1970; Mettinger 1971:111–27; Caquot 1972; Aharoni 1976; Rösel 1984; Kallai 1986:40–72; Niemann 1993:27– 41, 246–51; 1997:279–88; Fritz 1995; Neef 1995:285–297; Ash 1995; Hess 1997; Mulder 1998:169–86; Kamlah 2001). Among these works is an article of mine (Na’aman 1986:167–201), entitled “The District System in the Time of the United Monarchy (1 Kgs. 4:7–19).” Although some textual and geographical problems have been satisfactorily solved, other questions have either remained unanswered or are still disputed. Recently, scholars raised new questions, not discussed in the older research. These new questions mainly concern the date and historicity of the district system and the source(s) available to the author. Discussion of the Solomonic district list was conducted for many years on the assumption that it rested on a document written in the time of Solomon. The histories of David and Solomon, as delineated in the Books of Samuel and Kings, were regarded as evidence for extensive writing in the tenth century BCE court of Jerusalem. Thus, scholars suggested that the lists of high officials and prefects in 1 Kings 4 were copied from original records written in the court of Jerusalem for administrative purposes and reflect the reality of Solomon’s time. However, these claims of extensive writing in the tenth cen-

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 33 (2001), 419–435.

102

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 103 tury court of Jerusalem and of an early development of historiography in Israel have been severely criticized in recent research and can no longer be upheld. The beginning of historical writing in Judah probably did not antedate the eighth century BCE. The biblical history of the United Monarchy recently was called into question, and many details included therein have been critically re-examined. Some scholars took these developments into consideration and suggested new solutions to the Solomonic district list (Ash 1995; Niemann 1993:27–41, 246–51; 1997:279–88; Kamlah 2001). In what follows, I will first critically examine these recent works and then analyze in detail the text of 1 Kgs. 4:7–19. In light of the results, I will try to examine the date and historical background of the district system, the kind of source that could have reached the author of the Book of Kings, and the way in which it was reworked by a later redactor.

2. Some Recent Studies of the Solomonic District System As noted in the introduction, it is widely accepted today that writing for administrative purpose in the tenth century court of Jerusalem was minimal and that the composition of historiographical works began at a much later time. Scribes working in the small court of Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE did not produce texts of the kind of Solomon’s twelve prefects and their districts. Some scholars even have suggested that literacy was introduced to the court of Jerusalem only in the eighth century, so that no trustworthy sources could have been available to the historian who wrote the history of the United Monarchy (see, e.g., Davies 1992:67–70; Thompson 1992:409– 410; Lemche 1993; 1994:183–89; 1997:332–334; Gelinas 1995). Moreover, the Book of Kings was composed no earlier than the late seventh century BCE, hundreds of years after the time of the United Monarchy, and it is doubtful whether tenth century BCE sources survived in this late period. In a critical article on the Solomonic district list, Ash (1995) questioned its validity as a source for the time of Solomon. In his opinion, both its relation to Solomon and its relation to any district system are highly questionable. He noted the absence of Yahwistic names among the governors and concluded that the list of names is early. He then suggested that the district list was drawn from an oral transmission, which would explain the lack of uniformity in the demarcation of the districts. However, Ash did not discuss the district list in detail, and his claim of confusion of names and places in the list is exaggerated. Moreover, it is unlikely that the kind of information that was immersed in the district list was transmitted orally. Either the historian had drawn the geographic details — in part or in its entirety — from a written source, or he had composed it — using no early source — on the basis of the reality of his own time.

104


In a series of works, Niemann (1993:27–41, 246–251; 1997:279–288; 2000:61– 74) tried to fit the Solomonic district system to the reality of Solomon’s time. His point of departure was the assumption that the list of governors and districts reflects the situation of the tenth century BCE and must be interpreted in a way that would fit what he conceived to be the reality of this time. He suggested that the term niṣṣābîm does not mean “governors,” but rather “representatives.” According to his interpretation, they were either members of the local or regional elite in the country or members of the court elite in Jerusalem, who represented Solomon’s interests in the named regions. The districts are not administrative units within Solomon’s kingdom, but ratherare regions with which Solomon kept close contact, and the twelve representatives were his allies among the local/regional elite. The system reflects the beginning of a transition from chiefdom to state, and the effort to stabilize royal influence in the remote areas of the country. Niemann’s reconstruction rests on the presupposition that the district system mirrored the political and social conditions of the tenth century BCE. However, the text of 1 Kgs. 4:7–19, or its assumed source, were written many years after the time of Solomon, and it is unlikely that original documents dated to the United Monarchy were available to the late author. The assumption of a detailed administrative document written either in Jerusalem or in the Northern Kingdom and representing the district system of the tenth century cannot be sustained. By a-priori dating a document to a certain period and reconstructing its meaning according to the assumed reality of that period, one risks arguing in a circle. There is no evidence that the term niṣṣābîm means anything other than “governors”; its interpretation as “representatives” is not supported by any biblical reference. The author of 1 Kgs. 4:7–19 put forward a list of governors (niṣṣābîm) appointed to administer the twelve named districts, and this straightforward meaning of the text is the point of departure for the discussion of its date, sources and composition. On the basis of an analysis of the list of names, Kamlah (2001) dated the district list to the time of Solomon and suggested that the list was composed either in Solomon’s time or shortly afterward. The districts are not part of a well-organized administrative system and have no fixed borders or administrative centers. Their inhabitants did not pay tax or tributes to the royal court of Jerusalem. However, the local elite in these twelve regions kept close contacts with Solomon, and the persons called niṣṣābîm, which according to Kamlah were “Regionalfürsten,” represented these regions in Solomon’s court. The conclusions of Kamlah are quite similar to those of Niemann, and the critical notes directed against Niemann’s reconstruction are equally true of Kamlah’s interpretation of the district system.

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 105

3. The Place of Judah in the District list To facilitate the discussion, I will first designate the districts consecutively: District I District II District III District IV District V District VI

— — — — — —

District VII District VIII District IX District X District XI District XII

— — — — — —

Mount Ephraim Shaalbim, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan Sochoh and all the land of Hepher The region of Dor The western Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys The Havoth of Jair in Gilead and the region of Argob in Bashan Mahanaim Naphtali Asher and b‘lwt. Issachar Benjamin The land of Judah

According to the MT, Judah was not included in the district system. However, some scholars have proposed that the word “Judah” was dropped at the end of 1 Kgs. 4:19 due to haplography. This is supported by the text of LXXBL. According to this emendation of MT, the twelfth district is represented as “And there was one officer in the land of Judah,” without mentioning the name of the governor (for discussion, see, e.g., Burney, 1903:46–47; Montgomery 1951:121–23, 126; Noth 1968:58; Mettinger 1971:121–24; Caquot 1972:280–83; Kallai 1986:44–46; Mulder 1998:185–86). A decisive argument in favor of the inclusion of Judah in the district list is provided by an analysis of its structure. The districts in the center of the country, covering the territories of the northern Shephelah, the highlands of Ephraim and Manasseh, the eastern plain of Sharon and the western Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys (Districts I-V), are mentioned first. They are followed by the Transjordanian areas (Districts VI-VII). Then come the northern tribes (Districts VIII-X), and finally the area of the kingdom of Judah (Districts XIXII). Verse 19 “Geber, the son of Uri, in the Land of Gilead . . .,” adding another Transjordanian district, is obviously out of place, and does not fit in this consecutive arrangement of the districts. The expression “all Israel” is used twice in this chapter (1 Kgs. 4:1, 7), indicating that the author had the entire kingdom of Israel in mind. It is evident that Judah was part of the district list. An indication of a textual interference in verse 19 is to be found in the spelling of neṣîb. Solomon’s prefects are repeatedly called niṣṣābîm in the descriptions of his reign (1 Kgs. 4:5, 7, 27 [= MT 5:7]; 5:16 [= MT 5:30]; 9:23). On

106


the other hand, neṣībîm was the title of Israelite governors of foreign countries (1 Sam. 10:5; 13:3, 4; cf. 1 Chr. 11:16; 2 Sam. 8:6, 14). Only in the late tradition of the Book of Chronicles are the Israelite prefects called neṣībîm (2 Chr. 8:10 [K]; 17:2). Thus, it is clear that the appearance of the title neṣîb in 1 Kgs. 4:19 came from the hand of a later redactor (Na’aman 1986:175–176; Ash 1995:77).2 As several scholars have suggested, most of verse 19, where a third Transjordanian district seemingly appears, must be regarded as an interpolation (Albright 1925:26–27, 34; Mettinger 1971:121–122; see Zadok 1988:48). It seems to me that the governor’s name (Geber the son of Uri) is part of the original text, which may be reconstructed “Geber, the son of Uri, in the land of Judah (b’rṣ yhwdh).” A later redactor interpolated a long sentence (“in the land of Gilead . . .; and [there was] one neṣîb”) after his name, thereby, detaching the prefect’s name (Geber) from its original district (the land of Judah) and leaving the latter district without governor’s name. I would further suggest that most of v. 19 was inserted to garble the statement that the land of Judah had been included in Solomon’s corvée system. The redactor created a third Transjordanian district by combining a variation of District VI (v. 13) with a quotation from the description of the conquest of Transjordan by the Israelite tribes. By the addition of an artificial twelfth district, the land of Judah remained outside the district list. The insertion may be compared with the insertion of 1 Kgs 9:20–22 by a redactor who sought to clear Solomon of the offence of mobilizing his Israelite subjects for corvée work (Veijola 1966:66 n. 98; Würthwein 1977:109, 112–113; Dietrich 1986:10–13).3

4. Textual Criticism and Topographical Analysis of the District List To properly evaluate the district list, we must first analyze the text of 1 Kgs. 4:7–17 and establish the setting of the mentioned toponyms. An emphasis will be laid on difficult verses whose interpretation is disputed among scholars.

2. For the verb nṣb and its derivatives, see Reindl 1998. The suggestion of Niemann (1993:33–35, 248; 1997:282–86) of interpreting niṣṣābîm in the sense of “representatives,” “delegates” is not supported by the analysis of the verb nṣb and its derivatives in the Bible. Kamla’s suggestion (2001:74–75) of interpreting niṣṣābîm in the sense of “Regionalfürsten” is no better founded. 3. The Chronicler (2 Chr. 2:17 [= MT 2:16]) also “improved” the text of 1 Kgs. 5:13 [= MT 5:27], with regard to the forced labor imposed by Solomon on the people of Israel.

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 107 4.1 The First and Third Districts The first district is defined as “Mount Ephraim” (v. 8). Its western confines are different from those of the inheritance of Ephraim, which reached the Mediterranean, thus including the Sharon coast (Josh. 16:3, 5–6, 8). In the district system, the coast was included in a separate entity (District IV; see below). The southern border of Mount Ephraim reached the district of Benjamin (District XI) and is identical to that of Ephraim’s allotment. The northern confines of Mount Ephraim are disputed. Some have assumed that it extended over the entire nuclear inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh (Abel 1938:81; Loewnstamm1950:513; Noth 1953:125, 127; 1960:60; Aharoni 1967:26–27, 193; 1976:8–9; Pintore 1970:179, 198; Na’aman 1986:158– 66; Neef 1995:289–290, 296–297). Others proposed that Mount Ephraim corresponded to Ephraim’s allotment, i.e., that its northern border was identical to the boundary of the inheritance (Kallai 1986:47–49, 127, 459–461). Resolution of the controversy depends on the demarcation of the confines of Mount Ephraim’s northern neighbor, the third district. District III is described thus: “The son of Hesed, in Aruboth; to him belonged Sochoh and all the land of Hepher” (v. 10). Aruboth (’�rubbôt), the center of the district, may safely be identified with the town of Rubutu, which is mentioned in a late fifteenth century letter discovered at Taanach (TT No. 1) (Albright 1944:19 n, 36).4 Lines 24–30 of this letter run as follows (see Rainey 1999:156*; Na’aman 2000:378): “And send back word concerning the servant girl, Kan[.], who is in the town of Rubutu, concerning her welfare and if it is acceptable, give her for the ransom or (sell her) to a master.” Rubutu was located in the kingdom of Taanach, and Riwashur, Taanach’s ruler, held the slave girl there. Zertal (1984:72–76; 1992a) suggested locating Aruboth at Khirbet el-Ḥamam, in the hilly area southwest of the valley of Dothan. However, no Late Bronze pottery has been found in the excavations of the site, and his suggested identification must be abandoned. Recently, I suggested that Rubutu of the Taanach letter is identical to the Rbt of the topographical lists of Thutmose III and Shishak and the Rubutu of the Amarna letters of Jerusalem (Na’aman 2000). The plain of Dothan is the most likely location of Aruboth/Rubutu, and Tell el-Muḥafar, which is the largest mound in the plain, is the most likely candidate for this important city. Sochoh was located in the eastern plain of Sharon (Khirbet Shuweiket erRas), on the main road leading from the northern Shephelah to the Jezreel Valley. Zertal (1992b) identified the city of Hepher (Josh. 12:17) with Tell el4. Aleph is often dropped from, or added to, the beginning of a word in a transmission of old names to Arabic. See Zadok 1978:164–165; 1982:124.

108


Muḥafar, at the northern fringes of the valley of Dothan. However, a city named Hepher is mentioned neither among the hundreds of toponyms that appear in second millennium BCE sources nor in post-biblical sources. Even in the Bible, it appears only in the list of conquered Canaanite cities (Josh. 12:17). Therefore, I agree with Lemaire (1972: 14–16; 1977:61–62) that Hepher was not a city’s name, but rather the name of a vast region (1 Kgs. 4:10) whose five districts are personified by the names of Hepher’s five granddaughters (Num. 26:32–33; 27:1; Josh. 17:2–3). The regional name Hepher was selected by the author of Joshua 12 as representative of the northern Samarian hill country, which is not included in the conquest tradition of the Book of Joshua. The key to the delineation of the third district is the term “the land of Hepher.” As first suggested by Lemaire (1972; 1977:61–65, 287–289; see Zertal 1984:65–78; Na’aman 1986:158–162), it encompassed the territory of the five “daughters” (i.e., sub-districts) of Zelophehad, extending between Naḥal Tirzah (Wādi Far‘ah) and the city of Samaria to the south, the Jezreel Valley to the north, and the plain of Sharon to the west. The southern confines of the land of Hepher (i.e., the southern border of the third district) are congruent with the northern confines of the first district (Mount Ephraim). The territory of the five “sons” (i.e., sub-districts) of Manasseh extended south of the land of Hepher. Thus, Mount Ephraim comprised the mountainous parts of Ephraim’s inheritance as well as the area of Manasseh’s five “sons.” The question remains, to which district did the eastern Sharon belong? The third district, as we have just shown, included the mountainous areas called the land of Hepher, as well as a strip of the plain of Sharon indicated by the city of Sochoh (for similar geographical conclusions, see Albright 1925:29; Wright 1967:62*–64*; Mettinger 1971:113–116). In the system of the Assyrian provinces, the city of Aphek was associated with the district of Samerīna. Moreover, Assyrian administrative center and settlements of deportees located in the eastern plain of Sharon were included in the province of Samerīna (Na’aman and Zadok 2000:179–182). In this light, we may suggest that the eastern parts of the Sharon plain, between Sochoh and Aphek, were divided between Districts I and III. 4.2 The Second District The district is defined as: “The son of Deker, in Makaz and in Shaalbim and Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan” (v. 9) (Puzo 1949; Caquot 1972:276–277; Barthélemy 1982:338; Mulder 1998:174–175, with earlier literature). Makaz is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. Elsewhere (Na’aman 1986:114– 115), I have suggested that mqṣ is an abbreviation of the Hebrew word mqṣh (“from the end of ”), which appears in other border descriptions (Josh. 15:2b;

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 109 18:15a), and that the original text may be reconstructed: “from the end of Shaalbim . . .” Shaalbim, Beth-shemesh and Elon are known from the city list of Dan (Josh. 19:42–44). The name Ḥanan is mentioned in two inscriptions from Beth-shemesh and Tel Batash, dated to either the tenth or the ninth century BCE (Mazar 1994: 254–56; Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997:29–30). In view of an analogy to the name Abel-beth-maacah (Abel of the clan/tribe of Maacah), Elon-beth-hanan may be interpreted as Elon of the clan of Ḥanan. The name Ḥanan probably refers to a clan that dwelt near Naḥal Sorek (Wādi eṣ-Ṣarar), in the northern Shephelah.5 Of the three cities mentioned in the second district, Shaalbim (Selbit) and Beth-shemesh are identified with certainty. The former is located north of Naḥal Aijalon (Wādi el-Kabir) and the latter south of Naḥal Sorek (Wādi eṣṢarar). Elon is mentioned before Timnah (Tel Batash) in the city list of Dan and may be located in its vicinity. District II is defined by three towns, one located near Naḥal Aijalon and two near Naḥal Sorek. Significantly, the city of Gezer is not included in the district. We may conclude that District II encompassed a small territory in the northern Shephelah, covering only the easternmost part of Dan’s allotment.6 4.3 The Fourth District District IV is described thus: “The son of Abinadab, in all nāpat Dor” (v. 11a). The term nāpah must have designated a particular characteristic of the district of Dor; its exact meaning, however, is disputed (for a recent discussion, see Mulder 1998:176–177). The size of the district is unknown and can be determined only from the delineation of its neighbors. As was suggested above, the eastern parts of the Sharon were included in the first and third districts. Consequently, “all nāpat Dor” possibly covered the narrow strip of the Sharon coast, between Mount Carmel in the north and the Jarkon River in the south. It bordered on the land of the Philistines in the south and the plain of Acco, beyond the Carmel, in the north (this delineation of District IV was first suggested by Albright 1925:29, 31–32). After conquering and annexing parts of the kingdom of Israel in 733/732 BCE, the Assyrians created a separate province along the seashore, which they called by the name of its capital, Dū’ru (Dor). It is mentioned both in an Assyrian

5. Zadok (1988:47–48) suggested that the toponym Beth Hanan was perhaps named after the Benjaminite clan of Ḥanan mentioned in 1 Chr. 8:23. 6. For the suggestion that District II encompassed only the eastern parts of the northern Shephelah, see Mazar 1960:67–69; Fritz 1995:21–22.

110


administrative list and in a geographical list (Forrer 1920:52, 54, 60, 69; Alt 1929:234–237; Fales and Postgate 1995:180: 5, 6). Finkel and Reade (1998:253) suggested recently that the prefect of Dor was Assyrian eponym (limmu) for the year 693, but the reading of the province’s name is uncertain (for the material culture of Dor under the Assyrians, see Gilboa 1996). District IV probably covered the same territory as the Assyrian province of Dū’ru; the latter might have replaced the former Israelite district of the monarchial period. 4.4 The Fifth District The fifth district is described in great detail: “Baana, the son of Ahilud, in Taanach, Megiddo, and all Beth-shean which is beside Zarethan below Jezreel, and from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah to beyond Jokmeam” (v. 12). The description does not make geographical sense, and all exegetes find it necessary to suggest textual modifications and transpositions to arrive at a comprehensive territorial picture (Mulder 1998: 177–180, with earlier literature). The best geographical sense was suggested by Albright (1925:26, 32–34), who reconstructed the original text as follows: “Taanach and Megiddo as far as beyond Jokneam, and all Beth-shean below Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abelmeholah, which is near Zarethan.” According to this rendering, the author systematically delineated the district’s two main geographical regions: first, the western Jezreel Valley, which covers the area between the territories of Taanach and Megiddo and that of Jokneam, and second, the valley of Bethshean, located between the cities of Beth-shean and Abel-meholah (possibly Tell Abu Ṣuṣ), the latter being situated near Zarethan (whose location is disputed among scholars). However, Albright’s ingenious rendering involves the drastic correction of order from abcdefg to abgcefd and is not supported by the versions. Other transpositions of the text suggested by scholars are not better founded. The author of 1 Kgs. 4:7–19 probably lived in Jerusalem, far away from the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys. Lack of acquaintance with the geographical reality in far off areas may explain why he described all the northern and eastern districts (Districts VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) in such an abridged form.7 Why then did he delineate District V in such an exceptionally detailed form? 7. For the assumption of a northern origin of the list, see Albright 1925:36. Knauf (1991:178) suggested a possible Omride date for the list. Niemann (1997:287–88) examined three possible solutions for the origin of the text and concluded that the text, in its early form, is very early and was written either in the court of Jerusalem in the time of Solomon or in the Northern Kingdom under the Omrides. “In any case, whether the basic structure is Solomonic or Omridian, it is still true that it represents a cautious, wide-meshed first phase” (cited from p. 288). Ash (1995:84) suggested that the data included in the text was

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 111 Tentatively (and with a big question mark), I would suggest that the addition of the geographically unintelligible part of v. 12 is the result of the work of a later redactor, who was unacquainted with the geography of the northern plains.8 According to this assumption, the original text included only the first part of v. 12 (“Baana, the son of Ahilud, in Taanach, Megiddo, and all Bethshean”). The rest was interpolated by the redactor, who mixed up the toponyms in a way that precludes geographical sense from the description. This, of course, is a conjecture that cannot be verified, but it resolves two major problems: (a) the exceptional form of v. 12, which is the only detailed delineation in the district system, and (b) the unintelligible order of toponyms in the description. 4.5 The Sixth and Seventh Districts The description of the sixth district (v. 13) follows the pattern of the third district: first the seat of the governor is mentioned (Ramoth-gilead), then the names of the district’s geographical regions, preceded by the preposition with pronominal suffix lw (“to him”). These regions are the Havoth of Jair, which are in the Gilead, and the Argob, which is in Bashan. It is probable that Ramoth-gilead, the district’s capital, might have been be located at Ramtha (G.R. 247 212), on the eastern fringes of Jebel ‘Ajlûn, east of Irbid. This identification seems preferable to the commonly held location of Ramothgilead at Tell er-Rumēt or Tell el-Ḥoṣn (contra Lemaire 1981:45; Weippert 1997:32–33, with earlier literature in n. 67). The Havoth of Jair was apparently a name of the mountainous areas of the Gilead north of the Jabbok River (today Jebel ‘Ajlûn). It is worth noting that in Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic literature, the Havoth of Jair is located in the region of Bashan (Deut. 3:14; Josh. 13:30), whereas, in Priestly literature and the Book of Judges, it is located in the Gilead (Num. 32:41; Judg. 19:4). Scholars noted that two distinct groups of texts that pertains to Transjordan, with different pictures of settlement and conquered kingdoms, appear in biblical historiography: group A, which is earlier and appears in Numbers and Judges, and group B, which is reflected in Deuteronomy and Joshua (Weinfeld 1983; Kallai 1983; 1986:247–259; Kaswalder 1986). In the Solomonic district system, the Havoth of Jair is localized in Gilead, according to the tradition of the early group (A) and contrary to the picture of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua.

brought orally to Judah after the fall of the Northern Kingdom and then “selected, abbreviated and garbled” by Jerusalemite scribes. 8. For another case of a later redactor, who was not acquainted with the geographical reality of the Jezreel Valley and mixed up the narrative elements, see Na’aman 1990:426–32.

112


According to biblical texts, the region of Argob was large, encompassing sixty large fortified cities (Deut. 3:4; 1 Kgs. 4:13; see Josh. 13:30; 1 Chr. 2:23). It was identified with the territory of Og, the king of Bashan, whose seat was at Ashtaroth (Deut. 3:4, 13), and bordered with the Aramaic kingdoms of Geshur and Maacah, situated in the Golan Heights (Deut. 3:14; see Josh. 12:5). Tentatively, the region of Argob encompassed the plain of Bashan, between the Golan Heights in the west, el-Leja and Jebel Druz in the east, and the course of the Yarmuk river in the south (Hildesheimer 1914; Thompson 1992:376; Mulder 1998:180–182, with earlier literature).9 The cities of Ashtaroth, Edrei and possibly Salchah must have been the major cities in this region (Deut. 3:10; Josh. 12:4–5; 13:11–12). The seventh district (v. 14) is marked by a single place, Mahanaim, which was certainly its capital. Of all the twelve districts, the description of the seventh is the least clear. We may ask why the author did not complete his description, but left such a fragmentary definition. Tentatively, I would suggest that after the word “Mahanaim,” the description was deliberately truncated by the later redactor, who interpolated verse 19. The original description of the district system may have contained a supplementary definition of the seventh district (e.g., “to him was the land of Gad”). It conflicted with the interpolated verse by referring to the same area; the redactor cut it from the text and left the district undefined. The seventh district bordered the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab on the east and south. The northern border of the kingdom of Moab in the late ninth-seventh centuries BCE reached Wādi el-Kefrein (Na’aman 1995a:110– 113, with earlier literature). Therefore, I suggest that this was also the southern border of District VII. 4.6 The Ninth District District IX is defined thus: “Baana, the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth” (v. 16). Like the eighth and tenth districts, the description of the ninth district opens with a name of a tribe, but is followed by the enigmatic toponym be‘ālôt, which is nowhere else connected with this northwestern region. On the basis of the LXX Maala, Maalot, some scholars suggested emending the text and reading b<m>‘lwt (ṣr) (“in the Ladder of Tyre”) (Thenius 1873:37– 38; Šanda 1911:83; Gray 1970:139; Mulder 1998:183–184, with earlier literature; see Zwickel 1997:387–389). However, the coastal region between Tyre and Acco was never part of the kingdom of Israel, and there is no indication that Ma‘aloth was either an old name for this coast or for part of it.

9. There is no textual evidence that supports the identification of the region of Argob with the Yarmuk river (contra Kamlah 2001:65 and n. 39).

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 113 Three Galilean tribes are mentioned by name (Naphtali, Asher, and Issachar), and only Zebulun appears to be missing. Some scholars assumed that Zebulun’s name must have been recorded and suggested that b‘lwt is a corruption of Zebulun. Accordingly, they emended the text to “in Asher and Zebulun” (Alt 1913: 14 n. 2; Abel 1938: 80, 82; Wright 1967:59* and n.8; Mettinger 1971:118; Aharoni 1976:12).10 This assumption resolves two major problems: (a) the absence of the tribe of Zebulun from the district list; (b) the appearance of the unknown toponym b‘lwt (or ‘lwt). However, an interchange of b‘lwt and zbwlwn is epigraphically difficult (for criticism, see Montgomery 1951:126; Kallai 1986:66–68; Ahlström 1979:79–80; Fritz 1995: 19–20). Also, the suggestion is not supported by the versions. B‘lwt (or ‘lwt) was probably a name of a city or a region, but its identification had best be left open until a convincing solution is put forward.

5. Date, Sources and Composition of Solomon’s District System It must be emphasized at the outset that the conclusions drawn in this section depend in part on the above literary and topographical discussion. I have suggested that the land of Judah was part of the original district list and that a later redactor inserted a third Transjordanian district to replace the displaced district of Judah. I have suggested further (though with a big question mark) that the second part of v. 12 (after the words “and all Beth-shean”) was interpolated by a later redactor and that v. 14 (after the word “Mahanaim”) was cut short by the redactor. Crucial to my discussion is the claim that Judah was part of the original district list and that a third Transjordanian district had no part in it. The suggested solutions for vv. 12 and 14 are not necessary for my historical reconstruction. The district system as related in 1 Kgs. 4:7–19 may be divided into four main territorial blocs — northern, central and southern large units west of the Jordan, and another large unit in Transjordan — each sub-divided into a number of districts. The northern unit is divided into three districts (VIIIX) called by the names of tribes (Naphtali, Asher and b‘lwt, and Issachar). The southern unit is comprised of two districts (XI-XII) called by tribal and regional names (Benjamin and the land of Judah). One Transjordanian district (VI) is defined by the names of two regions (the Havoth of Jair and the region of Argob), whereas the second district has only the governor’s seat (Mahanaim). Of the five central west Jordanian districts, Districts I, III are defined by region names (Mount Ephraim and nāpat Dor). Describing districts II, III and 10. The conjecture was epigraphically supported by Cross (in Wright 1967:59*).

114


V must have been more difficult, because they did not overlap with a single well-defined tribal or regional area. The easternmost part of the northern Shephelah (District II) was defined by the names of three towns. The eastern plain of Sharon and the mountainous areas on its west (District III) were defined by the combination of a city’s (Sochoh) and region’s (the land of Hepher) names. The nucleus of District V is the western Jezreel and Bethshean valleys. It must be emphasized that districts called by names of tribes are not necessarily congruent with the tribal inheritances as defined in Joshua 13–19. The two systems were described at different times by different authors and have different ideologies and compositional principles (Na’aman 1986:84–95). Unlike the tribal allotments, the district system does not indicate its author’s interest in the exact demarcation of the external and internal borders, and it is not clear whether he had an accurate delineation of the districts in mind. When preparing a map of the districts, it is important to delineate what is known and to avoid drawing lines in areas where demarcation remains uncertain. The Solomonic district system is closely related in structure to the system of Assyrian provinces of the late eighth-seventh century BCE in Palestine. The Assyrians established three provinces in the west Jordanian territory of the former kingdom of Israel: Magidû, Dū’ru and Samerīna. The Gilead is presented in Tiglath-pileser III’s inscriptions as an integral part of the “widespread land of Bīt Haza’ili,” i.e., as a district of the kingdom of Damascus, which he conquered and annexed in 732 BCE (Na’aman 1995a:105–106, 110–114). No wonder that it was included in the Assyrian province of Qarnini and was administered from the city of Karnaim (Assyrian Qarnini, modern Sheikh Sa‘ad), the province’s capital (Kellermann 1981, with earlier literature; Schmitt 1985; Na’aman 1995b:105–111). The province of Magidû covers Districts V, VIII-X; the province of Dū’ru is identical to District IV; the province of Samerīna overlaps Districts I and III, and it seems that in both systems the eastern plain of Sharon is part of the highlands district(s) on its east. The province of Qarnini probably covers Districts VI-VII. Finally, the kingdom of Judah, which was a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria, comprises Districts XI-XII. The territorial history of District II deserves a detailed discussion. It encompassed a small area on the eastern side of the northern Shephelah. The city of Gezer, located west of the district, was formerly a Israelite city that was annexed by Assyria in 732 BCE (Tadmor 1994:84, 210–211, 239, 247–248) and served as one of the administrative centers of the province of Samerīna (Reich and Brandl 1985). Beth-shemesh was a Judahite city in the eighth century BCE, as indicated by 2 Kgs. 14:11. It was destroyed during Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE, was not settled in the seventh century, and is missing from the seventh century city list of Judah (Joshua 15) (Na’aman 1991:23–

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 115 33, with earlier literature).11 Shaalbim was probably an Israelite town in the ninth-eighth centuries BCE. When Tiglath-pileser III conquered Gezer in 733/32, he might have conquered Shaalbim and annexed it to the province of Samerīna. It seems to me that District II, whose territory extended between Naḥal Aijalon, south of Shaalbim (“from the end of Shaalbim”), and Naḥal Sorek, is congruent with the ninth-eighth centuries Judahite district in the northern Shephelah. It bordered on the west with the kingdom of Ekron and on the north with the kingdom of Israel. Following Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE, most of the second district was transferred to the kingdom of Ekron. The city of Ekron flourished under the Assyrian Empire in the seventh century BCE. Its territory was expanded, and its extent possibly is reflected in the biblical inheritance of Dan (Josh. 19:40–46) (Na’aman 1998:223–225). Ekron’s southern border ran south of Naḥal Sorek, and its northern border ran along Naḥal Aijalon, bypassing the city of Gezer. Its western border reached Judah’s eastern border near the towns of Zorah and Eshtaol (Josh. 15:33). Thus, it is evident that Sennacherib’s campaign, in which the Judahite district in the northern Shephelah was transferred to Ekron, marks the latest possible date for the composition of the Solomonic district system. In light of these conclusions, two alternative dates may be suggested for the district list. According to the first, it was composed in the late eighth century BCE and reflects in outline the combined province systems of Assyria and Judah. According to the second, the overlap between Solomon’s district system and the Assyrian provinces is the outcome of historical continuity between the Israelite and Assyrian administrative systems. The Assyrians had inherited the Israelite district system and organized their province system in accordance with the administrative division that had been established in the land for a very long time. The district list reflects the combined district systems of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the eighth century BCE. The main problem in the second suggestion is the region of Argob, which was a Damascene territory in the early first millennium BCE and was never included in the Israelite district system. To overcome the difficulty, we must assume that, originally, the text of v. 13 had only the Havoth of Jair, which is in the Gilead, and that a later redactor inserted the region of Argob, which is in Bashan. The assumption is possible, but is not self-evident.12 The first alternative involves fewer problems and, hence, looks preferable. 11. For the excavations of Beth-shemesh, see Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993; 1997. 12. Montgomery (1951:121) suggested that the region of Argob is original and that the Havoth of Jair was later inserted. His suggestion was accepted by Gray 1970:135; Kamlah 2001:59, 61.

116


What can be said of the twelve officials mentioned in 1 Kgs. 4:7–19? Only one of the 18 officials’ names has a YHWH theophoric (Jehoshaphat, v. 17), which is atypical of late eighth century BCE personal names in Judah and Israel (Ash 1995:80–81, with earlier literature). It indicates that the list of names is quite old. Moreover, five officials are registered in the combination “son of x” (vv. 8–11, 13). Naveh (1990:108–123), who discussed the problem of “nameless people” in detail, demonstrated that this informal way of writing personal names is typical of administrative records. Thus, it is evident that the names of the officials were copied from an old written source. Whether the names of Solomon’s two daughters (Taphath and Basmath) were copied from the same source is not known. In light of this evidence, we may draw a comprehensive possible scenario for the formation of the text of 1 Kgs. 4:7–19. The author of the original text, who might have worked in Jerusalem in the late eighth century BCE, found an old administrative list of twelve names. Something in the document, possibly the affiliation of the two daughters, suggested to him that the registered names were Solomon’s officials. He reconstructed the twelve districts under their supervision according to the reality of his own time. The district system he drew probably reflects a combination of the main outlines of the Assyrian province system of his time and the districts of the kingdom of Judah. However, because various elements in the system overlapped the district system of the Assyrian system’s predecessor, the kingdom of Israel, it is possible that the district list was written earlier, during the eighth century BCE, when Israel was still an independent kingdom. The text of the district list must have been part of a more comprehensive historiographic composition, probably the work called “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:41).13 In the late seventh century BCE, the “Acts of Solomon” was revised, expanded and edited by the author of the Book of Kings, who integrated it into his history of Israel. Whether he revised the text of 1 Kgs. 4:7–17 is not clear. In later time a redactor worked the district list, and he is responsible for some of the difficulties that have been a stumblingblock for all the scholars who tried to clarify the garbled text and use it to reconstruct the administrative system of Israel in pre-exilic time.

13. For a recent discussion of this pre-Deuteronomistic work, see Na’aman 1997:67–72, 76–77, with earlier literature.

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 117

References Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. Paris. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. 1976. The Solomonic Districts. Tel Aviv 3: 5–15. Ahlström, G.W. 1979. A Note on a Textual Problem in 1 Kings 4:16. BASOR 235: 79–80. Albright, W.F. 1925. The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah. JPOS 5: 17–54. Albright, W.F. 1944. A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C. BASOR 94: 12–27. Alt, A. 1913. Israel Gaue unter Salomo. In: Alt, A. et al. eds. Alttestamentliche Studien Rudolf Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht, Leipzig: 1–19 (Reprinted in Alt 1953: 76–89). Alt, A. 1929. Das System der assyrischen Provinzen auf dem Boden des Reiches Israel. ZDPV 52: 220–242 (Reprinted in Alt 1953: 188–205). Alt. A. 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Band II. München. Ash, P.S. 1995. Solomon’s? District? List. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 67: 67–86. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1993. Beth-Shemesh. In: Stern, E. ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. I. Jerusalem: 249–253. Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1997. Six Seasons of Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh — A Border Town in Judah. Qadmoniot 30: 22–37. (Hebrew). Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford. Caquot, A. 1972. Préfets. Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément 8. Paris: 273–286. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of “Ancient Israel” (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 148). Sheffield. Dietrich, W. 1986. Das harte Joch (1 Kön 12,4): Fronarbeit in der Salomo-Überlieferung. Biblische Notizen 34: 7–16. Fales, F.M. and Postgate, J.N. 1993. Imperial Administrative Records. Part II Provincial and Military Administration. (State Archive of Assyria XI). Helsinki. Finkel, I.L. and Reade, J.E. 1998. Assyrian Eponyms 873–649 BC. Orientalia 67: 248–254. Forrer, E. 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des Assyrischen Reiches. Leipzig. Fritz, V. 1995. Die Verwaltungsgebiete Salomos nach 1 Kön. 4,7–19. In: Görg, M. ed. Meilenstein. Festgabe für Herbert Donner. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 30). Wiesbaden: 19–26. Gelinas, M.M. 1995. United Monarchy-Divided Monarchy: Fact or Fiction. In: Holloway, S.W. and Handy, L.K. eds. The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 190). Sheffield: 227–237. Gilboa, A. 1996. Assyrian-Type Pottery at Dor and the Status of the Town during the Assyrian Occupation Period. Eretz Israel 25: 122–135. (Hebrew). Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings — A Commentary. (2nd revised edition; Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Hess, R.S. 1997. The Form and Structure of the Solomonic District List in 1 Kings 4: 7–19. In: Young, G.D., Chavalas M.W. and Averbeck, R.E. eds. Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons. Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th Birthday. Bethesda: 279– 292. Hildesheimer, H. 1914. Beiträge zur Erklärung einiger geographischer Bibelstellen. In: Eppenstein, S., Hildesheimer, H. and Wohlgemuth, J. eds. Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstag David Hoffmann. Berlin: 1–25.

118


Kallai, Z. 1983. Conquest and Settlement of Trans-Jordan: A Historiographical Study. ZDPV 99: 110–118. Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem. Kamlah, J. 2001. Die Liste der Regionalfürsten in 1 Kön 4,7–19 als historische Quelle für die Zeit Salomos. Biblische Notizen 106: 57–78. Kaswalder, P. 1986. Lo schema geografico Deuteronomista: Dt 3,8–17. Liber Annuus 36: 63–84. Kellermann, D. 1981. ‘Aštārōt – ‘Aštǝrōt Qarnayim – Qarnayim. ZDPV 97: 45–61. Knauf, E.A. 1991. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. In: Lipiński, E. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44). Leuven: 167–186. Lemaire, A. 1972. Le “Pays de Hépher” et les “filles de Zelophehad” à la lumière des ostraca de Samarie. Semitica 22: 13–20. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. I. Les ostraca. Paris. Lemaire, A. 1981. Galaad et Makîr. Remarques sur la tribu de Manassé à l’est du Jourdain. VT 31: 39–61. Lemche, N.P. 1993. The Old Testament — A Hellenistic Book? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7: 163–193. Lemche, N.P. 1994. Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8: 165–190. Lemche, N.P. 1997. On doing Sociology with “Solomon.” In: Handy, L.K. ed. The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden: 312–335. Loewnstamm, S.E. 1950. Mount Ephraim. Enc. Miqr. I: 513 (Hebrew). Mazar, A. 1994. The Northern Shephelah in the Iron Age: Some Issues in Biblical History and Archaeology. In: Coogan, M.D., Exum, J.C. and Stager, L.E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville: 257–266. Mazar, B. 1960. The Cities of the Territory of Dan. IEJ 10: 65–77. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1971. Solomonic State Officials. A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. (Coniectanea Biblica). Lund. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mulder, M.J. 1998. 1 Kings. Vol. 1: 1 Kings 1–11. (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament). Leuven. Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1990. Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges IVV). VT 40: 423–436. Na’aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3–71. Na’aman, N. 1995a. Rezin of Aram and the Land of Gilead. ZDPV 111: 105–117. Na’aman, N. 1995b. Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Palestine in the Neo-Assyrian Period. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo Assyrian Geography. (Quaderni di Geografici Storica 5). Rome: 103–115. Na’aman, N. 1997. Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon. In: Handy, L.K. ed. The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden: 57–80. Na’aman, N. 1998. Two Notes on the History of Ashkelon and Ekron in the Late EighthSeventh Centuries B.C.E. Tel Aviv 25: 219–227. Na’aman, N. 2000. Rubutu/Aruboth. Ugarit-Forschungen 32: 373–383. Na’aman, N. and Zadok, R. 2000. Assyrian Deportations to the Province of Samerina in the Light of Two Cuneiform Tablets from Tel Hadid. Tel Aviv 27: 159–188. Naveh, J. 1990. Nameless People. IEJ 40: 108–123.

Solomon’s District List (1 Kings 4:7–19) and the Assyrian Province System 119 Neef, H.-D. 1995. Ephraim. Studien zur Geschichte des Stammes Ephraim von der Landnahme bis zur frühen Königszeit. (Beiheft zur ZAW 238). Berlin and New York. Niemann, H.M. 1993. Herrschaft, Königtum und Staat. Skizzen zur soziostrukturellen Entwicklung in monarchischen Israel. (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 6). Tübingen. Niemann, H.M. 1997. The Socio-Political Shadow Cast by the Biblical Solomon. In: Handy, L.K. ed. The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden: 252–299. Niemann, H.M. 2000. Megiddo and Solomon: A Biblical Investigation in Relation to Archaeology. Tel Aviv 27: 61–74. Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Noth, M. 1960. The History of Israel. London. Noth, M. 1967. Könige. I. Teilband. (Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament IX/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Puzo, F. 1949. La segunda prefectura Salomónica (3 Rg 4,9). Estudios Biblicos 8: 47–73. Pintore, F. 1970. I dodici intendenti di Salomone. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 45: 177–207. Rainey, A.F. 1999. Taanach Letters. Eretz Israel 26: 153*–162*. Reich, R. and Brandl, B. 1985. Gezer under Assyrian Rule. PEQ 117: 41–54. Reindl, J. 1998. ·ˆ/·ˆÈ. In: Botterweck, G.J., Ringgren, H. and Fabry, H.-J. eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament IX. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: 519–529. Rösel, H.N. 1984. Zu den “Gauen” Salomos. ZDPV 100: 84–90. Šanda, A. 1911. Die Bücher der Konige übersetzt und erklärt. 1. Das erste Buch der Könige. (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9/1). Münster. Schmitt, G. 1985. Die Heimat Hiobs. ZDPV 101: 56–63. Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Jerusalem. Thenius, O. 1873. Die Bücher der Könige. (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9; 2nd edition). Leipzig. Thompson, H.O. 1992. Argob. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1. New York: 376. Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and the Archaeological Sources. (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 4). Leiden. Veijola, T. 1977. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Helsinki. Weinfeld, M. 1983. The Extent of the Promised Land — The Status of Transjordan. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in Biblicher Zeit. Göttingen: 59–75. Weippert, M. 1997. Israélites, Araméens et Assyriens dans la Transjordanie septentrionale. ZDPV 113: 19–38. Wright, G.E. 1967. The Provinces of Solomon. Eretz Israel 8: 58*–68*. Würthwein, E. 1977. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Könige 1–16. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11,1). Göttingen. Zadok, R. 1978. West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources. In: Avishur, Y. and Blau, J. eds. Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented To Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Jerusalem: 163–179. Zadok, R. 1982. Remarks on the Inscription of Hdys‘y from Tell Fakhriya. Tel Aviv 9: 117–129. Zadok, R. 1988. Notes on the Prosopography of the Old Testament. Biblische Notizen 42: 44–48. Zertal, A. 1984. Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal, A. 1992a . Arubboth. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1. New York: 465–467. Zertal, A. 1992b. Hepher. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3. New York: 138–139. Zwickel, W. 1997. Der vermisste Stamm Sebulun in 1 Könige IV 7–19. VT 47: 387–389.

Israel, Edom and Egypt in the Tenth Century BCE1 Introduction The Negev Highlands and the Beer-sheba Valley enjoyed an unprecedented prosperity in the early Iron Age. In the Beer-sheba Valley, the large, rich site of Tel Masos and numerous small sites (Tel Beer-sheba, Tel Arad, Tel Esdar) were founded in the 12th–11th centuries. Throughout the Negev Highlands, scores of enclosed settlements (i.e., courtyard settlements; the socalled “Negev fortresses”) and small sites were established in the 11th–10th centuries BCE. The flourishing of these arid zones contemporaneously with the extensive settlement process in the hill country has attracted the attention of scholars, and many studies have been dedicated either to describing the sites and the archaeological findings or to an overall interpretation of the settlement phenomenon (e.g., Rothenberg 1967:67–71, 86–101; Aharoni 1967a:273–274, 288–290; 1967b; 1979; Meshel 1979; Cohen 1980; 1986; Herzog 1983; Finkelstein 1984, with earlier literature; 1988a; Eitam 1988; Haiman 1988). In the course of the discussion, various erroneous notions have been eliminated. It is clear now that the sites in the Negev Highlands reflect the process of sedentarization and the pastoral mode of life of the local inhabitants (Rothenberg 1967:88–97; Finkelstein 1984; 1988a; Eitam 1988), rather than a migration of northern groups (Herzog 1983:47–48; Haiman 1988:161– 168). The studies recently published by Finkelstein (1984; 1988a; 1989; Finkelstein and Perevolotsky 1990) demonstrate the pastoral nature of the enclosed settlements, whose courtyards functioned as pens for sheep and goats. The notion that the settlements comprise a network of Negev strongholds (Aharoni 1967b; Meshel 1977:132–133; Cohen 1980:77–78) should be abandoned. Finkelstein correctly observed that pastoral groups were present in the Negev Highlands in all periods, but only at certain times, as a result of specific circumstances, did they become sedentary and leave material remains that archaeologists are able to trace. Thus, he suggested that the settlement and the prosperity in the southern deserts were the result of new economic 1. Reprinted with permission. Tel Aviv 19 (1992), pp. 71–93.

120

Israel, Edom and Egypt in the Tenth Century BCE

121

opportunities created by the increasing use of camels and the withdrawal of Egypt from Canaan in the second half of the 12th century BCE. The political vacuum led to intensive participation of the desert groups in the Arabian trade, resulting in a gradual shift in the economy from pastoral nomadism to a subsistence based more on trade and seasonal agriculture (Finkelstein 1984; 1988a:245–248). At the height of this development in the 11th century BCE, the desert people were organized in a sort of chiefdom, the center of which was Tel Masos. However, with the emergence of the Israelite kingdom, the process of sedentarization came to an abrupt halt and the Tel Masos chiefdom did not develop into a state. The Israelite kingdom consolidated its control over the Beer-sheba Valley and brought about the collapse of the socio-economic system of the desert entity. With the loss of the trade monopoly, the settlements were abandoned and the population reverted to its traditional mode of existence, pastoral nomadism (Finkelstein 1984:200– 203; 1988a:247–252). Various archaeological, economic and cultural aspects of the settlement process in the Negev Highlands should now be re-examined in light of Finkelstein’s studies. Ironically, it is rather the historical analysis of the sources, widely discussed in earlier research, that is missing from his discussions. These sources were analyzed and interpreted on the basis of incomplete archaeological evidence and in light of notions and assumptions current at the time; on many occasions they were associated with the wrong territory. It is the purpose of this article to re-examine these sources to throw more light on the history and internal development of the Negev Highlands in the 11th–10th centuries BCE.

The Biblical Account of David’s Conquest of Edom David’s campaign against Edom was conducted immediately after his victory over Aram and is related in four variant accounts (2 Sam. 8:13; 1 Kgs. 11:15–16; Ps. 60:2; 1 Chr. 18:12). According to the summary account of David’s campaigns in 2 Samuel 8, he overcame Hadadezer of Zobah in a surprise attack (verses 3–4), subsequently defeating the troops of Damascus (v. 5). Damascus became the center of his rule and prefects were appointed over the conquered territory (v. 6). The campaign against Edom is described in verse 13: “When he returned from his defeat of Aram in the Valley of Salt — eighteen thousands” (Driver 1913:283, with earlier literature; Hertzberg 1956:232; Barthélemy 1982:251). The parallel account in 1 Chr. 18:12 relates that Abishai ben Zeruiah slew eighteen thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt. Some scholars suggested that the name Abishai ben Zeruiah is a misreading of either 2 Sam. 8:13 (Curtis and Madsen 1910:235–236) or of its Vorlage

122


(Rudolph 1955:134–135; Willi 1972:74–75) and originally had no place in the text. Textually, 1 Chr. 18:12 provides good support for the restoration hkh/wyk ’t ’dm (“he defeated Edom”) in 2 Sam. 8:13. Another description of the Edomite campaign appears in 1 Kgs. 11:15– 16: “When David smote (bhkwt; see, e.g., Montgomery 1951:237, 245; Gray 1970:282) Aram (sic!) when Joab the commander of the army went up to bury the slain, he slew every male in Edom — for Joab and all Israel remained six months until he had cut off every male in Edom.” Ps. 60:2 (“. . . Joab returned and defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt — twelve thousands”) agrees well with my rendering of 1 Kgs. 11:15 (’rm in place of MT ’dwm). The summary account of David’s campaigns in 2 Samuel 8 assigned him all the victories, but in reality it was Joab, the commander of the army, who conquered Edom and slew its warriors. David either remained in Aram organizing the newly conquered territories or stayed in the capital city of Jerusalem (compare 2 Sam. 10:7; 11:1; 12:26–28). 1 Kgs. 11:16 is possibly a Deuteronomistic expansion of the original story designed to emphasize that Joab treated the conquered Edomites according to the strict law of the ban (Deut. 20:10–18) (see Vanoni 1984:48, 94–95). Where was the Edom mentioned in these texts located? Archaeological excavations conducted in the land of Edom, and particularly in its capital Bozrah (Buṣeirah), indicate that intensive settlement started only in the 8th century BCE (Bennett 1983; 1984; Sauer 1986:14–16; Bartlett 1989:132–137, with earlier literature; Bienkowski 1990). Only a few Iron Age I-IIA sites have been discovered in northern Edom (Bartlett 1989:71–74, with earlier literature), and only small amounts of Iron Age I-IIA pottery have been found at other sites (Finkelstein 1992). Although a systematic survey may reveal further Iron I-IIA sites and sherds, enough archaeological work has been conducted in Edom to establish the main outline of settlement. Presentation of a list of sites in Edom where isolated sherds have been discovered would be quite misleading, because most of the sites were occupied by a few families for only a short time. When taking into account the time-span of four centuries (12th to 8th centuries BCE), it is evident that few of them were occupied simultaneously. Comparison of the survey results from Edom with those conducted in the Negev Highlands, where many Iron Age I settlements had been discovered during the non-systematic surveys of the 1950s and early 1960s (Rothenberg 1967; Aharoni 1967b), indicates the difference in intensity of Iron Age 1 settlement in these two areas. Moreover, no Iron Age I-IIA architectural elements, only sherds, have been unearthed at Buṣeirah, the future capital city of Edom, despite the excavations conducted on the site (Sauer 1986:10; Finkelstein 1992). Considering the four centuries that separate the beginning of Iron Age I from the beginning of urban life at the site, it is clear that only


123

a poor settlement was located here, throughout this long period or only during part of it. According to the biblical account (2 Kgs. 8:20–22), the independent kingdom of Edom was established only in the time of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat (849–842 BCE). The new “kingdom” must have beenm at firstm a kind of chiefdom, developing into an established monarchy gradually during the 8th century BCE. Thus, it is clear that there was no territorial organization in the areas east of the Arabah in the 11th–10th centuries BCE. The land of Edom was a marginal region, sparsely inhabited (see Weippert 1982:153–162; Sauer 1986:10–14; Bartlett 1989:70–75, with earlier literature), and does not fit the biblical account of Joab’s conquest of Edom. The Negev Highlands, on the other hand, perfectly fit the conquest tradition (see Meshel 1974:148; Miller and Hayes 1986:182; Eitam 1988:331–334). It is the only settled area in the vicinity of Israel that would otherwise be missing from the account of David’s conquest. Indeed, scholars (Abel 1933:282– 283; Bartlett 1969; 1989:41–44, with earlier literature) have suggested that many of the biblical references to Mount Seir refer to the area west and southwest of the Arabah. Many of these references doubtless reflect the exilic and post-exilic situation, when Edomites lived on both sides of the Arabah, and one may assume that the territorial concept of Edom was combined in these late traditions with that of Seir/Mount Seir. However, the parallelism between Seir and Edom appears in the oldest biblical sources (Num. 24:18; Judg. 5:4), and it is evident that the identification of the two names goes back to a very early time. A few early sources, both Egyptian (see Kitchen 1964:66– 67; Bartlett 1989:41–42) and biblical (Deut. 33:2; 1 Kgs. 11:14–22), apparently refer to the Arabah and the Negev Highlands. It seems to me that the names Seir and Edom originally referred to the entire area south of the Dead Sea, on both sides of Wadi Arabah. Various pastoral nomadic groups lived in the Negev Highlands in the 10th century BCE; the names of several groups (i.e., Amalekites, Kenites, Kenizzites, Girzites, Geshurites, Midianites) appear in biblical stories and genealogies (see Ahlström 1984:42, 52). The toponym ’dmm mentioned twice in the topographical list of Shishak (Nos. 98, 128) may tentatively stand for “Edomites” (e.g., Nos. 127–128 grn ’dmm: “threshing floor of the Edomites”; compare 2 Sam. 24:16, 18 grn ’wrnh/’rnyh). However, it would be a serious mistake to identify settlements and certain types of pottery with ethnic groups (Eitam 1988). Edom was a territorial designation, and there is no way to establish the identity of the many groups that lived in this area in the 11th– 10th centuries BCE on the basis of archaeological criteria. Joab’s campaign against Edom was probably motivated by the danger posed by these groups of pastoral nomads to the southern settlements of the

124


newly established Israelite kingdom. The problem is illuminated by several biblical stories (e.g., Judg. 6; 1 Sam. 15; 27:7–12; 30) that, at least typologically, exemplified the necessity of expanding and defending the southern border of the young Israelite kingdom.

Hadad’s Rebellion in the Early Days of Solomon Three rebellions against Solomon are described in 1 Kings 11. The revolts of Hadad the Edomite and Rezon the Aramean are dated to Solomon’s early years, whereas Jeroboam’s revolt took place during the second half of his reign. Lemaire (1988) recently suggested that Hadad was not an Edomite, but rather an Aramean, the son of Hadadezer of Aram Zobah. The suggestion rests on the assumption that Hadad could not have ruled Edom, because the monarchy was only established there in the second half of the 9th century BCE. He also claimed that the name Hadad was typically Aramean and is unknown in the Edomite onomastic. Lemaire assumed that the story refers to the area east of the Arabah. However, because the Edom referred to in the story must have been located in the Negev Highlands — as shown above — his arguments concerning the antiquity of the monarchy in Transjordanian Edom are irrelevant. In light of the close historiographical relations of 2 Sam. 8:13 and 1 Kgs. 11:15, and the certainty as to the southern location of the Edom mentioned in the first text, there can be no doubt about the location of the Edom mentioned in the second text. Furthermore, Hadadezer of Zobah was a well-known figure, and if Hadad were his son, the narrator would have mentioned it. It seems clear that the narrator did not know the name of Hadad’s father. Finally, the god Hadad appears as a theophoric element in the names of rulers situated in the Shephelah of Judah, north of the Negev area, in the Amarna period (EA 288:45; 329; 333:6, 9; 335:10). Hadad was also the name of two rulers mentioned in the Edomite king list of Gen. 36:31–39 and 1 Chr. 1:43–51; these rulers apparently were connected with the area of Moab (Bartlett 1989:95–97). The list of “Edomite kings” is a mixed registration of central and south Transjordanian personae and has nothing to do with Aram (pace Lemaire 1988:14–15; 1990).2 Therefore, it is clear that we have to follow the text of 1 Kgs. 11:14–22 and regard Hadad as an Edomite.

2. Bela‘(am) ben Be‘or is mentioned in the list of Gen. 36:32–33, because of his close connection with central Transjordan, as is indicated in the Old Testament (Num. 22–24; 31:8, 16) and the inscription from Deir ‘Alla (Bartlett 1989:96–97). Bileam’s Aramaic origin (Lemaire 1988:14–15, n. 3; 1990) has nothing to do with his incorporation in the Edomite king list.


125

Hadad is designated in verse 14 mzr‘ hmlk, i.e., of the royal Edomite house. Bartlett’s claim (1976:207) that “there is simply not enough evidence to show that Edom in David’s time had an hereditary monarchy, and if it did have the beginnings of such a monarchy, it did not last long” must be qualified. First, all Semitic kingdoms in the ancient Near East were hereditary. The dynastic principle was deeply rooted in the structure of the Semitic patriarchal family. Whatever the sources, date and function of the Edomite king list in Gen. 36:31–39 (see Bartlett 1965; 1989:94–102, with earlier literature; Knauf 1985; Lemaire 1990), it certainly cannot support a theory of an early non-hereditary monarchy in Edom. Second, Hadad’s origin from the royal family of Edom is explicitly mentioned in the story, a fact that explains the readiness of the Pharaoh to give him an Egyptian princess (1 Kgs. 11:19–20). Whether his father was actually king of Edom is unknown. It is clear that, according to the story of 1 Kgs. 11:14–22, there was a hereditary monarchy in Edom in the time of David. The age of this “monarchy” cannot be established, and how long it was to last remains to be seen. 1 Kings 11–12 was recently studied by Vanoni (1984), who examined the literary structure and grammatical elements of the stories of Hadad and Rezon in detail. Unfortunately, Vanoni did not discuss the alternative that the stories of Hadad (verses 14–22), Rezon (verses 23–25) and Jeroboam (verses 26– 28, 40) — minus certain additions — originally formed an independent unit and were only secondarily integrated with the rest of the material in 1 Kings 11. Verse 14, which introduces the story of Hadad, was apparently the original opening to this unit (pace Vanoni 1984:48, 125, 266; see Hoftijzer 1989), the other two “adversaries” being introduced by a conjunctive waw: wrzwn (v. 23a), wyrb‘m (v. 26a). Verse 23a is indeed a secondary addition as suggested by Vanoni (1984:49, 73, 96); on the other hand, v. 25a is an integral part of the original story (pace Vanoni 1984:49, 125). Hadad and Rezon were each described as an “adversary” to Solomon (verses 14a, 25a). Rezon is portrayed as a leader of a band whose career is similar to that of David. He had been a commander of Hadadezer, who rebelled against his lord and fled, then assembled a band (gdwd) and, after David’s death, conquered and ruled Damascus (1 Kgs. 11:23–25a).3 Further details of the IsraeliteAramean relations in the time of Solomon are missing, but the closing statement of the original story of Rezon (v. 25a “he was adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon”) implies a state of hostility between the two kingdoms.

3. There are certain similarities between the passages describing the nominations of David and Rezon as leaders of bands (1 Sam. 22:2; 1 Kgs. 11:23–24a). Common to both passages are the noun śr, the verb qbṣ and the concept of “band” (gdwd, four/six hundred men).

126


Reconstructing the Hadad episode is more complicated, because the story of his rise to power was cut short after verse 22, probably by a pro-Solomonic redactor. The following story of Jeroboam’s rebellion (1 Kgs. 11:26–28) was also cut short after verse 28, and only its conclusion appears in verse 40. In between, the redactor inserted the episode of Ahijah’s prophetic prediction of the division of the Monarchy and Jeroboam’s rise to power in Israel (verses 29–39). The conclusion of Hadad’s story also escaped the editorial work and — like the conclusion of Jeroboam’s episode — was dislocated from its original context and mis-placed after the end of the episode of Rezon (v. 25aab) (Burney 1903:162; Montgomery 1951:237; Gray 1970:283; Jones 1984:240).4 The original text possibly ran thus: “and this (wz’t) is the evil which Hadad (did). And he abhorred Israel, and he reigned over Edom” (Montgomery 1951:237).5 Hadad, who is described as an “adversary” of Solomon, must have stirred rebellion in the Edomite territory conquered by David and thus “abhorred” (wyqṣ) Israel and became king of Edom. What was the nature of Hadad’s “monarchy”? The biblical title of “king” covers a wide range of state forms and is open to various interpretations. We may concur with Finkelstein (1988a:247–250) that the socio-political organization of the desert people in this period did not develop into a state. The relationship of Tel Masos to the Negev Highlands settlements (according to Finkelstein, it was the center) will be discussed in the concluding section. Whether the entire area was organized as a kind of confederation under one “king” or divided into several independent units, each under its own chief, remains unknown.

Shishak’s Campaign Against Israel and Edom 1. The Campaign Against the Kingdom of Israel The sources for Shishak’s Asiatic campaign in the 5th year of Rehoboam (ca. 927 BCE) are 1 Kgs. 14:25–26, 2 Chr. 12:2–9 and Shishak’s stela and topo-

4. The assumption that v. 25a a is a gloss and that v. 25b is the conclusion of the story of Rezon (Noth 1968:240, 242, 255; Abramski 1978:18–23; Barthélemy 1982:361–362; Vanoni 1984:49, 96–97 and n. 82), in my opinion, is not very likely. First, no evil (r‘h) of Hadad is mentioned in the story of his rise to power (verses 14–22), and the assumed gloss can hardly refer back to something that is not there. Second, the story of Rezon’s rise to power comes to its natural end in v. 25a a, which closes the narrative circle that was opened in verses 14 and 23a. V. 25b that follows, thus, is redundant to Rezon’s story. 5. For the elliptic form of 1 Kgs. 11:25aa, see Barthélemy 1982:361–362. It seems to me that wz’t is the original version and that it was “corrected” (to w’t) by a redactor after its dislocation from its original place.


127

graphical list from Karnak. The list enumerates the places conquered or surrendered to the Pharaoh in the campaign and constitutes our major source for the Egyptian operation (Simons 1937:95–102; Noth 1938; Mazar 1957; Kitchen 1973:293–300, 432–437, with earlier literature; Ahituv 1984). The topographical list opens with the names of the “Nine Bows.” The tenth “name” reads “copy of A[siatic (name)s]” introducing the subsequent list of toponyms (Kitchen 1973:433–435), which falls into three sections: 1. Namerows I-V (Nos. 11–65); 2. Name-rows VI-X (Nos. 66–150); 3. Name-row XI. The third section is almost entirely lost and is irrelevant for our discussion (see Kitchen 1973:432–433, 441–442). Row II (Nos. 14–26) was probably mistakenly copied upside down and, thus, throws the list into disorder. If the order of toponyms in this row is reversed, the sequence in the first section (Nos. 11–65) becomes more clear. The principle of boustrophedon applied by some scholars to this section on account of Row II (Mazar 1957:60–63; Aharoni 1967a:285– 288; Rainey 1976:660–661; Giveon 1979:135–137; Ahituv 1984:21) is redundant (for earlier criticism see Kitchen 1973:443–444). The list of toponyms in Rows I-V was organized in geographically defined groups, the direct result of the mode of multiple operations conducted simultaneously by the Egyptian army (Noth 1938:283–289; Herrmann 1964:70–76; Kitchen 1973:446–447). The first town in the list (No. 11) is apparently Gezer (g[zr]), which was a border town of the northern Israelite kingdom (Na’aman 1986b:6–7; 1988:74).6 It is followed by a group of towns (Nos. 12–13, 24–26), all situated in its vicinity: M[xx],7 Rubutu, Aijalon, Gittaim (Albright 1939:179; Schmitt 1980:132–133) and Beth-horon. The other groups of toponyms are located along the “Via Maris” from Sochoh to Megiddo, through the western Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys, the central Jordan Valley and the southernmost part of the hill country of Ephraim. The assumption that the campaign also extended into the hill country of Manasseh (Mazar 1957:62; Herrmann 1964; Aharoni 1967a:284– 287; Kitchen 1973:434, 438–439), in my opinion, is doubtful. Toponym No. 59 is usually deciphered as [Ti]rzah and, thus, is identified in the heart of the

6. Toponym No. 11 in the topographical list of Shishak was commonly restored g[zt], i.e., Gaza (Mazar 1957:60–61; Aharoni 1967a:285–286; Kitchen 1973:435; Ahituv 1984:98). For possible traces of a ḏ3 sign, see Ahituv 1984:98, n. 197. Restoring it as Ge[zer], however, is equally possible and fits better the topographical context. 7. For the correct reading of the two partially preserved birds, see Kitchen 1973:435 (pace Ahituv 1984:102, n. 220). His restoration of the broken name as Makkedah is unlikely. I would like to withdraw my former suggestion (Na’aman 1981:492, n. 14) to restore it as Ma[ḫazu], because this rested on the assumption that toponym No. 11 in the topographical list is Gaza. M[xx] was probably located in the northern Shephelah, near the other towns mentioned in this group of toponyms (Nos. 11 –13, 24–26).

128


hill country. However, the name is partly broken ([x]-r/l-ṣ/z) and can be reconstructed in different ways, e.g., as a compound name with No. 58 (Migdalxxx). Moreover, Migdal and [x]-r/l-ṣ/z (or Migdal-xxx) appear after Zemaraim (No. 57) and may best be located in the southern hill country of Ephraim.8 Thus, no town situated in the hill country of Manasseh is mentioned in the topographical list of Shishak. We may conclude that Shishak’s Asiatic campaign was conducted mainly against the more prosperous parts of the kingdom of Israel, avoiding the difficulties and dangers involved in wide-scale operations in the central hill country. This conclusion has an important bearing on the overall evaluation of the campaign, which points to a large-scale razzia, rather than an effort to establish Egyptian rule in the former province of Canaan. The despoiled areas (i.e., the coast, the Shephelah, the northern plains and the central Jordan Valley) are identical primarily with the areas that were the main concern of the Egyptians in the time of the New Kingdom, when Egypt ruled Canaan, and were, afterwards, the main concern of the Philistines, the direct heirs of the Egyptians in the Cisjordanian lowland areas. The Egyptians entered the hill country only by the ascent of Beth-horon, which was the main road connecting the coast and the northern Shephelah with the mountainous areas (compare 1 Samuel 4; 7; 13–14; 2 Sam. 5:17–25), penetrating into the highlands of Benjamin and Ephraim. Of the northern towns of the kingdom of Judah, only Gibeon (No. 23) is mentioned; all other Benjaminite and Judean towns, conspicuously, are missing. Thus, it is evident that the Egyptians entered Judah from the north, negotiating with Rehoboam near the town of Gibeon. Having received the tribute, the Egyptians retreated, leaving the kingdom unharmed. At the same time, another part of this striking force entered the southern hill country of Ephraim, despoiling numerous Israelite towns, then withdrawing, joining the main Egyptian task force that was probably stationed somewhere along the “Via Maris” route (see Noth 1938:283–289). 2. Shishak’s Campaign to the Negev The second section of Shishak’s topographical list (Rows VI-X) relates to the area of the Negev. Many of the names (Nos. 66–150) are compounded so 8. The suggestion of Ahituv (1984:141) of identifying Migdal with Migdal-eder of Gen. 35:21 is unconvincing. According to the story of Gen. 35:16–21, Migdal-eder was located somewhere on the way from the tombstone of Rachel, i.e., Zelzah on the border of Benjamin (1 Sam. 10:2; cf. Jer. 31:14), to Bethlehem (Ephrath). It is mentioned for a second lime in Mic. 4:8, a text that clearly refers to the city of Jerusalem. A south Benjaminite or north Judean site does not fit the context of toponym No. 58 of Shishak’s topographical list.


129

that the actual number of places must be reduced by at least twenty. Seven names are compounded with ḥqr (ḥagr — “enclosure”) and three names with ngb (Negeb). The toponym ’dr (Adar) appears four times. Remarkable are the following pairs of compounded names: šblt ngbry — šbIt wrkyt (Nos. 73–76); p3 ngb whtwrk — p3 ngb 3šḥt (Nos. 90–93); ḥydb šrnr — ḥydb dwty (Nos. 103–106); Arad rbt — Arad nbt (Nos. 108–111; see Na’aman 1985); and p3 ḥqr ḥnny — p3 ḥqr ’Igd (Nos. 94–97). Further names or elements of names also appear twice in the Negebite topographical list, although not in clear pairs of names: ḥnny (Nos. 95, 99), ’dmm (Nos. 98, 128), yrḥm (Nos. 112, 139), b’r (“well”; Nos. 123, 130); ’bl (“spring”; Nos. 72, 122), mlḥ(?) and mlḥt(?) (Nos. 129, 131; see Na’aman 1979:75; 1983; compare Josh. 15:62; 2 Sam. 8:13; 2 Kgs. 14:7; 2 Chr. 25:11). Several places were named after sources of water, a toponymic tradition typical to desert areas: i.e., Ḥagr Abelaim (Nos. 71–72), Abel (No. 122), Be’er Luz (No. 123), Be’er Melaḥ? (Nos. 130–131), and Milḥat? (No. 129). Finally, the theophoric element ’l (“God”) appears several times as the first element in place names: El-hallel (No. 70), El-gad (No. 97), El-mattan (No. 126) and El-ra[m] (No. 132). Significantly, only a few toponyms are mentioned in both Shishak’s topographical list and the biblical lists of Negebite towns (Josh. 15:21–32; 19:2– 8; 1 Sam. 30:27–30; 1 Chr. 4:28–32), and they are located on the margins of the kingdom of Judah. These are Arad (Nos. 108–111) and Ezem (No. 66), although the latter may likewise be identified with Azmon, a toponym on the southernmost border of Canaan (Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:4). Shilhim/Sharuhen (No. 125), possibly mentioned in the biblical town lists (Josh. 15:32; 19:6), may be likewise identified with Shir/lḥon (Tell el-‘Ajjul), located on the southern border of Philistia, outside the borders of Judah (Kempinski 1974; Na’aman 1980:147–148). Some scholars identified toponyms that appear in Shishak’s topographical list with various names that are mentioned in the genealogical lists of 1 Chr. 2–4 (Noth 1938:295–300; Mazar 1957:64–66; Aharoni 1967a:288–289; Kitchen 1973:439–441; Ahituv 1984). For example: yrḥm’l (1 Chr. 2:25) was identified with yrḥm (Nos. 112, 139); ’wnm (1 Chr. 2:26, 28) with ’nn (No. 140); plt (1 Chr. 2:33) with fltm (No. 121); šwḥh (1 Chr. 4:11) with ’šḥt (No. 93); yhll’l (1 Chr. 4:16) with ’lhll (No. 70); bn ḥnn (1 Chr. 4:20) with ḥnny (Nos. 95, 99); and twlwn (1 Chr. 4:20) with tlwn (No. 102). However, most of these suggested identifications are uncertain. First, the transliteration of many toponyms in the Egyptian list is uncertain, due to the Egyptian writing system. Second, the biblical and Egyptian lists are located in neighboring areas, and such long lists (coupled with the wide range of possible phonetic readings of each of the Egyptian toponyms) would have inevitably produced similar names. Third, almost all biblical names appear in pure genealogical lines (i.e., ’wnm, plt, šwḥh, yhll’l, bn ḥnn, twlwn), whose relationship to toponyms are unknown. Only the clan of yrḥm’l

130


is clearly connected with settlements (1 Sam. 30:29; cf. 27:10). However, “the cities of the Yerahmeelites” may well be located both inside and outside the Judean kingdom; yrḥm of Shishak’s topographical list may be connected with the biblical clan of Jerahmeel and, yet, located south of Rehoboam’s kingdom. The differences in the toponymic tradition between the biblical lists and Shishak’s list are remarkable. The element ḥagr (ḥqr), so common in the list of Shishak, does not appear in the biblical toponymic tradition; on the other hand, the element ḥṣr, so common in the Negebite lists of towns, does not appear in the Egyptian topographical list. The biblical names that are compounded with Negeb are all different from the names appearing in Shishak’s list. The theophoric element ’l is quite common in the Egyptian list, but appears only once in the Negebite town lists (Eltolad; Josh. 15:30; 19:4). Other compounded elements and toponyms that appear in Shishak’s list (e.g., šblt, ḥydb, ’dr) are unknown in the Negebite town lists. The conclusion is inevitable: Most of the toponyms mentioned in the second section of Shishak’s topographical list were located outside the kingdom of Judah, i.e., in the Negev Highlands and along Naḥal Besor and its tributaries (e.g., Yurza [No. 133] and possibly Shir/lḥon (No. 125]). Several scholars suggested that the enclosed settlements in the Negev Highlands were deserted no later than the 11th or the beginning of the 10th century BCE, both as the result of military operations connected by Saul and David and the Israelite efforts to control the southern trade (Rothenberg 1967:95–97; Meshel 1977:132–133; Aharoni 1982:169; Finkelstein 1984:202 and n. 6; 1988a:250–251; Eitam 1988:334). However, if the settlements in the Negev Highlands were already deserted in the beginning of the 10th century, where should we locate the scores of toponyms mentioned in the topographical list of Shishak? As suggested above, the theory that Shishak’s operations in the Negev had been mainly directed against the kingdom of Judah (Mazar 1957:64–66; Aharoni 1967a:288–290; Kitchen 1973:295–300, 432–447; Cohen 1980:77–78; Finkelstein 1988a:251) can be upheld no longer. The analysis of Shishak’s topographical list suggests, rather, that he avoided attacking the kingdom of Judah, concentrating his operations against the kingdom of Israel and the non-Judean Negevite areas. It follows that the settlements located south and southwest of the kingdom of Judah were the targets of the Egyptian campaign of ca. 927 BCE. It must be emphasized that there are no firm anchor points for the dating of Iron Age I archaeological assemblages in the Land of Israel. The number of strata accurately dated to historical events of the 11th–10th centuries BCE is minimal. Thus, the assigning of strata to the reigns of Saul, David or Solomon is based on circumstantial evidence. However, dating the end of the enclosed settlements in the Negev Highlands to the campaign of Shishak, as


131

already suggested by some scholars (Cohen 1980:75–78; 1986:416–417; Herzog 1983:47–48; Haiman 1988:156–157), is based on conclusive historical evidence and should be taken as an anchor point for dating contemporaneous sites. 3. Shishak’s Campaign in Historical Reality and in Biblical Tradition Various explanations have been offered as to the objectives of Shishak’s Asiatic campaign (see Redford 1973:10–13, with earlier literature in n. 71; Kitchen 1973:293–300; Rainey 1976, with earlier literature). The point of departure for my discussion is the analysis of the topographical list, which indicates that the campaign was directed against Israel and the non-Judean Negevite areas, avoiding almost entirely the kingdom of Judah (as previously concluded by Noth 1938:289; and see Herrmann 1964:73). Significantly, the attacked kingdoms were ruled by kings who had formerly fled to Egypt and found asylum in the Egyptian court. Their return from exile must have involved promises that, as so often happens, were forgotten as soon as these kings assumed power in their lands. This may well have supplied Shishak with an excuse for his campaign against the two disloyal kings. Following an analysis of the fragmented speech of Shishak on a stela from Karnak (Kitchen 1973:294; see Feucht 1981), Redford (1973:10–11) assumed that an oral or written request by an official or ruler to come to restore order was described therein. He, thus, suggested that Shishak may have acted on the basis of such a request, real or imagined, from Rehoboam. Rehoboam’s payment (1 Kgs. 14:26) can be regarded as “an enforced remuneration for ‘services, rendered.’” Indeed, Shishak may well have acted as the legitimate heir of the Tanite Dynasty (see Kitchen 1973:286–288), leading an expedition to support the legitimate dynasty of Judah, a former ally (1 Kgs. 3:1; 9:16, 24), against the rebellion in the north. One may further recall the request, which Asa addressed to the king of Aram, to attack Baasha of Israel, a request that likewise involved a remuneration for “services rendered” (1 Kgs. 15:16–21; see also 2 Kgs. 16:5–9). The ingratitude of the former refugees, the possible request of the king of Judah to restore order in his country, and above all, the urgent need of captured booty to carry out his extensive building projects (Redford 1973:11–13; Kitchen 1988:117–118) were probably the main motives behind Shishak’s campaign. I would, therefore, concur with Redford that it must be regarded as a large-scale razzia, rather than an attempt to re-establish the Egyptian empire in Asia.9 It is for that reason that the Egyptians ab-

9. Recently, Ussishkin (1990:71–74) suggested that Shishak’s campaign was designed to renew the Egyptian foothold in Canaan and to turn Megiddo into a major base for that purpose. The hypothesis rests on the assumption that the monumental stele erected by

132


stained from entering the central hill country, concentrating their efforts in the lowlands and the Negev area. These regions had enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity, and the Pharaoh was able to despoil the accumulated surplus. Thus, one may assume that the Egyptian task forces marched quickly, either receiving tribute or conquering and despoiling wherever possible and avoiding those places whose conquest would have necessitated longer operations. The suggestion raised by some scholars (Yeivin 1960:207–213; 1962; Aharoni 1967a:329–330; Rainey 1976:661; Finkelstein 1988a:251) that the campaign was an attempt to regain control over the southern Palestinian trade has no real foundation. There is no evidence that Shishak or his successors made any attempt to establish permanent rule in the ravaged territories, and Egypt was unable to take over the role of middleman in the trade. Whether Shishak was trying to shift the Arabian trade directly to Egypt is unknown. The Egyptian campaign had a distinctly destructive and plundering nature and might have tipped the delicate balance in the subsistence of the Negev dwellers. Therefore, it may be regarded as the decisive factor in the collapse of the system of enclosed settlements in the Negev Highlands. How can we explain the enormous gap between the Egyptian and biblical sources referring to the campaign of Shishak? A closer look at the description of 1 Kgs. 14:25–28 indicates that the two sources can be harmonized. The account in v. 25 is probably an historical deduction by its author (the Deuteronomistic historian) who found in his source — possibly a or palace

Shishak at Megiddo demonstrates that the Pharaoh not only conquered the city, but had held it and intended to hold it in the future. However, erecting stelae at remote but prominent places to which their military campaigns arrived is typical of many ancient Near Eastern kings propagandizing before gods and men their domination in all quarters of the inhabited world. Occasionally, the erected stelae were located far from the area controlled by the monarch (Eph‘al and Naveh 1989:196). Thus, for example, Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III erected their stelae near the Euphrates River, in places never effectively dominated by the Pharaohs (see also 2 Sam. 8:3). Many Assyrian kings, likewise, erected their stelae in all parts of Western Asia. Sargon II’s stele found in Larnaka, Cyprus (Ussishkin 1990:73), is an outstanding example, because Cyprus was never conquered or dominated by the Assyrians. Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria set up his image in front of Tushpa, the capital of the kingdom of Urartu, during his campaign of 735 BCE, although he did not conquer the city. Kitchen (1973:299, n. 302) observed that the relatively rough carving of the surviving fragment of Shishak’s stele “suggests a job done locally and quite rapidly.” This is typical of stelae prepared in the course of military expeditions. We may conclude that Shishak’s stele, like many other similar stelae, was erected mainly to commemorate the great achievement of the Pharaoh in his campaign to Canaan and cannot be taken as decisive evidence for the future intention of the Egyptian ruler.


133

chronicle — a datum that, in the fifth year of Rehoboam, Solomon’s golden shields were delivered to Shishak, king of Egypt, and were replaced by copper shields. He logically interpreted the datum to mean that Shishak’s campaign, of which he had no other source, was directed against Jerusalem and that the treasures of the palace and the temple were then delivered to Egypt (for the same formula, compare 1 Kgs. 15:18; 2 Kgs. 12:19;14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 24:13). The historian lived long after the conclusion of the campaign he portrayed and, thus, was entirely dependent on his source material. He tried to write the history of Israel according to his best understanding and in accordance with his guiding historiographical and theological concepts. His interpretation of Shishak’s campaign is incomplete and may even be misleading, yet it does not directly conflict with the historical reality: The campaign indeed reached the area of Jerusalem and a heavy tribute was paid to Egypt on that occasion. On the other hand, the description in 2 Chr. 12:2–12 does not accord with the historical reality. In my opinion, the entire description is the work of the Chronicler, who had no other source for the campaign than the account in the Book of Kings. His “logical” reworking and expansion of this account (1 Kgs. 14:25–28), coupled with his distinctive idea of history, led him far astray from historical reality (Na’aman 1987:271–272). Because the latter text refers to a campaign of a great power, he supplied a detailed description of the scope of the attacking army and its ethnic components (v. 3); because the invading army reached Jerusalem, he assumed that many fortified Judean cities were conquered on its way (v. 4; compare 2 Kgs. 18:13); and because the city of Jerusalem was left unharmed, he introduced the motif of the prophetic words and the repentance of the king and his officials that brought about the deliverance of the city (verses 5–8, 12). The episode was reworked according to the pattern of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah (2 Kgs. 18:13–16), and the account of the later event served as a model (Willi 1972:175; Ackroyd 1987:283, n. 22). Thus, it is clear that Shishak’s campaign must be studied on the basis of that king’s inscriptions and, to a certain extent, on the account in 1 Kgs. 14:25–28, whereas the Chronicler’s description of the event must be left out of the historical reconstruction.

Concluding Remarks In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the following five points: 1. I agree with Finkelstein that the emergence of the Negev Highlands settlements was the result of economic changes in the south. The collapse of the urban culture in Canaan and the subsequent need for grain formerly obtained from the sedentary population, the Egyptian withdrawal from Canaan after the mid–12th century BCE, the development of mining activity and met-

134


allurgy along the Jordan Valley and the Arabah, and the growing participation of the local population in the overland trade — these factors combined to bring about the gradual sedentarization of the local pastoral population. The domestication of the camel, on the other hand, played only a minor role in the transport of goods within the system of overland trade in this period. Widespread use of camels developed only in the 9th–8th centuries BCE, as is evident from Assyrian inscriptions and reliefs (Eph‘al 1982), and from the rarity of camel bones at Iron Age 1 sites (e.g., camel bones are absent from Iron Age I strata at Tel Masos, Tel Beer-sheba, Shiloh and Mount Ebal). The frequency of camel bones increases significantly only in the 7th century BCE (Wapnish 1981, with earlier literature on p. 120, nn. 93–95; 1984:171–179). 2. It is not clear whether Tel Masos was indeed the center of the Negev Highlands settlements, as suggested by Finkelstein (1988a:241–243, 248– 250). In size, plan, architecture and material culture, the Tel Masos settlement is entirely different from both the enclosed settlements in the Negev Highlands and “Israelite” settlements in the hill country (for the excavations at Tel Masos, see Fritz and Kempinski 1983, with earlier literature; Finkelstein 1988b:41–46, with earlier literature). Just as it is difficult to regard Tel Masos as an “Israelite” settlement (Ahlström 1984; Herzog 1984:72; Rainey 1984:101; Finkelstein 1988a:241–243; 1988b:43–46), so is it to regard Tel Masos as part of the system of the Negevite enclosed settlements. Furthermore, the enclosed settlements continued to develop after the decline of Tel Masos (Stratum II) as the major trade center in the south. The emergence of the Tel Masos settlement is closely connected with the strengthening and prosperity of the Philistine kingdoms in the 11th century BCE. Consequently, its decline was contemporaneous with the weakening of the latter kingdoms, as a result of the emergence and expansion of the Israelite and Phoenician kingdoms (for the latter, see Stern 1990). It remains unclear whether Tel Masos was either an independent town that maintained close ties with the Philistines or was part of the Philistine territory that, in the 11th century, encompassed all the lowlands west of the Jordan River. 3. The settlements in the Negev Highlands might have reached the stage of chiefdom, and the “chief ” was called “king” in the biblical tradition. According to 1 Kgs. 11:14–17, the kingship in Edom antedated the conquest of the land by David (Gen. 36:31 may well be a learned deduction from this source), and, after a certain interval, it was resumed by Hadad and probably lasted until Shishak’s campaign. The independent leadership of the Negev Highlands might well have played an important role in the development and consolidation of the settlements. In an earlier stage of research, some scholars assumed that the “fortresses” developed under the initiative and organization of the kings of Israel


135

(e.g., Aharoni 1967b; Meshel 1977:133; Cohen 1980:77; Herzog 1983:47–48; Haiman 1988:160–169). Now, it is clear that no external power actively participated in the settlement process. If there had been a central organization and guidance in the growth of the settlements, it should be attributed to the local leaders and their ability to cooperate with the other powers in the area. 4. The settlements in the Negev Highlands suffered a heavy blow when the Egyptian troops plundered and destroyed the area. Their inhabitants were unable to recover from the serious damage caused by the Egyptian campaign. Neither could they maintain their new sedentary way of life. They gradually reverted to their former mode of existence, pastoral nomadism, deserting their settlements and once again becoming an “invisible” element in the desert area. 5. Since the 9th century BCE, the international trade had been conducted by the Arabs, as is evident from Assyrian sources (Eph‘al 1982:75–80; Cavigneaux and Ismail 1990:346–347, 351, 357). This was the direct result of the domestication of the camel in the late second-early first millennium BCE, enabling the nomads to settle in desert areas beyond the control of the kingdoms then in power in the Fertile Crescent. In the last analysis, it was the Arabs who profited from Shishak’s campaign and who gained supremacy in the trade of Arabia for centuries to come.10

References Abel, F.M. 1933. Géographie de la Palestine I. Paris. Abramski, S. 1978. The Resurrection of the Kingdom of Damascus and its Historiographical Record. In: Avishur, Y. and Blau, J. eds. Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to S. E. Loewenstamm. Jerusalem: 17–43. (Hebrew). Ackroyd, P.R. 1987. An Interpretation of the Babylonian Exile: A Study of II Kings 20, Isaiah 38–39. Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: 152–171, 282–285. Aharoni, Y. 1967a. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Aharoni, Y. 1967b. Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age Fortresses in the Negev. IEJ 17: 1– 17. Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Negev during the Israelite Period. In: Shmueli, A. and Gardos, Y. eds. The Land of the Negev I. Tel Aviv: 209–225. (Hebrew). Aharoni, Y. 1982. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem and Leiden. Ahlström, G.W. 1984. The Early Iron Age Settlers at Ḫirbet et-Mšāš (Tel Māśōś). ZDPV 100: 35–52.

10. This is a slightly revised version of the original article published in Tel Aviv 19 (1992).

136


Albright, W.F. 1939. Book Reviews: F.M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine II (Paris 1938). JBL 58: 177–187. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Bartlett, J.R. 1965. The Edomite King-List of Genesis 36:31–39 and 1 Chron. 1:43–50. Journal of Theological Studies 16: 301–314. Bartlett, J.R. 1969. The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom. Journal of Theological Studies 20: 1–20. Bartlett, J.R. 1976. An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. ZAW 88: 205–226. Bartlett, J.R. 1989. Edom and the Edomites. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 77). Sheffield. Bennett, C.M. 1983. Excavations at Buseirah (Biblical Bozrah). In: Sawyer, J.F.A. and Clines, D.J.A. eds. Midian, Moab and Edom. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 24). Sheffield: 9–17. Bennett, C.M. 1984. Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan, 1982. Levant 16: 1–23. Bienkowski, P. 1990. Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah in Retrospect. Levant 22: 91– 109. Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford. Cavigneaux, A. and Ismail, B.K. 1990. Die Statthalter von Suhu und Mari im 8 Jh. v. Chr. anhand neuer Texte aus den irakischen Grabungen im Staugebiet des QadissiyaDamms. Baghdader Mitteilungen 21: 321–456. Cohen, R. 1980. The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev. BASOR 236: 61–79. Cohen, R. 1986. The Settlement of the Central Negev in the Light of Archaeology and Literary Sources during the 4th–1st Millennia B.C.E. (Ph.D. thesis). The Hebrew University. (Hebrew). Curtis, E.L. and Madsen, A.A. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Driver, S.R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford. EA = Knudtzon, J.A. 1915. Die El-Amarna-Tafeln mit Einleitung und Erläuterungen I-II. (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 2). Leipzig. Eitam, D. 1988. The Settlement of Nomadic Tribes in the Negeb Highlands during the 11th Century B.C. In: Heltzer, M. and Lipiński, E. eds. Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 B. C.). Leuven: 313–340. Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden. Eph‘al, I. and Naveh, J. 1989. Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions. IEJ 39: 192–200. Feucht, E. 1981. Relief Scheschonqs I. beim Erschlagen der Feinde aus el-Hibe. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 9: 105–117. Finkelstein, I. 1984. The Iron Age “Fortresses” of the Negev Highlands: Sedentarization of the Nomads. Tel Aviv 11: 189–209. Finkelstein, I. 1988a. Arabian Trade and Socio-Political Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth-Eleventh Centuries B.C.E. JNES 47: 241–252. Finkelstein, I. 1988b. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem. Finkelstein, l. 1989. Further Observations on the Socio-Demographic Structure of the Intermediate Bronze Age. Levant 21: 129–140. Finkelstein, I. 1992. Edom in the Iron 1. Levant 24: 159–172. Finkelstein, 1. and Perevolotsky, A. 1990. Processes of Sedentarization and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev. BASOR 279: 67–88.


137

Fritz, V. and Kempinski, A. 1983. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Masos) 1972–1974. (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins). Wiesbaden. Giveon, R. 1979. Remarks on Some Egyptian Toponym Lists concerning Canaan. In: Görg, M. and Pusch, E. eds. Festschrift Elmar Edel. (Ägypten. und Altes Testament 1). Bamberg: 135– 141. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings. (2nd revised ed.; Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Haiman, M. 1988. The Iron Age Sites of the Negev Highlands in the Light of the Negev Emergency Survey 1979–1987. (M.A. thesis). The Hebrew University. (Hebrew). Herrmann, S. 1964. Operationen Pharao Schoschenks 1. im östlichen Ephraim. ZDPV 80: 55–79. Hertzberg, W. 1956. Die Samuelbücher übersetzt und erklärt. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 10). Göttingen. Herzog, Z. 1983. Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of Beer-sheba. BASOR 250: 41–49. Herzog, Z. 1984. Early Iron Age Settlements at Beer-sheba and their Cultural Background. In: Herzog, Z. ed. Beer-sheba II. The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv: 70–87. Hoftijzer, J. 1989. Philological-Grammatical Notes on 1 Kings XI 14. Oudtestamentische Studiën 21: 29–37. Jones, Pr. H. 1984. 1 and 2 Kings I. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Kempinski, A. 1974. Tell el-‘Ajjûl — Beth-Aglayim or Sharuhen? IEJ 24: 145–152. Kitchen, K.A. 1964. Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of Ramesses II. JEA 50: 47–70. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B. C.). Warminster. Kitchen, K.A. 1988. Egypt and Israel during the First Millennium B.C. VT Supplement 40: 107–123. Knauf, E.A. 1985. Alter und Herkunft der edomitischen Königsliste Gen. 36, 31–39. ZAW 97: 243–253. Lemaire, A. 1988. Hadad l’Édomite ou Hadad l’Araméen? Biblische Notizen 43: 14–18. Lemaire, A. 1990. Bala‘am/Bela‘ fils de Be‘ôr. ZAW 102: 180–187. Mazar, B. 1957. The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine. Supplement to VT 4: 57–66. Meshel, Z. 1974. History of the Negev in the Time of the Kings of Judah. (Ph.D. thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Meshel, Z. 1977. Ḥorvat Ritma: An Iron Age Fortress in the Negev Highlands. Tel Aviv 4: 110–135. Meshel, Z. 1979. Who Built the “Israelite Fortresses” in the Negev Highlands. Cathedra 11: 4–28. (Hebrew). Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. London. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6: 68–90. Na’aman, N. 1980. The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. ZDPV 96: 135–152. Na’aman, N. 1981. “Hebron was Built Seven Years before Zoan in Egypt” (Numbers XIII 22). VT 31: 488–492. Na’aman, N. 1983. The Town of Malaḥu. Göttinger Miszellen 63: 47–51. Na’aman, N. 1985. Arad in the Topographical List of Shishak. Tel Aviv 12: 91–92. Na’aman, N. 1986a. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1986b. Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the LMLK Stamps. BASOR 261: 5–21.

138


Na’aman, N. 1987. Pastoral Nomads in the Southwestern Periphery of the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th–8th Centuries B.C.E. Zion 52: 261–278. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1988. The Date of 2 Chronicles 11:5–10 — A Reply to Y. Garfinkel. BASOR 271: 74–77. Noth, M. 1938. Die Wege des Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien. IV Die Schoschenkliste. ZDPV 61: 277–304. Noth, M. 1968. Könige (Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament IX/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Rainey, A.F. Shishak. Enc. Miqr VII: 655–661. (Hebrew). Rainey, A.F. 1984. Early Historical Geography of the Negeb. In: Herzog, Z. ed. Beer-sheba IL The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv: 88–104. Redford, D.B. 1973. Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the First Millennium B. C. II. The Twenty-Second Dynasty. JAOS 93: 3–17. Rothenberg, B. 1967. Negev: Archaeology in the Negev and the Arabah. Ramat Gan. (Hebrew). Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbücher. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 21). Tübingen. Sauer, J.A. 1986. Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Age: A Critique of Glueck’s Synthesis. BASOR 263:1–26. Schmitt, G. 1980. Gat, Gittaim und Gitta. In: Cohen, R. and Schmitt. G. Drei Studien zur Archäologie und Topographie Altisraels. (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Beihefte, Reihe B, vol. 44). Wiesbaden: 77–138. Simons, J. 1937. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia. Leiden. Stern, E. 1990. New Evidence from Dor for the First Appearance of the Phoenicians Along the Northern Coast of Israel. BASOR 279: 27–34. Ussishkin, D. 1990. Notes on Megiddo, Gezer, Ashdod and Tel Batash in the Tenth to Ninth Centuries B.C. BASOR 277/278: 71–91. Vanoni, G. 1984. Literarkritik und Grammatik. Untersuchung der Wiederholung und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12. (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 21). St. Ottilien. Wapnish, P. 1981. Camel Caravans and Camel Pastoralists at Tell Jemmeh. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13: 101–120. Wapnish, P. 1984. The Dromedary and Bactrian Camel in Levantine Historical Settings: The Evidence from Tell Jemmeh. In: Clutton-Brook, J. and Grigson, C. eds. Animals and Archaeology. 3. Early Herders and their Flocks (BAR International Series 202). Oxford: 171– 200. Weippert, M. 1982. Remarks on the History of Settlement in Southern Jordan during the Early Iron Age. In: Hadidi, A. ed. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 1. Amman: 153–162. Willi, T. 1972. Die Chronik als Auslegung. Uniersuchungen zur literarische Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 106). Göttingen. Yeivin, S. 1960. Did the Kingdom of Israel have a Maritime Policy? Jewish Quarterly Review 50: 193–228.

Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel1 The excavations conducted at Tel Jezreel brought to light a clear picture of the history of the Iron Age II city. A fortified enclosure was built during the first half of the 9th century BCE, and no large-scale settlement preceded that city. The enclosure was built on a grand scale, according to a uniform plan, and covered an area of ca. 45 dunams. The entire area of the enclosure was built by layering soil and stones, and its surface was leveled to form a large artificial platform. It was surrounded by a deep rock-cut moat; the material from the moat was dumped on the rampart and possibly was used for the fortifications built around the site. A gatehouse was uncovered on the southern side of the enclosure, but no other monumental building was discovered. The enclosure had fallen into disuse in the 9th century BCE. Sporadic settlement continued on the site during the late 9th–7th centuries BCE. The excavators attributed the building of the enclosure either to Omri or Ahab (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1992:53). They interpreted the site as “the central military base for the royal Israelite army at the time of the Omride kings” (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1994:47). The position of Jezreel vis-à-vis Samaria was explained thus: “Samaria was the royal capital, with the main royal palace and cultic center; Jezreel was the military headquarters, where the royal chariotry and cavalry were kept and trained, and a provincial royal residence was built there” (ibid.). In contrast to the picture that may be drawn from 2 Kings 9, Jezreel was neither a seat of the royal family nor a royal residence (although an administrative residence might have been built somewhere along the northern side of the site). The destruction of the enclosure was assigned to Jehu’s coup d’état in 842 BCE. The fortified city was used by the Omrides for no more than 40 years (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1992:53). The biblical texts that refer to Jezreel were systematically analyzed by Williamson (1991) shortly before the excavations. The documentary (biblical and extra-biblical sources) and archaeological evidence may now be reexamined in light of the illuminating results of the excavations.

1. Reprinted with permission. Tel Aviv 24 (1997), 122–128.

139

140


Mesha Inscription and the Excavations of Jezreel The building of Qeriho, Mesha’s new royal city (lines 21–26), is described in his inscription thus (Lemaire 1994:33): I built Qeriho: the wall of the parks (ycrn) and the wall of the acropolis (cpl); and I built its gates, and I built its towers; and I built the king’s house (bt mlk); and I made banks for the water reservoir (kl’y h’šwḥ) inside the town; . . . and I dug the ditches (mkrtt) for Qeriho with prisoners of Israel (b’sry yśr’l).

This passage is the only detailed 9th century building description that was discovered in southern Syria-Palestine and, hence, its importance. Unfortunately, details of the public buildings that may have stood at Tel Jezreel are missing, and it is not clear whether a palace or a water reservoir, similar to those mentioned in the Mesha inscription, were built there. I find it difficult to believe that the enormous amount of work invested in the enclosure was made solely for troops and chariots. After all, when war was waged, the army was mobilized and sent to the front. The military function of the site does not entirely explain the building of such large artificial platforms. The site must have functioned as a royal residence as well. Either it was planned as a royal center with a distinctive administrative-military function and was destroyed before its completion, or the public buildings that once stood in the site are covered by the debris of later periods and must be sought under the Byzantine and Crusader ruins on the north and northwestern sides of the city. The similarity among the edifices constructed at Qeriho and Jezreel might have been greater than indicated by the results of the excavations. The note in the Mesha inscription of the digging of the ditches (mkrtt) by prisoners of war2 is remarkable. In light of the excavations at Tel Jezreel, the noun mkrtt refers to the moat quarried around the city. Moreover, the Mesha inscription may supply the answer to the question of how the Omrides were able to complete such a large-scale project and, in particular, the quarring of the large moat. The description of the hard labor imposed by Solomon on his subjects that brought about the division of his kingdom — regardless of its historicity — indicates the limitation of the Israelite and Judean kingdoms in enforcing hard labor on their subjects. Prisoners of war are an entirely different matter. From the Mesha inscription we learn that Omri conquered territories east of the Jordan and governed all the areas north of the Arnon River. The new Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan indicates that a king of Israel (either Ahab or his son Joram) conducted an offensive on the northern front of the kingdom and besieged the Aramean town of Abel (i.e., Abel-beth-maa2. For the noun mkrtt, see Jackson 1989:119–120, with earlier literature.

Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel

141

cah; see Biran and Naveh 1995:12–12, lines 2–4; Na’aman 1995a:389). It is evident that the Omrides conducted offensive wars on the northern and eastern (and possibly other) fronts and were able to capture large number of captives and use them for hard labor, such as the quarring of the large moat that surrounds the city of Jezreel. In conclusion, I would suggest that accomplishing the enormous amount of work required for building the rampart and quarring the moat at Jezreel is explained partly by the availability of a labor force and, in particular, of captives of war in the period of the Dynasty of Omri.

Jezreel in the Prophetic Stories The short life of Jezreel as a royal city sheds an unexpected light on some prophetic narratives that describe events of the time of Ahab and Joram. Jezreel is mentioned in the two stories of Elijah and Ahab (1 Kgs. 18:45, 46; 21:1, 23), in the detailed story of Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kgs. 8:29; 9:10, 15, 16, 17, 30, 36, 37; 10:1, 11), and in Hosea 1:4, in reference to Jehu’s rebellion. On the other hand, the city is absent from the Deuteronomistic account of the history of the Omrides, from the prophetic stories of Elisha (who operated in the time of the Jehu Dynasty), and from all sources that describe the postOmride history. The place of the city in the prophetic narratives that refer to Ahab and Joram corresponds exactly with the results of the excavations conducted in the site. How can we account for the precision of this particular detail? The “blood of Jezreel” was still recalled by Hosea in the third quarter of the 8th century BCE. However, details of the city’s historical role in the time of the Omrides must have faded as time passed. In my opinion, Jezreel’s place within these narratives indicates their antiquity and, possibly, the relatively early date of their composition. According to 1 Kgs. 18:45–46, following the episode on Mount Carmel, Ahab rode back to Jezreel, and Elijah ran before him up to the city’s entrance. The author evidently assumed that Ahab had a residence in the town. The author of the story of Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kgs. 9–10) also assumed that Jezreel was a royal residence. Narratives that have such distinctive detail were undoubtedly formed at a time when the memory of Jezreel was still very much alive. The survival of this detail in these stories indicates a relatively early date of composition. Otherwise, the text might have been “updated” and Jezreel replaced by Samaria, the better known capital of Israel, where the later kings of Israel had their royal residence. Late confusion between Samaria and Jezreel is evident from an analysis of the story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21). There is a divergence of opinions among scholars about the original site of Ahab’s palace and Naboth’s

142


vineyard: Some locate them at Samaria and others place them at Jezreel (see Timm 1982:118–121; Williamson 1991:87–89, with earlier literature). It seems to me that both alternatives are incorrect. The text makes it clear that the author assumed that Ahab’s seat was at Samaria and Naboth’s vineyard at Jezreel, where he stood trial and was stoned to death. It is evident that the author was unaware of the site of the two towns and hopelessly confused the locations of the palace and vineyard.3 The glosses in verses 1a and 18a, inserted into the text by an editor in an effort to facilitate the difficulties, do not really clarify the confusion. Thus, when a later editor tried to link the judgment on Ahab (verse 19 “In the place where the dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood”) with the story of Ahab’s death in battle (1 Kings 22), he misinterpreted the story and assumed that Naboth was put to death in Samaria, where Ahab’s chariot was washed and “the dogs licked up his blood” (verse 38). The story of 1 Kings 21 possibly was composed on the basis of an oral narrative at a relatively late time, when the memory of Jezreel faded and its historical role forgotten. The author built a paradigmatic narrative, centered around the clash of values between the royal house of Samaria and the traditional society, represented by Naboth of Jezreel. The story mainly reflects the author’s time and values and is far removed from the reality of the time of its historical heroes.

Dating the Destruction of Jezreel Ussishkin and Woodhead (1992:53) assigned the destruction of Jezreel to Jehu’s rebellion on the basis of the story in 2 Kgs. 9–10 and the words of Hosea 1:4. The story in chapters 9–10 relates the murder of individual Jezreelites who were either part of the House of Omri or its supporters. Whether Jehu was responsible for the total destruction and abandonment of the city is another matter. Why should the king of Israel raze to the ground and abandon such strategically located and fortified town? Just as Samaria was built by the Omrides and served as a capital city and residence for rulers of other dynasties, so Jezreel could serve as an administrative-military base for Jehu and his successors. We must reexamine other sources to properly explain the destruction and abandonment of the city.

3. Timm (1982:121) suggested that the confusion of locations is the result of the paradigmatic nature of the narrative and that the narrator was not interested in such details. However, authors of didactic stories are always trying to convince their readers. Seemingly authentic details contribute to that aim, whereas confusion of details lessens the effect of the story.


143

According to the Book of Kings, Hazael, king of Aram, first conquered Transjordan (2 Kgs. 10:32–33; see Ben-Zvi 1990) and then subjugated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (2 Kgs 12:18–19; 13:3, 7, 22, 24). Israel remained an Aramaic vassal for 30–40 years, until the early years of Joash, Jehu’s grandson (2 Kgs. 13:14–19, 25). Details of the Aramaic conquest of the kingdom of Israel are missing (for recent discussions, see Lemaire 1991:101–103; 1993, with earlier literature). According to the prophetic story of Hazael’s assumption of the throne of Damascus (2 Kgs. 8:7–15), Elisha prophesied to the future king of Aram as follows (verse 12b): “. . . I know the evil that you will do to the people of Israel: you will set on fire their fortresses, and you will slay their young men with the sword, and dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child.” The prophecy indicates that the Aramaic conquest was violent and destructive (compare Amos 1:3). The newly discovered Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan adds important details for the reconstruction of the Aramaic conquest (Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995). The author of the inscription is, most probably, Hazael. The text of lines 5–10, which is partly broken, may be restored thus (Biran and Naveh 1973:93–94; 1995:12–17; Na’aman 1995a:389, n. 29):4 And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from the seven [. . .] of my kingdom/ kings, and I slew [migh]ty ([’d]rn) kin[gs], who harnessed tho[usand (’[lp]) cha]riots and thousands chariot horses. [I killed Jo]ram ([yw]rm) son of [Ahab], king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [xx, kin]g of Beth-David. And I set [their towns into ruins? and turned] their land into [desolation . . .].

According to the inscription, it was Hazael who killed Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu of Judah (Beth-David); moreover, Hazael wrought havoc in the conquered territories. We may assume that Hazael attacked Israel (with or without the cooperation of Jehu), conquered its territories and destroyed some/ many of its cities. The inscription fits well the words of Elisha cited above. In light of the archaeological evidence from Jezreel, I would suggest that the city was utterly destroyed by Hazael and remained in ruins during the Aramaic rule in Israel. The eight arrows uncovered during the excavations of Tel Jezreel supports the above assumption. They were all found on the southern side of the site, near the gate and the tower (see Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997:64–66; Fig. 55). They indicate that, contrary to the description of Jehu’s non-obstructed entrance to Jezreel (2 Kgs. 9:30–31), the city was conquered by force, possibly

4. The translation follows that suggested by Biran and Naveh, with minor improvements (marked by round brackets and transcription).

144


after a siege and battle. The arrowheads fit well my assumption of an Aramaic conquest that was followed by the complete destruction of this strongly fortified site that blocked the main route from the Beth-shean Valley to the central hill country. The synchronism between the pottery of Tel Jezreel and Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo was established by Zimhoni (1992; 1997). We may assume that Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo was conquered and destroyed by Hazael at the same time that he obliterated Jezreel. Stratum IVA at Megiddo was probably built after the Aramaic withdrawal from the land of Israel in the early 8th century BCE. Stratum XIV at Tel Yokneam may also have been destroyed by the Arameans. After an interval that overlaps the Aramaic domination of Israel and is represented by a few pits (Stratum XIII), the city was rebuilt in the early eighth century BCE and fortified by a massive double wall (Stratum XII) (for the excavations, see Ben-Tor 1992, with earlier literature). The destruction of Stratum Lower VB at Tel Beth-shean tentatively may be attributed to the Aramaic campaign(s). After a gap in settlement, the site was resettled (Stratum Upper VB) at the same time as the rebuilding of Megiddo Stratum IVA and Tel Yokneam Stratum XII (for the excavations, see Mazar 1994:70, 81–82). The destruction of other sites, such as Stratum III at Tel ‘Amal (Levy and Edelstein 1972) and the cultic site at Tel Taanach (Glock 1992, with earlier literature) also may be attributed to Hazael’s campaign(s). In a recent article (Na’aman 1995b:187–188), I attributed the destruction of the cultic sites at Megiddo Stratum VA-IVB, Taanach and Tel ‘Amal, to the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak. In light of the redating of the destruction of Megiddo Stratum VAIVB, the termination of these shrines must be attributed to the campaign(s) of Hazael. It seems to me that the burial of the destroyed cultic places and the decision not to rebuild them may be attributed to the new cultic policy that took place in Israel under the Dynasty of Jehu. Finally, it seems to me that Hazael captured and destroyed Gath of the Philistines (2 Kgs. 12:17 [18]). The city never recovered from the destruction. It lost its status as an independent kingdom and was annexed later by Ashdod and became one of its border towns (Na’aman 1996:177). This is further evidence of the destructive nature of the Aramaic campaigns under Hazael. Summing up, it seems that a series of sites located in the Jezreel and Bethshean valleys were destroyed by Hazael in the course of his conquest of the Northern kingdom. Jezreel, Megiddo, Taanach, Jokneam and Beth-shean are apparently the cities to which the Tel Dan inscription alludes. The Aramaic conquest brought about the desertion of Jezreel and a certain period of deso-


145

lation in central towns like Megiddo, Jokneam, Taanach and Beth-shean. Only with the Aramaic withdrawal in the early years of Joash, the son of Jehoahaz (the early 8th century BCE), were these towns rebuilt and fortified. The site of Jezreel was left in ruins, probably because of the totality of its destruction and because its functions were now assumed by Megiddo (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1994:47). In the 8th–7th centuries BCE, Tel Jezreel became a small village, settled by a few families.

References Ben-Tor, A. 1992. Jokneam. New Enc. Arc. Exc. III: 805–811. Ben-Zvi, E. 1990. Tracing Prophetic Literature in the Book of Kings. The Case of II Kings 15, 37. ZAW 102: 100–105. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Jackson, K.P. 1989. The Language of the Mesha Inscription. In Dearman, A. ed. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: 96–130. Glock, A.E. 1992. Taanach. New Enc. Arc. Exc. IV: 1428–1432. Lemaire, A. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In: Charpin, D. and Joannès, F. eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris: 91–108. Lemaire, A. 1993. Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat. La SyriePalestine vers 800 av. J.-C. Eretz Israel 24: 148*–157*. Lemaire, A. 1994. “House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription. Biblical Archaeology Review 20(3): 30–37. Levy, S. and Edelstein, G. 1972. Cinq années de foilles à Tel ‘Amal (Nir David). RB 79: 325– 367. Mazar, A. 1994. Four Thousand Years of History at Tel Beth-shean. Qadmoniot 27:66–83. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1995a. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Na’aman, N. 1995b. The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research. ZAW 107: 179–195. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 170–186. Timm, S. 1982. Die Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 124). Göttingen. Ussishkin, D. and Woodhead, J. 1992. Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1990–1991: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 19: 3–56. Ussishkin, D. and Woodhead, J. 1994. Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1992–1993: Second Preliminary Report. Levant 26: 1–48. Ussishkin, D. and Woodhead, J. 1997. Excavations at Tel Jezreel 1994–1996: Third Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 24: 6–72. Williamson, H.G.M. 1991. Jezreel in the Biblical Texts. Tel Aviv 18: 72–92.

146


Zimhoni, O. 1992. The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel — An Interim Report. Tel Aviv 19: 57–70. Zimhoni, O. 1997. Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride Settlement at Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 83–109.

Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides1 For many years, the Elijah-Elisha stories were regarded by scholars as preDeuteronomistic narrative cycles that the Deuteronomist (Dtr) integrated into his historical composition.2 In 1912, C. Steuernagel (1912:348–349, 362– 363) had already suggested that a considerable part of the stories of the Book of Kings (e.g., 1 Kgs. 17:1–22:38; 2 Kgs. 1:2–17; 2:1–25; 3:4–8:15; 9:1–10:28) were inserted only in a second stage of editing, because they stand in marked contrast to the short descriptions of the original Dtr edition (Rd1). For example, 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 could not have been part of the Dtr history because they contradict the statement of verse 40. He concluded that out of the history of Ahab (1 Kgs. 16:29–22, 40) “für Rd1 verbleiben höchstens 16,29–34, 22,39– 40.” G. Hölscher (1923:184–186. See also Pfeiffer 1941:396–398, 403, 404–409) reached similar conclusions, noting that the statement in 1 Kgs. 22:40 — that Ahab “slept with his ancestors” — is used elsewhere only for kings who died in peace. Hence, the story about Ahab’s violent death in 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 was inserted later. J.M. Miller (1966:449–451) took the same position some forty years later and suggested that the Elijah-Elisha legends and the accounts of the wars of the kings of Israel (1 Kgs. 20; 22:1–38; 2 Kgs. 3:4–27) were added to the Dtr history by a later redactor. H.-C Schmitt (1972) analyzed, in great detail, the prophetic narratives and concluded that the four battle reports (1 Kgs. 20; 22:1–38; 2 Kgs. 3:4–27; 6:24–7:20) and the Elisha stories were inserted into the Book of Kings by a post-Dtr editor. Since the 1980s, this position, with many variants, has been supported by a growing number of scholars.3 For example, S.L. McKenzie (1991:98, 152) concluded that most of the long prophetic stories in the section from 1 Kings 13 to 2 Kings 13 are postDtr additions. These include the Elijah cycle in 1 Kings 17–19, the story about

1. Reprinted with permission. Biblica 78 (1997), 153–173. 2. See, e.g., Šanda 1911:XXX, XLII; Montgomery 1951:38–41; Gray 1970:29–35, 358; Eissfeldt 1965:141–143, 290–299; Weiser 1964:175–179; Noth 1967:78–80; Mayes 1983:106– 132; Campbell 1986. 3. Van Seters 1983:305–306; Würthwein 1984:205, 496–498, 502–503; Jones 1984:338– 339; Stipp 1987; Rofé 1988; McKenzie 1991:90–98.

147

148


Elijah in 2 Kgs. 1:2–17aα, the battle accounts in 1 Kgs. 20 and 22:1–38, and the Elisha stories in 2 Kgs. 2; 3:4–8:15; 13:14–21. H.-J. Stipp (1995:493) concluded recently that ein grosser Teil der Prophetenerzählungen in 1 Kön 13 — 2 Kön 13 erst nachträglich in das DtrG Eingang gefunden hat. Ursprünglich war das Werk in diesem Raum erheblich straffer und umfasste vor allem die Erzählungen, die durch das Dynastiewort ein unverkennbares dtr Gepräge erhalten haben (1 Kön 14; 21; 2 Kön 9ff.) oder unlöslich in das dtr Rahmenwerk eingeschmolzen sind (2 Kön 1).

The four battle reports (1 Kgs. 20; 22:1–38; 2 Kgs. 3:4–27; 6:24–7:20), and some of the Elisha narratives (2 Kgs. 5; 6:8–23) were inserted in the Dtr history in a late stage of composition, possibly by the author of 1 Kgs. 13 and 20:35–43 (Stipp 1995:489–493. For details, see Stipp 1987:361–480). The purpose of this article is to re-examine the problem of the integration of the prophetic narratives within the Dtr history from a new angle, not yet discussed by scholars. My analysis will focus on the problem of the sources available to the Dtr historian and the way in which he drew conclusions on the basis of his sources. I believe that the study of sources is the key to the debate on the stage at which the prophetic stories first entered the Dtr historical composition.

I. The Concluding Statements of Judean and Israelite Kings The concluding statements about the reign of Jehoshaphat open thus (RSV): “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat and his might (Â˙¯Â·‚Â) that he showed, and how he warred (ÌÁÏ ¯˘‡Â) . . .” (1 Kgs. 22:45). What is the basis for saying that Jehoshaphat fought and showed his might? To answer this question, let me review the concluding statements on the reigns of other Israelite and Judean kings who are described by similar terms. The combination of “his might” and “how he warred” appears only in the concluding statements on Jehoash (2 Kgs. 14:15) and Jeroboam II (2 Kgs. 14:28), kings of Israel. The textual basis for these statements is seen clearly in their histories: Jehoash successfully fought the Arameans and later fought Amaziah, the king of Judah. Jeroboam II fought the Arameans and extended the Israelite border up to Lebo-hamath (2 Kgs. 14:25). The expression “how he warred” (ÌÁÏ ¯˘‡) alone appears in the closing statements on Jeroboam I (1 Kgs. 14:19). Indeed, Jeroboam’s early rebellion against Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:26, 40), his part in the episode of the division of the monarchy, and his wars with Rehoboam “all their days” (1 Kgs. 14:30) are all related in the First Book of Kings. References to the “might” (‰¯Â·‚) of Israelite and Judean kings appear in the concluding statements of their reign. Asa’s war against Baasha and Hezekiah’s war against the Philistines and against Assyria fully explain the mention of “might” at the conclusions of their reigns (1 Kgs. 15:23; 2 Kgs.

Prophetic Stories as Sources

149

20:20). Baasha, Omri and Jehu rebelled against the reigning king of Israel, killed him and founded new dynasties. Their successful rebellions fully justified the mention of “might” in the concluding statements on their reigns (1 Kgs. 16:5; 16:27; 2 Kgs. 10:34). Baasha also fought against Asa of Judah and Ben-Hadad, the king of Aram (1 Kgs. 15:16–20). Jehu fought against Hazael, the king of Aram (2 Kgs 10:32–33). His son, Jehoahaz, fought against Hazael, the king of Aram, and against his son, Ben-Hadad, “for many years” (2 Kgs. 13:3, 7, 22). The emphasis on his “might” in the concluding statement on his reign (2 Kgs. 13:8) is self-explanatory. We have seen that for each king whose reign is summarized by a statement on his fighting, his might, or both, the Dtr related in some detail the historical basis of the reference. In the case of Jehoshaphat, he used the double statement, which, as we have seen, was used only for a few successful kings (Jehoash and Jeroboam II of Israel). What are the wars in which Jehoshaphat participated and in which he showed his might? The only reasonable answer is that the statement refers to his participation in the campaigns against the Arameans and the Moabites related in 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 and 2 Kgs. 3:4–27. In other words, contrary to the opinion of the above-mentioned scholars, the two narratives must have been included in the Dtr history and formed the basis for the historian’s concluding statements on Jehoshaphat. Scholars may object to this conclusion and argue that the statement about fighting and/or might is absent from the concluding statements on Ahab, king of Israel. However, it was always used for kings who triumphed in war (Jehoahaz may be an exception), whereas Ahab was killed in battle and his army retreated. Moreover, the Dtr was not a modern Western historian who systematically inserted statements of might and fighting in every appropriate place. Thus, it does not appear in the histories of Menahem and Pekah, who successfully rebelled against their lords and seized the throne. It is also missing from the concluding statements on Judean kings who either fought and won in battle (David and Amaziah, who subjugated Edom), or successfully withstood a coalition of enemies (Ahaz). The absence of a statement of war in the concluding statements on Ahab in no way contradicts my conclusion that 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 and 2 Kgs. 3:4–27 formed part of the original Dtr history. Other elements in the concluding statements on Israelite and Judean kings also appear in their respective histories. The reference to Solomon’s deeds “and his wisdom” (1 Kgs. 11:41) is illustrated broadly in the history of that king. The statement regarding all that Manasseh did “and the sin that he committed” (2 Kgs. 21:17) is fully illuminated by his history. The reference to the acts of Jeroboam I, “how he warred and how he reigned,” summarizes his history. The statements of the “conspiracy which he made”

150


(Â¯˘˜Â ¯˘‡ ¯˘˜) of Zimri (1 Kgs. 16:20) and Shallum (2 Kgs. 15:15) refer back to their histories. References to the building of cities or other special building operations appear infrequently in the concluding remarks of the Book of Kings. Indeed, building operations do not appear in the concluding statements on kings whose histories mention such operations (e.g., Jeroboam I, Omri, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham). Of the three extant accounts, the building of cities in the concluding statement on Asa (1 Kgs. 15:23) is known from his history (v. 22). The statement about Hezekiah, “and how he made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city” (2 Kgs. 20:20), is not related in that king’s history. But the historian lived in Jerusalem about a century after the completion of the operation, when its memory was still very much alive. The source for Hezekiah’s operation is verbal rather than documentary. The only concluding statement whose details are not related in the king’s history appears in 1 Kgs. 22:39: “Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he built, and all the cities that he built . . . .”4 Does this isolated reference indicate that the Dtr did not work all his sources and sometimes referred to them only in the concluding remarks about a reign? Or did he draw the conclusion on Ahab’s building and luxury (i.e., ivory) from the prophetic stories of his dynasty? These narratives emphasize the prominent position of the cities of Samaria and Jezreel and refer to the building of the palace (or palaces) of Ahab and the House of Ba‘al. The historian may have inferred from these stories that Ahab built cities and decorated his palace with furnitures inlaid with ivory. Certainty cannot be achieved in this matter. But in light of what was said about the concluding statements on all other kings of Israel and Judah, the assumption of logical inferences on the basis of the extant sources should not be dismissed lightly. In conclusion, the concluding statements on the deeds of Judean and Israelite kings were written on the basis of sources available to the Dtr historian. These statements are addressed to the readers and relate the message that the history they read was composed on the basis of written sources, thus validating its authenticity. “The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” and “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” must have been real sources from which the Dtr drew certain information. But the range of sources available to him was broader. The Dtr worked and integrated his sources into his composition, wrote his own text on the basis of their words

4. An enigmatic concluding statement appears at the close of Jeroboam II’s reign (2 Kgs. 14,28). For a suggested new solution for this crux and for earlier literature, see Na’aman 1993:230–231.


151

(for further detail, see below), and referred briefly to his sources in the concluding statements about each reign. To facilitate the citing of the mixed sources available to him, he referred to all his source-material under the heading of “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel/Judah.”

II. Jehoshaphat’s Righteousness It is said of Jehoshaphat that “he walked in all the way of Asa his father; he did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the Lord” (1 Kgs. 22:43a). The details of the reform attributed to him (v. 46) could hardly have been drawn from a source. The text was written in conjunction with the list of religious sins of the Kingdom of Judah following the division of the monarchy (1 Kgs. 14:24a; see 15:12a). On what basis did the Dtr decide that Jehoshaphat was a righteous king? He “made peace” with the king of Israel (1 Kgs. 22:44), took Athaliah, the daughter of Omri/Ahab, for his son, Jehoram (2 Kgs. 8:18, 26), and went to war with Ahab and Joram, the kings of Israel (1 Kgs. 22:1–38; 2 Kgs. 3:4–27), so the historian had good reasons to describe him unfavorably. Indeed, Jehoram, his son, and Ahaziah, his grandson, were described unfavorably on account of their close relations with the dynasty of Omri (2 Kgs 8:18, 27). Some scholars noted that there is a literary pattern in the numbers of evil/righteous kings that unifies the Dtr value judgments regarding the kings of Judah (Würthwein 1984:492–495; Ben Zvi 1991:359–361). However, from the religious point of view, this pattern is meaningless and is no more than a literary embellishment. I very much doubt the assumption that the attribution of evil or righteousness to the majority of the kings was arbitrary and inspired by a (theologically meaningless) literary pattern. The Dtr must have had particular reasons for deciding whether kings were religiously “good” or “bad.” It seems to me that most of the value judgments were established either on the basis of information drawn from sources, or in the case of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah from the author’s personal knowledge. The pattern must have been created by fitting some kings whose cultic deeds remained obscure (e.g., Abiam, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham) to the value judgment on the other kings, whose valuation was based on literary sources and verbal knowledge. It seems to me that the Dtr value judgment on Jehoshaphat was drawn from the prophetic stories of 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 and 2 Kgs. 3:4–27. In the former narrative, Jehoshaphat initiates the inquiry into the word of YHWH (v. 5), remains unconvinced by the unanimous answer of the 400 prophets, and calls for another inquiry (vv. 7–8); when he is in trouble in war, he “cried out” (v. 32), which the Chronicler at any rate interpreted as a call for God’s help (2 Chr. 18:31). In the latter narrative (2 Kings 3), he again initiates the inquiry into

152


YHWH’s word by a prophet (v. 11), announces the divine inspiration of Elisha (v. 12 “The word of the Lord is with him”); his fame as devotee of YHWH convinces Elisha to prophesy (v. 14). The devotion of Jehoshaphat to YHWH as related in the two stories outweighed the negative conclusions that the Dtr might have drawn from his relations with the sinful kings of Israel. Therefore, Jehoshaphat is described favorably in the opening statements on his reign. Two analogous examples may be brought in support of this analysis. The extreme positive value judgment regarding Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18:3–5) was inferred from his religious conduct as reflected in the old story of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem and its miraculous deliverance (2 Kgs. 18:17–19:9a, 36). The positive value judgment of Joash, the king of Judah (2 Kgs. 12:3–4), was inferred from the story of his assumption of the throne of Judah (2 Kings 11) and from the report of the restoration of the temple under his supervision (2 Kgs. 12:5–13). We may conclude that narratives available about certain kings of Judah played a major role in the Dtr value judgment about these kings and that the narratives in 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 and 2 Kgs. 3:4–27 played a decisive role in establishing the value judgment regarding Jehoshaphat.5

III. The Value judgments on Ahab, Ahaziah and Joram The religious misdeeds of Ahab are described in detail in 1 Kgs. 16:30–33. No other Israelite ruler is described so pejoratively; his sins are later compared with those of Manasseh, the arch-sinner in the history of Judah (2 Kgs. 21:3, 13; see 2 Kgs. 8:18, 27; Mic. 6:16). What could have been the sources from which the Dtr drew the details of Ahab’s sins and that led him to conclude that his religious misdeeds were worse than those of all other Israelite kings? The answer is obvious: the Dtr had before him the prophetic narratives of Elijah (1 Kgs. 17–19) and of Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kings 9–10). From these sources, he drew logical conclusions about Ahab’s cultic misdeeds and related them in 1 Kgs 16:30–33. These included the building of a temple to Ba‘al in Samaria (2 Kgs. 10:18–27), the worship of Ba‘al by the king and his people (1 Kgs. 18–19) and, hence, the king’s negative attitude towards the cult of YHWH. He naturally connected it with Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel, of which he learned from these and other sources. The Dtr description of the sins of Ahab (1 Kgs. 16:30–33) is the logical conclusion drawn from the source material available to him.

5. For the background of the negative value judgments on Ahaz and Jehoiakim, see Na’aman 1995b:37–53.


153

The negative evaluation of Ahaziah, the son of Ahab (1 Kgs. 22:53–54), was based on the prophetic narrative in 2 Kgs. 1:2–17aa and the assumed continuity between father and son. Recently, some scholars have suggested a preDtr date for the narrative of Elijah and Ahaziah (Thiel 1991:156–158; Stipp 1995:476), emphasizing that the absence of Dtr editing in a certain narrative does not indicate a post-Dtr date for its inclusion in the history.6 Indeed, the assumption that the Dtr did not integrate sources unless he worked them lacks concrete foundation. The historian must have integrated the narrative of 2 Kgs 1:2–17aa into his composition and, at the same time, used it as a basis for Ahaziah’s value judgment.7 The Dtr value judgment on Joram, the son of Ahab, runs as follows: “He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, though not like his father and mother, for he put away the pillar of Ba‘al which his father had made” (2 Kgs. 3:2). Verse 2a is the inversion of the value judgment on Ahaziah, his brother, who “served Ba‘al and worshiped him, and provoked the Lord . . . to anger in every way that his father had done” (1 Kgs. 22:53). How should we account for the statement about Joram, which set him apart from his parents and his brother? It seems to me that here, too, the difference derives from the sources that the historian ascribed to Joram’s reign and upon which he based his judgment. Among them was the story of the campaign against Moab (2 Kgs. 3), in which Joram insisted on consulting Elisha and was not put off by the prophet’s initial refusal (v. 13). In the story-cycle of Elisha, which the historian assigned to the time of Joram, the king of Israel stood close to Elisha and treated him with much respect (e.g., 2 Kgs. 6:8–10, 21–22; 8:4–6). Finally, Joram is not accused of any misdeed in the story of Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kings 9). His slaying is explained as a fulfilment of the divine prophecy about Ahab, made after the murder of Naboth and his sons (vv. 25–26). In the light of the source material attributed to the reign of Joram, the Dtr naturally drew the conclusion that the religious situation in his time had improved, compared with the state of affairs in the days of Ahab and Ahaziah. The statement about Joram’s removal of the “pillar of Ba‘al which his father had made” (2 Kgs. 3:2b) contradicts other statements in the Book of Kings. Ahab is not accused of erecting a pillar of Ba‘al; and moreover, 6. Note Stipp’s remark (1995:476): “Das Fehlen dtr Merkmale ist daher kein Argument für einen späteren Einbau ins DtrG.” This is contrary to McKenzie’s view (1991:86, 92, 97). He considered the lack of Dtr language and themes an important argument for assigning a post-Dtr date to prophetic stories. 7. For a recent discussion of the unity of 2 Kgs. 1:2–17a, see Begg 1985:75–86, with earlier literature in p. 85, n. 2.

154


the breaking of the pillar of Ba‘al is explicitly mentioned in the story of Jehu’s cultic reform (2 Kgs. 10:26–27). The source for the reform attributed to Joram remains unknown (for contradictory statements in the Dtr history, see below). In conclusion, the close correspondence between the prophetic stories and the Dtr value judgments on Jehoshaphat and the Omrides indicates that the historian based his statements on these stories. A pre-Dtr date for these compositions is self-evident.

IV. The Pre-Dtr Story of Ahab’s Death in Battle (1 Kgs. 22:1–18, 29–37) A pre-Dtr date of composition and an inclusion in the original Dtr history for 1 Kings 17–19, for 2 Kgs. 1:2–17aα, for 2 Kgs. 3:4–27, and for 2 Kings 9–10 is not fraught with serious problems. The attempt to date the inclusion of Elisha’s prophetic narratives (2 Kgs. 4:1–8:15) in the Dtr work is not illuminated by the present discussion, except for their possible bearing on the value judgment on Joram, the son of Ahab. The story of 1 Kings 20 bears various characteristics of a late, post-Dtr composition, and I intend to discuss its date and sources in another place. On the other hand, assigning a pre-Dtr date for the story of Ahab’s death in battle (1 Kgs. 22:1–38) and attributing its integration into the history to the Dtr, pose serious problems.8 First, Elijah’s words in 1 Kgs. 21:19b (“in the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood”) are not accurately fulfilled, because Naboth was executed in Jezreel (1 Kgs. 21:8–14), and Ahab’s blood was licked in Samaria (1 Kgs. 22:38aa). Moreover, no known prophecy about Ahab predicted that harlots will wash themselves in his blood (22:38ab). Many scholars, therefore, have suggested that verse 38 was inserted by a late hand to connect Ahab’s death in battle with the prophetic words in 1 Kgs. 21:19b.9 Second, there is the famous contradiction between the account that Ahab died in battle (1 Kgs. 22:34–37) and the statement that he “slept with his ancestors” (v. 40). For this reason, most scholars assumed that the narrative was inserted into the history by a post-Dtr editor.10

8. For the discussion of 1 Kgs. 22:1–38, see the list of literature in Rehm 1979:213; Long 1984:239–240; Stipp 1995:491, n. 47. See also Long 1983:193–208; Stipp 1987:152–229; de Vries 1989:283–306; Hamilton 1994:649–663. 9. See, e.g., Benzinger 1899:125; Kittel 1900:178–179; Šanda 1911:500–501; Montgomery 1951:341; Dietrich 1972:49–50; Long 1983:206–208. 10. Steuernagel 1912:348–349, 362–363; Hölscher 1923:184–186. Pfeiffer 1941:396–398, 403, 404–409; Miller 1966:449–451; Schmitt 1972; Van Seters 1983:305–306; Würthwein


155

Was the story of Ahab’s death in battle a pre-Dtr composition that was integrated by the Dtr in his history, or was it inserted by a post-Dtr editor? Following is a discussion aimed at demonstrating that the first alternative is better founded. The narrative of 1 Kgs. 22:1–37 describes the circumstances that led to the death of Ahab in battle. Contrary to the suggestions of some scholars,11 the narrative looks quite unified,12 except for the passage in verses 19–28, which shifts the focus of the story from its main course (i.e., Micaiah’s prophecy and its fulfilment) to a side track (the problems of the source of the spirit and of true versus false prophecy). In my opinion, verses 19–28 were written and inserted by the Dtr and reflect conflicts and debates that were current in his own time.13 The insertion theory also explains some loose ends in the plot (e.g., the lack of mention of the fates of Micaiah and Zedekiah after the battle). Ahab is mentioned only in verse 20, which is part of the Dtr addition. Thus, it is suggested that the king of Israel was first identified by name when the story was integrated in the Dtr history (for further clarification, see below). There are several cases where the Dtr added to an early story and inserted his own text. For example, in 1 Kings 11, he added to the Pre-Dtr story of Jeroboam’s rebellion against Solomon (vv. 26–28), inserted his own description of a meeting between the prophet and the would-be king that culminates with Ahijah’s prophecy (vv. 29–39), but left intact the ending of the episode (v. 40). The pre-Dtr narrative of Ahijah and Jeroboam’s wife was cut in

1984:205, 496–498, 502–503; Jones 1984:338–339; Stipp 1987; Rofé 1988; McKenzie 1991:90– 98; O’Brien 1989:201–203. 11. Würthwein 1967. For a criticism of Würthwein’s analysis of 1 Kgs. 22:1–38, see Long 1983:193–197. Stipp (1987:176–229) finds a total of six layers in the chapter; Weippert (1988:457–479) finds five levels of compositions and additions. Long’s criticism of Würthwein’s work is equally true for Stipp’s and Weippert’s textual analysis. The original narrative (vv. 1–18, 29–37) follows the pattern of other biblical “battle reports.” The motif of disguise in an effort to escape a destined fate is central to the plot and depends on an early prophecy that declared the king’s fate. The author combined various motifs that have parallels in other biblical texts (see Weippert 1988:466–469), but the narrative he produced is coherent and unified. I very much doubt the compositional layers theory, according to which an originally short Grunderzählung was gradually expanded by the addition of various supplements and insertions. 12. Würthwein (1967: 246) suggested that the original story opened in verse 2b. Stipp (1987:217–219) and Weippert (1988:460–462) assumed that the Grunderzählung opened in verse 3. For the originality of verse 1, compare Judg. 9:22; 2 Sam. 13:38; 1 Kgs. 2:39; see Schmitt 1972:45 n. 52. 13. For the religious background of verses 18–25, see the commentaries; de Vries 1978: 40–47, 141–150; Rofé 1988b:142–152; Hamilton 1994:649–663, with earlier literature.

156


two places, where the Dtr inserted his own doom prophecies (vv. 7–11, 14– 16). The earlier ending of the story appears in vv. 17–18. In 1 Kings 21, the Dtr interrupted the story of Naboth’s vineyard (vv. 1–19b) and inserted his own doom prophecy (vv. 20b–24 [or 20b–22, 24], and possibly 27–29; see below).14 The Dtr interpolation in 1 Kings 22 is typical of the way he worked his sources by inserting passages that conveyed his belief in the course of history, and sent ideological and religious messages to his readers. The structure of the original story follows a threefold pattern (Long 1983: 196; 1984:230–237): (1) Situation and agreement to wage war (vv. 1–4) (2) Consultation with prophets (vv. 5–18) (3) The battle and its outcome (vv. 29–37) The original story focuses on the fate of the Israelite king. It describes the decision of the two kings to go to battle, the requests for oracle and Micaiah’s prophecy of doom, the king’s attempt to avert the prophesied fate by fighting in disguise, and how the destined fate finally reached him (see Coggins 1991). Ahab’s disguise in battle and the transfer of his identity as royal commander to Jehoshaphat is closely related to the ancient Near Eastern concept of a “substitute king.”15 The need for a substitute king arose from evil omens portending death of the king. Therefore, he would temporarily abdicate his throne, give up his authority and titles, and dress as an ordinary man, while a substitute took his place. After a pre-determined period, he was put to death, thereby fulfilling the prediction. Once the threat to the king was averted, he was re-installed on the throne. Ahab’s death in battle in spite of his disguise and Jehoshaphat’s escape from the fate of a substitute king have a parallel in the Babylonian “Chronicle of Early Kings.” Erra-imitti, the king, installed Enlil-bani, the gardener, as a substitute king on his throne. He placed the royal diadem on his head. Erra-imitti [died] in his palace when he sipped a hot broth. Enlil-bani, who occupied the throne, did not give it up (and) so was sovereign (Grayson 1975:155, lines 31–36).

The pre-Dtr story of Ahab’s doom prophecy and his failure to evade his destined fate draw on well-known motifs and beliefs that were partic14. Most critics consider 1 Kgs. 21:20b–24 (or 20b–22, 24) to be Dtr. See, e.g., Šanda 1911: 466–469; Dietrich 1972:48–50; McKenzie 1991, with earlier literature; Wallace 1986:30–31; Thiel 1991:159–165. For other suggestions, see Timm 1982:126–131; Oeming 1986:363–364. 15. For the Mesopotamian idea of a “substitute king” (šar pūḫi) and its classical and Arabian parallels, see Bottéro 1978:2–24; Parpola 1983:XXII-XXXII, with earlier literature. For the Hittite ritual, see Kümmel 1967.


157

ularly widespread in the Assyrian empire during the reign of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (680–669 BCE) (Parpola 1983:XXII-XXVIII and elsewhere; Spieckermann 1982:289–292). The story in 1 Kgs. 22:1–18, 29–37 may originally have been attached to the story of 2 Kgs. 3:4–27. The Israelite king’s death in the battle of Ramothgilead may have formed the background for Mesha’s rebellion, which opened the story of 2 Kings 3. As noted by scholars, several elements are common to the two narratives:16 (1) Both are “battle reports” and share a similar threefold structure: (a) the situation and the agreement to join forces and go to war, (b) the consultation with a prophet or prophets, and (c) the account of a battle and its outcome. (2) In both stories, it is the king of Israel who invites Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, to join him and go to battle, and Jehoshaphat responds in identical words (1 Kgs 22:4; 2 Kgs 3:7). (3) In both stories the allies initiate a campaign against an eastern neighboring kingdom (Aram and Moab), and the results of the campaign are unfavorable for the king of Israel. (4) Jehoshaphat is favorably portrayed in the two episodes of the consultation with prophets (1 Kgs. 22:5, 7; 2 Kgs. 3:11–12, 14). Moreover, his request to consult a prophet of YHWH is delivered in almost identical words (1 Kgs. 22:7; 2 Kgs. 3:11). (5) The prophecy given by a prophet of YHWH and its fulfilment are the focus of the two narratives. In view of the common elements of the two narratives and the favorite light in which the king of Judah is described, we may assume that they were composed in Jerusalem by a single author. This author had before him certain stories about the sins of Ahab and Jezebel (note 2 Kgs. 3:13), as well as other sources concerning Jehoshaphat’s alliance with the kings of Israel, and about Mesha’s rebellion. He wrote what may be presumed to be the two-part narrative of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides by filling in the gaps and characterizing the royal figures according to his ideological and artistic aims. The identity of the slain Israelite king (i.e., Ahab) is disclosed to the reader only at the beginning of the second scene, when the identity of Jehoshaphat’s second ally (i.e., Joram) was given (2 Kgs 3:5–6). The two-scene narrative was part of the stock stories that were copied and studied in the same school of Jerusalem. When the Dtr wrote his historical

16. Schweizer 1974:32–35; Bartlett 1983:135–146; Stipp 1987:67–71, 152–158; Weippert 1988:466–469.

158


composition, he integrated these stories into this work (Na’aman 1996:180– 183). He may have split the narrative and attached its parts to the histories of Ahab and Joram. It is well known that the Dtr wrote a series of prophecies to anticipate events about which he had learned from his sources. The prophecies demonstrate his idea of history as a series of fulfilments of the word of YHWH (von Rad 1953:74–92; Wallace 1986:21–40). One of his stories that was generally known describes in detail Jehu’s rebellion and the end of the dynasty of Omri. To explain the extremely violent end of the dynasty, he cut short the story of Naboth’s vineyard, wrote Elijah’s doom prophecies (vv. 20b–24 [or 20b–22, 24]) and inserted them after v. 19b. In the context of the Dtr history, these prophecies are fulfilled by the death of Joram and Jezebel, and the annihilation of all members of the dynasty (2 Kings 9–10). To tighten the connection between prophecies and their fulfilment, he inserted descriptions of the fulfilment into the story of Jehu’s rebellion (9:7–10, 36–37; 10:10–11, 17). The pre-Dtr story of Ahab’s death in battle posed a special problem for the Dtr’s scheme of prophecy and fulfilment. On the one hand, he wanted to integrate it, along with all other sources, into his history; on the other hand, he needed to avoid the conclusion that Ahab’s death in battle was the punishment referred to in Elijah’s doom prophecy. To meet both requirements, the Dtr left verse 19b of 1 Kings 21, in which the personal punishment for Ahab is explicitly expressed, and appended the doom prophecies in 1 Kgs. 21:20b–24 with a passage (vv. 27–29) that states that “the evil” will not come in Ahab’s days; “but in his son’s days I will bring the evil upon his house” (v. 29).17 The passage did not exclude a personal punishment for Ahab; it only stated that “the evil” — that is, the end of the dynasty — is postponed, and will take place in the next generation. YHWH’s words in verse 29 (“I will bring the evil upon his house”) were deliberately formulated, and, together with verse 19b, leave room for the personal fate of Ahab as narrated in 1 Kings 22. The author’s aim was grasped by the interpolator of 1 Kgs. 22:38, and he combined the death of Ahab directly with the prophecy in 1 Kgs. 21:19b. There remains the problem of 1 Kgs. 22:40. Death and burial formulae of the Omride and Jehuite kings who died peacefully combined the lying with the ancestors and the burial in Samaria (1 Kgs. 16:28; 2 Kgs 10:25; 13:9; 13:13; 14:16; 14:29). 1 Kgs. 22:40 is an exception and mentions only the lying with the ancestors, whereas the burial in Samaria closes the story of Ahab’s death in battle (v. 37). It is evident that the concluding formula in v. 40 presumes

17. For the debate on the date of composition of verses 27–29, see Stipp 1995:477–489, with earlier literature.


159

that the narrative is already known and, to avoid repetition, omits the second half of the formula. It is well known that the statement “slept with his ancestors” appears only for kings who died peacefully. However, no other Israelite or Judean king, other than Ahab, was killed in battle. Moreover, according to the Book of Kings, the Israelite kings who died in violent deaths were left unburied, unlike Ahab who was buried in Samaria (v. 37). We may assume that either the Dtr made Ahab an exception and did not count his courageous death in battle with the other violent deaths or that he made a mistake and erroneously appended the statement to his reign (v. 40). There are some other internal contradictions in the Dtr history of the Omrides. First, the story of Naboth’s death in 1 Kgs. 21 is entirely different from the account in 2 Kgs. 9:25–26.18 Second, the emphasis on the prohibition on selling patrimony in the story of Naboth markedly contradicts the statement that Shemer sold Samaria to Omri (1 Kgs. 16:24). Third, the place of the king of Edom in the story of 2 Kgs 3:4–27 contradicts both statements that there was no king in Edom in the time of Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs. 22:48) and that the first king of Edom was installed in the time of his son, Jehoram (2 Kgs. 8:20). Fourth, the statement that Joram, the son of Ahab, removed the pillar of Ba‘al (2 Kgs. 3:2) contradicts the explicit statement that the pillar of Ba‘al stood in the temple until it was broken in the course of Jehu’s reform (2 Kgs. 10:26–27). This series of contradictions between narratives and the parts of history written by the Dtr is taken by scholars as an indication of a post-Dtr date of integration into the Dtr history. It seems to me that the essential defect in this view is the attribution of modern historical standards to authors whose approach was quite different. Unlike the modern historian, biblical authors and editors were never systematic in their work and sometimes left contradictory statements in place.19 It goes without saying that an uneven text may indicate a late editorial intervention, but we must take into account the possibility that certain contradictions are merely the result of an uneven work by an author/editor.

18. Seeligmann 1978:260–262; Rofé 1988:95–97; Williamson 1991:84–85. Some scholars suggested that verses 25–26 were interpolated to the original story of Jehu’s rebellion. See, e.g., Trebolle-Barrera 1984:162–163; Mulzer 1992:234–236, 290, 302. 19. Seeligmann (1956:123) observes that “there is no consistency in this tendentious replacement of words, nor is there consistency in all the processes of reworking in the MT, or even in the LXX.” In note 20, he stated that “after many years of profound study I have learned that there are processes of reworking in the MT, but they do not manifest any degree of consistency (and the same is true of the many text reworkings in the LXX).”

160


All the contradictions presented above are, in my opinion, the result of the work of the Dtr using his sources. On the one hand, he integrated into his work a series of prophetic stories and “battle reports” with almost no intervention, except for the systematic insertion of doom prophecies and statements of fulfilment or certain textual additions and expansions. On the other hand, he wrote his historical accounts on the basis of these narratives and other sources that came down to him. What look to us like contradictions did not necessarily looked that way to this author or to early readers of the history. Thus, it is possible that the historian and his readers did not notice the contradiction between 1 Kgs. 22:34–37 and 40 nor the other contradictions enumerated above. What might have been the historical background of the story of Ahab’s death in battle? The new inscription from Tel Dan sheds an unexpected light on the Israelite-Aramaic relations under the Omrides (Biran and Naveh 1995:1–18). The upper part of the inscription, unfortunately, is broken, but the extant first lines indicate that an unknown king of Israel fought the father of the author of the text, possibly at Abel (of Beth-maacah), on the northern border of Israel.20 It remains unknown whether the unnamed king of Israel is Ahab or his son Joram. It seems that the Israelite-Aramaic relations shifted from enmity to alliance and cooperation. This may open the way for the assumption that Ahab fought the Arameans, either in Ramoth-gilead or on the north Israelite border, and was killed in that war. Another possible interpretation is that the oral narrative referred to unnamed kings of Israel and Judah, and that the two kings were identified with Ahab and Jehoshaphat when the story was first composed in writing. According to this assumption, the historical heroes of the oral story were Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, and the narrative originally described how Joram was killed in the battle of Ramoth-gilead (Lipiński 1977:273–278; 1978:596; 1979:76–77). Such a hypothesis may find support in the Aramaic inscription of Tel Dan, whose author, most probably Hazael, claims that he killed in battle the king of Israel, Joram, and Ahaziahu, king of Judah, contradicting the story in 2 Kings 9, according to which the two kings were killed by Jehu near the town of Jezreel. These suggested historical reconstructions are only theories and cannot be verified. They are raised to demonstrate that the narrative in 1 Kgs. 22:1– 18, 29–37 should be taken into historical consideration and not dismissed perfunctorily as historically improbable.

20. For suggested reconstructions of lines 2–4, see Biran and Naveh 1993:12–15; Sasson 1995:14–17; Na’aman 1995a:389; Schniedewind 1996:77–79.


161

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the following ten points: 1. Prophetic stories and “battle reports” were the main sources available to the Dtr for the history of the dynasty of Omri. These sources formed the basis for his value judgments on the Omrides and for other statements that he made about Ahab, Ahaziah and Joram (1 Kgs. 22:39 may be an exception). 2. Only a few prophetic stories are included in the accounts of the Jehuites. The absence of such stories for this dynasty is reflected in the standard value judgments of its kings, contrary to the detailed value judgments on the Omrides. 3. Prophetic stories are the main sources for Jehoshaphat’s value judgment, for his relationship with Israel, and for the concluding statements of his reign (1 Kgs. 22:43–47). Additional information about Jehoshaphat was drawn from the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. 1 Kgs. 22:48 is probably a logical inference drawn from the history of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son. Jehoram was defeated by the Edomites, who “set up a king of their own” (2 Kgs. 8:20–22a), hence, the conclusion that formerly a Judean governor was nominated to administer Edom. Verse 49 was probably extracted from the Book of the Chronicles. Verse 50, on the other hand, is possibly an inference drawn from the absence of any reference to cooperation between Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah, king of Israel, hence, the “logical” conclusion that Jehoshaphat, who went to war with Ahab and Joram, refused to cooperate with this king. 4. Contrary to the opinion of most scholars, 1 Kgs. 22:1–18, 29–37 should be treated as a possible historical source for the time of either Ahab or his son, Joram. 5. Narratives that are included in the Book of Kings should be studied in conjunction with the passages composed by the Dtr, because, on many occasions, the former formed the source material for the latter. 6. Contrary to the opinion of many scholars, the historical authenticity of a narrative is not a decisive criterion either for its date of composition or for the date of its integration in the Dtr history. A story may have had a long oral history, in the course of which many details would have been replaced by others and the plot “updated.” The process of writing always leads to many changes and the filling in of gaps in the plot. Regardless of their historical authenticity, pre-Dtr narratives were part of the stock stories available to the Dtr and used as sources for his historical composition. 7. It is dangerous to apply modern historical standards of writing to biblical history. Internal contradictions among different sources, unacceptable to modern historians, might have been tolerated by historians in ancient times. In addition to the few examples suggested in the discussion above, we may recall the many contradictions between the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic

162


histories. The Chronicler felt free to write a new history, in spite of the fact that the Dtr history was accessible to his readers and was considered to be of great antiquity in his time. 8. Tracing the sources available to the Dtr and the way in which he reworked and integrated them in his composition is essential for the analysis of the Dtr history. This is the most effective way of reconstructing the source-material and evaluating the contribution of the historian to his composition. 9. The Dtr exhausted his sources and left very little (if anything) that is not mentioned either explicitly or implicitly in his work. The number of sources available to him was quite limited, and he made great efforts to fill in the gaps and write as detailed a historical picture as possible on the basis of these sources. The integration of narratives and other sources in his composition, the writing of his own text on the basis of their words and the references to his sources in the concluding statements of each reign are all part of his strategy of filling in the gaps and writing the most detailed history of his people. 10. The Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel/Judah is the name of a major source available to the historian. When it is mentioned in the concluding statements on kings, it is used as a name for all the sources available to the historian for reconstructing their reigns (this was already observed by Garbini 1981:26–44).

References Bartlett, J.R. 1983. The “United” Campaign against Moab in 2 Kings 3:4–27. In: Sawyer, J.F.A. and Clines, D.J.A. eds. Midian, Moab and Edom. The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 24). Sheffield: 135–146. Begg, C.T. 1985. Unifying Factors in 2 Kings 1.2–17a. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32: 75–86. Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament IX). Leipzig and Tübingen. Ben Zvi, E. 1991. The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in II Reg 21,1–18 and the Redactional History of the Book of Kings. ZAW 103: 355–374. Biran, A. and Naveh, M. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, M. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Bottéro, J. 1978. Le substitut royal et son sort en Mesopotamie ancienne. Akkadica 9: 2– 24. (English translation 1992. The Substitute King and His Fate. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago and London: 138–155). Campbell, A.F. 1986. Of Prophets and Kings: A Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1 — 2 Kings 10). (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 17). Washington DC.


163

Coggins, R. 1991. On Kings and Disguises. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 50: 55– 62. Dietrich, W. 1972. Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 108). Göttingen. Eissfeldt, O. 1965. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Oxford. Garbini, G. 1981. Le fonti citate nel “Libro dei Re.” Henoch 3: 26–44. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd revised edition. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5). Locust Valley, NY. Hamilton, J.M. 1994. Caught in the Nets of Prophecy? The Death of King Ahab and the Character of God. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56: 649–663. Hölscher, G. 1923. Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion. In: Schmidt, H. ed. Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 36/1). Göttingen: 158–213. Jones, G.H. 1984. 1 and 2 Kings. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Kittel, R. 1900. Die Bücher der Könige. (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1/5). Göttingen. Kümmel, H.M. 1967. Ersatzrituale für den hethitischen König. (Studien zu den BoğazköyTexten, Heft 3). Wiesbaden. Lipiński, E. 1977. An Assyro-Israelite Alliance in 842/841 B.C.E.? Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem: 273–278. Lipiński, E. 1978. Aramäer und Israel. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 3: 590–602. Lipiński, E. 1979 Aram et Israël du Xe au VIIIe siècle av. N.È. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 49–102 Long, B.O. 1983. The Form and Significance of 1 Kings 22:1–38. In: Rofé, A. and Zankovitch, Y. eds. Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume III. Jerusalem: 193–208. Long, B.O. 1984. 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature. Grand Rapids. McKenzie, S.L. 1991. The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden. Mayes, A.D.H. 1983. The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile. A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London. Miller, J.M. 1966. The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars. JBL 85: 441–454. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mulzer, M. 1992. Jehu schlägt Joram. Text-, literar- und strukturkritische Untersuchung zu 2 Kön 8,25–10,36. (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 37). St. Otillien. Na’aman, N. 1993. Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel. VT 43: 227–234. Na’aman, N. 1995a. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Na’aman, N. 1995. The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 65: 37–53. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz, V. and Davies P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 170–186.

164


Noth, M. 1967. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. (3rd edition). Darmstadt (originally published in 1943). O’Brien, M.A. 1989. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 92). Freiburg and Göttingen. Oeming, M. 1986. Naboth, der Jesreeliter: Untersuchungen zu den theologischen Motiven der Überlieferungsgeschichte von I Reg 21. ZAW 98: 363–382. Parpola, S. 1983. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices. (AOAT 5/2). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pfeiffer, R.H. 1941. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York. von Rad, G. 1953. The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Books of Kings. Studies in Deuteronomy. London. Rehm, M. 1979. Das erste Buch der Könige: Ein Kommentar. Würzburg. Rofé, A. 1988a. The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story. VT 38: 89– 104. Rofé, A. 1988b. The Prophetical Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible; Their Literary Types and History. Jerusalem. Šanda, A. 1911. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. 1: Das erste Buch der Könige. (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9/1). Münster. Sasson, V. 1995. The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary and Historical Aspects. Journal of Semitic Studies 40: 11–30. Schmitt, H.-C. 1972. Elisa, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie. Gütersloh. Schniedewind, W.M. 1996. Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt. BASOR 302: 75–90. Schweizer, H. 1974. Elischa in den Kriegen: Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung von 2 Kön 3; 6,8–23; 6,24–7,20. (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 37). München. Seeligmann, I.L. 1956. Researches into the Criticism of the Massoretic Text of the Bible. Tarbiz 25: 118–139. (Reprint: 1992. Studies in Biblical Literature. Jerusalem: 295–318). (Hebrew). Seeligmann, I.L. 1978. Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung (mit einem Exkurs über das Buch Jeremia). Supplement to VT 29: 254–284. Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129). Göttingen. Steuernagel, C. 1912. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen. Tübingen. Stipp, H.-J. 1987. Elischa — Propheten — Gottesmänner: Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–7. (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 24). St. Ottilien. Stipp, H.-J. 1995. Ahabs Busse und die Komposition des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks. Biblica 76: 471–497. Thiel, W. 1991. Deuteronomistische Redaktionsarbeit in den Elia-Erzählungen. Supplement to VT 43: 148–171. Timm, S. 1982. Die Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 124). Göttingen. Trebolle-Barrera, J.C. 1984. Jehú y Joás: Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11. (Institución San Jerónimo 17). Valencia.


165

Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. de Vries, S. J. 1980. Prophet against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of the Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids. de Vries, S.J. 1989. The Three Comparisons in 1 Kings XXII 4b and Its Parallel and 2 Kings III 7b. VT 39: 283–306. Wallace, H.N. 1986. The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings. Biblica 67: 21–40. Weippert, H. 1988. Ahab el campeador? Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu 1 Kön 22. Biblica 69: 457–479. Weiser, A. 1964. The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development. New York. Williamson, H.G.M. 1991. Jezreel in the Biblical Texts. Tel Aviv 18: 72–92. Würthwein, E. 1967. Zur Komposition von I Reg 22:1–38. In: Maass, F. ed. Das ferne und nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonard Rost. (Beiheft zur ZAW 105). Berlin: 245–254. Würthwein, E. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2). Göttingen.

Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela From Tel Dan1 Following the publication of the Aramaic Stela fragment from Tel Dan, many articles were written in an attempt to reconstruct the text, describe its structure and contents, identify its author and understand its historical background. The meaning of the phrase bytdwd occupies a central place in the discussion. Various translations have been offered for the six letters, resulting in conflicting interpretations of lines 5–10. In what follows, I will critically examine some suggestions proposed by scholars for bytdwd; I hope to demonstrate that there is only one plausible solution for the controversial phrase.

1. Objections to the Reading Beth-David note:

A. Biran and J. Naveh (1993:93) published the text with the following

Line 9. „Â„˙È·, lit. “the House of David,” is the dynastic name of the kingdom of Judah; see Bīt Ḫumri for Israel, Bīt Agusi for Arpad, Bīt Ḫaza’ili for Aram-Damascus and Bīt Adini in the Assyrian inscriptions. Note also biblical Beth Rehob and Beth Maacah . . .

Biran and Naveh suggested restoring in lines 8–9 [ml]k bytdwd (“[the kin]g of the House of David”) parallel to mlk yśr’l of line 8. They have concluded that “the stele must have described some circumstances in which the king of Judah was the ally of Israel, and the writer fought against both of them” (Biran and Naveh 1993:96). The words Ì‰ ˜¯‡ (“their land”) in line 10 refer to the two kingdoms and, thus, corroborate this rendering of the text. This restoration and interpretation was adopted by some scholars (Ahituv 1993; Lemaire 1994; Puech 1994; Margalit 1994; Freedman and Geoghegan 1995). However, other suggestions soon appeared, and they will all be examined in the following four sections. 1. Knauf, de Pury and Römer (1994) have suggested that DWD is a local deity and bytdwd refers to Dōd’s sanctuary or to a cultic object therein (cf. Ben-Zvi 1994:27–29; Uehlinger 1994:85–86). However, no unequivocal reference to a deity named Dōd is known from the entire corpus of ancient Near

1. Reprinted with permission. Biblische Notizen 78 (1995), 17-24.

166

Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela From Tel Dan

167

Eastern texts or from the Bible (Sanmartín-Ascaso 1978, with earlier literature). The often cited reference to ’r’l dwdh in line 12 of the Mesha inscription as an indication for the deity (Donner and Röllig 1966:175; Ahlström 1982:14; Knauf et al. 1994:66) is misleading. A pronominal suffix cannot be attached to proper names, and it is a mistake to translate in line 12 “the ’r’l of (the god) Dōd.” Dwdh was sometimes interpreted as a name of a local god (Daudoh) (Clermont-Ganneau 1887:101; Driver 1890:xci; Cooke 1903:11; Dussaud 1912:16; Andersen 1966:90, n. 2). Even assuming that this interpretation is correct, Dwdh (Daudoh) differs from the assumed dwd (Dōd) of the Tel Dan stela. After a century and half of research, the putative god named Dōd is still missing from the enormous corpus of third-to-first millennia BCE documents. Therefore, we are entitled to conclude that no god by this name was known in the ancient Near East. The onus of proof rests on those who support the premise. They must, first of all, bring clear indications (which the “improved” and obscure text of Amos 6:10 is not) to substantiate the suggestion and only then may apply it to the text under discussion. 2. Dwdh in the Mesha inscription is sometimes interpreted as a reference to YHWH and translated “its (i.e., the city’s) Beloved” (Driver 1890:cxi; Segert 1961:213; Lemaire 1994:33). Müller (1985:648 and n. 13) even assumed that “Dōd ‘Gebliebter’ ist Beiname verschiedener orientalischer Götter,” but did not bring any evidence to support this view. It is suggested then that dwd in the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan has a similar meaning, i.e., a title of YHWH. Bytdwd would then be translated “the House of the Beloved” (see Davies 1994:55). However, the assumption that a royal inscription of a foreign king would mention the god’s title (rather then his proper name), when referring to his temple, is doubtful and has no known supportive analogy in the corpus of ancient Near Eastern texts. Why should a foreign scribe use an epithet rather the god’s proper name? For this reason, I question the interpretation of dwdh in the Mesha Stela as a title of YHWH. Honorary names and titles are well attested in different kinds of texts, but a victory stela of a foreign king is not the place to look for them. 3. Davies (1994) suggested that bytdwd is a place name that may be read Beth-dōd. The town must have been conquered by the author of the stela in the course of his campaign. However, among the many thousand toponyms that appear in anceint Near Eastern texts and in the Bible, none has the element dōd. This indicates that dōd (in the sense of “beloved, darling” or “paternal uncle”) was not a productive element in toponymy and significantly weakens Davies’ hypothesis of a toponym whose name has this element. Another problem with the above interpretations is the plene writing of the assumed title dōd (“beloved”). In this early period, one would expect it to be written dd with no mater lectionis. The explanation offered by Knauf et

168


al. (1994:66) that dōd is a Canaanite word in Aramaic and that plene writing is known from ancient Aramaic for words of foreign origin is not convincing. The kinship term Dād is common in Aramaic personal names, appears all over the Fertile Crescent (Zadok 1977:57–58), and does not differ from other kinship terms that were borrowed from the preceding Amorite/Canaanite language of the second millennium BCE. The plene writing of dwdh in the Mesha inscription and dwd in the Tel Dan stela seems to indicate that some other word than dōd (“beloved”) is intended there. 4. Ben-Zvi (1994:27) suggested that dwd may refer to a person bearing the title dwd. However, there is no evidence to support the assumption that dwd in the Mesha Stela is a title meaning “chief, leader” and is derived from the name David (Lipiński 1966:333; Gibson 1971:76, 80; Jackson 1989:112–113). Moreover, if one admits that dwd in the new stela should be read David, why should we interpret it along such extremely hypothetical lines, rather than connect it directly with the ruling house of Judah? The four alternative solutions offered for bytdwd are unconvincing or even erroneous. I will now propose some arguments in support of the assumption that the six letters refer to the kingdom of Judah.

2. Supporting Evidence for the Reading Beth-David A typical phenomenon of the south Anatolian, Syrian and Palestinian kingdoms in the period under discussion (the 9th century BCE) is the plurality of names. Alternate names for kingdoms in these areas are known from the Assyrian royal inscriptions and from local incriptions (see Landsberger 1948:18–23; Na’aman 1978:227–228). For example: the kingdom of Arpad is called Yaḫanu and Bīt-Agusi; Sam’al is called Bīt-Gabbari and Y’dy; ‘Unqi is called Patina and later Kullani; Damascus is called ša imerišu, Bit-Ḫazaili and Aram; and Israel is called Bīt-Ḫumri and Samerīna. The choice of kingdom’s names in the Assyrian royal inscriptions (which is the best known corpus of inscriptions) is quite random. For example: Ahab is called “the Israelite”; Jehu “of Bit-Ḫumri”; Joash “the Samarian”; Menahen “the Samarian”; and, in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, the kingdom is called Bīt-Ḫumri. The variety of eponymic/dynastic, territorial and city names reflects the complex nature of these kingdoms; indeed, the origin and meaning of some of these names is unknown. The eponymic/dynastic name “Bīt-PN” is typical of many of the new West Semitic kingdoms that emerged in the Fertile Crescent in the early first millennium BCE. It mainly refers to new kingdoms whose territory is not congruent with that of former states (Sader 1987:272–273). The “son” (mār) of a tribal eponym or of the founder of a dynasty is designated “of bīt PN” (Ungnad 1906). The Assyrians denoted kingdoms by the name of the dynas-


169

ty’s founder at the time of their first encounter with it, regardless of which dynasty was in power at the time of writing. The following bīt-names in Syria-Palestine are known from the Assyrian royal inscriptions: Bīt-Adini, Bīt-Agusi (Arpad), Bīt-Gabbari (Sam’al), BītḪazaili (Damascus), Bīt-Ruḫubi (Beth-rehob), Bīt-Ḫumri (Israel), Bīt-Ammana (Ammon). The biblical toponym Abel-beth-maacah designates the Abel that, at a certain stage, belonged to Beth-maacah. It should be noted that our knowledge of the names of kingdoms depends mainly on the Assyrian inscriptions. For this reason, only one name is known for peripheral West Semitic new kingdoms such as Judah, Ammon, Moab and Edom. Many of the newly founded West Semitic kingdoms in the Fertile Crescent were called by Bīt-PN names, so one would expect that the Palestinian West Semitic kingdoms were also called by such names. The name Beth-David for the kingdom of Judah is exactly what one would expect in light of this usage of name attribution and the long-standing tradition of David as founder of the dynasty. Its absence in the Bible is easily explained by the late date at which the biblical texts were written. In the late seventhsixth century BCE, the tribal character of Judah (and that of Judah’s neighbours as well) had decreased considerably, and the old dynastic name had lost its attraction. For this reason, byt dwd is mentioned in the Bible only in the sense of “the House of David.” Similarly, the eponymic/dynastic name BethAmmon is attested only in the Assyrian inscriptions, whereas only the abbreviated name Ammon is attested in the Bible. Biran and Naveh have restored [ml]k bytdwd (“[the kin]g of Beth-David”) in lines 8–9 of the stela. Knauf et al. (1994:66) objected to this reading on the grounds that neither in the biblical literature nor in other documents is there a construct combination “the king of Beth-PN.” This is a strange argument. The Assyrians usually used the abbreviated eponymic/dynastic name mār PN for the Bīt-PN kingdoms, and there are only a few references in which the construct state of the combination Bīt-PN may be examined. Nevertheless, there are some clear examples: “Ambaris king (šar) of Bīt-Puritish” (Fuchs 1994:125, line 201; Gadd 1954:182, line 25); “the (ruling) family (kimti) of Bit-Pa’alla (Fuchs 1994:218, line 86; “the people (nišê) of Bīt-Jakin” (Fuchs 1994:178, line 408; 224, line 116); “the defeats (dabdē) of Bīt-Jakin” (Fuchs 1994:233, line 233); “Puduilu king of Bīt-Ammana” (Borger 1956:60, line 62); “Amminadbi king of Bīt-Ammana” (Streck 1916:140, line 34). Moreover, out of 18 references to byt dwd in the Bible, four appear in the construct state: mptḥ byt dwd (“the key of the house of David”; Isa 22:22); tp’rt byt dwd (“the glory of the house of David”; Zech 12:7); mšpḥt byt dwd (“the family of the house of David”; Zech 12:12); ks’wt byt dwd (“the throne of the house of David”; Ps 122:5). Regardless of whether byt dwd designates the kingdom’s name or its dynasty, both may ap-

170


pear in the construct state. What Knauf et al. (1994:66) called “expression qui serait une sorte de monstruosite semantique” is in reality an excellent restoration for the text of the stela. One may further suggest that a noun in the construct state (i.e., mlk) explains why bytdwd was written with no word divider. The three words mlk byt dwd have a double construct state (“king of the House of David”). To make the text clearer, the author wrote bytdwd as one word, thereby avoiding the second construct state. Thus, the kings of Israel and Judah, who fought and were defeated by the author of the text, are registered one after the other in a similar manner: mlk ysr’l and mlk bytdwd. Knauf et al. (1994:66) objected to the translation “Beth-David,” on the grounds that the two terms do not pertain to the same category. Otherwise, one would expect the use of parallel names (Israel-Judah; Beth-Omri — Beth-David). The claim, however, is unfounded. First, we have seen that the choice of names in royal inscriptions was arbitrary and that a scribe could select names at will. Second, in the list of kings who besieged Zakkur, king of Hamath and Lu‘ash, there appear, side by side, tribal (Aram), dynastic (brgš = of Bīt-Agusi), capital (Melid, Sam’al), and geographical-political (Que, ‘Umqi, Gurgum) names (Donner and Röllig 1966:no 202). Zakkur’s inscription is written in Aramaic (like the Tel Dan inscription) and was erected in the late 9th century BCE. Also Kilamuwa, king of Sam’al, in his Phoenician inscription of the mid–9th century BCE calls his kingdom by a local name (y’dy) and his adversary by an ethnic name (“king of the dnnym”) (Donner and Röllig 1966:no 24). Too little is known about the use of kingdom’s names in Syria-Palestine in the ninth century BCE, and one should avoid positing general rules about the assignment of names in local inscriptions. Knauf et al. (1994:65) brought up two other objections to the identification of bytdwd with the kingdom of Judah. (a) They assumed that the battle was fought near Dan, where the stela was found, and that such a location does not fit the mention of the kingdom of Judah. This argument reflects a misunderstanding of the genre of royal summary inscriptions, in which the author may select events from different times and areas and organize them according to his literary and ideological aims. The battle against the kingdoms of Israel and Judah could have been conducted in some remote place and at a different time from the conquest of the city of Dan and the erection of the stela. (b) Knauf et al. assumed that the mention of Beth-David implies that the king or his kingdom paid tribute to the Aramean king. The assumption is arbitrary, because the results of disasterous battles vary from one to another. The outcome of the battle is unknown, and each scholar may reconstrcuct it according to his historical analysis of the inscription.


171

Finally, a methodological note regarding the relation of the inscription to the Bible is required. Some scholars restored the text of the inscription and suggested a historical reconstruction that is heavily dependent on biblical prophetic stories (Puech 1994; Margalit 1994; cf. Biran and Naveh 1993:94–98; Dijkstra 1994:12–14). It should be remembered that, in every case in which an extra-biblical text directly illuminated the history of Israel in the late 10th– 9th centuries BCE (i.e., the campaign of Shishak [c. 927/926 BCE], the battle of Qarqar [853 BCE], Mesha’s rebellion, and the tribute of Jehu [841 BCE]), there were serious problems in accommodating the two sources. This is due to the enormous time gap between the events and the period when the early history of Israel was written. Also, the biblical and extra-biblical texts belong to entirely different genres, and diverse genres relate past events in different manners. Therefore, we must not expect a close accord between the biblical account and the text of the Aramaic royal inscription. The alliance of the kings of Israel and Judah as reflected in the inscription fits well with the biblical prophetic stories of the cooperation between them in the campaigns against Israel’s enemies. This is an important contribution of the new stela for the history of Israel in the 9th century BCE. It indicates that the stela is contemporaneous with the dynasty of Omri. The historical analysis depends mainly on the identification of the Aramean king who wrote the stela. Elsewhere, I have suggested a date and a historical reconstruction for the stela (Na’aman 1995) and will not repeat it. However, I would like to emphasize that, in light of the deficiencies of the biblical narratives as historical sources, we must expect differences or even contradictions between the stela and the biblical accounts. Caution is the best advice that can be given to all scholars who seek to use this most important document to understand the relationship among the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and Aram in the mid-ninth century BCE.

References Ahituv, S. 1993 Suzerain or Vassal? Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 246–247. Ahlström, G.W. 1982. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine. Leiden. Andersen, F.I. 1966. Moabite Syntax. Orientalia 35: 81–120. Ben-Zvi, E. 1994. On Reading ‘bytdwd’ in the Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 25–31. Biran, A. and Naveh, J, 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. (AfO Beiheft 9). Graz. (Reprint 1967. Osnabrück). Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1887. La stèle de Mésa — examen critique du texte. Journal Asiatique 9: 72–112.

172


Cooke, G.A. 1903. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford. Davies, P.R. 1994. “House of David” Built on Sand. Biblical Archaeology Review 20/4: 54–55. Dijkstra, M. 1994. An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 74: 10–14. Donner H. and Röllig, W. 1966. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I-III. Wiesbaden. Driver, S.R. 1890. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. Oxford. Dussaud, R. 1912. Les monuments palestiniens et judaïques (Moab, Judée, Philistie, Samarie, Galilée). Paris. Freedman, D.N. and Geoghegan, J.C. 1995. House of David is There. Biblical Archaeology Review 21/2: 78–79. Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen. Gadd, C.J. 1954. Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud. Iraq 16: 173–201. Gibson, J.C.L. 1971. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford. Jackson, K.P. 1989. The Language of the Mesha Inscription. In: Dearman, A. ed. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: 96–130. Knauf, E.A., de Pury, A. and Römer, T. 1994. BaytDawid ou BaytDōd? Biblische Notizen 72: 60–69. Landsberger, B. 1948. Sam’al: Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstaette Karatepe. Ankara. Lemaire, A. 1994. Epigraphie Palestinienne: nouveaux documents. I. Fragment de stèle Araméenne de Tel Dan (IXe s. av. J.-C.) Henoch 16: 87–93. Lipiński, E. 1966. Etymological and Exegetical Notes on the Meša‘ Inscription. Orientalia 40: 325–340. Margalit, B. 1994. The OAram. Stele from t. Dan. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brève et Utilitaires 1994/1: 20–21. Müller, H.-P. 1985. Moabitische-historische Inschriften. In: Kaiser, O. ed. Texte aus der Umwelt des Altes Testaments, I. Gütersloh: 646–650. Na’aman, N. 1978. Looking for KTK. WdO 9: 220–239. Na’aman, N. 1995. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Puech, E. 1994. La stèle araméenne de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de la Maison de David. RB 101: 215–241. Sader, H. 1987. Les états Araméens de Syrie depuis leur formation jusqu’à leur transformation en provinces Assyriennes. Beirut. Sanmartín-Ascaso, J. 1978. „Â„ dôdh. In: Botterweck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, III. Grand Rapids: 143–156. Segert, S. 1961. Die Sprache der moabitischen Königsinschrift. Archiv Orientalni 29: 197– 267. Streck, M. 1916. Assurbanipal und die letzen Assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s. II. Leipzig. Uehlinger, C. 1994. Eine Anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan? Biblische Notizen 72: 85–100. Ungnad, A. 1906. Jaua, mâr Ḫumrî. OLZ 9: 224–226. Zadok, R. 1977. On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. Jerusalem.

Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan1 Three fragments of a royal Aramaic inscription have been found, so far, at Tel Dan. The first, comprising 13 broken lines, was uncovered during the 1993 excavations at the site, and two smaller fragments were found during the 1994 excavations (the fragmented stele was published by Biran and Naveh 1993:81–98; 1995:1–18). Although the surface of the two new fragments does not fit with the first inscription fragment, the fragments fit together below the surface. Moreover, the texts show a clear continuity between the first fragment and the other two; therefore, the reconstruction of the three proposed by Biran and Naveh should be adopted, as well as the attribution of the inscription to the reign of Hazael, king of Aram. Since the first publication of the inscription, there has been a never-ending stream of articles dealing with a wide variety of its direct and indirect implications.2 I do not intend to repeat what has already been written and certainly not to review the opinions expressed or dispute those with which I disagree. My intention here is to discuss certain aspects of the inscription, some of which have not yet been considered by the research, and to offer the main points of my view on the messages of the inscription and the problem of juxtaposing epigraphic inscriptions with the prophetic stories of the Bible.

The Appearance of Royal Inscriptions in Alphabetical Script in the SyroPalestinian Region The Aramaic inscription of Tel Dan was written approximately in the third quarter of the 9th century BCE, and is the oldest royal inscription written in alphabetical script to be found in the area of modern Israel. Royal inscrip-

1. Reprinted with permission. IEJ 50 (2000), 92–104. 2. See, e.g., Tropper 1993:395–406; 1994:487–492; Lemaire 1994:87–93; 1998:3–14, with earlier literature; Dijkstra 1994:10–14; Muraoka 1995:19–21; Rendsburg 1995:22–25; Na’aman 1995a:17–24; 1995b:381–394; Müller 1995:121–139; Sasson 1995:11–30; 1996:547– 554; Yamada 1995:611–625; Schniedewind 1996:75–90; Dietrich 1997:17–32; Dion 1997:192– 195; Kottsieper 1998:475–500; Naveh 1999:119–120.

173

174


tions in alphabetical script, written in the latter half of the 9th century BCE have been found in a number of other places. Noteworthy among them are the two inscriptions of Mesha of Moab; the inscription of Bar-Hadad, found north of Aleppo; the Zakkur inscription from Afis; the Kilamuwa inscription of Sam’al; and the Hdys‘y inscription of Tell Faḫariyeh, on the western tributary of the Habur river. These inscriptions were written in the Phoenician, Aramaic and Moabite languages and were erected in kingdoms whose inhabitants spoke a West-Semitic language (with the exception of the Kilamuwa inscription from Sam’al). The distribution of royal inscriptions written in an alphabetical script over such a large area and during a specific period calls for an explanation. Royal inscriptions from the kingdom of Byblos, describing construction projects, are indeed known from as far back as the 11th century BCE. These, however, are very short inscriptions, dealing with a specific subject, briefly describing the construction project, with the addition of blessings upon its author and maledictions upon whoever injured him. Compared with these, the royal inscriptions from the latter half of the 9th century are much more detailed and describe military campaigns and victories and/or construction projects. It should be stressed that, in the Syro-Palestinian region, there had been no earlier tradition of carving and erecting royal inscriptions in public places, other than the Neo-Hittite inscriptions discovered in northern Syria. Additionally, we should not forget the victory stelae of the kings of Egypt of the latter half of the second millennium BCE. There were also some Egyptian stelae from the early first millennium BCE, most notably the one erected by Shishak at Megiddo, commemorating his campaign in Palestine. However, there is no connection — neither in form nor in content — between those Egyptian inscriptions and the above-mentioned alphabetical ones. In fact, just as the Egyptian script was not adopted in Canaan, despite centuries of Egyptian rule over the country, so the custom of erecting stelae in alphabetical script did not emulate an Egyptian model. Thus, the origin of the alphabetical inscriptions, which made a sudden appearance in the Syro-Palestinian region, must be sought elsewhere. Is it possible that the Neo-Hittite inscriptions from northern Syria might have been the origin of the royal inscriptions in alphabetical script found in the Syro-Palestinian region? The former, written in hieroglyphic script in the Luwian language (an Indo-European language close to Hittite), have been found all over a region stretching from Melid in the north to Hamath in the south, as well as in the Anatolian areas west of the Taurus range. The earliest of these inscriptions are those of Melid, dated to the 12th–11th centuries BCE (Hawkins 1974:75–79; 1988:99–108; 1995:88–90); the inscriptions found in

Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan

175

the kingdoms south of Melid are mostly dated to the 10th–9th centuries BCE (Hawkins 1974:67–83; 1995:90–97, with earlier literature). These inscriptions are not found outside the boundaries of the kingdoms in which they were inscribed, and their contents are very different from those of the alphabetical inscriptions. Moreover, Neo-Hittite inscriptions were known for a long time in northern Syria. Thus, they cannot account for the sudden appearance of royal inscriptions in alphabetical script in the latter half of the 9th century BCE in the Syro-Palestinian region. This is not the case with the stelae of the kings of Assyria, written in cuneiform script in the Akkadian language (Morandi 1988:105–155). Assyria was campaigning westward from the beginning of the 9th century and, in the reign of Ashurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE) penetrated the areas beyond the Euphrates. The inscriptions of the kings of Assyria refer to many victory stelae that the kings had erected in the places they reached on their campaigns. The stelae were erected to inform the gods of Assyria of the kings’ triumphs and to commemorate the achievements before the local inhabitants. Ashurnaṣirpal II, king of Assyria, relates that at the end of his campaign that reached northern Syria, he erected a stele on top of Mount Amanus (Grayson 1991:217–219). Shalmaneser III (858–824) refers to three stelae that he had erected during his first campaign in northern Syria: one facing the sea, the second on the summit of Mount Amanus, and the third on the summit of Mount Atalur.3 In his later campaigns, Shalmaneser erected many stelae in the places he reached. Among others, he installed one facing the sea, on Mount Ba’ali-ra’si on the border between Tyre and Israel, and another on Nahr el-Kalb on the coast of Lebanon (Oppenheim 1969:280; Michel 1954:38– 39; Grayson 1996:A.0. 102.8 and A.0. 102.10). On one of Shalmaneser’s westward campaigns, he even erected a stele in the temple of the city of Laruba, the seat of a ruler by the name of Ba’il (Laessoe 1959:154, lines 16–18; Grayson 1996:A.0. 102.16). During another campaign, he placed a stele in the temple of the city Kinalua/Kullani, capital of the kingdom of Patina (Michel 1955– 1956:226, line 156; Grayson 1996:A.0. 102.14). It seems to me that the sudden appearance of royal inscriptions in alphabetical script arose from an emulation of the Assyrian custom. The kings of Syria and Palestine had taken note of the Assyrian custom of erecting stelae to commemorate their victories and to display their achievements and began to imitate it. It is doubtful that the local scribes could understand the writing on the Assyrian inscriptions, but perhaps Assyrian propaganda disseminated

3. Oppenheim 1969:277–278; Mahmoud and Black 1985/86:135–142; Grayson 1996:A.0. 102.2 and A.0. 102.3; Yamada 1998:343–368.

176


the message of the stelae orally, by means of interpreters. There are some similarities between the structure of the Assyrian inscriptions and some of the early alphabetical ones, such as stating the name of the writer at the beginning, followed by descriptions of wars and conquests, descriptions of construction projects, and ending with curses against anyone who damages the inscription. The lack of uniformity and the diversity of the alphabetical inscriptions suggests that it was the actual concept of displaying such commemorations of triumphs and/or constructions that was first adopted, with the contents of the inscriptions depending upon the creative talents of the scribes working in the diverse kingdoms in the region; only later did a certain uniformity emerge. The use of alphabetical script in the royal courts that arose in the SyroPalestinian region probably began as early as the late 10th century BCE.4 It was used chiefly for everyday purposes in the administration of the kingdom. It is possible that brief building inscriptions, such as those discovered in Byblos, were also inscribed in other kingdoms of the region. However, long royal inscriptions, formally addressed to the deity, only began to be inscribed in the latter half of the 9th century, about a generation after the appearance of Assyria in the region. No such inscriptions of the kings of Israel and Judah have been found so far, but it is likely that these kings, too, erected stelae and wrote inscriptions. In any event, there is no reason to assume that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah preceded their neighbors to the north and east in this matter. I, therefore, disagree with the suggestion that the chronicle of the reign of David, as described in 2 Samuel 8, was based on a royal inscription of David’s that had been erected in Jerusalem and was accessible to the later historian (Halpern 1996: 44–75). The Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan is a fine example of the new fashion adopted by the West-Semitic rulers in the region. Its contents and messages are analyzed in the following section.

The Structure of the Inscription, Its Date and Messages The upper part of the inscription is broken, and we cannot tell how much of it is missing. We may tentatively propose the following transcription and translation of the extant lines 1–5: 1. [xxxxxxxxx]mr.‘[xxxxxxxx.]wgzr[.‘dy??] 2. [wxxx].‘[l?].‘bh.ysq[.‘lwh?.l]mlḥmh.b’b[l?]

4. For the suggestion that writing was introduced to the court of Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE, see Na’aman 1996:170–173, with earlier literature.


177

3. wyŠkb.’by.yhk.’l[.’bhw]h.wy‘l.mlky[ś] 4. r’l.qdm.b’rq.’by[.w]yhmlk.hdd[.]’[yty] 5. ’nh.wyhk.hdd qdmy . . . [. . .] he concluded [a treaty??, rose?] aga[inst?] my father and went up [against him for] war at Ab[el?]. And my father lay to rest, he went to his [ancestors]. And the king of I[s]rael invaded, advancing in my father’s land. [And] Hadad made me — myself — king. And Hadad went in front of me.

Epigraphic and Philological Notes The reconstruction of lines 2–4 is based on the assumption that the author employed two verbs in each sentence, of which the first was probably written with the waw consecutive and the imperfect (wyškb, wy‘l), and the second in the preterit (ysk, yhk, qdm).5 I, therefore, assume that the verb ysq (line 2) was preceded by a verb with the waw consecutive, denoting an act of aggression against his father (the translation “rose” is guesswork). Line 1: Biran and Naveh (1995:13; cf. Kottsieper 1998:478–479) noted the combination gzr ‘dy’, “to conclude a treaty.” Provided that the restoration — admittedly highly uncertain — is correct, the author of the text might have been referring to a treaty among the kings of Israel and Beth David, the two kingdoms whose rulers were later “punished” by Hazael, the author of the inscription. Line 2: The lower part of the ‘ayin at the beginning of the line is seen on the photograph and facsimile. The editio princeps restored [bh]tlḥmh, a restoration that was accepted by other scholars. However, the oblique sign after the break, as indicated by the photograph and facsimile, suggests a mem rather than taw (Tropper 1996:642. For criticism, see Kottsieper 1998:480 n. 16). I, therefore, restored [l]mlḥmh, “for war.” Lines 3–4: I follow Lemaire’s (1994:88; 1998:5) interpretation and interpret qdm as “a local verb specifying the verb wy‘l.” It is probably a denominative verb from the noun qdm “east, front.” For a different interpretation, see Naveh (1999:119). However, qdm as a temporal adverb (“formerly”) does not fit the immediate context.6 Why should Hazael repeat what he already said about the Israelite aggression (line 2)? Rather, he emphasizes that the hostile acts were resumed between the death of his father and his own coronation. 5. For the debate on the use of tenses in the Tel Dan inscription, see Muraoka 1995:19– 20; Müller 1995:128–130; Emerton 1994:255–258; 1997:429–440; 1999:255–258; Tropper 1996: 633–645; Sasson 1997:111–127; Muraoka and Rogland 1998:99–104. 6. For criticism of the interpretation of QDM as a temporal adverb (“formerly”), see Kottsieper 1998:481. However, his translation “Ostland” for qdm is equally unlikely.

178

Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography Lines 4–5: See Naveh (1999:119–120) for a recent detailed discussion.

Discussion 1. The quoted passage bears some resemblance to the opening passage of the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab: Both refer to past events that served as pretexts for present assaults and conquests. Such writing is intended to persuade both the addressee (the deity) and the inhabitants of the kingdom that these actions were a just response to the other party’s aggression. In the Mesha inscription, the Moabite ruler justified his attack on the lands of Medeba, Ataroth and Yahaz by stating that these had been captured in his father’s time by the king of Israel (Omri) and held onto by Omri’s successor(s). Thus, the king of Israel was the aggressor and conqueror, whereas the acts of Mesha were merely a response to the Israelite aggression. The Moabite ruler’s own conquests are partly a restoration of the status quo ante and partly (when he attacks the city of Nebo) an appropriate punishment of the aggressor (Na’aman 1997a:83–92). The opening of the present inscription should be interpreted in the same way: The king of Israel (whose name is missing) had previously attacked the writer’s father. This description serves as a justification for Hazael’s assault against the kingdom of Israel, which, according to the inscription, was merely a proper retaliation against the aggressor. The reference to the city of Abel (assuming that this is the correct restoration of the end of line 2) is not accidental. The city’s full name, Abel-bethmaacah, testifies to its Aramaic nature and to its character as an Aramaic enclave in northern Israel. An Israelite king must have attacked it — probably because of its cooperation with the Aramaic kingdoms to its north — and attempted to conquer it. We must not forget that the Aramaic inscription was erected in Tel Dan, and the mention of Abel as the pretext for the Aramaic attack was probably meant to justify the conquest of its neighbor Dan — just as the conquests of Omri in the areas north of the Arnon river were used as the pretext for Mesha’s conquest of the land of Medeba. 2. Both the Mesha inscription and the one from Tel Dan date the Israelite offensive and conquest to the time of the writer’s father. This is characteristic of royal inscriptions in the ancient Near East — mentioning real or imaginary failures in the time of the father in order to extol the achievements of the son, the author of the inscription. For example, the contemporary inscription of Kilamuwa, the king of Sam’al opens thus:7

7. For the translation, see Rosenthal 1969:654–655. For detailed discussion, see Tropper 1993:27–46, 153–154.


179

I am Kilamuwa, the son of Ḥayya. Gabbar became king over Y’DY, but he was ineffective. There was BMH, but he was ineffective. There was my father Ḥayya, but he was ineffective. There was my brother Sha’il, but he was ineffective. But I, Kilamuwa, the son of TML, what I achieved, the former (kings) did not achieve.

The fathers of both Mesha and Hazael are depicted as being of lesser stature and Mesha and Hazael as outdoing their fathers by defeating their enemies and expanding the boundaries of their kingdoms. 3. Another prominent feature is the emphasis on the legitimacy of the inscription’s author. Hazael stresses that his father had ruled before him and Hazael succeeded his father; therefore, Hazael is a king who inherited his kingdom legitimately. Moreover, the god Hadad approved his succession (“[And] Hadad made me — myself — king”), and even led the Aramaic army during the war with his enemies (“And Hadad went in front of me”). It may be no accident that the triple reference to “my father” in the opening of the inscription was inserted by a king who had, in fact, seized the throne of Damascus in contravention of the proper order of succession.8 The middle part of the inscription (lines 5–10), describes Hazael’s wars and his victories, culminating in the slaying of “[Jo]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel” and of “[Ahaz]iahu son of [Ram?? kin]g of Beth David” (lines 7–9). Biran and Naveh restored [yhwrm.ml] at the end of line 8, based on the biblical name of the king of Israel. However, it seems that the gap at the end of the line does not leave room for more than four letters. Tentatively, we may reconstruct it [rm.ml], i.e., Ram, as a shortened form of the name Joram. The abbreviated form of the royal name may be compared with the biblical name Ahaz, whose full name, Yauhazi, i.e., Jehoahaz, is mentioned in the list of Syro-Palestinian tribute-bearing kings in a summary inscription of Tiglath-pileser III (Tadmor 1994:170, line 11). This restoration, however, is merely speculative. The last part of the inscription is broken, and we can only speculate that it recounted the conquest of Dan and the erection of the stele on the site. Reference to the episode that led up to the monument’s installation was usually made in the final portion of a victory inscription, and it is possible that the descriptions of the conquest and of the erection of the stele were followed by a list of curses, threatening whoever damaged the stele or erased the inscription. Biran and Naveh (1995:12, 16) read line 6 as w’qtl ml[kn Šb]‘n (“and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs]”), interpreting it as an indication that the stele was erected late in the reign of Hazael, after he had fought on many fronts and won many victories. Lemaire (1998:7–9) demonstrated that this reading is unlikely, sug-

8. For an emphasis on the motif of succession in the inscription, see Lemaire 1998:5–7; Naveh 1999:119–120.

180


gesting instead reading it as ml[kn tk]pn, interpreting ml[kn] as dual, yielding “and I slew two powerful kings.” Accordingly, mlkn can also be interpreted as plural. The text may be translated “and I slew powerful kings,”9 thereby eliminating the only indication that the inscription was inscribed and erected late in Hazael’s reign. The kings of Israel and Judah were killed c. 842 BCE, before the campaign of Shalmaneser III against Hazael in 841, in the course of which he received tribute from Jehu, the newly enthroned king of Israel.10 The reference to the killing of the two kings, appearing as it does in the middle of the inscription, may indicate that the killing of these kings had taken place not many years before the stele was erected. Furthermore, because Dan was on Israel’s northern border, its conquest probably took place early in the Aramaic expansion in the reign of Hazael. Therefore, I would date the inscription to the late 830s BCE, not long after Shalmaneser abandoned the southSyro-Palestinian arena (his final campaign in the region took place in 838 BCE) and began to move into the Anatolian lands west of the Taurus range.11

A Royal Inscription and Prophetic Stories: Who Killed Joram and Ahaziahu? It should be noted at the outset that in the late 840s BCE, the constellation of the Syro-Palestinian powers was shifting rapidly. With the death of Adadidri, the leader of “the southern alliance,” and the rise of Hazael to power in Damascus (c. 843/842 BCE), the alliance, which had fought off the Assyrians between 853 and 845 successfully, fell apart. The kingdoms of Hamath and Israel, Damascus’ chief allies, refused to cooperate with the new ruler, leading to an armed struggle between Damascus and Israel. Shortly after this, Jehu rebelled, put an end to the dynasty of Omri and became king of Israel. In 841 BCE, Shalmaneser led a campaign to southern Syria, possibly prompted by news of the collapse of the alliance, and this time was confronted by Damascus alone. Having triumphed over Damascus, the Assyrian ruler reached the border of Israel for the first time and received tribute from Jehu, “son of Omri,”12 the king who had recently seized the throne of Israel.13 9. Dion (1997:192 n. 97) restored it [rbrb]n. However, this restoration is ruled out on grounds of space limitations. 10. Thiel 1992:670–673, with earlier literature; Dion 1997:191–197; Yamada 1998:190– 200. For further literature, see below, note 13. 11. Lemaire (1998:11) dated the stele to the second part of Hazael’s reign, c. 826–805/3 BCE. 12. For the description of Jehu as “the son of Omri,” see, recently, Schneider 1996:100– 107; Na’aman 1998:236–238. 13. On the historical developments in the south Syrian-Palestinian arena in the years 845–841 BCE, see Astour 1971:383–389; Lipiński 1979:75–78; Pitard 1987:145–150; Reinhold 1989:173–179, 382–390; Na’aman 1991:82–83; Lemaire 1991:97–101, with earlier literature.


181

It is against this background of rapidly changing constellations of regional powers that we must examine the obvious conflict between (a) Hazael’s claim in the Tel Dan inscription that he had killed Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziahu, king of Beth David, and (b) the story told in 2 Kings 9–10, according to which, Jehu killed these two kings when he seized the throne of Israel.14 Inevitably, harmonizing solutions were quickly proposed, suggesting that there is no difficulty in settling the conflict between the two sources. Thus, Yamada (1995:618–622; 1998:318–322) argued that the verb ‘ktl’ should be translated as “to strike, defeat,” so that Hazael is claiming that he has defeated the two kings, rather than killing them. However, this interpretation does not concord with the usual meaning of the verb ‘ktl’ in Aramaic texts and was not accepted by other scholars (such as Kottsieper and Lemaire). Schniedewind (1996:82–85) and Halpern (1996:47, n. 10) argued that Jehu did kill the two kings, but that because he had acted as Hazael’s ally, the latter claimed responsibility for the act. To substantiate their argument, they refer to two inscriptions of Shalmaneser III describing the same event. In the earlier inscription (from the sixth year of the reign), Shalmaneser wrote that the inhabitants of the region of Balih killed their own ruler Giammu, who had risen against Assyria, whereas in the latter inscription (from the 20th year of the reign), he wrote that he himself had killed the rebel.15 Indeed, there are quite a number of cases in which the kings of Assyria claimed for themselves military campaigns led by their officers and achievements gained without their participation, but these kings list first and foremost their successes in campaigns which they themselves conducted. The killing of Giammu by the nobles was an insignificant episode and, in the late abbreviated description of the sixth year campaign, was combined with the many victories that Shalmaneser won during his campaigns to the west. Contrary to the marginality of the Giammu episode, the defeat and slaying of the kings of Israel and Judah was an event of great importance. Hazael had conducted several other campaigns, won battles and conquered territories, but of all his great achievements he selected this victory and described it in his stele. Is it likely that Hazael selected to place at the center of his inscription an episode in which he had not played a major part? I cannot recall any ancient Near Eastern royal inscription at the center of which a great con-

14. In addition to the commentaries, see Trebolle Barrera 1984; Barré 1988; Minokami 1989; Multzer 1992. 15. This solution was accepted by Lemaire 1998:10–11. Similar harmonistic solutions, namely that Hazael saw Jehu as his agent, have been suggested by Biran and Naveh 1995: 18; Kottsieper 1998:488–492.

182


queror attributed for himself an achievement of his ally or vassal.16 It is clear that the Giammu marginal episode in Shalmaneser III’s late inscription is no parallel for the central episode of the defeat of Israel and Judah and the slaying of their kings in Hazael’s inscription. Moreover, not long after the rise of Jehu, in 841 BCE, Hazael fought against Assyria and did not surrender, despite both being defeated and his country suffering massive destruction — whereas Jehu did surrender and pay tribute to Assyria. Thus, Israel and Damascus conducted conflicting policies vis-à-vis Assyria, a fact that contradicts the assumption that Hazael and Jehu were allies at that time. In fact, after the Assyrian withdrawal, Hazael conquered the kingdom of Israel and subjugated it, which points to the prevailing rivalry between the kings of Damascus and Israel. Here we must consider a question of general principle: When a contemporary inscription conflicts with a biblical story that was handed down in oral tradition and recorded in writing many years after the events described, probably with significant changes, should we strive for simple, harmonizing solutions? The prophetic stories in the Book of Kings are markedly novelistic, and their very genre does not require a faithful presentation of the chain of events. I do not maintain that these stories lack historical value. On the contrary, various prophetic stories about the northern Kingdom evidently preserved elements of the ancient period (Na’aman 1997b:124–128). One example is the story of Elisha’s prophecy to Hazael, that he would succeed Ben Hadad and rule over Aram (2 Kgs. 8:7–15), which concords with the Assyrian inscriptions that state that Hazael was “the son of nobody.” The story of Jehu’s revolt also refers to the friendly relations and cooperation between Joram of Israel and Ahaziahu of Judah and to the fact that they died at the same time (2 Kgs. 8:28–29; 9:14–28) — details that are confirmed in the Hazael inscription. However, the use of the prophetic stories as a historical source calls for critical analysis and great caution, especially when they conflict with the testimony of an external source, written not long after the events described. That is why I maintain that the testimony of the Hazael inscription should be adopted as the point of departure for the historical discussion. In the 1970s, Lipiński (1977:273–278; 1978:596–597; 1979:76–77) proposed the possibility that the episode of Ahab’s death in the battle against the Arameans at Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs. 22:1–38) actually depicted the death of Joram in the battle of Ramoth-gilead, whereas Ahab died peacefully in his bed, as implied by the verse, “so Ahab slept with his fathers” (v. 40). Lipiński went further, spec-

16. Some Assyrian officials erected stelae in which they attributed campaigns led by themselves to their lord, the king of Assyria. See Tadmor 1973:141–150; Donbaz 1990:5–24.


183

ulating that the text in 2 Kgs. 8:28 (“and [Ahaziahu] went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael, king of Aram, and the Arameans wounded Joram”) was an early description of the death of Joram, because the verb nkh in the hiph‘il construction usually denotes slaying, rather than injuring. He further suggests that, at a later date, this verse was interpolated in the opening of Jehu’s revolt, when it lost its original meaning and was interpreted as meaning that Joram was injured in battle. That is clearly a far-reaching conjecture, which requires detaching that verse from the subsequent description, as well as suggesting that the story of Jehu’s revolt in 2 Kings 9–10 originally had a quite different opening. It should also be borne in mind that, according to 1 Kings 22 and 2 Kings 9, only the king of Israel was shot in Ramothgilead, and the Hazael inscription states that he killed the king of Judah, too. However, whether or not Lipiński’s historical interpretation of 1 Kgs. 22:1– 38 and 2 Kgs. 8:28 is valid,17 there is no question that the two narratives do not accurately reflect the chain of events that culminated in the death of the kings of Israel and Judah in battle. Hazael’s contemporary inscription should be accorded primacy over the biblical prophetic narrative. According to the prophet Hosea (Hosea 1:4), the “day of Jezreel” became an indelible stain on the house of Jehu, and the future kings of that dynasty would pay for it. This seems to support the story about the massacre that Jehu perpetrated in Jezreel (Irvine 1995:494–503). We may propose, albeit very cautiously and tentatively, the possibility that the time lapse between the actual events and the writing of the prophetic story led to confusion between the death of the two kings in the battle against Hazael and the story of Jehu’s rebellion. Following the death of Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziahu, king of Judah, in the battle against Hazael, king of Aram, Jehu revolted, massacred the descendants and supporters of the house of Omri in Jezreel and Samaria, and seized the throne. When the Assyrian army arrived in the region, Jehu refused to join the war waged against it by Hazael of Aram, preferring to surrender and pay tribute to the ruler of the distant power. When Assyria withdrew from the region (838 BCE), Hazael renewed his assault, captured the city of Dan and erected his stele. After a further series of battles and sieges, whose details have not come down to us, he succeeded in subduing Israel and reducing it to a vassal kingdom. In light of this historical reconstruction, we would have to assume that the prophetic story was written down a long time after the events it described,

17. In a recently published article, I suggested that the story recounted in 1 Kgs. 22:1– 37 is pre-Deuteronomistic and may well reflect a historical memory that Ahab was killed in battle. See Na’aman 1997c:161–171.

184


by which time the historical memory had grown blurred. The scenario presented in this paper — and which cannot be verified by ancient sources — is offered primarily to emphasize the principle that historical discussion must, as a rule, rest primarily on contemporary sources; reliance on sources recorded many years after the depicted events calls for great caution. This is especially true with regard to the prophetic stories, whose novelistic quality and late writing make for immense difficulties for anyone seeking to glean data for use in historical reconstruction.

References Astour, M.C. 1971. 841 B.C.: The First Assyrian Invasion of Palestine. JAOS 91: 383–389. Barré, M.L. 1988. The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion. The Narrative Artistry and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9–11. (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 20). Washington, D.C. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Dietrich, W. 1997. Dāwid, dôd und bytdwd. Teologische Zeitschrift 53: 17–32. Dijkstra, M. 1994. An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 74: 10–14. Dion, P.-E. 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: histoire politique et structures sociales. Paris. Donbaz, V. 1990. Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kahramanmaras Museums. Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8: 5–24. Emerton, J.A. 1994. New Evidence for the Use of the waw consecutive in Aramaic. VT 44: 255–258. Emerton, J.A. 1997. Further Comments on the Use of Tenses in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. VT 47: 429–440. Emerton, J.A. 1999. New Evidence for the Use of waw Consecutive in Aramaic. VT 49: 255– 258. Grayson, A.K. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period, vol. 2). Toronto. Grayson, A.K. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period, vol. 3). Toronto. Halpern, B. 1996. The Construction of the Davidic State: An Exercise in Historiography. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (Journal of the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 44–75. Hawkins, J.D. 1974. Assyrians and Hittites. Iraq 36: 67–83. Hawkins, J.D. 1988. Kuzi-Tešub and the “Great Kings” of Karkemiš. Anatolian Studies 38: 99– 108. Hawkins, J.D. 1995. The Political Geography of North Syria and South-East Anatolia in the Neo-Assyrian Period. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo-Assyrian Geography. Rome: 87–101. Irvine, S.A. 1995. The Threat of Jezreel (Hosea 1:4–5). Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57: 494– 503.


185

Kottsieper, I. 1998. Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Aram-Damaskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus. In: Dietrich, M. and Kottsieper, I. eds.: “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf.” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 250). Münster: 475–500. Laessoe, J. 1959. A Statue of Shalmaneser III, from Nimrud. Iraq 21: 147–157. Lemaire, A. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In: Charpin, D. and Joannès, F. eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris: 91–108. Lemaire, A. 1994. Epigraphie Palestinienne: nouveaux documents. I. Fragment de stèle Araméenne de Tell Dan (IXe s. av. J.-C.). Henoch 16: 87–93. Lemaire, A. 1998. The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 81: 3–14. Lipiński, E. 1977. An Assyro-Israelite Alliance in 842/841 B.C.E.?, Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies I. Jerusalem: 273–278. Lipiński, E. 1978. Aramäer und Israel. Theologische Realenzyklopädie III: 590–602. Lipiński, E. 1979. Aram et Israël du Xe au VIIIe siècle av. N.È. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 49–102. Mahmoud, M. and Black, J. 1985/86. Recent Work in the Nabu Temple, Nimrud. Sumer 44: 135–155. Michel, E. 1954. Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824). 6. Fortsetzung. Die Welt des Orients 2/1: 27–45. Michel, E. 1955–1956. Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858–824). 8. Fortsetzung. Die Welt des Orients 2/2–3: 221–233. Minokami, Y. 1989. Die Revolution des Jehu (Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 38). Göttingen. Morandi, D. 1988. Stele e statue reali assire: localizzazione, diffusione e implicazioni ideologiche. Mesopotamia 23: 105–155. Müller, H.-P. 1995. Die aramäische Inschrift von Tel Dan. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8: 121– 139. Multzer, M. 1992. Jehu schlägt Joram. Text-, literatur- und strukturkritische Untersuchung zu 2 Kön 8,25–10,36 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 37). St. Ottilien. Muraoka, T. 1995. Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 45: 19–21. Muraoka, T. and Rogland, M. 1998. The waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor Sasson. VT 48: 99–104. Na’aman, N. 1991. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West. In: Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. (Scripta Hierosolymitana 33). Jerusalem: 80–98. Na’aman, N. 1995a. Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 79: 17– 24. Na’aman, N. 1995b. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 170–186. Na’aman, N. 1997a. King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy. IEJ 47: 83– 92.

186


Na’aman, N. 1997b. Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides. Biblica 78: 153–173. Na’aman, N. 1997c. Historical and Literary Notes on the Excavations of Tel Jezreel. Tel Aviv 24: 122–128. Na’aman, N. 1998. Jehu Son of Omri: Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by his Overlord. IEJ 48: 236–238. Naveh, J. 1999. Marginalia on the Inscriptions from Dan and Ekron. Eretz Israel 26: 119–122. (Hebrew). Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.), Princeton: 265–317, 556–567. Pitard, W.T. 1987. Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. Winona Lake. Reinhold, G.G.G. 1989. Die Beziehungen Altisraels zu den aramäischen Staaten in der israelitischjüdäischen Kōnigszeit. Frankfurt am Main. Rendsburg, G.A. 1995. On the Writing BYTDWD in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 45: 22–25. Rosenthal, F. 1969. Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.). Princeton: 653–670. Sasson, V. 1995. The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary and Historical Aspects. Journal of Semitic Studies 40: 11–30. Sasson, V. 1996. Murderers, Usurpers, or what? Hazael, Jehu, and the Tell Dan Old Aramaic Inscription. Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 547–554. Sasson, V. 1997. Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the waw Consecutive in the Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew. VT 47: 111–127. Schneider, T.J. 1996. Rethinking Jehu. Biblica 77: 100–107. Schniedewind, W.M. 1996. Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt. BASOR 302: 75–90. Tadmor, H. 1973. The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-nirari III. Iraq 35: 141–150. Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Jerusalem. Thiel, W. 1992. Jehu. The Anchor Bible Dictionary III. New York: 670–673. Trebolle Barrera, J.C. 1984. Jehú y Joás. Texto y composición de 2 Reyes 9–11. Valencia. Tropper, J. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phōnizischen, sam’alitischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Münster. Tropper, J. 1993. Eine altaramäische Steleninschrift aus Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 25: 395– 406. Tropper, J. 1994. Paläographische und linguistische Anmerkungen zur Steleninschrift aus Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 487–492. Tropper, J. 1996. Aramäisches wyqtl und hebräisches wayyiqtol. Ugarit-Forschungen 28: 633– 645. Yamada, S. 1995. Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 611–625. Yamada, S. 1998. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 B.C.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy1 I Line 12 of the Mesha inscription has attracted much attention in scholarly discussions, and various interpretations have been offered for the mysterious combination ‰„Â„ Ï‡¯‡.2 It has been suggested that ‰„Â„ refers either to a deity, Dōd (Ahlström 1982:14; Knauf, de Pury and Römer 1994:66), or that „Â„ is an epithet for YHWH and that ‰„Â„ should be rendered “its (i.e., the city’s) Beloved.”3 Below, I try to demonstrate that both interpretations are equally untenable. 1. There are three major objections to the interpretation of ‰„Â„ as the proper name of a deity Dōd: (a) A pronominal suffix is not attached to proper names. (b) There is little evidence to support the existence of a deity Dōd, either in the ancient Near East or in the Bible.4 (c) One would expect Dōd to be written „„, with no inter vowel, like the rest of the Mesha inscription. Müller (1992:30 and n. 59) has suggested that the writing ‡·„‰Ó illustrates another instance of writing with an inter vowel. This, however, may reflect the original form of the toponym, possibly a participle of the hiph‘il that preserves the h-performative, as in ancient Aramaic (compare Gen. 36:39 and Neh. 6:10: Ï‡·ËÈ‰Ó). The assumed writing „Â„ for Dōd would be exceptional within the inscription. 2. There are four major objections to the assumption that ‰„Â„ refers to an epithet of YHWH (i.e., “its Beloved”): (a) The reference to YHWH is based purely on guesswork, because there is no reference to YHWH in the immediate context (Barstad and Becking 1995:7). 1. Reprinted with permission. IEJ 37 (1997), 83–92. 2. Beeston 1985:143–148; Jackson 1989:112–113, with earlier literature; Mattingly 1989: 236–237, with earlier literature. 3. Segert 1961:213; Müller 1985:648 and n. 13; 1992:30 and n. 59; 1995:126–127; Lemaire 1991:162 and n. 49. 4. Sanmartín-Ascaso 1978:143–156; Barstad and Becking 1995:5–12; Barstad 1995:493– 495, with earlier literature.

187

188


(b) A victory stele of a foreign king is not the place where one would expect to find an epithet in place of god’s proper name (Na’aman 1995: 18). (c) There is no unequivocal reference to „Â„ as a divine epithet of YHWH. As concluded by Barstad (1995:495), “the word „Â„ may have been used in the Bible as an appellative or epithet of YHWH, but the evidence is far from conclusive.” (d) The writing of the epithet „Â„ with an inter vowel would be an exception in the Mesha inscription (see above). The elimination of these two renderings restricts the number of plausible suggested interpretations for ‰„Â„. It seems to me that there is another consideration, until now overlooked by scholars, which may shed more light on Mesha’s presentation of the conquest of Ataroth and on the enigmatic combination ‰„Â„ Ï‡¯‡.

II At the beginning of the historical introduction to the text, Mesha describes Moab’s oppression by Omri, king of Israel (lines 4–5). More details about the Israelite conquest appear further on: Omri had earlier conquered the land of Medeba (lines 7–8) and had fortified Ataroth (lines 10–11) and Jahaz (lines 18–19). In the context of the inscription, the Israelite conquest serves as the justification for the campaigns against the land of Medeba and the towns of Ataroth and Jahaz. Mesha presents his expansion beyond Wādi el-Wala, the northern border of his kingdom, as a re-conquest of captured Moabite territories, rather than as an act of aggression. The need to justify the waging of war and territorial expansion is too well known to be discussed in detail (Oded 1992). A king must convince his god(s) and his subjects that his military acts have just causes to gain both divine and public support. Thus, the reasons for going to war constitute an important element in ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions. In the newly discovered Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan, the Aramaic king, most probably Hazael, justifies his offensive against Israel by claiming that the king of Israel had attacked his kingdom during his father’s reign and had renewed the attack soon after the father’s death. The Israelite king, thus, is presented as aggressor, and Hazael’s counter-attack as an act of legitimate defense.5

5. Biran and Naveh 1993:81–98; 1995:1–18. In this light, lines 2–4 of the inscription may be reconstructed thus: “. . . on? (‘[l]) my father, went up [against him for] war ([l]mlḥmh) at

King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy

189

Mesha justifies his military acts by claiming that they are a response to earlier Omride aggression. His expansion in the Medeba—Ataroth—Jahaz areas is, therefore, a restoration of the territory to its legitimate owner, hence, the use of the verbal form ‰·˘ÈÂ (“restored, brought back”) in reference to the conquest of the land of Medeba (lines 8–9: “Chemosh restored it in my days”). The hiph‘il form of the verb ·Â˘ has this sense of restoration of territory (Miller 1969:461–464), and its selection was intended to emphasize the legitimacy of the act of territorial expansion. Inasmuch as this is a Moabite propagandistic claim, it remains uncertain whether the entire land of Medeba, or only a part of it, had been Moabite domain prior to Omri’s conquest. On the other hand, Mesha’s two other campaigns, against Nebo and Hauronen/Horonaim, were conducted outside the “conquered territories.” To justify their conquest, Mesha emphasizes that these campaigns were conducted at the command of his god Chemosh. The conquest of the Israelite city of Nebo is introduced with the words “And Chemosh said to me: Go seize Nebo from/against Israel” (line 14). Similarly, the conquest of Hauronen is introduced with the words: “[So] I rai[sed my hands to Chemosh, and] Chemosh said to me: Go down, fight against Hauronen” (lines 31–32) (Na’aman 1994:27– 28). Mesha admits that the town had been ruled by the House of David/DWDH (on this alternative, see below) and again justifies its conquest by a divine command of Chemosh. The conclusion of the campaign against Hauronen (line 33) may possibly be reconstructed thus: [ . . . È˙]¯˘Ú Ì˘Ó ‰„[˘] ÏÚÂ ÈÓÈ· ˘ÓÎ ‰·[·˘ÈÂ . . . ] “And Chemosh [dwelt] there in my days. And over (each) [fi]eld thence I gav[e him? a tithe].”6 In the five military episodes, Chemosh is twice represented as a divine conqueror (lines 8–9, 19), twice he initiates the campaigns (lines 14, 32), and three times he receives a chosen share of the booty (lines 12, 17–18, 33). The message of the inscription is clear: Chemosh is the divine leader at whose personal guidance and instructions the king leads his people to the victorious wars.

A[bel??]. And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors]. And the king of I[s]rael has advanced (qdm) in my father’s land.” 6. For the transcription, see Lidzbarski 1898:416 and Pl. I; 1902:9; Dussaud 1912:5 and photo. Clermont-Ganneau (1975:174; 1887:108–109), on the other hand, suggested deciphering it w‘l[t]y. This reading was resumed recently by Lemaire (1987:210). However, not only does Lidzbarski (1902:9) emphasize that one should read dh and not y and that the stroke of the ḥ is clear, the two letters are plainly seen in the photograph published by Dussaud (1912). For a different restoration, see Margalit 1994:275–277. Margalit does not,

190


It seems to me that Chemosh initially was the local god of Dibon and that following Mesha’s expansion north and south, he became Moab’s national god, hence, the remarkable emphasis on his role in all the conquests. Moreover, in lines 29–31, Mesha wrote thus: “I built [the temple of Med]eba, the temple of Diblathaim and the temple of Baal-meon, and I carried there [their] sacred ob[jects, and the best] flocks of the land” (Ô‰˘]„˜Ó ˙‡ Ì˘ ‡˘‡Â ˆ¯‡‰ Ô‡ˆ [·ËÓ ˙‡Â).7 The three new temples are located in the land of Medeba, and Mesha must have made efforts to establish the Dibonite god, Chemosh, in the newly conquered territories. For this reason, I suggested restoring in line 33: ÈÓÈ· ˘ÓÎ ‰· [·˘ÈÂ] (“and Chemosh [dwelt] there in my days”). The “dwelling” of Chemosh in Horonaim refers to the building of his temple in the newly conquered town; the allocation of a tithe of the products of the fields [ . . . È˙]¯˘Ú Ì˘Ó ‰„[˘] ÏÚÂ to the god is a way of sustaining the new temple (compare Gen. 28:22). The combination of these building measures, coupled with religious ideology and royal propaganda (as witnessed by the inscription), apparently brought about the promotion of Chemosh to the status of the Moabite national god. The concept of restoration further explains the accounts of settlement at the end of Mesha’s campaigns. The motif of settlement appears only in the three episodes of the restoration of formerly captured territories. Thus, after the conquest of the land of Medeba, Mesha built the towns of Baal-meon and Qiryaten there (lines 9–10). After the conquest of Ataroth, he settled the men of Sharon and the men of Maharith in it (lines 13–14). After the occupation of Yahaz, he established two hundred Dibonites in the town (lines 20–21). On the other hand, no settlement is mentioned after the conquest of Nebo. The end of the episode of Hauronen is broken. However, in view of the above consideration, I assume that no account of settlement originally appeared there. Re-conquest and resettlement are two aspects of the restoration of the formerly captured Moabite territories.

however, take into consideration (in this and other places) the exact number of signs that are missing; his textual restorations, thus, are untenable. 7. Lemaire (1987:210) suggested restoring the break between lines 30–31 thus: w’ś’ šm ’t mqd[šn lzbḥ ’t] ṣ’n h’rṣ. He translates it thus: “et j’élevai la des sanctu[aires pour sacrifier le] petit bétail du pays.” However, the verb nś’ (“lift,” “carry,” “take”) does not construe well with the noun “sanctuary.” I, therefore, suggest that following the building of the three sanctuaries, Mesha relates how he carried hither their sacred objects (mqdšhn) and how he brought selected sheep for sacrifice in the new temples. Margalit’s restoration of lines 29–31 (1994) neither takes into consideration Lemaire’s collation of line 30 nor takes into account the actual space left at the beginning of line 31. Moreover, Margalit’s restoration ’t at the beginning of line 30 is untenable, because the nota accusativi is systemat-


191

We may conclude that two kinds of justification of the Moabite territorial expansion appear in the inscription: restoration of formerly conquered territories and the direct command of a god. The conquest of Ataroth belongs to the former group and may be analyzed in this light.

III The episode of the campaign against Ataroth opens with the statement “And the men of Gad had lived in the land of Ataroth since time immemorial” (line 10). It is hardly conceivable that Mesha deliberately emphasizes the antiquity of his rivals, the Israelites, thereby strengthening their claim to the place. Without the evidence of the biblical text, no scholar would have assumed that these “men of Gad” were an Israelite tribe. I, therefore, agree with Knauf (1988:162, n. 689; 1991:26) that the men of Gad are presented here as Moabites, whom the king of Israel had driven from their ancestral town. The statement that the king of Israel built Ataroth “for himself ” (lines 10–11) emphasizes the illegitimacy of this act, as against the Gadites’ rights to the town based on autochthony. The Israelites’ illegitimate conduct is the literary justification for Mesha’s slaughter of ÌÚ‰ ÏÎ, probably the “men at arms,” i.e., the armed forces that defended the town (for this meaning of ‘am, see, e.g., Ex. 14:6; 17:13; Num. 21:23; Deut. 20:1–2, 9; Josh. 8:3, 10; 2 Sam. 10:10; 1 Kgs. 16:16, 21–22; 22:4; 2 Kgs. 3:7; 8:21; 13:7). The men of Sharon and Maharith may have been members of the tribe of Gad, and their transfer to the town a resettlement by its former inhabitants. Lines 12–13 of the inscription run thus: “The town turned (˙È‰) to Chemosh and to Moab,8 and I restored (·˘‡Â) thence ‰„Â„ Ï‡¯‡, and I dragged it before Chemosh at (my) town (˙È¯˜).”9 The selection of the verbal form ·˘‡Â is deliberate: Mesha relates that following the restoration of Ataroth to Moab, he brought back (a hiph‘il form of the verb ·Â˘)10 an object that had apparently been captured by the king of Israel. In other words, ‰„Â„ Ï‡¯‡ is

ically omitted after the perfect in Mesha’s building account (lines 21b–31a). See Müller 1994:384–385. 8. For the reading hyt and the correct interpretation of the text, see Lemaire 1987:206– 207. 9. One would naturally assume that the noun qryt refers to Mesha’s capital. Both the ’r’l dwdh (lines 12–13) and the vessels of YHWH (lines 17–18) were carried to the central sanctuary of Chemosh, which was located in the city of Dibon. For the common interpretation of qryt as a place name, see Dearman 1989:178–179, with earlier literature. 10. A derivation from the verb šbh (“to take captive”) is unlikely, because the object of this verb is always human.

192


a Moabite object, and, contrary to the commonly held interpretation, has nothing to do with YHWH. In my opinion, there are two possible reasonable interpretations for the enigmatic ‰„Â„: It is either a tetragram of a local Moabite deity or a personal name. Ï‡¯‡ is probably a statue, a cult stand, or an altar hearth, the sides of which were decorated with figures of lions.11 ‰„Â„ Ï‡¯‡ may be rendered either “a cult stand/altar hearth of (the God) Daudoh” or “a statue/cult stand/ altar hearth of Daudoh” (for the latter interpretation, compare 2 Sam. 18:18; 2 Kgs. 20:11; 23:12; Isa. 38:8).12 On the basis of line 12, I have recently suggested restoring [‰]„Â[„] ˙· (“the House of Daudoh”) at the end of line 31 (Na’aman 1994:27–30). In the same year, Lemaire restored it „Â[„] ˙· (“The House of David”) (Lemaire 1994a:17– 19; 1994b:30–37). However, the latter restoration, as attractive as it may seem, is not free of doubt. First, why should Mesha note that the House (i.e., dynasty) of David “dwelt” in Hauronen, when its seat was at Jerusalem? And if he were referring to a certain king of Judah, why call him by a collective term (“House of David”), rather than by his proper name? (This was pointed out by Ben Zvi 1994:31). Second, if Hauronen had earlier been captured by a king of Judah, why does it not appear as the motive for the assumed Moabite reconquest, like Omri’s conquests in the account of the re-conquest of north Moab? Third, not only is there no evidence for the assumed long possession of southern Moab by the Jerusalemite dynasty, it contradicts the narrative of 2 Kings 3. Finally, there is a marked difference between the term „Â„ ˙È· in the Aramaic stele from Tel Dan (a name for the kingdom of Judah, i.e., “Beth David”) and its assumed meaning here (a name for the dynasty of Judah). 11. Petzold 1969:372–415; Gibson 1971:80. For lion statues in the Bible, Gibson has referred to 1 Kgs. 10:19–20; cf. Lemaire 1991:161–162, n. 48, with earlier literature. My colleague Prof. P. Beck has suggested to me that ’r’l may be a reference to a cult stand, similar to the two early Iron Age cult stands discovered at Tel Taanach. These stands have several registers, on which lions and winged sphinxes appear in relief. According to her interpretation, “It is possible that Stand A served in the worship of a statue of the Great Goddess, or perhaps her shrine, and Stand B served in the worship of the Weather God.” See Beck 1994:352–381 (cited from p. 381). 12. Some scholars suggested restoring lines 17–18 ’[r’]ly yhwh. See Ahlström 1982:14; Beeston 1985:145–147; Lemaire 1987:208–209. The reading has already been dismissed by Cooke (1903:12) on the grounds that ’r’l in line 12 is singular and is preceded by ’t. Indeed, the nota accusativi (’t) follows all imperfect verbal forms with no exceptions (lines 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11[twice], 12, 13[twice], 14, 30). Thus, an accusative (’[t]) should be restored after the imperfect (w’qḥ) at the end of line 17. Moreover, the interpretation of the term ’r’l is uncertain, and the assumption that a few objects of this kind were located in the temple of Nebo is arbitrary. Lines 17–18 should be restored ’[t k]ly yhwh (“the vessels of YHWH”), as suggested by the majority of scholars.


193

The translation “And Hauronen, there lived the House of [D]audo[h],” in reference to a local Moabite dynasty long established in this area, is not burdened with similar problems. The mention of ‰„Â„ in line 12 may support this restoration. I, therefore, persist with my suggestion that Daudoh was the name of the founder of the dynasty of Hauronen who dedicated either his statue or a cult stand/altar hearth at Ataroth before Omri’s conquest.

IV In the light of this conclusion, the early history of Moab may tentatively be reconstructed in three sequential stages: 1. A certain Daudoh established his seat in Hauronen/Horonaim (elKerak) and conquered the land of Moab north of Arnon, including the small kingdom (or rather chiefdom) of Dibon. In the Gadite center of Ataroth, he erected an Ï‡¯‡ (either a statue or a cult stand/altar). One of his offspring was defeated by Omri and lost his northern territories, but was able to retain Hauronen and the areas south of the Arnon river. 2. Omri conquered the area of the Mishor, north of the Arnon. He annexed, to Israel, the northern parts of the conquered territory as far as Wādi el-Wala, and he made the local dynasty of Dibon his tributary. As suggested by some scholars, the famous Song of Heshbon (Num. 21:27–30) must have been originally a Israelite song, probably composed after Omri’s conquest of the territory between Heshbon and Arnon.13 The song accords well with all the known data about Omri’s north-to-south offensive, whereas no other conquest of Moab along these lines is known from sources of the 9th–7th centuries BCE. As far as we know, Moab kept its territorial integrity as late as the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86, save for the city of Heshbon, which was transferred to the kingdom of Ammon during the seventh century BCE (see Jer. 48:2, 49:3) (Schmitt 1988:34–36). How does the biblical tradition about Sihon, king of Heshbon, fit into this picture? 9th-century Heshbon must have been a central town with peripheral settlements, quite similar to the kingdom of Dibon, held by Mesha’s ancestors. We may recall Num. 21:26: “For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former/first king of Moab and taken all his land out of his hand, as far as the Arnon.” Can this “former/ first” (ÔÂ˘‡¯‰) king of Moab be identified with Daudoh or one of his heirs to 13. Gray 1903:301, with earlier literature; Baentsch 1903:584–585. The view that the song celebrates an Israelite military campaign, which brought the Moabite area north of the Arnon into the possession of the Israelites, was suggested by Meyer 1881:129–131; de Vaux 1978:565; Weippert 1979:18–21.

194


the throne of Hauronen? Tentatively (and with a big question mark), I would suggest that the offensive of Daudoh brought Moab up to the southern border of Sihon, king of Heshbon. The latter, however, was able to defend his kingdom against the Moabite south-to-north offensive. Heshbon was later conquered by Omri. One may even assume that the Israelite conquest of Heshbon was the trigger for the conflict between Israel and Moab, which ended with a Moabite defeat and subjugation, hence the words of the Song of Heshbon (Num. 21:28): “For fire went forth from Heshbon, flame from the city of Sihon. It devoured Ar of Moab, engulfed (sic!) the high places of Arnon.” The town must have been fortified by one of the Omrides against a possible Ammonite attack, similar to the fortification of Ataroth and Jahaz against a Moabite attack. The Omride fortification of the town may be the one to which the song’s opening alludes (Num. 21:27). This historical reconstruction, albeit hypothetical, may explain the biblical claim that Israel bypassed the land of Moab (i.e., the land south of the Arnon river) and conquered only the areas formerly held by Sihon of Heshbon. A coalescence of the memories of Israel’s (i.e., the Omrides’) struggles with Sihon of Heshbon and the king of Moab, with the conquest of the Heshbonite and Moabite territories up to the Arnon river, may have formed the background for the Israelite political claim that it had conquered the areas north of the Arnon from a non-Moabite ruler (i.e., Sihon of Heshbon).14 This claim rests on vague memories and is historically dubious, but is similar to many other national claims that manipulate ancient memories to their own advantage. Later on, when the history of Israel was recorded in writing, its authors took this old political claim and made it a cornerstone of their description of Israel’s entrance to the land and the conquest of Transjordan.15 3. Mesha rebelled, and after a long struggle not only conquered the former Moabite territories in the north, including the area of Medeba, but expanded northward and conquered former Israelite territories as far as the 14. The Omrides’ ideological justification of the conquest of northern Moab is unknown. It is possible that the claim that Israel had conquered the area north of the Arnon river from the autochthonous “Amorite” inhabitants of Transjordan, and not from Moab, was originally made by the Omrides to justify their conquest of these areas. If this is the case, the claim had its roots in the ninth-century struggle between Israel and Moab over the domination of the Mishor, north of the Arnon river. 15. The complex problems of the traditions regarding Sihon of Heshbon and the conquest of Transjordan are beyond the scope of this paper. In addition to the commentaries, see the following discussions: de Vaux 1978:551–567, with earlier literature; Van Seters 1972:182–197; 1980:117–119; Coats 1976:177–190; Bartlett 1978:347–351; Weippert 1979:15– 34; Rose 1981:308–313; Schmitt 1988:26–43, with earlier literature; Knauf 1990:135–144; Timm 1989:62–96; Lemaire 1989:64*–70*, with earlier literature.


195

line of Nebo and Bezer. There is no indication in his inscription that he proceeded north of this line and conquered Heshbon.16 The Moabites conquered the town either under Mesha in his late years or under one of his successors. Mesha later attacked and conquered the city of Hauronen/Horonaim and put an end to the reign of the local dynasty. The Dibon dynasty replaced the dynasty of Hauronen as the rulers of Moab. Mesha, thus, laid the foundations for the historical kingdom of Moab, whose center was in the Dibon area; whose national god was Chemosh; and which, at its apogee, controlled the entire area between Wādi el-Hesa in the south and Wādi el-Kefrein in the north, including the former “Amorite” (i.e., non-Moabite) kingdom of Sihon, king of Heshbon.17

References Ahlström, G.W. 1982. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine. Leiden. Baentsch, B. 1903. Exodus — Leviticus — Numeri. (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament I/2). Göttingen. Barstad, H.M. 1995. Dod. In: van der Toorn, K. et al. eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden, New York and Köln: 493–495. Barstad, H.M. and Becking, B. 1995. Does the Stele from Tel-Dan Refer to a Deity Dôd? Biblische Notizen 77: 5–12. Bartlett, J.R. 1978. The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination. JBL 97: 347– 351. Beck, P. 1994. The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine. In: Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 352–381. Beeston, A.F.L. 1985. Mesha and Ataroth. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1985/2: 143–148. Ben Zvi, E. 1994. On the Reading “bytdwd” in the Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 25–32. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Clermont-Ganneau, M. 1875. La stèle de Mésa — observations et lectures nouvelles. Revue Critique 2: 166–174. Clermont-Ganneau, M. 1887. La stèle de Mésa — examen critique du texte. Journal Asiatique 9: 72–112. Coats, G.W. 1976. Conquest Traditions in the Wilderness Theme. JBL 95: 177–190.

16. Contra Knauf 1990:137–138. There is no indication that the area of Heshbon was conquered by Mesha before the writing and dedication of his stele. The post-Mesha date that Knauf assigns to the fortification of Heshbon, therefore, is unfounded. 17. For recent discussions of the literary structure and the historical and religious ideas of the Mesha inscription, see Smelik 1992:59–92; Müller 1994:373–395.

196


Cooke, G.A. 1903. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford. Dearman, J.A. 1989. Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha Inscription. In: Dearman, J.A. ed. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: 155–210. Dussaud, R. 1912. Les monuments palestiniens et judaïques (Moab, Judée, Philistie, Samarie, Galilée). Paris. Gibson, J.C.L. 1971. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. I: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford. Gray, G.B. 1903. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Jackson, K.P. 1989. The Language of the Mesha‘ Inscription. In: Dearman, J.A. ed. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: 96–130. Knauf, E.A. 1988. Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Knauf, E.A. 1990. Hesbon, Sihons Stadt. ZDPV 106: 135–144. Knauf, E.A. 1991. Eglon and Ophrah: Two Toponymic Notes on the Book of Judges. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 51: 25–44. Knauf, E.A., de Pury, A. and Römer, T. 1994. BaytDawīd ou *BaytDōd? Biblische Notizen 72: 60–69. Lemaire, A. 1987. Notes d’épigraphie Nord-Ouest Sémitique. Syria 64: 205–216. Lemaire, A. 1989. Heshbôn — Hisbân? Eretz Israel 23: 64*–70*. Lemaire, A. 1991. La stèle de Mésha et l’histoire de l’ancien Israël. In: Garrone, D. and Israel, F. eds. Storia e tradizioni di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin. Brescia: 143–169. Lemaire, A. 1994a. La dynastie Davidique (byt dwd) dans deux inscriptions Ouest-Sémitiques du IXe S. av. J.-C. Studi epigraphici e linguistici 11: 17–19. Lemaire, A. 1994b. “House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription. Biblical Archaeology Review 20/3: 30–37. Lidzbarski, M. 1898. Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigrafik I. Weimar. Lidzbarski, M. 1902. Eine Nachprüfung der Mesainschrift, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik I. Giessen. Margalit, B. 1994. Studies in NW Semitic Inscriptions. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 271–320. Mattingly, G.L. 1989. Moabite Religion. In: Dearman, J.A. ed. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: 211–238. Meyer, E. 1881. Kritik der Berichte über die Eroberung Palaestinas. ZAW 1: 117–146. Miller, P.D. 1969. A Note on the Meša‘ Inscription. Orientalia 38: 461–464. Müller, H.-P. 1985. Moabitische historische Inschriften. In: Kaiser, O. ed. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament, I, Gütersloh: 646–650. Müller, H.-P. 1992. Kolloquialsprache und Volksreligion in den Inschriften von Kuntillet ‘Ağrūd und Ḫirbet el-Qōm. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 5: 15–51. Müller, H.-P. 1994. König Mêša‘ von Moab und der Gott der Geschichte. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 373–395. Müller, H.-P. 1995. Die aramäische Inschrift von Tel Dan. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8: 121– 139. Na’aman, N. 1994. The Campaign of Mesha against Horonaim. Biblische Notizen 73: 27–30. Na’aman, N. 1995. Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 79: 17– 24. Oded, B. 1992. War, Peace and Empire. Justification for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Wiesbaden. Petzold, H. 1969. Die Bedeutung von Ariel im AT und auf der Mescha-Stele verbunden mit einem Beitrag zur altorientalischen Feldzeichenkunde. Theologia 40: 372–415.


197

Rose, M. 1981. Deuteronomist und Jahwist. Untersuchungen zu den Beruhrungspunkten beiden Literaturwerke (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67). Zürich. Sanmartín-Ascaso, J. 1978. „Â„ dodh. In: Botterweck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament III. Grand Rapids: 143–156. Schmitt, H.-C. 1988. Das Hesbonlied Num. 21,27aβb–30 und die Geschichte der Stadt Hesbon. ZDPV 104: 26–43. Segert, S. 1961. Die Sprache der moabitischen Königsinschrift. Archiv Orientálni 29: 197– 267. Smelik, K.A.D. 1992. King Mesha’s Inscription: Between History and Fiction. Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (Oudtestamentische Studiën 28). Leiden: 59–92. Timm, S. 1989. Moab Zwischen den Mächten. Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 17). Wiesbaden. Van Seters, J. 1972. The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination. JBL 91: 182– 197. Van Seters, J. 1980. Once again — The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom. JBL 99: 117–119. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London. Weippert, M. 1979. The Israelite “Conquest” and the Evidence from Transjordan. In: Cross, F.M. ed. Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975). Cambridge, MA: 15–34.

The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source1 Royal inscriptions commemorating important deeds in the lives of monarchs have been found in many ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. The inscriptions are addressed to god(s) to account for what the ruler has done to fulfill the royal mandate handed him by his divine Lord(s). They were written during the life of the king, and their authors must have been either eyewitnesses to the events described or lived through the events they recounted. As monarchs were heads of state and directed the domestic and external affairs, the inscriptions reflect important events in the history of kingdoms. In spite of their highly literary and stylized form, their self-righteousness, and their extreme bias, these inscriptions are important sources for reconstructing the history of many ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. Unlike royal inscriptions, the Book of Kings was composed no earlier than the late 7th century BCE, long after many of the events it describes. The history of the United Monarchy and the early stages of the separate monarchies of Israel and Judah were written hundreds of years after the recounted events. The author was entirely dependent on the sources available to him. Recently, some scholars have expressed doubts about the historicity of the biblical descriptions of the 10th–9th centuries BCE. According to their analysis, literacy entered the court of Jerusalem only in the 8th century, so that no trustworthy sources could have been available to the historian who wrote the history of Judah before that time. The history of the Northern Kingdom was written in Jerusalem, and the author of Kings consulted no more than a few sources of northern origin. “Minimalist” scholars, thus, conclude that the histories of the two kingdoms in the 10th–9th centuries were not written on the basis of sources and are mainly devoid of historical foundations. The history of the monarchical period until the early 8th century BCE should be studied mainly on the basis of archaeological evidence and extra-biblical sources.2 1. Reprinted with permission. JSOT 82 (1999), 3–17. 2. Jamieson-Drake 1991:138–145; Knauf 1991a:39; 1991b:172; Davies 1992:67–70; Thompson 1992:409–410; 1995:59–74; Lemche 1993:163–193; 1994:183–189; Gelinas 1995.

198

The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions

199

No Israelite or Judean royal inscription has been found thus far. But Assyrian, Egyptian, Aramaic and Moabite inscriptions that have been discovered relate various events in the histories of the two kingdoms. In addition to their importance as historical sources, these inscriptions may contribute much to the evaluation of the historicity of the Book of Kings. It goes without saying that most of the Book of Kings is not illuminated by epigraphic sources. For example, accounts of first millennium intra-state events appear for the first time in the late 10th century BCE. Even if David and Solomon accomplished the deeds attributed to them in the Bible, no source would have mentioned their names. In light of the documentary situation, I propose taking the corpus of ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions that refer directly to the histories of Israel and Judah in the late 10th–9th centuries BCE as a sample for examining the account of the Book of Kings. The gaps, the identities and the inconsistencies between the biblical and extra-biblical sources should be examined carefully, each episode by itself. Only then will we be able to evaluate the scope of the sources available to the author of Kings and also, to some extent, the reliability of the biblical history of the early monarchical period.

1. The Campaign of Shishak Shishak (945–924 BCE), the king of Egypt, left a long list of places conquered in the course of his campaign to Palestine.3 An analysis of the topographical list shows that the campaign was directed against Israel and the non-Judahite parts of the Negev, avoiding almost entirely the kingdom of Judah. The city of Jerusalem is missing from the surviving parts of the list; Gibeon is the place nearest to Jerusalem that is mentioned in the town list. Shishak’s campaign is referenced in 1 Kgs. 14:25–28. The text relates briefly how the Egyptian king reached Jerusalem and received a heavy tribute, describing in detail the handing over of Solomon’s golden shields to Shishak and their replacement by copper shields. It seems that the author had before him a text, probably a chronicle, stating that golden shields were delivered to Shishak in Rehoboam’s fifth year and were replaced by copper shields. He logically interpreted this reference to mean that Shishak’s campaign, about which he had no other source, was directed against Jerusalem. His interpretation of his source is incomplete and even misleading, but it reflects some real elements: The Egyptian campaign reached the area of Jerusalem, and a heavy tribute was paid to Egypt on that occasion (Na’aman 1992:83–86). This is clear

3. See Kitchen 1973:294–300, 432–447, with earlier literature. For recent studies, see Na’aman 1992:79–93; Ahlström 1993; Kitchen 1997:39–41.

200


evidence that writing had reached the court of Jerusalem in the late 10th century BCE and that some records were copied and finally reached the historian. Otherwise, the memory of the campaign would have been forgotten.

2. Shalmaneser III’s Campaigns Against Damascus and Israel (853–845) The Monolith Inscription of Shalmaneser III reports several military campaigns he led into Syria-Palestine during his early years. In the campaign of his sixth year (853), the Assyrian king fought near Qarqar, in central Syria, against a coalition headed by Adad-idri, the king of Damascus. Among the participants in the battle was Ahab, the king of Israel. Other inscriptions of Shalmaneser indicate that he resumed his campaigns and fought three more times against this coalition — in the years 849, 848 and 845. Clearly, Israel and Damascus were allies in the latter years of Ahab and in the reign of his son, Joram. Israel and Damascus fought, together with other Syro-Palestinian kingdoms, against the invading Assyrian forces. Assyria is not mentioned either in the biblical history of Ahab or in the history of Joram, his son. Prophetic stories attributed to the time of Ahab (1 Kings 20; 22) describe three wars that he fought against the king of Aram, ending with his death on the battlefield. The prophetic stories of Elisha are attributed in the Book of Kings to the days of Joram and describe a state of continuous enmity and wars between Aram and Israel at that time. According to these stories, the king of Aram in the time of Ahab and Joram was Ben-Hadad, contrary to the Assyrian royal inscriptions that name Adad-idri (Hadadezer) as king of Damascus. Thus, not only is the participation of Israel in the wars against Assyria lacking in the Book of Kings, but the long armed struggle between the Omrides and the king of Damascus, as related in the prophetic stories, clearly contradict the reality of that time.

3. Jehu and Hazael in the Annals of Shalmaneser III When Shalmaneser led his next campaign to Syria-Palestine in 841, the coalition that had successfully fought him in years 853–845 had disappeared. His opponent was Hazael of Damascus, whom he called in one of his inscriptions “the son of nobody.” Hazael alone was unable to withstand the Assyrian onslaught and was defeated near Mount Saniru and withdrew to his capital. Shalmaneser continued southward and reached the border of Israel, where he received the tribute of the king of Tyre and of Jehu, “the son of Omri.”4

4. Ungnad 1906. For discussion of Jehu’s patronym, see Weippert 1978; Halpern 1987; Schneider 1995; 1996, with earlier literature; Na’aman 1997c; Zadok 1997.


201

The biblical history of Jehu does not mention the arrival of Shalmaneser’s troops at the northern border of Israel and the payment of tribute to Assyria. The rise of a new ruler in Israel is borne out by the Assyrian inscriptions. According to biblical history, Jehu was the son of Jehoshaphat and grandson of Nimshi, who had put an end to the dynasty of Omri, but in the Assyrian inscriptions he is described as “the son of Omri.” These contradictory statements are usually explained by the assumption that Jehu’s affiliation should be rendered as “Jehu son of (Beth)-Ḫumri,” namely, of the Kingdom of Israel (bīt Ḫumri). However, no other king of Israel was ever described in this manner. Ahab was called “the Israelite,” and Joash and Menahem are designated “the Samarian.” To explain the Assyrian designation properly, we may recall that Jehu changed the former anti-Assyrian policy of the dynasty of Omri, refused to cooperate with Hazael, surrendered upon the arrival of the Assyrian army, and paid the tribute. No wonder, therefore, that the Assyrian king looked favorably upon him and tried to legitimize his reign and his new policy by describing him as a “son” of the former reigning dynasty of Israel (Na’aman 1998). On the other hand, Hazael, the king of Damascus, was a rival of Assyria, and the Assyrian king tried to denounce Hazael and to portray him in a negative light. The Assyrian king therefore emphasized Hazael’s illegitimacy and called him “the son of nobody.” The designation fits in nicely with the prophetic story in 2 Kgs. 8:7–15, which describes in vivid colours the circumstances of Hazael’s assumption of the throne after Ben-Hadad’s illness and death. The tenor of the story makes it clear that Hazael did not expect to ascend the throne of Damascus. There is, however, an incorrect element in the story: It was Hadadezer (Adad-idri), and not Ben-Hadad, who ruled Damascus before Hazael’s rise to power. In sum, taking into account the propagandistic character of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions and his intentions, what looks like an inconsistency between the Assyrian and biblical descriptions may sometimes be eliminated (for example, the contradictory statements about Jehu’s origin).

4. Mesha’s Rebellion and His Struggle with Israel According to the prophetic story in the Book of Kings (2 Kings 3), Mesha, king of Moab, was a vassal of Israel in the days of Ahab and paid a heavy tribute. After Ahab’s death he stopped paying the tribute and rebelled. Joram, the son of Ahab, formed a coalition with the kings of Judah and Edom. The coalition attacked Moab from the south; advanced up to Kir-Hareseth (Moab’s capital); destroyed the Moabite countryside, but failed to conquer the fortified city; and retreated. The Moabite king erected, in his late years, a memorial stele in which he summarized all his victories and building operations. According to the in-

202


scription, Moab was subjugated by Omri in the time of Mesha’s father and remained a vassal of Israel for forty years. Mesha rebelled against Omri’s son, re-conquered the former Moabite territory and even extended his conquests to include former Israelite territories. He then rebuilt the conquered towns and consolidated his rule over his kingdom.5 There are some points of contact, as well as inconsistencies, between the Moabite inscription and the prophetic story of 2 Kings 3. Moab’s subjugation by Israel and its revolt are mentioned in the two sources. Mesha’s statement that he rebelled in the time of Omri’s son probably refers to Omri’s offspring (Joram), rather than to his heir (Ahab). On the other hand, the campaign of the three kings against Moab is not mentioned in the Moabite inscription; Mesha’s conquests of large Israelite territories are not related in the Book of Kings. Moreover, some details of the campaign of the three kings against Moab are incorrect. For example: (1) A monarchy was established in Edom following its rebellion against Judah in the time of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kgs. 8:20–22a). Edom’s description in the story of 2 Kings 3 as a monarchy under its own king is anachronistic; (2) It was only in his late years that Mesha conquered and annexed the areas south of the Arnon river. His kingdom and his capital were located north of the Arnon river. The description of a well-organized Moabite kingdom in the areas south of the Arnon in Mesha’s early years is erroneous. Moreover, Dibon, and not Kir-Hareseth, was Mesha’s residence. The mixture of reliable and non-authentic details is typical of prophetic stories and needs an explanation. According to 2 Kgs. 10:33, Hazael, the king of Aram, conquered all of Israel’s transjordanian lands, up to the Arnon river, from Jehu. However, Dibon, Mesha’s capital, was located north of the Arnon river, and Israel’s border could not have extended as far as the Arnon in the time of Jehu. Also, it was Mesha, not Hazael, who conquered the Israelite areas in the Plain of Moab, north of the Arnon river. The text is partly erroneous both (a) because the author knew very little about the history of Transjordan in the 9th century BCE and (b) because of the schematic manner in which he outlined the Israelite borders in this area (for further detail, see section 7 below).

5. The Aramaic Stele of Hazael and Jehu’s Rebellion The first lines of the Aramaic stele from Tel Dan are broken in part, but they apparently refer to an armed struggle between the author’s father and a king of Israel in Ab[el?], probably Abel-beth-maachah on the northern

5. For Mesha inscription, see Dearman 1989, with earlier literature; Lemaire 1987; 1991a; Smelik 1992; Na’aman 1997b, with earlier literature.


203

Israelite border. The struggle continued in the author’s days, and he conducted a campaign, defeated his rivals, killed Joram, the king of Israel, and Ahazjahu, the king of Beth-David (Judah), and wreaked havoc on the land. Later, probably in the days of Jehu, he conquered Dan and erected his stele in the town.6 The author of the stele is doubtless Hazael, the king of Aram. The first part of the stele indicates that relations between Israel and Aram in the time of the Omrides were not always cordial and that at one point a war was even waged. Thus, the biblical description of an enmity between Israel and Aram in the time of Ahab may not be mistaken altogether. The text also confirms the biblical account of an alliance and military cooperation between Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs. 8:27–29). On the other hand, Hazael’s claim that he had killed the two kings in battle conflicts with the biblical prophetic story, according to which it was Jehu who rebelled against Joram and killed the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Kings 9). Whatever explanation is offered for the discrepancy, I believe that the contemporaneous inscription of Hazael should be given precedence over the late, highly literary, prophetic story of Jehu’s rebellion (for different views, see for example, Yamada 1995:618–622; Schniedewind 1996:82–86).

6. Adad-Nirari III’s Campaigns in Syria and the Tribute of Joash Adad-nirari III (809–783), the king of Assyria, led several campaigns to Syria in an effort to regain control over the territories held by his grandfather, Shalmaneser III. Following his decisive victory in battle against the kingdom of Arpad and its allies in 805, he first subdued the north Syrian kingdoms, and then advanced southwards, defeated Bar-Hadad, the king of Damascus, and extended his rule over the entire Syro-Palestinian region.7 In his Calah Inscription, he claimed to be in control of the whole area up to Edom and Philistia in the south. According to the stele from Tell ar-Rimaḥ, Adad-nirari received the tribute of “Joash the Samarian, of the Tyrians and of the Sidonians.” Adad-nirari is not mentioned by name in the Book of Kings. Some scholars suggested that the designation “deliverer” in 2 Kgs. 13:5 refers 6. The fragmented stele was published by Biran and Naveh 1993; 1995. For further literature, see Tropper 1993; 1994; Halpern 1994; Lemaire 1994; Dijkstra 1994; Muraoka 1995; Rendsburg 1995; Na’aman 1995a; 1995b; Müller 1995; Sasson 1995:11–30; Yamada 1995; Schniedewind 1996; Dietrich 1997; Kitchen 1997, with earlier literature. 7. For the western Campaigns of Adad-nirari III, see Dalley (Page) 1968; Millard and Tadmor 1973; Tadmor 1973; Na’aman 1991:84–89; Weippert 1992, with earlier literature; Lemaire 1991b:106–108; 1993; Timm 1993.

204


to him.8 However, not only is the passage in vv. 3–6a apparently a postDeuteronomistic addition, the use of the designation “deliverer” (môšī‘a) is unlikely for a foreign king. It must refer either to Elisha or to Joash, the son of Jehoahaz, who received an oracle of victory from Elisha (2 Kgs. 13:14–19) (Briend 1981:41–49, with earlier literature). Assyria is not mentioned in the Book of Kings before the time of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727), in the second half of the eighth century BCE.

7. A Re-evaluation of the Biblical Text The analysis of ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions vis à vis the Book of Kings in the late 10th–9th centuries BCE produces some interesting conclusions. (1) The author of Kings had better sources for the history of Judah in the 10th–9th centuries BCE than for the history of its northern neighbor. For example, Shishak’s campaign was conducted mainly against the kingdom of Israel, but the historian knew nothing about it. His source referred only to the tribute paid by Rehoboam, although Judah played only a minor role in the Egyptian campaign. Also, the historical episodes in which Israelite kings either took part in the fighting against Assyria or paid tribute to its rulers are not mentioned in the Book of Kings. The first reference to Assyria in the Book of Kings occurs in the episode of Menahem’s payment of a tribute to Tiglathpileser III in 740 BCE (2 Kgs. 15:19–20), about 20 years before the final destruction and annexation of the Israelite kingdom. According to the Book of Kings, Ahaz is the first king of Judah who paid tribute to Assyria. Did a king of Judah pay tribute to Assyria before this, with the author of Kings unaware of the payment? We may recall that no payment of tribute to foreign rulers by 9th-early–8th century Israelite king is mentioned in the Book of Kings, whereas payments of tribute or “presents” by Judean kings is well attested (for example, Rehoboam paid Shishak; Asa sent “a present” to Ben-Hadad; Joash paid Hazael; and Jehoash of Israel carried the treasures of Amaziah). Moreover, even Sargon II (721–706) described himself in one of his inscriptions as “the subduer of the country of Judah, which is far away.” As long as the kingdom of Israel existed, Judah was a marginal and unimportant kingdom in international relations and, thus, could escape the fate of its northern neighbor. The absence of a reference to tribute paid to Assyria by the kings of Judah before the reign of Ahaz may reflect the historical reality.

8. In addition to the commentaries, see e.g., Winckler 1903:260; Hallo 1960:142, with earlier literature in n. 44; Mazar 1962:115; Haran 1967:267–268.


205

In summary, there is a marked difference in the author’s acquaintance with the histories of Israel and Judah in the monarchical period. Like other historians of the old world, the author of Kings composed his work on the basis of the available sources, and the differences in detail and precision between the histories of the two kingdoms reflects the different available sources. Finally, the name Beth-David for the kingdom of Judah, which must have been current in the 9th century, does not appear in the Bible. Its absence seems to indicate the relative lateness of the biblical historical memory, when the name Beth-David was replaced by other designations. (2) The author of Kings made ample use of prophetic stories for writing a continuous history of the kingdom of Israel in the 9th century BCE. He integrated them into his composition and wrote some of his own texts on their basis. By the integration of prophetic stories, he tried to overcome the shortage of sources available to him for the history of the Northern Kingdom (Na’aman 1997a, with earlier literature). A comparison of these stories with royal inscriptions reveals their possible contribution to the historical reconstruction, on the one hand, and their grave limitations, on the other. Royal inscriptions confirm certain details mentioned in these stories. For example: (a) Mesha’s subjugation by Israel under the Omrides and his rebellion in the time of Joram, the son of Ahab. (b) The fact that Hazael was not the designated heir of the former king of Aram. (c) The conclusion of an alliance between Joram, the son of Ahab, and Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram, and the death of the two kings at one and the same time. Certain details that appear in a story may now and then be more reliable than the text of a royal inscription. Such is the description of the non-royal descent of the usurper Jehu, as against his description as “the son of Omri” in Shalmaneser’s inscriptions. On the other hand, various details that are mentioned in prophetic stories are incompatible with the historical reality. Most remarkable is the contradiction between Hazael’s claim that he killed both Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah in battle, as against the prophetic story, according to which the two kings were killed during Jehu’s rebellion. Some other examples are: (a) The description of a continuous armed struggle between Aram and Israel in the time of the Omrides, as against the evidence of the Assyrian inscriptions, according to which there was an alliance between Aram and Israel at that time. (b) The reference to the areas south of the Arnon river as the location of Mesha’s kingdom in his early years, and to Kir-hareseth as his capital city.

206


Mesha’s kingdom and his capital were located north of the Arnon river, and it was only in his late years that he conquered and annexed the areas south of the Arnon (for further details, see below). (c) The naming of Ben-Hadad as king of Aram in the time of Ahab and Joram and as the predecessor of the usurper Hazael. According to the Assyrian royal inscriptions, Adad-idri (Hadadezer) was king of Damascus at that time. The late date in which the history of the monarchical period was written and the lack of detailed reliable sources for the historian sometimes brought about a profound misunderstanding of the ancient reality. I will illustrate this by an example in which some biblical descriptions are contradicted by the account of a royal inscription. According to David’s history, he defeated the Moabite, Ammonite and Aramaic kingdoms and subjugated Transjordan under his yoke (2 Sam. 8:2, 13–14; 10:1–12:31). He then conducted a census in all areas of his kingdom (2 Sam. 24:2–9). The scope of the census in Transjordan is related thus: “They crossed the Jordan and began from Aroer . . . toward Gad and on to Jazer; then they came to Gilead, and to the land below mount Hermon (sic!) . . . ” (2 Sam. 24:5–6). David’s kingdom in Transjordan included the entire area from the Arnon river in the south to Mount Hermon in the north. According to the sequence of events in the Book of Kings, the Israelite territory in Transjordan remained stable for more than a century, until the rise of Hazael, the king of Aram. Hazael conquered all the territories “from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead . . . from Aroer, which is by the valley of Arnon, that is, Gilead and Bashan” (2 Kgs. 10:33). The similarity of the borders of David’s census and Hazael’s conquests is self-evident. The author of Kings deliberately emphasized that Hazael conquered all the territory occupied by Israel since David’s time. No wonder the author of the prophetic story of 2 Kings 3 located the kingdom of Moab and its capital, Kir-hareseth, in the area south of the Arnon river. An identical delineation of Moab’s borders appears in the conquest tradition of Transjordan in the Book of Deuteronomy (2:9–24) and in the description of the tribal allotments in the Book of Joshua (12:2; 13:9,16). We may conclude that, according to the Dtr history, Israel’s southern border in Transjordan extended up to the Arnon river and the kingdom of Moab was situated south of it.9 9. The story of Ehud (Judges 3) is exceptional in describing Moab’s northern border near the town of Jericho. It reflects the Israelite eastern border in the late 9th–8th centuries BCE, when the Plains of Moab, i.e., the northern Moabite territory, reached up to the line of Wādi el-Kefrein and Ammon’s southern border. See Na’aman 1995c:105–117, with earlier literature.


207

However, Mesha’s inscription indicates that the historical reality in Transjordan in the 9th century BCE was quite different. First, it was Omri who conquered the Moabite territories north of the Arnon, contrary to the biblical account, according to which the area had been occupied by Israel since David’s time. Second, Mesha’s territory and his capital, Dibon, were located north of the Arnon. Third, it was Mesha, not Hazael, who conquered from Israel all the Plain of Moab, up to the city of Nebo. The biblical history of Transjordan after the time of David is not directed by any particular ideological or theological considerations. It seems to me that the discrepancies between the biblical history and the historical reality are the result of the late date in which the Dtr history was composed and the lack of detailed sources for the history of the Northern Kingdom. The author filled in the gaps by logical inferences drawn from the extant sources and from the late history of the region. No wonder the description he wrote is sometimes erroneous. It is evident that a long time-span that separates events from the date in which they are first described in writing, coupled with a dearth of source material, may bring erroneous descriptions, even when the historian tried to faithfully reconstruct these early events. The textual analysis proves that royal inscriptions are indispensable sources for evaluating the authenticity of the biblical histories of Israel and Judah in the late 10th–9th centuries BCE, as well as for tracing the sources available to the historian. Their number make it possible to regard them as a sample for evaluating the historicity of some other parts of the Book of Kings not illuminated by epigraphic sources. The analysis indicates that, contrary to the opinion of “minimalist” scholars, the historian had some written sources on which he based his history of the late 10th–9th centuries BCE. They also indicate the efforts made by the historian to collect the available sources and use them for his work. But the number of sources at his disposal was small, and the amount of material they contained was quite limited. To write a linear and continuous history of the two kingdoms, it was necessary to fill in the many gaps by logical inferences “borrowed” from the existing sources. No wonder that some inferences do not fit the historical reality. Moreover, many of his sources regarding the Northern Kingdom were prophetic stories — not an ideal genre for historical writing. Although some of these stories were quite old and retained memories of the time of the Omride and Jehuite dynasties, because of the literary genre and the relatively late date of composition, these stories included various details that were far removed from the historical reality. When copying these stories, or making inferences from their texts, incorrect elements entered the history of the kingdom of Israel. We may conclude that, although the author of Kings used sources, some of which were quite old and partly authentic, it is not possible to reconstruct

208


the history of Israel in the late 10th–9th centuries on the basis of the biblical text alone. Only in combination with all other sources, in particular the epigraphical and archaeological evidence, can we try to reconstruct, in spite of the many question marks, the history of the two kingdoms in that early period.

References Ahlström, G.W. 1993. Pharaoh Shoshenk’s Campaign in Palestine. In: Lemaire, A. and Otzen, B. eds. History and Traditions of Early Israel. Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen. Leiden, New York and Köln: 1–16. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1995. The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment. IEJ 45: 1–18. Briend, J. 1981. Jéroboam II, sauveur d’Israël. In: Caquot, A. and Delcor, M. eds. Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. (AOAT 212). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: 41–49. Dalley (Page), S. 1968. A stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from Tell al Rimah. Iraq 30: 139–153. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of “Ancient Israel.” (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 148). Sheffield. Dearman, J.A. ed. 1989. Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta. Dietrich, W. 1997. Dāwid, dôd und bytdwd. Teologische Zeitschrift 53: 17–32. Dijkstra, M. 1994. An Epigraphic and Historical Note on the Stela of Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 74: 10–14. Gelinas, M.M. 1995. United Monarchy-Divided Monarchy: Fact or Fiction. In: Holloway, S.W. and Handy, L.K. eds. The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 190). Sheffield: 227–237. Hallo, W.W. 1960. From Qarqar to Carchemish in the Light of New Discoveries. BA 23: 33– 61. Halpern, B. 1987. Yaua, Son of Omri, Yet Again. BASOR 265: 81–85. Halpern, B. 1994. The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations. BASOR 296: 63–80. Haran, M. 1967. The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash. VT 17: 266– 297. Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 1991. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah. A Socio-Archaeological Approach. (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 9). Sheffield. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC). Warminster. Kitchen, K.A. 1997. A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE and Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76: 29–44. Knauf, E.A. 1991a. From History to Interpretation. In Edelman, D.V. ed. The Fabric of History. Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 127). Sheffield: 26–64. Knauf, E.A. 1991b. King Solomon’s Copper Supply. In: Lipiński, E. ed. Phoenicia and the Bible. (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 44). Leuven: 167–186. Lemaire, A. 1987. Notes d’épigraphie Nord-Ouest Sémitique. Syria 64: 205–216.


209

Lemaire, A. 1991a. La stèle de Mésha et l’histoire de l’ancien Israël. In: Garrone, D. and Israel, F. eds. Storia e tradizioni di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin. Brescia: 143– 169. Lemaire, A. 1991. Hazaël de Damas, roi d’Aram. In: Charpin, D. and Joannès, F. eds. Marchands, diplomates et empereurs. Études sur la civilisation Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris: 91–108. Lemaire, A. 1993. Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat. La SyriePalestine vers 800 av. J.-C. Eretz Israel 24: 148*–157*. Lemaire, A. 1994. Epigraphie Palestinienne: nouveaux documents. I. Fragment de stèle Araméenne de Tell Dan (IXe s. av. J.-C.). Henoch 16: 87–93. Lemche, N.P. 1993. The Old Testament — A Hellenistic Book? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7: 163–193. Lemche, N.P. 1994. Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8: 165–190. Mazar, B. 1962. The Aramean Empire and its Relations with Israel. BA 25: 97–120. Millard, A.R. and Tadmor, H. 1973. Adad-nirari III in Syria. Iraq 35: 57–64. Müller, H.-P. 1995. Die aramäische Inschrift von Tel Dan. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8: 121– 139. Muraoka, T. 1995. Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 45: 19–21. Na’aman, N. 1991. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West. In: Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. (Scripta Hierosolymitana 33). Jerusalem: 80–98. Na’aman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the Tenth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Na’aman, N. 1995a. Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan. Biblische Notizen 79: 17– 24. Na’aman, N. 1995b. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Na’aman, N. 1995c. Rezin of Damascus and the Land of Gilead. ZDPV 111: 105–117. Na’aman, N. 1997a. Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides. Biblica 78: 153–173. Na’aman, N. 1997b. King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy. IEJ 47: 83– 92. Na’aman, N. 1997c. Transcribing the Theophoric Element in North Israelite Names. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997/1: No 19. Na’aman, N. 1998. Jehu Son of Omri — Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by his Lord. IEJ 48: 236– 238. Rendsburg, G.A. 1995. On Writing BYTDWD in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. IEJ 45: 22–25. Sasson, V. 1995. The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philological, Literary and Historical Aspects. Journal of Semitic Studies 40: 11–30. Schneider, T. 1995. New Interpretation Reconciles Biblical Text with Famous Assyrian Inscription. Biblical Archaeology Review 21/1: 26–33, 80, 82. Schneider, T.J. 1996. Rethinking Jehu. Biblica 77: 100–107. Schniedewind, W.M. 1996. Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt. BASOR 302: 75–90. Smelik, K.A.D. 1992. King Mesha’s Inscription: Between History and Fiction. Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography (Oudtestamentische Studiën 28). Leiden: 59–92.

210


Tadmor, H. 1973. The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-nirari III. Iraq 35: 141–150. Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People. From the Written and the Archaeological Sources. Leiden, New York and Köln. Thompson, T.L. 1995. “House of David”: An Eponymic Referent to Yahweh as Godfather. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 9: 59–74. Timm, S. 1993. König Hesion II. von Damaskus. Die Welt des Orients 24: 55–84. Tropper, J. 1993. Eine altaramäische Steleninschrift aus Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 25: 395– 406. Tropper, J. 1994. Paläographische und linguistische Anmerkungen zur Steleninschrift aus Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 487–492. Ungnad, A. 1906. Jaua, mâr Ḫumrî. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 9: 224–226. Weippert, M. 1978. Iau(a) mār Ḫumrî — Joram oder Jehu von Israel? VT 28: 113–118. Weippert, M. 1992. Die Feldzüge Adadniraris III. nach Syrien: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen. ZDPV 108: 42–67. Winckler, H. 1903. In: Schrader, E. (ed) Die Keilinschriftten und das Alten Testament 3, mit Ausdehnung auf die Apokryphen, Pseudepigraphischen und das Neue Testament neu bearbeitet von H. Zimmern und H. Winckler. Berlin. Yamada, S. 1995. Aram-Israel Relations as Reflected in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 611–625. Zadok, R. 1997. Jehu. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 1997/1: No. 20.

Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah1 Previous Investigation of the Problem The problem of the sources available to the author of the Book of Kings has been discussed by many scholars, and various suggestions have been offered to account for the present shape of the book. However, the suggestion that the author consulted original royal inscriptions was not often examined in scientific literature. J.A. Montgomery (1951:35) suggested that “some of the items are quite lapidary in form, as in records of royal building (e.g., I. 9,15–17, with expanded text), with which are to be compared similar brief records in the inscriptions of Mesha and the Syrian kings Zakar and Bar-Rkb.” J. Van Seters (1983:301) noted briefly that texts closely associated with the chronicles of the kings of Judah/Israel might have borrowed the information on military campaigns and building activity from “memorial inscriptions.” In his detailed discussion of the temple building in the Bible, V.(A.) Hurowitz (1992:224–223) assembled various ancient Near Eastern parallels to the account of the building of Solomon’s temple, and even suggested that 1 Kgs. 6:1–2 “reflect a votive or a building inscription.” However, the description of the Solomonic temple with all its appurtenances is the work of the author of Kings (the Dtr historian), and it depicts the temple of the late Judean monarchy (Van Seters 1983:309–310). The author was an eyewitness to the edifice he described, so that building inscriptions were redundant for his work. Moreover, 1 Kgs. 6:1 was written by a Priestly editor, as suggested many years ago by C.F. Burney (1903:58–61. For a detailed discussion, see Hughes 1990:32– 37) and is part of a Priestly redaction that aimed at a numerical schematization of the history of Israel. The Phoenician epigraphic parallels, drawn by Hurowitz for 1 Kgs. 6:1, 37–38; 8:2, are all late, dating from the Persian and Hellenistic periods. All these texts came from the pen of the late Priestly editor whose work is no earlier than the post-exilic period.2 No trace of an orig1. Reprinted with permission. VT 48 (1998), 333–349. 2. Hurowitz 1992:229–231. Hurowitz noted the difficulty and noted the possibility (p. 232) “that the date formula is a very late addition to the text.” However, in the summary

211

212


inal building inscription can be detected in the description of the planning and the execution of the Solomonic temple. Recently, B. Halpern (1996:44–75) suggested that 2 Samuel 8 was written on the basis of a display inscription.3 The point of departure for his discussion is the assumption that 2 Samuel is derived from roughly contemporaneous sources, an assumption that not many scholars will be willing to follow today. He then goes one step further and suggests that the author of 2 Sam. 8 used a display inscription erected by David before he conquered the city of Rabbah (1996:70–72). A detailed analysis of Halpern’s article is beyond the scope of this paper, but his suggestion that 2 Samuel 8 was composed on the basis of a royal inscription deserves closer attention. First, it may be noted that the text of 2 Samuel 8 is much closer in form to a chronicle than to a royal inscription and that the detailed royal inscription he reconstructs on the basis of the biblical text is without parallel in the entire corpus of first millennium BCE West Semitic royal inscriptions. Second, alphabetic royal inscriptions that refer to historical events are not attested in the area of Syro-Palestine before the second half of the 9th century BCE, more than a century after the time of David.4 It seems to me that the impetus for the sudden appearance of these inscriptions came from stelae and rock inscriptions erected by Assyrian kings following their victorious campaigns to the west-Euphratene areas. The earliest Assyrian stelae are dated to the beginning of the second third of the ninth century BCE and, thus, antedate by about a generation the earliest alphabetic display inscriptions (Na’aman 1999). The assumption that David erected a detailed memorial stele during his wars with Israel’s neighbors lacks concrete foundation. 2 Samuel 8 was composed on the basis of other sources than a royal inscription (Na’aman 1996:170–186). In his book on Egypt, Canaan and Israel, D.B. Redford (1992:323, 327–329) suggested that the author of Kings consulted many sources whose initial records appeared in the form of dedicatory building inscriptions and votive

(p. 233), he concludes that “verses 1–2 reflect a votive or a building inscription.” For criticism of Hurowitz’s suggestion and the attribution of 1 Kgs. 6:1, 37–38 to a post-Dtr editor, see Van Seters 1997:52–53. 3. For a similar methodological approach to the biblical histories of David and Solomon, see Malamat 1958:96–102; 1963:1–17; 1982:189–204. 4. The earliest detailed alphabetic royal inscriptions are dated to the second half of the 9th century BCE. Among them are the two stelae of Mesha, king of Moab, the Aramaic inscription of Hazael from Tel Dan, the Melqart stele of Bar-Hadad, the stele of Kilamuwa, king of Sam’al, and the inscription of Hadad-yiṯ‘i from Tell Fakhariyeh. For a list of literature, see Cross 1995:394f, notes 1, 5, 6, 8.

Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah

213

dedications. The suggestion that the historian consulted original inscriptions is worth considering, although the idea that scores of royal and dedication inscriptions stood in the palace and temple fits Egyptian central cities much better than the city of Jerusalem. After all, various first millennium Syro-Palestinian cities have been excavated and none produced more than a few inscriptions.5 Redford (1992:328–329) went one step further and suggested a detailed reconstruction of a dedication inscription supposedly erected by Azariah, king of Judah, after he restored Elath to Judah and built it up. Unfortunately, his textual reconstruction is highly unlikely. First, an inscription celebrating the building of Elath is likely to be erected there rather than in Jerusalem. Second, the long survey of past events he proposed has no parallel among the extant West Semitic royal inscriptions. Third, the information for the series of references to Elath, Ezion-geber and Edom is more likely to be drawn from a chronicle than from a dedication inscription. The series starts with David (2 Sam. 8:3–14) and Solomon (1 Kgs. 9:26–28; 11:14–22, 25) and ends with Ahaz (2 Kgs. 16:6), and some of the episodes are likely to be logical inferences drawn by the historian from previous situations. This would explain the sequence of successes and failures which is so typical to the theme “Edom and the southern trade” in the Book of Kings. In conclusion, the assumption that the author of Kings consulted royal inscriptions is plausible, but concrete examples to establish it are still lacking. None of the episodes suggested so far is likely to have been written on the basis of a royal inscription. What elements can we expect to find in a text that was composed on the basis of information derived from a royal inscription? First, inscriptions erected in public edifices in Jerusalem are likely to be classified as building (or dedication) inscriptions. It is well known that ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions were written for the dedication of newly built or restored public buildings and that an element of building is always included therein. Even stelae erected in the battlefield describe the hewing and engraving of the inscription and/or relief as a substitute for the building element. Royal inscriptions unearthed in first millennium BCE Syro-Palestinian sites either describe the building project or combine “historical” and building elements. Similar inscriptions that might have been inscribed in Jerusalem would have 5. There is a marked inconsistency between Redford’s suggestion that the author of Kings consulted a series of royal and dedication inscriptions and the post-exilic date that he attributes to the Deuteronomistic history (p. 320). Only an author who lived in the preexilic period could have used inscriptions that had been erected in the palace and temple of Jerusalem.

214


been erected on the occasion of the dedication of public edifices, thus, having a central element that refers to a building project. Central themes that run throughout the Book of Kings, on the other hand, are not likely to have been derived from votive or dedication inscriptions. Second, an unusual vocabulary or irregular expressions, not found elsewhere in the Dtr history, in particular those that refer to building activity, may indicate the use of a building inscription. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the Dtr historian worked and expanded many of his sources and only then integrated them into his work. To identify an underlying royal inscription, we must try reconstruct its overall structure and themes, or its distinct vocabulary, rather than the exact words of the original text.

Joash’s Restoration of the Jerusalem Temple The detailed description of Joash’s restoration of the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 12:5–17) bears several characteristics that are likely to have been drawn from a royal building inscription. First, it concentrates on a building project whose conclusion is a natural occasion for the dedication of an inscription. Second, the text has some expressions not found elsewhere in the Bible, which might have been taken from an original inscription. Otherwise, the author would have used words and expressions known from other texts (see below). Third, the Book of Kings gives specific dates for only a few events other than the accession or death of each king. Most of these dates specify the time of campaigns and destructions (1 Kgs 14:25; 2 Kgs. 17:6; 18:9–10, 13; 25:1–2). The dates of the Solomonic foundation and dedication of the temple are late additions to the original Dtr history (see above). The two exceptions are Joash’s and Josiah’s inauguration of the temple repairs (2 Kgs. 12:7; 22:3; 23:3). The dating of the temple’s repair to the 23rd year of Joash indicates that the author consulted some source in which the date was specified. These three irregular characteristics make it plausible that the author wrote the text of 2 Kgs. 12:5–17 on the basis of an original building inscription. Most scholars have noted the unity of the text of 2 Kgs. 12:5–17.6 They suggest that the text was originally written on the basis of either a history of the temple (Wellhausen 1878:257–258; Benzinger 1899:158–159; Pfeiffer 1941:401–402), the “Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah” (Noth 1981:65–66), or a temple archive edited by a court historian and integrated by the Dtr in his historical work.7 The assumption of a priestly temple history

6. For a very late (fourth century BCE) date of the text, see Levin 1990. 7. Šanda 1912:148–149; Montgomery 1951:37–38; Gray 1970:32–33, 582–583; Hobbs 1985:148; Minette de Tillesse 1993:355.


215

which included 2 Kgs. 12:5–17, was dismissed long ago, and in light of the author’s critical attitude towards the priesthood, it has little to recommend itself. Equally unlikely is the assumption that the detailed description of the repair of the temple was included in the “Book of the Chronicle.” Opinions diverge as to its character and contents, but the kind of details narrated in 2 Kgs. 12:5–17 could hardly have been included therein. The putative court history predating the Deuteronomistic history also lacks concrete foundations and does no more than shift the problem of sources and composition from the Dtr to an earlier author. Moreover, J. Van Seters is certainly correct in his assertion that, like other historians of the old world, biblical authors did not consult archives when they wrote their histories.8 Neither the assumption that a biblical author searched the temple archives and retrieved information from a document of the time of Joash nor the assumed pre-Dtr court history carry conviction. On the other hand, assuming a direct borrowing from an original building inscription clarifies the difficulties observed by scholars and suggests a coherent answer to the problem of the source and composition of the text. For a better understanding of the makeup of the text of 2 Kgs. 12:5–17, we must examine its relationship to the account of Josiah’s restorations of the temple (2 Kgs. 22:3–6). Scholars compared the two texts in an effort to decide which text was the original that served as a source for the other. Most critics concluded that the text of Joash is the earlier one and that the text of Josiah is heavily dependent on it,9 and others suggested that Josiah’s text has the originality (Stade 1885:290–295; Spieckermann 1982:179–183). It seems to me that both are mistaken. The two texts were written by the same author at the same time, and the detailed account of the procedure established by Joash is the background against which the account of Josiah’s restoration should be read. In other words, within the sequence of the Book of Kings, Joash’s regulations are considered to be in force until the time of Josiah, and the author considered it redundant to repeat them again in the latter’s history. He opened the description of the Josiah’s temple restoration from the stage when the silver was melted and measured, assuming that his reader had the

8. Van Seters 1983:4, 40–51, 195–199; Na’aman 1996:180–183. I very much doubt the suggestion of Hurowitz (1986:290, n. 5), that “the information provided by the story may ultimately derive from official royal decrees preserved in the state archives. These decrees were perhaps preserved along with a temple ledger which may underlie the recurring remarks found in the Book of Kings about the changing fortunes of the treasuries.” 9. The fundamental study was written by Hoffmann 1980:192–197. For other studies, see Kuenen 1890:83 n. 15; Dietrich 1977:18–22; Würthwein 1984:357–358; Minette de Tillesse 1993:355–359.

216


account of Joash in mind. We may conclude that the detailed account of 2 Kgs. 12:5–17 and the abridged account in 2 Kgs. 22:3–6 are the result of the author’s strategy in describing the history of the Kingdom of Judah. It is clear that Joash’s new regulations (2 Kgs. 12:10–13) were in force in the time of Josiah and were considered to be the former’s innovation. Details of these regulations were known to the author of Kings, and no source was needed to describe them in detail. But how did the historian know that another kind of regulations had been in force previously? I believe that this information was taken from the building inscription. Indeed, all textual difficulties in the account of 2 Kings 12 come from the description of the old regulations (i.e., kesep haqqodāšim, kesep ‘ôbĕr ’îš kesep napšôt ‘erkô, makkār, ḥazzēq bedeq; vv. 5–9).10 The building inscription was erected in Joash’s 23rd year, when he dedicated the newly renovated temple, and the inscription described in some detail how Joash collected the silver and restored the temple. It goes without saying that not all the details mentioned in 2 Kgs. 12:10–17 were extracted from the building inscription and that some reflect the regulations in the historian’s time (e.g., vv. 14–17). Ascribing them to Joash gave them a respectable antiquity. It remains unclear whether the fiscal practice of 2 Kgs. 12:10–13 was derived from the building inscription or was attributed to Joash for the sake of sanctification. The similarity to the late Assyrian and Babylonian fiscal practices may support the latter assumption, but who knows (Oppenheim 1947:116–120; Hurowitz 1986:289–294). Finally, it may be noted that the link of vv. 5–17 and 18–19 by ’āz (“then”) does not allow us to infer that Hazael’s campaign to Jerusalem took place in Joash’s 23rd year (contra Rabinowitz 1984:61–2; see Long 1991:159). The adverb ’āz is a general temporal marker used by the author of Kings to combine together two different units. The information about Hazael’s campaign and about the building operation was derived from different sources, and there is no way to determine the chronological relations of the two episodes.

The Revolt Against Athaliah and Joash’s Enthronement Was the building inscription of Joash the historical source for the narrative of the rebellion against Athaliah and the enthronement of Joash (2 Kgs. 11)? On the basis of some ancient Near Eastern “apologies,” and in particular the story of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, M. Liverani (1974:452) has suggested that, à la base du texte biblique existait une inscription (ou n’importe quel texte destiné à la diffusion populaire), dans lequel Jojada légitimait l’ascension au trône de Joas moy-

448.

10. For these terms, see the list of literature cited by Long 1991:162; Wright 1989:438–


217

ennant une réélaboration des faits correspondant à l’histoire bien connue de jeune prince . . . .

Other scholars have attributed the original story to Joash’s scribe, who wrote an apology to legitimize the king’s assumption of the throne.11 Finally, H.-D. Hoffmann (1980:110–112) and B.O. Long (1991:154) proposed that the narrative was composed by the Dtr on the basis of oral stories alone. Many scholars have analyzed the story and have concluded that it is built on two sources: a priestly source (vv. 4–12, 18b–20) and a popular one (vv. 13– 18a).12 Other critics dismissed the division into sources and emphasized the formal and thematic unity of the narrative.13 It seems to me that whatever its sources, the narrative in its present form is unified in structure and themes and should not be split into parts. Some words and expressions that appear in the story are either unattested elsewhere in the Bible (kārî,14 bā’ haššabbāt, yoṣĕ’ê haššabbāt, massāḥ) or are quite rare (śĕdērōt). Jehoiada’s instructions to the commanders of the guards (vv. 5–7) are not entirely intelligible, but this may be due to our ignorance of the plan and internal organization of the temple and palace and of the routine movements of the guards. Possibly, readers in ancient times understood it quite well and were able to appreciate the subtleness of Jehoiada’s plan (for further details, see Part 4 below). On the other hand, the narrative in chapter 11 uses motifs and language, as well as distinctive ideological and propagandistic elements, that are known from other parts of the Dtr history. Assuming that the narrative was written on the basis of a royal inscription, its original elements must have been thoroughly reworked by the author. If, indeed, a royal inscription were the historical source for the narrative, it must have been a kind of “apology” (as suggested by Liverani), in which Joash first related the irregular circumstances of his assumption of the throne of Jerusalem, thereby legitimizing his right to it, and then described his intensive restoration of the temple as justification of his divine election.15

11. Šanda 1912:136; Montgomery 1951:418; Levin 1982:80–82; Barré 1988:54–55, 140. For criticism, see Hobbs 1985:156–158; Long 1991:154. 12. See, e.g., Stade 1885:279–288; Gray 1970:566–567; Würthwein 1984:344–351; for a detailed list of literature, see Levin 1982:15, n. 6. 13. Rudolph 1950:473–478; Hoffmann 1980:104–113; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:131–132; Long 1991:146–147. 14. The kĕreî mentioned in 2 Sam. 20:23 along the pĕletî is a scribal mistake for kĕretî (supported by the qĕre). 15. Liverani (1974:452, n. 1) suggested that chapters 11 and 12 are from different sources.

218


Several apologies that are part of broader royal inscriptions are known from the ancient Near East and have been discussed in detail by scholars.16 Among them is the inscription of Idrimi, king of Alalakh, which Liverani (1974:452) compared with the story of Joash. Among the West Semitic alphabetic inscriptions, we may note the inscription of Bar-rakib, king of Sam’al (KAI 215). Barrakib first recounted in detail the rebellion of his father, Panamuwa, justifying the murder of the reigning king (Bar-ṣur) and his supporters and emphasizing the legitimacy of his father’s seizing of the throne of Sam’al. Following this episode, he related how his father restored his palace.17 A somewhat similar text might have been inscribed by Joash, erected in the temple of Jerusalem and used by the historian as a major source for the king’s history. When was the story of 2 Kings 11 first written? Was it an early author whose work was integrated by the historian, or did the Dtr historian write it? In other words, did the historian work from an original royal inscription or from an old written narrative? As noted by Hoffmann (1980:110), there is a close resemblance between the description of the alliance concluded in the temple of Jerusalem in the time of Joash (2 Kgs. 11:17) and the alliance concluded in the temple by Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:1–3). The sequence of a cultic reform that follows an alliance appears only in the histories of Joash and Josiah. The positive connotation of the term “people of the land,” typical of episodes relating to the history of Judah in the Book of Kings, appears in exactly the same connotation in this episode (vv. 13–14, 17–18a, 19–20). L.M. Barré has further demonstrated that there are many links between the story of Jehoiada’s rebellion (2 Kings 11) and the narrative of the revolt of Jehu (2 Kings 9–10).18 The common elements of the two stories are: (a) The narrative in chapter 11 presupposes the events of Jehu’s rebellion and the murder of Ahaziah, king of Judah. (b) Both deal with a rebellion against a ruler and recount secret preparations and the secret enthronement of the future king. (c) The enthronement in the camp (2 Kgs. 9:6, 13) and the enthronement in the temple (2 Kgs. 11:12) share common elements, their authors having deliberately adapted each episode to the circumstances in which it took place.

16. Liverani 1974:438–453; Tadmor 1983:36–57, with earlier literature, in: Montgomery 1951:35; Van Seters 1983:301; Hurowitz 1992:224–233. 17. Donner and Röllig 1966–69:215, with earlier literature; Gibson 1975:76–86; Tropper 1993:98–131; Margalit 1994:303–313. 18. The unity of chapters 9–11 is the point of departure for Barré’s work (1988); see Long 1991:154. For an emphasis on the differences between the two stories, see Levin 1982: 80–81.


219

(d) Two great women, Jezebel and Athaliah, play a central role in the plots. Jezebel is trampled to death by horses, and Athaliah is put to the sword at the outlet of the Horses Entrance. (e) Both stories end with a purge of the Ba‘al cult. (f) There are contrasting pairs in the two stories: a priest of Ba‘al (Mattan) and a priest of YHWH (Jehoiada); a House of Ba‘al and a House of YHWH. The similarities of the two stories can hardly be accidental. I very much doubt Barré‘s assumption that the original narrative underlying 2 Kings 9– 11 was an autonomous literary unit, expanded and annexed by the Dtr to his historical work. The story in chapter 11 was probably written by the Dtr as an important element in his work (as suggested by Hoffmann and Long). The author combined elements of the royal inscription with motifs and themes that appear elsewhere in his composition, hence, the close relationship with the prophetic story of Jehu’s rebellion on the one hand and with the account of Josiah’s alliance and reform on the other. In this light, I suggest the following reconstruction for the process of composition of 2 Kgs. 11 and 12:5–17 within the Dtr history: (1) A dedication inscription of Joash was unearthed in the course of Josiah’s restoration of the temple. Uncovering old inscriptions and monuments in the course of restoration of public buildings was a well-known phenomenon in the ancient Near East, and Josiah’s restoration of the temple was no exception. It seems that the discovery of an old inscription gave rise to the story of the discovery of the book of Torah in the course of the temple’s restoration, which is so prominent in the account of Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs. 22:8–13). I would further suggest that the re-discovered inscription is the source for the Dtr’s account of the only two large-scale restorations of the temple in the course of its long history. Whether some other intensive restoration(s) of the temple took place (note 2 Kgs. 16:10–18) remains unknown. (2) When the Dtr wrote his history, probably a short time after the completion of the temple’s restoration, he used the inscription as a major source for the main outlines of the history of Joash. The north Israelite prophetic story of Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kings 9–10) served him as a model for the structure and certain themes of Jehoiada’s rebellion. He “borrowed” some details of the plot’s arena from the palace and temple of his time, assuming a continuity between the courts and gates of the two periods.19 The Dtr also inserted

19. The same is true of the description of Solomon’s temple, which reflects the late seventh century temple of the author’s time. For the concept of continuity of the original cult in the temple of Jerusalem until the time of Josiah, see Na’aman 1995:46–47.

220


into the plot some details that anticipate the solemn alliance and reform of his own time (in particular vv. 17–18), a reform that culminates his historical composition. He attributed to Joash the creation of the procedure for collecting silver for the temple’s restoration that obtained in his own time (vv. 10– 11). He further attributed to him some other procedures that were in force in his time, (e.g., disbursing the silver to the workers; not financing the temple implements with the silver collected for the restoration; maintaining certain sacrifices to support the priests;20 vv. 12–17). The Dtr’s account of Josiah’s restoration of the temple (2 Kgs. 22:3–7) is built on details of his description of the early restoration. The antiquity of the procedures described in 2 Kgs. 12:10–17 cannot be established. Which part of the history of Joash was directly borrowed from the royal inscription? It is scarcely possible to trace the original elements in view of the Dtr’s extensive reworking of his source. Original elements must be sought primarily in the main outlines of the king’s history, that is, Athaliah’s rise to power, Jehoiada’s revolt with the support of the royal guard, the enthronement of Joash, the killing of Athaliah, and Joash’s restoration of the temple. It is tempting to look for the inscription’s original elements in passages with irregular words and expressions (in particular 2 Kgs. 12:5–9), but this assumption cannot be verified, and we are unable to reconstruct the original words of the royal inscription with any degree of certainty.

Ahaz’s Innovations in the Temple’s Precinct J. Wellhausen (1878:257–258; 1889:292) postulated a history of the temple that included 2 Kgs. 11; 12:5–17; 16:10ff and 22.21 Although these texts do not reflect a unified view of the temple, its priesthood and cult, it seems to me that Wellhausen was on the right track in pointing out the similarity of the source(s) underlying these four episodes. What could have been the source for the account of Ahaz’s erection of the new altar (2 Kgs. 16:10–16)? Some scholars have proposed that it was derived from the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.22 However, as H.-D. Hoffmann (1980:143–144) correctly noted, the Book of the Chronicles did not relate such cultic matters. R. Rendtorff (1967:46–50) noted the affinity of some terms in the account to the terminology of the Pentateuchal

20. Rendtorff 1967:54–55 noted the affinity of v. 17 to the terminology of the Pentateuchal Priestly “source” and suggested that it was inserted by a post-Dtr editor. 21. The suggestion was accepted by Benzinger 1899:159, 170–171. 22. Noth 1981:66; Montgomery 1951:36–37; Jepsen 1956:54; Spieckermann 1982:365; Zwickel 1994:309; 1993:250–251.


221

Priestly “source” and suggested that the passage was inserted by a postDtr editor.23 Hoffmann, in his thorough discussion of the episode in vv. 10– 16 (1980:141–145), supported this suggestion. However, the idea that a late Priestly editor portrayed Ahaz, the apostate king, as a cultic reorganizer of the temple is unlikely. Moreover, the detailed description and terminology in the passage reflects the reality of the First Temple (Spieckermann 1982:365 and n. 135). The episode in vv. 10–16 is an integral part of the Dtr history and was written on the basis of a pre-exilic source. It seems to me that the historian consulted a dedication inscription for the account of Ahaz’s erection of the altar. Whether the inscription was carved on the altar itself or on a stele/marble plate that stood near the altar is difficult to tell. The altar was in use until the temple’s destruction, therefore, the contents of the inscription must have been known to all those who came near it. The description in vv. 10–16 is an expanded literary account of the contents of the dedication inscription. Ahaz probably mentioned his lord (Tiglath-pileser), his priest (Uriah), (similar to the mention of the priest in the putative building inscription of Joash), and the circumstances under which the altar was prepared and dedicated. The author of Kings filled in the gaps by drawing logical inferences from the inscription, and by adding details “borrowed” from the reality of his own time (e.g., the location of the altar; the order of sacrifices; the function of the old altar). Which elements of the biblical text were copied literally from the inscription? Let me suggest two possible examples. (1) An Old Aramaic inscription inscribed on an altar from Tell Halaf opens with the words za damuta(a) (“this is the figure . . . ”) (Dankwarth and Müller 1988:73–78). Is it possible that the noun dĕmut likewise appeared in Ahaz’s inscription and that the historian integrated it in his text (v. 10)? The assumption that the Dtr deliberately copied certain words that appeared on royal inscriptions could explain the relatively large number of priestly terms that appear in the histories of Joash and Ahaz. I believe that this was the case, but I admit that it is impossible to demonstrate. (2) In an inscription from Sam’al (KAI 216), Bar-rakib declares that he is a servant of Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, and that he ran “at the wheel” of his lord “in the midst of mighty kings” (Donner and Röllig 1966–69:216; Gibson 1975:89–92; Tropper 1993:132–139). In another inscription (KAI 215), Bar-rakib relates that his father died “while following his lord Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, in the campaigns,” and was brought from Damascus to

23. The suggestion that vv. 10–16 are late insertions was suggested by Winckler 1892:48–49.

222


Assyria.24 Similarly, Ahaz’s inscription could have mentioned his servitude to Tiglath-pileser and his travel to Damascus to appear before his lord, and these details might have been the core of the story of the modeling of the new altar erected in Jerusalem according to a Damascene prototype. Is it possible that the dedication inscription was also the source for 2 Kgs. 16:18? According to this assumption, the inscription related some other undertakings of Ahaz in the temple precinct, in addition to the erection of the altar. V. 17 relates how Ahaz was able to pay the “bribe” to Tiglath-pileser, just as 2 Kgs. 18:16 relates how Hezekiah was able to pay the heavy tribute imposed by Sennacherib. The two verses are part of the broad theme of the despoliation of the temple and palace treasuries that is one of the unifying elements of the history of the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah (See Mullen 1992:231–248, with earlier literature). V. 18, on the other hand, continues the theme of the temple’s renovation and may have been extracted from the assumed dedication inscription. For further discussion of the problem, the difficult text of v. 18 must first be clarified.25 It ends with the words “he [Ahaz] turned about (hēsēb) to the house of YHWH, because of the king of Assyria.” One entrance that Ahaz “turned about” is “the king’s outer entrance.” The crux in v. 18 is the meaning of “mysk hšbt that they built in the House.” The most common rendering of mysk, “covering” (from skk), does not make good sense in this context, and scholars who interpreted it this way either corrected the text and read hesîr (in place of hēsēb) or translated hēsēb inaccurately.26 W. Zwickel (1993:259) suggested deriving mysk from swk I, “to fence,” and translated it “a fence, a closing wall.” It seems to me that šabbāt in v. 18 is identical to šabbāt in 2 Kgs. 11:5, 7, 9, and should be translated “a resting hall.” This hall was the resting place of the guards, from where they departed to their posts in the palace and temple, hence, the opposing expressions in 2 Kings 11: bā’ē haššabbāt (“those who enter the resting hall”) and yoṣ’ê haššabbāt (“those who leave the resting hall”).27 At the time when the revolt was planned, the guard of the palace entered the resting hall (v. 5), while the guards of the Horse (sic!) gate and the gate behind the guard, the two gates that connected the temple and the pal-

24. Donner and Röllig 1966–69:no. 215, lines 16–18; Gibson 1975:76–86; Margalit 1994: 303–13, with earlier literature. 25. In addition to the commentaries, see Mulder 1982:161–172; Barthélemy 1982:407– 408; Zwickel 1993:250–262. 26. Mulder (1982:165–166, 172), for example, translated it “änderte”; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:185, translated it “removed.” 27. For a different interpretation, see (in addition to the commentaries) Robinson 1977: 56–61, with earlier literature.


223

ace, went out to their posts (v. 6).28 The revolt and enthronement were scheduled to take place when all the guards, including those who were posted at the entrance of the palace, were in or around the temple and able to defend the young king and his supporters. The resting hall was probably located at the junction of the palace and temple, so that the guards could enter it to rest or leave it to go on duty. 2 Kgs. 16:18 may be translated thus: “And he turned about (hēsēb) to the House of YHWH the closing wall (mysk) of the resting hall (šabbāt) that they built in the House and the king’s outer entrance, because of the king of Assyria.” It seems to me that Ahaz’s building operations included the erection of a new altar and the reorganization of the temple and its courts. Among the renovations were a change in the movement of the guards to and from the resting hall, and an alteration in the course of a certain entrance that led from the palace to the temple. Whether the alterations of the two exits refer, under different names, to the two main entrances that connected the palace and the temple (the Horse(s) Gate and the gate behind the guard) remains unknown. The concluding statement “because of the king of Assyria” is part of the Dtr’s negative judgment of Ahaz. The Dtr’s attitude to Ahaz’ erection of the altar is debated among scholars. Many scholars assumed that the text does not denounce Ahaz’ act and that the criticism is inferred only from the inclusion of the passage in the history of the apostate king.29 However, it seems to me that Cogan and Tadmor are justified in arguing that Ahaz’ innovations are criticized “because they upset the order of things in the Temple as established by Solomon” (Cogan and Tadmor 1988:193). Indeed, no change in the temple is ever ascribed to reformer kings. It is rather the two apostate kings

28. The rendering “Horse (śwś) gate” (v. 6) was suggested by many commentators (see BHS). The Sur Gate is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, but the Horse(s) Gate appears several times (Jer. 31:39; Neh. 3:28; 2 Chr. 23:15; cf. 2 Kgs. 23:11) and under the closely related name, “Horses Entrance,” in v. 16. The gate behind the guard is also mentioned twice in the narrative (vv. 6, 19). The double references to the two gates, once in Jehoiada’s instructions and second as part of the later chain of events, is due to the author’s deliberate structuring of the plot. According to v. 16, the Horse Entrance led from the palace to the temple. The gate behind the guards also connected the temple and palace, and the ceremonial shields of the guard were stored in a nearby room (1 Kgs. 14:27–28). Thus, it is evident that the Horse(s) Gate and the gate behind the guards were the two main gates that led from the temple to the palace, hence, the stationing of the guards at their entrances. 29. In addition to the commentaries, see Cogan 1974:74–75; Hoffmann 1980:139–145; Spieckermann 1982:365–6; Gonçalves 1986:40–41, with earlier literature in n. 95; Nelson 1986:267–276.

224


of Judah, Ahaz and Manasseh, to whom the author of Kings attributed innovations in the temple; it is Josiah, the righteous king, who purged the temple and restored everything to its original purity, that is, the purity of the Solomonic temple (Na’aman 1995:46–48). According to the Dtr’s presentation of the chain of events, Ahaz’ renovations in the temple, which he judged negatively, were the direct result of his voluntary servitude to the Assyrian king (Na’aman 1995:37–53). No wonder, then, that he concluded the history of the king with the statement “because of the king of Assyria” (v. 18), which refers back to all the deeds of the apostate king. In conclusion, it seems to me that Ahaz’ dedication inscription, made at the end of his building project, was the source that the historian consulted when he wrote the account in vv. 10–16, 18. In summary, I would like to emphasize the following four points. (a) The author of Kings (the Dtr) probably consulted a few dedication inscriptions that were either unearthed in the course of Josiah’s restoration of the temple or had stood there for a long time. He might have consulted a few other royal inscriptions, but I am unable to establish their identity according to the criteria set out in the first part of the article. (b) The use of royal inscriptions indicates that the Dtr lived in a time when the temple and palace were still functioning. Otherwise, their contents would have gone into oblivion. His intimate knowledge of the temple and palace, with all their courts and gates, the movements of the guards and the collection of silver for the repair of the temple, also indicates that he was eyewitness to the reality he described. Moreover, the detailed descriptions of the temple and palace in the Book of Kings could be appreciated only by readers for whom those buildings were a part of reality. This evidence supports the conclusion that the Dtr history was written in the pre-exilic period. (c) Wellhausen was justified in pointing out the unifying elements of the accounts in 2 Kgs. 11; 12:5–17; 16:10ff and 22. The author of Kings must have composed the first three episodes on the basis of dedication inscriptions describing Josiah’s restoration of the temple, the discovery of the book of Torah, and the alliance in the temple, in conjunction with these episodes. The Priestly “source” terms that appear in these texts may reflect either the language of the dedication inscriptions or the “professional” language of the temple’s priests. If the latter, then the author of Kings deliberately imitated the priestly language to give his composition a flavor of authenticity. Possibly, the Pentateuchal Priestly “source” reflects a deliberate archaic use of this “professional” language, hence, the similarity of terms and expressions between passages written on the basis of royal inscriptions (2 Kgs. 12:5– 17; 16:10–16) and the Priestly “source.”


225

(d) We may suggest a reasonable restoration of the main outlines of the royal inscriptions that presumably underlie the histories of Joash and Ahaz, but it is impossible to restore their exact words, due to the historian’s intensive reworking of their texts.30

References Barré, M.L. 1988. The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion. The Narrative Artistry and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9–11. (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 20). Washington DC. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament IX). Leipzig and Tübingen. BHS = Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W. eds. Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia. Stuttgart. Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford. (Reprint 1970. New York). Cogan, M. 1974. Imperialism and Religion. Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19). Missoula. Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City, NY. Cross, F.M. 1995. Palaeography and the Date of the Tell Fahariyeh Bilingual Inscription. In: Zevit, Z., Gitin, S. and Sokoloff, M. eds. Solving Riddles and Untying Knots. Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Winona Lake: 393–409. Dankwarth, D. and Müller, Ch. 1988. Zur altaramäischen “Altar”-Inschrift vom Tell Ḥalaf. AfO 35: 73–78. Dietrich, W. 1977. Josia und das Gesetzbuch (2 Reg. xxii). VT 27: 13–35. Donner, H. and Röllig, W. 1966–69 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3. (2nd revised edition). Wiesbaden. Gibson, J.C.L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. II Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford. Gonçalves, F.J. 1986. L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne. (Etudes Bibliques 7). Louvain-la-Neuve. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary. (2nd revised edition; Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Halpern, B. 1996. The Construction of the Davidic State: An Exercise in Historiography. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 44–75. Hobbs, T.R. 1985. 2 Kings. (World Biblical Commentary 13). Waco.

30. This is the fifth in a series of articles that discusses the problem of sources and composition in the Books of 2 Samuel and Kings. For earlier articles, see Na’aman 1995; 1996; 1997a; 1997b.

226


Hoffmann, H.-D. 1980. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten and Neuen Testaments 66). Zürich. Hughes, J. 1990. Secrets of the Times. Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement 66). Sheffield. Hurowitz, V.A. 1986. Another Fiscal Practice in the Ancient Near East: 2 Kings 12: 5–17 and a Letter to Esarhaddon (LAS 277). JNES 45: 289–294. Hurowitz, V.(A.) 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 115). Sheffield. Jepsen, A. 1956. Die Quellen des Königsbuches. (2nd revised ed.). Halle. Kuenen, A. 1890. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung. I,2. Leipzig. Levin, C. 1982. Der Sturz der Königin Atalja. Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 105). Stuttgart. Levin, C. 1990. Die Instandsetzung des Tempels unter Joasch ben Ahasja. VT 40: 51–88. Liverani, M. 1974. L’histoire de Joas. VT 24: 438–453. Long, B.O. 1991. 2 Kings. (The Forms of the Old Testament Literature X).Grand Rapids. Malamat, A. 1958. The Kingdom of David and Solomon in its Contacts with Egypt and Aram Naharaim. BA 21: 96–102. Malamat, A. 1963. Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon. JNES 22: 1–17. Malamat, A. 1982. A Political Look at the Kingdom of David and Solomon and its Relations with Egypt. In: Ishida, T. ed. Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Tokyo: 189–204. Margalit, B. 1994. Studies in NW Semitic Inscriptions. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 303–313. Minette de Tillesse, C. 1993. Joiaqim, repoussoir du “Pieux” Josias: Parallélismes entre II Reg 22 et Jer 36. ZAW 105: 352–376. Montgomery, J. A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mulder, M.J. 1982. Was war die am Tempel gebaute “Sabbathalle” in II Kön 16,18? In: Delsman, W.C. et al. eds. Von Kanaan bis Kerala. Festschrift J.P.M. van der Ploeg. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 211). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn: 161–172. Mullen, E.T. 1992. Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasuries. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54: 231–248. Na’aman, N. 1995. The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Kings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 65: 37–53. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 170–186. Na’aman, N. 1997a. Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides. Biblica 78: 153–173. Na’aman, N. 1997b. Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon. In: Handy, L.K. ed. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. Leiden: 57–80. Na’aman, N. 1999. The Historical Background of the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Eretz Israel 26: 112–118. (Hebrew). Nelson, R.D. 1986. The Altar of Ahaz: A Revisionist View. Hebrew Annual Review 10: 267– 276.


227

Noth, M. 1981. The Deuteronomistic History. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 15). Sheffield. (Original publication: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, Tübingen 1943; 19673) Oppenheim, A.L. 1947. A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East. JNES 6: 116–120. Pfeiffer, R.H. 1941. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York. Rabinowitz, I. 1984. ’āz followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional Device in Biblical Hebrew. VT 34: 53–62. Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton. Rendtorff, R. 1967. Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten Israel. (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Robinson, G. 1977. Is 2 Kings XI 6 a Gloss. VT 27: 56–61. Rudolph, W. 1950. Die Einheitlichkeit der Erzählung vom Sturz der Atalja (2 Kön 11). In: Baumgartner, W. et al. eds. Festschrift Alfred Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag. Tübingen: 473– 478. Šanda, A. 1912. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. 2. Das zweite Buch der Könige. (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9/2). Münster. Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129). Göttingen. Stade, B. 1885. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö 10–14. ZAW 5: 275–297. Tadmor, H. 1983. Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature. In: Tadmor, H. and Weinfeld, M. eds. History, Historiography and Interpretation. Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Jerusalem: 36–57. Tropper, J. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli. Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus. Münster. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. Van Seters, J. 1997. Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59: 45–57. Würthwein, E. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2). Göttingen. Wellhausen, J. 1878. Die geschichtlichen Bücher [Richter, Ruth, Samuelis, Könige]. In: Bleek, F. ed. Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Erster Theil: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. (4th ed.). Berlin: 181–267. Wellhausen, J. 1889. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. (2nd edition). Berlin. Winckler, H. 1892. Beiträge zur Quellenscheidung der Königsbücher. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen. Leipzig: 1–54. Wright, L.S. 1989. MKR in 2 Kings XII 5–17 and Deuteronomy XVIII 8. VT 39: 438–448. Zwickel, W. 1993. Die Kultreform des Ahas (2 Kön 16,10–18). Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7: 250–262. Zwickel, W. 1994. Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel. Studien zur Kultgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas. (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 10). Tübingen.

Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel1 Jeroboam II was king of Israel for 41 years, reigning roughly contemporarily with the kings of Judah — Azariah and his son and co-regent Jotham. Curiously enough, nothing is said either in the Book of Kings or in the Book of Chronicles of the relationship between the two neighboring kingdoms during this long period of almost half a century. Here, with the help of some indirect evidence not fully appreciated until now in scholarly research, I shall attempt to clarify the relationship between the two kings. Following the episode relating Amaziah’s assassination and Azariah’s accession to the throne of Judah (2 Kgs. 14:19–21), appears a short note: “It was he who built Elath and restored it to Judah, after the king slept with his fathers” (14:22). A number of questions arise in interpreting this note. First, who is the unnamed king referred to by the introductory emphatic “he”? It is commonly accepted that “he” refers to the new king (Azariah) who completed his father’s interrupted operation in the south shortly after his accession. Why, then, was his operation mentioned here before the introductory formula to his reign (2 Kgs. 15:1–4)? Second, who is hammelek (“the king”) that “slept with his fathers”? B. Alfrink (1948:106–108; see de Vries 1978:97–99) demonstrated that in the Book of Kings, the expression systematically refers to kings who died in peace, and kings who died unnatural deaths are never associated with this formula. The only exception is Ahab (compare 1 Kgs. 22:29–38 with v. 40). There is, however, a solid basis for the assumption that 1 Kgs. 22:1–38 is a late non-historical story and that 1 Kgs. 22:40 (“So Ahab slept with his fathers”) is the original ending of the history of Ahab.2 Amaziah was assassinated, and he can hardly be identified with “the king” who “slept with his fathers” according to 2 Kgs. 14:22. Alfrink’s suggestion (1948:112) that the unnamed king was the king of Edom is highly unlikely. De Vries’ suggestion (1978:98) that v. 22 is a gloss is arbitrary. The solution to the difficulty must be sought in the structure of the text in chapter 14.

1. Reprinted with permission. VT 43 (1993), 227–234. 2. Jepsen 1941–44:155–156; Whitley 1952:147–149; Miller 1966:444–448; 1968:337–342; Lipiński 1979:76–78.

228

Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel

229

After the narrative about the war between Israel and Judah and Amaziah’s defeat and captivity (vv. 8–14) and before the introductory formula of Jeroboam II (vv. 23–24), the following notes appear in the text of Kings: 1. A closing formula to the reign of Jehoash of Israel (vv. 15–16). 2. A chronological note concerning Amaziah’s reign (v. 17). 3. A closing formula to the reign of Amaziah, with special reference to his assassination and burial (vv. 18–20). 4. A special reference to the accession of Azariah (v. 21). 5. The building of Elath (v. 22).3 The closing formula to the reign of Jehoash is duplicated in 13:12–13. Some commentators (e.g., J. Skinner, C.F. Burney, J. Gray, Würthwein, G.H. Jones, M. Cogan-H. Tadmor) assumed that the original position of vv. 15–16 was at the end of chapter 13 and that they were shifted later to their present place in chapter 14 alongside vv. 8–14, to which originally they were attached. A later redactor inserted them once again into 13:12–13. However, the words of Jehoash to Amaziah in v. 10a (“You have indeed smitten Edom, and your heart has lifted you up.”) presupposes v. 7 (“He smote Edom in the Valley of Salt . . .”). It is evident that vv. 8–14 (and vv. 15–16 as well) are found in their original place and are followed by an original synchronistic note about the relative length of reign of the two kings, Amaziah and Jehoash (v. 17) (Montgomery 1951:434, 442). It seems to me that the author of the Book of Kings combined together the histories of Jehoash and Amaziah due to their conflict, which holds a central place in their histories, and that the closing formulas of the two kings followed one another and were separated by a short synchronistic note. The reference to the building of Elath (v. 22) appears after the note about Azariah’s coronation. In my opinion, “he” refers to Azariah, and the words “after the king slept with his fathers” refer to the closing formula of Jehoash (“And Jehoash slept with his fathers . . .”) (v. 16). It is possible that the unnamed reference to “the king” in this archival note reflects the hegemonic standing of Jehoash over Judah, where he was known by this honorific title, parallel to the title mari’ (“the lord”) by which the king of Damascus was called during the time of the Aramean hegemony in Syria-Palestine (Borger 1957:9; Kyrieleis and Röllig 1988:64–65, 72). The note implies that certain restrictions had been imposed upon Amaziah and that Azariah was able to overcome them and renew the southern trade. We may conclude that it was Azariah

3. For the identification of Elath, see, recently, Bartlett 1989:46–48, 124–127; 1990:1–16, with earlier literature.

230


who built Elath after the death of Jehoash, who possibly had been Judah’s overlord from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem and until his death.4 This suggestion explains the placement of the note of the building of Elath immediately after Azariah’s accession note (14:21) and prior to the introductory formula to his reign (15:1–4). Integrating it within the history of Azariah would have made the words “after the king slept with his fathers” entirely unintelligible. When taking into account the literary dilemma facing the author of the book, it is evident that v. 22 was integrated in the best possible place, as close as possible to the closing formula of Jehoash of Israel (vv. 15–16). Why did Jeroboam II change the policy of his father and let Judah recover its power in the south? No biblical text refers to the relations between Judah and Israel at that time, but two pieces of evidence may be raised to somewhat clarify this problem. The enigmatic epilogue to the reign of Jeroboam (14:28) runs as follows: “Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he fought, w’šr hšyb ’t dmśq w’t ḥmt lyhwdh byśr’l, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?” This old crux interpretum was the subject of much discussion that has yet to yield a satisfactory interpretation. Hamath was a strong central Syrian kingdom that never was subjugated to rule of Israel and never paid tribute to an Israelite king. Its location north of Damascus made it a natural ally of Israel, as can be seen from the political ties between the two kingdoms in the time of David. Then, the king of Hamath, who was Zobah’s bitter enemy, sent presents to David as the first step toward the establishment of diplomatic relations (2 Sam. 8:9–10). 5 In the 8th century BCE, Hamath was a powerful kingdom, bordering on Damascus in the south and on Arpad in the north, and was composed of two major parts, Hamath and Hadrach.6 It is inconceivable that Jeroboam was able either to conquer it or to make it a tributary kingdom. Indeed, 2 Kgs. 14:25, which states that Jeroboam “restored” the border of Israel up to Lebo-hamath, a city located near the southern border of Hamath,

4. For Jehoash of Israel as the heir of the hegemonic position of Aram-Damascus in the areas of Palestine following his victories over Aram, see Na’aman 1987:211–217. 5. This is contrary to Malamat 1963:6–8. There is nothing in the description of 2 Sam. 8: 9–10 that even remotely alludes to the subjugation of Hamath to Israel. The sending of gifts as the first step toward the establishment of political relations between kingdoms was the commonly accepted diplomatic norm in the ancient Near East. 6. For the kingdom of Hamath in the 8th century BCE, see Hawkins 1972–1975: 67–70, with earlier literature; Ikeda 1977; Na’aman 1978:228–239; Sader 1987; Ponchia 1991, with earlier literature.


231

accurately defined the northern limits of Jeroboam’s power. Thus, all interpretations that assume that Jeroboam “restored” Damascus and Hamath to Israel are necessarily erroneous, contradicting (inter alia) the explicit statement of 14:25 (and Amos 6:14).7 Of the other solutions to the enigmatic text, we may note C.F. Burney’s (1903:320–321) reconstruction of the original verse: w’šr nlḥm ’t dmśq w’šr hšyb ’t ḥmt yhwh myśr’l (“and how he fought with Damascus and how he turned away the wrath of Yahweh from Israel.”). Support for the suggestion may be found in Num. 25:11: “Phinehas the son of Eleazar . . . has turned back (hšyb) my wrath from the people of Israel.” However, this suggestion not only involves rewriting the text, but (as noted by Montgomery and Jones) Jeroboam as diverter of the divine wrath is most improbable. Moreover, a theological motif within the king’s closing formula is without parallel. It is evident that no satisfactory solution for the text of 2 Kgs. 14:28 has been offered so far by scholars. I wish to suggest a new solution for the enigmatic text, which involves relatively minor textual alterations (mainly the transposition of the l): “Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam . . . and his might, how he fought, and how he restored Damascus, and the war(s) of Judah against Israel (wmlḥmt yhwdh byśr’l).” For the restoration, compare 2 Chr. 12:15 (wmlḥmwt rḥb‘m wyrb‘m) and cf. the notes in 1 Kgs. 14:30; 15:6, 7, 16, 32. Admittedly, the grammar of the reconstructed verse is a bit odd, but this may be the result of the early date of the textual corruption, which may date either to the author of the book or even to its Vorlage. Provided that the restoration is acceptable, it may fill in some of the large gap in the sources describing the relationship between Judah and Israel from the time of Jehoash (2 Kgs. 14:8–14) up to Pekah (2 Kgs. 15:37; 16:5, 7–9). Azariah’s power and his operations near the Gulf of Elath may well have been the outcome of his success in the struggle with Jeroboam. He may have succeeded where his father, Amaziah, failed: to gain both an independence and an equal political status vis à vis the king of Israel.8 One other piece of evidence may support this hypothesis, namely, the findings from the site of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teiman). The site is located in northeastern Sinai, 50 km. south of Kadesh-barnea and 15 km. west of 7. In addition to the commentaries, see the following suggestions regarding 2 Kgs. 14: 28: Jepsen 1941–1944:161, 171; Vogelstein 1945:7–10; Haran 1967:280–284; Yeivin 1971:150– 151; Lipiński 1979:93, n. 145; 1991:171–172. 8. This is contrary to M. Vogelstein’s hypothesis (1945:7–12), according to which the kingdoms of Israel and Judah constituted a single unity under the rule of the king of Israel.

232


Darb el-Ghaza, on the ancient road to Elath and southern Sinai. It functioned for only a short period at the first half of the 8th century BCE, serving as a center for caravans passing on the way to the Gulf of Elath. Many important finds were discovered at the site, including a number of drawings and inscriptions in Hebrew and Phoenician scripts,9 textiles and a considerable amount of pottery (Meshel 1978a; 1978b:50–54; 1979:24–35; Beck 1982:3–68; Ayalon 1985). The inscriptions point to a north Israelite and Phoenician origin. A typological study of the vessels yielded good comparisons from Judah, Israel and the southern coast (Ayalon 1985; Gunneweg, Perlman and Meshel 1985:270–272). Neutron activation analysis confirmed the conclusions of the typological study (Gunneweg, Perlman and Meshel 1985:270–283). Various jars that were found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud matched pottery from the coast of Philistia, and the “Samaria ware” seems to have originated in the north Israelite hill country. The large pithoi, on the other hand, were made in the area of Jerusalem. The pithoi most probably served as containers for water. It is reasonable to assume that they were purchased from one of the southernmost stores of the kingdoms of Judah, such as the large storehouse that was discovered at Tel Beer-sheba,10 thus, allowing the builders of the commercial center to shorten the distance of transportation of the heavy jars on the way to their destination. The appearance of the jars at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud does not indicate the participation of the kingdom of Judah in the trade. All the available evidence indicates that it was the kingdom of Israel, possibly in cooperation with either Phoenician or Philistine kingdom(s), that operated the trade conducted along the Darb el-Ghaza route towards the Gulf of Elath (See Lemaire 1984:132–133). Why did the kingdom of Israel use the long desert road along north-eastern Sinai, rather than the shorter and more convenient road along Wādi Arabah? This may well have been the result of the refusal of the kings of

9. For the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, see recently Hadley 1987:182–188, with earlier literature on pp. 208–11; Margalit 1990:274–277; Tigay 1990:218. In the beginning of inscription no. 1 (see Hadley 1987:182), we may restore ’mr ’[xx]w h[hl]k; “A[xx-ya]w the traveler says.” For the noun hēlek (“traveler,” “visitor”) see 2 Sam. 12:4. The inscription is a blessing of the wayfarer to three persons who possibly lived somewhere in the north Israelite kingdom. The end of inscription no. 2 (see Hadley 1987:185) may be restored [hml]k. The inscription runs thus: “Amaryau says: say to my lord . . . . May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord, [the kin]g.” The inscription is apparently a blessing of the traveler (Amaryau) to his lord, the king of Israel. It may indicate that he was an agent of the king of Israel, and when he arrived to this remote place he blessed him by the name of the local “Lord,” YHWH of Teman. 10. For the storehouse discovered in stratum II of Tel Beer-sheba, see Herzog 1973:23– 30.


233

Judah to let its northern neighbor participate in the trade. Judah controlled the roads leading to the Arabah and supervised the road to Elath by the fortress of Sela‘ (Joktheel), which was built by Amaziah (2 Kgs. 14:7), possibly at the foot of Mount Seir11 and south of Tamar (‘En Ḥaṣeva).12 The peculiar story of Amaziah’s attempt to hire mercenaries from Israel (2 Chr. 25:6–10, 13)13 may possibly reflect an attempt of the king of Israel to take part in the Judean expedition of the south and the Amaziah’s refusal to accept Israelite participation (for an earlier refusal of a king of Judah, compare 1 Kgs. 22:49– 50). No wonder that after his victory in the battle of Beth-shemesh and the conquest of Jerusalem, Jehoash did not allow Amaziah to carry out his plans in the south. Only after the death of Jehoash was Azariah able to carry out his father’s plans. He may have used an armed force to secure his independence, as may be inferred from 2 Kgs. 14:28. It is possible that Jeroboam was occupied in the north (compare the situation in 1 Kgs. 15:17–21) and gave up his political position as overlord of Judah. The way of the Arabah was barred to him, thus, he was obliged to use the long northern Sinai road to Elath, building the trade station at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud to facilitate the transportation along the desert road.14 How long the rivalry between Israel and Judah continued is not clear. Peace and accord might well have been established later on, enabling the Israelite passage through the Arabah via Elath. This might have brought an end to the trade station at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which anyway lasted for only a short span of time. However, it is also possible that the rivalry continued between the two neighboring kingdoms for a long time, and that Pekah’s attack on Jerusalem in the days of Ahaz (2 Kgs. 16:5) was another stage in the hostile relations of the two kingdoms. Be that as it may, it seems that the death of Jehoash and the accession of Azariah to the throne of Judah marked a change

11. The fortress of Sela‘ (later Joktheel) (2 Kgs. 14:7) must be sought at the foot of Mount Seir, east of Wādi Arabah. See Na’aman 1987:213–216. There is no evidence to suggest that Sela‘ was located in central Edom and that Amaziah subjugated the north of Edom as suggested by the majority of scholars (see Bartlett 1989:51–52, 123, referring to earlier literature). Amaziah won a battle at the Valley of Salt, near Wādi Arabah, and captured the Edomite stronghold of Sela‘, which must be sought near the trade route leading to the Gulf of Elath. 12. For the site of Tamar, see Aharoni 1963:30–42. For the recent excavations in the site, see Cohen 1988–89:52–53; 1991:38–39. For another suggested identification of Tamar, see Mittmann 1977:225–235. The new excavations at ‘En Ḥaṣeva strongly support Aharoni’s suggested identification of Tamar in this site. 13. For the authenticity of the kernel of the episode, see Rudolph 1955:281; Williamson 1982:328. 14. For a somewhat different reconstruction, see Lemaire 1984:136–139.

234


for the better in the fortunes of Judah and opened the way for the expansion and flourishment of the , as is evident from the Bible (2 Chr. 26:6–15) and the recent archaeological excavations and survey conducted in the Shephelah (Dagan 1992, with earlier literature).

References Aharoni, Y. 1963. Tamar and the Roads to Elath. IEJ 13: 30–42. Alfrink, B. 1948. L’Expression škb ‘m ’bwtyw. Oudtestamentische Studiën 2:106–118. Ayalon, E. 1985. The Iron Age II Pottery Assemblages from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud). M.A. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Bartlett, J.R. 1989. Edom and the Edomites. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 77). Sheffield. Bartlett, J.R. 1990. “Ezion-Geber, which is Near Elath on the Shore of the Red Sea” (I Kings IX 26). Oudtestamentische Studiën 26: 1–16. Beck, P. 1982. The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud). Tel Aviv 9: 3–68. Borger, R. 1957. Assyriologische und altarabistische Miszellen. Orientalia 26: 1–10. Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford. Cohen, R. 1988–89. ‘En Haseva — 1987. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7–8: 52–53. Cohen, R. 1991. ‘En Haseva — 1988–1989. Hadashot Archeologiot 96: 38–39. (Hebrew). Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah During the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Survey. M.A. Thesis. Tel Aviv University. Gunneweg, J. Perlman, I. and Meshel, Z. 1985. The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. IEJ 35: 270–283. Hadley, J.M. 1987. Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. VT 37: 180–213. Haran, M. 1967. The Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam Ben Joash. VT 17: 266– 297. Hawkins, J.D. 1972–1975. Hamath. RLA IV: 67–70. Herzog, Z. 1973. The Storehouses. In: Aharoni, Y. ed. Beer-sheba I. Excavations at Tel Beersheba 1969–1971 Seasons. Tel Aviv: 23–30. Ikeda, Y. 1977. The Kingdom of Hamath and Its Relations with Aram and Israel. Ph.D. Thesis. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Jepsen, A. 1941–44. Israel und Damaskus. AfO 14: 153–172. Kyrieleis, H. and Röllig, W. 1988. Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus dem Heraion von Samos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Athenische Abteilung 103: 37– 75. Lemaire, A. 1984. Date et origine des inscriptions hébraïques et phéniciennes de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 1: 131–143. Lipiński, E. 1979 Aram et Israël du Xe au VIIIe siècle av. N.È. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 27: 49–102 Lipiński, E. 1991. Jéroboam II et la Syrie. In: Garrone, D. and Israel, F. eds. Storia e tradizione di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin. Brescia: 171–176. Malamat, A. 1963. Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon. JNES 22: 1–17. Margalit, B. 1990. The Meaning and Significance of Asherah. VT 60: 264–297.


235

Meshel, Z. 1978a. Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai. (Israel Museum Catalogue No. 75). Jerusalem. Meshel, Z. 1978b. Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: An Israelite Religious Center in Northern Sinai. Expedition 20/4: 50–54. Meshel, Z. 1979. Did Yahweh Have a Consort? Biblical Archaeology Review 5/2: 24–35. Miller, J.M. 1966. The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars. JBL 85: 441–454. Miller, J.M. 1968. The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz. ZAW 80: 337–342. Mittmann, S. 1977. Ri. 1, 16f und das Siedlungsgebiet der kenitischen Sippe Hobab. ZDPV 93: 213–235. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Na’aman, N. 1977/78. Looking for KTK. WdO 9: 220–239. Na’aman, N. 1987. The Historical Background of the Battle between Amaziah and Jehoash. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 9: 211–217. Ponchia, S. 1991. L’Assyria e gli stati Transeufratici. Padova. Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbücher. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/21). Tübingen. Sader, H. 1987. Les états Araméens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’à leur transformation en provinces Assyriennes. Beirut. Tigay, J.F. 1990. A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. IEJ 40: 218. Vogelstein, M. 1945. Jeroboam II: The Rise and Fall of the Empire. Cincinnati. de Vries, S.J. 1978. Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (1 Kings 22) in the Development of the Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids. Whitley, C.F. 1952. The Deuteronomic Presentation of the House of Omri. VT 2: 137–152. Williamson, H.G.M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Yeivin, S. 1971. “To Judah in Israel” (2 Kings 14:28). Eretz Israel 10: 150–151. (Hebrew).

Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the 8th Century BCE1 I. The Years of Hoshea the Son of Elah In an article recently published, R. Borger and H. Tadmor (1982:244–249) were able to bring to light a new synchronism between Assyria and Israel.2 This new element appears in a summary inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, where it is stated that Hoshea brought his tribute to Sarrabānu, a city located in the territory of the Chaldean tribe of Bīt Shilani. The siege of Sarrabānu was conducted in the course of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign against Babylonia in the year 731 BCE, Hoshea’s coup, accordingly, being dated by Borger and Tadmor (1982:249) to either 732 or 731 BCE. 3 The replacement of Pekah by Hoshea is mentioned, outside of the Bible (2 Kgs. 15:30), in four summary inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, always subsequent to the description of the Assyrian ruler’s campaign against the kingdom of Israel. The four passages describing the conquest of Israel will be discussed briefly to clarify the chronological relationship between the two events. By the establishment of the chain of events, it will be possible to set the new synchronism within a broader historical framework and to suggest exact dates for Hoshea, the last king of the Northern Kingdom. (a) The first part of the passage in the best preserved text (III R 10, 2)4 relates the conquest of the “Land of Bīt Ḫumria,” the slaying of its warriors and the taking of its captives and booty to Assyria. The coup against Pekah and the enthronement of Hoshea are subsequently mentioned, followed by the enumeration of the high tribute (10 talents of gold and probably 1000 talents of silver) that the Assyrian king received on that occasion and then carried back to his country.

732.

1. Reprinted with permission. Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986), 71–92. 2. The synchronism had been noted previously by Tadmor 1979:54. 3. Tadmor (1979:54) dated the death of Pekah and the coronation of Hoshea to the year 4. For a translation and extensive bibliography, see Borger and Tadmor 1982:244–245.

236

Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

237

(b) The second text, ND 4301+,5 offers the same sequence and almost the same description of the events (although with variations in the choice of words). This text differs mainly in its report that the tribute was brought to Sarrabānu. It makes clear that Hoshea’s tribute was carried first to the battle-field, where Tiglath-pileser was posted, rather than directly to the land of Assyria. (c) Hence, it becomes clear that the inscription on relief, made to appear as an integral part of the royal annals (lines 211–28) in Rost’s edition of the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, is, rather, a summary inscription.6 The report of the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and the plunder of its booty —mentioned in the past tense in this broken inscription — is followed by a statement clearly indicating that most of the Israelite territory was already annexed, at that time, to the land of Assyria (“the city of Samaria I left alone”). The slaying of Pekah is mentioned subsequently, unfortunately at a point where the text is damaged. (d) The fourth summary inscription (ND 400)7 is more detailed than the other three. The passage describing the conquest of the Israelite kingdom appears in lines 10–13 of the obverse. A considerable part of the text is missing; its main outlines, however, can be restored with a reasonable degree of probability. Lines 10–11 describe the military defeat of Israel and the transfer of its warriors and the booty to Assyria. Line 12 apparently refers to the slaying of Pekah (restored it would probably read: “[They have killed Pekah, their king], within his palace”). The passage ends with the mention of tribute that Tiglathpileser received, the emphasis being that it was paid for absolution, probably for the offense of rebelling and killing a vassal of the king of Assyria. All four summary inscriptions have in common the double division of the episodes. The conquest of the land, resulting in the slaughter of its warriors and the transfer of its captives and the booty to Assyria, is always mentioned in the first place. The episode of Hoshea’s conspiracy against Pekah and the heavy tribute that he was obliged to pay appear in the second place. Furthermore, one may draw attention to the account in Tiglath-pileser’s annals: Only two fragmentary slabs have been discovered that relate the events of the relevant campaign.8 The surviving text opens with the description of the 5. For a discussion and extensive bibliography, see Borger and Tadmor 1982:245–246. 6. See Tadmor 1967a:180, 186; cf. Rost 1893:38, lines 211–228; II, Pl. XXIII; Luckenbill 1926:§ 779; Begrich 1929:99–101; Mowinckel 1932:188, 195–196. 7. Wiseman 1951:21–24. For further discussion and bibliography, see Na’aman, 1979:68– 69. 8. Rost 1893:38, lines 229–234, and Pls. XVIIIa and XVIIIb. The definitive publication of the text based on the original handwriting of Henry Layard is that of Tadmor 1967a:63–64.

238


conquest of the Israelite kingdom, most of which is unfortunately lost, perhaps ending with the statement “[I razed to the gr]ou[nd xx cities] of the 16 districts of the land of Bīt [Ḫumria].” A list of cities, accompanied by numbers of those deported from each place, follows. The passage is closed by a concluding remark that may tentatively be restored to read: “[I had them cross] difficult mountains [and brought them to the land of . . . ].” The annalistic description agrees well with the first part of the four summary inscriptions, because it has exactly the same topics. The second part of the summary inscriptions, notably, is absent from the annals, which probably narrate the events of year 732 BCE. The conclusion is inevitable: The slaying of Pekah by Hoshea and the latter’s enthronement as king of Israel occur later than Tiglath-pileser’s campaigns to the west. The Assyrian campaigns against the Syro-Ephraimite allies, Rezin and Pekah, took place in the years 733–732, whereas Hoshea’s coup d’etat should be assigned to the following year, 731/730, the year when Tiglathpileser was engaged in Babylonia. One may well assume that Hoshea sent his envoys carrying the heavy tribute to the Assyrian king immediately after his coronation so that Hoshea would be recognized by the overlord. After all, any delay on Hoshea’s side could have resulted in Assyrian measures against him for having slain a vassal of the Great King. The year 731/730 may be taken as a safe chronological anchor point for dating the reign of Hoshea. According to 2 Kgs. 17:1, Hoshea ruled for nine years. This would cover the period from 731/730 to 723/722. The year 723/722 is also in perfect accord with a second Assyrian-Israelite synchronism, according to which the city of Samaria was conquered in the last year of Shalmaneser V (723/722).9 The double Assyrian synchronisms, for the beginning and end of Hoshea’s reign, exactly match one another. Hoshea’s nine years’ tenure on the throne may be regarded as a safe point of departure for calculating Israelite and Judean chronology in the eighth century BCE. The problems involved with the chronology of the two neighboring kingdoms have been discussed so many times in the past that it would hardly be justifiable to reiterate the results of these studies here. The following discussion, therefore, will focus on two major problems: the long reign of twenty years assigned to Pekah in the Book of Kings and the co-regencies of the Judean kings in the ninth and eighth centuries BCE.

9. Olmstead 1904/05:179–182; Tadmor 1958:33–40; Thiele 1965a:141–154.


239

II. The Years of Pekah the son of Remaliah According to the tradition of 2 Kgs. 15:27, “In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years.” Jotham the son of Uzziah ascended the throne of Judah in Pekah’s second year (2 Kgs. 15:32), and Ahaz the son of Jotham began to reign in his 17th year (2 Kgs. 16:1). Pekah was slain by Hoshea in the 20th year of Jotham (2 Kgs. 15:30). Scholars dealing with biblical chronology have noticed that Pekah could not have had a reign of twenty years in Samaria. Various suggestions have been advanced to solve this enigma. For instance, the twenty years assigned to Pekah are sometimes dismissed as a corrupt figure.10 This suggestion, however, involves several difficulties: first, Pekah’s twenty years were integrated both in counting the length of his tenure of the throne and in the tradition of the synchronisms. As is indicated below, the two kinds of data were derived from independent sources, and their accord can hardly be accidental. Moreover, the “corrupt figure” hypothesis necessarily presupposes that the synchronisms of Jotham and Ahaz consist of late artificial calculations based on the assumed corrupt figure, a presumption that is hardly acceptable. Finally, a solution based on an emendation of the text is always a last resort and should be applied only to those cases in which all other explanations fail. Scholars who regard Pekah’s twenty years as authentic offer numerous explanations for this long reign. According to one line of inquiry, Pekah’s independent rule took place elsewhere, not in Samaria.11 Inasmuch as Pekah apparently came from the Gilead area (2 Kgs. 15:25), it has been suggested that he reigned as an autonomous king in Transjordan, in rivalry with the king ruling in Samaria. But the “rival kingdoms” theory is also open to doubt: The four years of schism in the Israelite kingdom in the days of Omri and Tibni are explicitly mentioned in 1 Kgs. 16:21–22. The absence of a clear indication of the assumed thirteen to fourtheen years of schism in the Northern Kingdom, shortly before its final destruction, is hardly explicable.12 Furthermore, Pekah

10. See, for example, Kugler 1922:164; Coucke 1925:344–345; Begrich 1929:103; Albright 1945:22; Montgomery 1951:451; Pavlovský and Vogt 1964:337–378. 11. Vogelstein 1945:5–7, 13, 20; Thiele 1965a:123–126, with further bibliography on p. 124, n.6; 1966:87–90; Shea 1977:21; see Lewy 1927:18–19. 12. Cook 1964:128–135 pointed out several biblical references that may allude to the division of the Israelite kingdom at that time. The passages, however, are open to different interpretations and cannot be regarded as unequivocal indications of the assumed schism. Cook further suggested (1964:127–128) that Menahem was designated by the Assyrians as “Menahem of Samaria” on account of his rule only in the Cisjordanian areas, whereas Pekah, dominating both sides of the Jordan, was called “Pekah of Bīt Ḫumria.” However,

240


is described as the šālîš of Pekahiah, conspiring against his lord and slaying him in his palace (2 Kgs. 15:25). The title šālîš has been examined recently in great detail (Mastin 1979:125–154; cf. Reade 1981:4–5). It has been defined as an officer, sometimes attached to the king as an aide. The šālîš was probably the third-of-rank in the court, after the king and his high officials, which may explain the derivation of the noun from Hebrew šlš (“three”). Pekah was an adjutant (šālîš) of Pekahiah, and his title certainly does not befit the role of a rival king.13 Noteworthy also is the biblical description of the coup d’état, which would perfectly illustrate an inner-court conspiracy, but hardly account for a situation between two competitive kings. The “rival kingdoms” theory rests solely on Pekah’s length of reign, thus, it would seem more judicious to search for another explanation of the duration of this reign, rather than to adopt as doubtful a suggestion as the one noted above. Another line of inquiry was taken by W.J. Chapman (1925:59; 1931– 1932:152–153). To cite him: Pekah ben-Remaliah, who slew Pekahiah and reigned in his stead, was the leader of the anti-Assyrian party and, therefore, reckoned his own reign de jure from the downfall of the house of Jehu, his opponents, the two kings of the house of Menahem, being expunged as usurpers.

A similar explanation to that of Chapman has been offered by Thiele (1944:169–170), but he subsequently abandoned it in favor of the “rival kingdoms” theory. Other scholars, too, have proposed parallel solutions for Pekah’s tenure of the throne, though with certain variations in the reasoning.14 The “backwards counting” theory seems the most promising way of solving the puzzle and, as I shall try to demonstrate, some other possibilities that have not been explored so far may be also brought into the discussion. When we examine the problem of Pekah’s 20 years, two lines of inquiry, both supported by analogies, manifest themselves. They will be examined in the following paragraphs. (A) Pekah was assigned 20 years of reign by an early Israelite chronographer(s) whose work(s) was (were) extensively used by the author of the Book of Kings. The reasons both for the omission of the usurpers who

Jehoash, the king of Israel, is called “Ya’usu of Samaria” in the newly discovered inscription of Adad-nirari III from Tell ar-Rimaḥ (Dalley [Page] 1968:142, line 8, and 148–150). Thus, it is clear that the designation “king of Samaria” was an official title of the kings of Israel. 13. The problems involved in this suggestion have been discussed by Begrich 1929:35– 36, 52) and by Thiele (1944:169, n. 85). Vogelstein (1945:6, n. 13) has suggested that Pekah was the šālîš of Jeroboam, rather than that of Pekahiah. 14. de Vries 1962:593; Horn 1966:46–47; Gray 1970:64–65, 67–68; cf. Tadmor 1961:264.


241

reigned subsequent to the dynasty of Jehu (Shallum, Menahem and Pekahiah) and for the ascription of their throne tenures to Pekah in this (these) chronographic composition(s) are not clear, unless we assume that Pekah was regarded as a legitimate heir to the throne of the dynasty of Jehu (see below). Analogies from Mesopotamia and Egypt may support this suggestion. The author of the Assyrian king list (or, more probably, the author of his Vorlage) has omitted the names and the regnal years of the heirs of Ishme-Dagan I, as well as the names of the usurpers who succeeded them on the throne of Assyria (Landsberger 1954:31–38). The regnal years of Ishme-Dagan I’s heirs were probably included within the forty years assigned to him.15 The utter weakness of Assyria at that time possibly was interpreted by the author of the king list as the result of the sin of usurpation. The expunged rulers (or, at least, some of them), thus, may have been regarded by this author as illegitimate kings, having no right to the throne of Assyria. Equally, the existence of the four “Amarna kings” (Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun and Ay) was officially ignored in several king lists composed in the time of the Egyptian XIXth Dynasty (or, at least, under Seti I and Ramesses II) (Sauneron 1951:46– 49; Philips 1977:116). The omission was due to hatred of the memory of the “Amarna kings,” on account of the heretical religious reform of Akhenaten. Both analogies may support the claim that a later chronographer(s) was (were) capable of expunging the years of the illegitimate Israelite kings and assigning them to Pekah. It should be emphasized that, according to this explanation, Pekah’s twenty years were not a matter of contemporaneous record but, rather, a late artificial calculation that was combined into the chronographic literature. The actual reign of Pekah covered only the years from 736 to 731/30. (B) Pekah regarded himself as the legitimate heir of the dynasty of Jehu, thus, counting his years from the date of the murder of Zechariah, the last king of this dynasty (749). That Pekah was born in the Gilead region may be inferred from 2 Kgs. 15:25. The origin of the dynasty of Jehu, on the other hand, is unknown, and only some indirect evidence exists to shed light on this obscure matter. First, it should be noted that the main opposition to the House of Omri was centered around the Gilead region. Elijah, the main opponent of both Ahab and his son Ahaziah, was born in Tishbe of Gilead (Montgomery 1951:293). Elisha, his successor, came from Abel-meholah, which was identified with Tell Abu Ṣuṣ, a site located near the Jordan river at the foot of the mountains of

15. Landsberger 1954:110. Ishme-Dagan I held the Assyrian throne for many years during the reign of his father, Shamshi-Addu I. The forty years (one copy has the even higher number of fifty years) assigned to him in the Assyrian King-List seems rather too many.

242


Gilead (Zobel 1966:83–108). Not only was Elisha an opponent of Joram, the son of Ahab (see 2 Kgs. 3:13–14), but he actually instigated the rebellion of Jehu (2 Kgs. 9:1–13; see 1 Kgs 19:15–18). Most of the stories about Elisha’s miraculous deeds should be dated to the time of the dynasty of Jehu (see Miller 1966, with further bibliography); Elisha’s prominent and influential position in the Israelite kingdom at the time was due to his decisive role in the rebellion by which the dynasty was elevated to the throne. Jehu himself was anointed and crowned in Ramoth-gilead, which was the focal point of his military strength. His cruel action and ferocity in the regions of Jezreel and Samaria may be taken to corroborate further that he was not a native of these regions. Jehu’s hatred of both the House of Omri and the cult of Ba‘al are prominent in the story of the rebellion. His deeds are regarded as the fulfilment of Elijah’s predictions (2 Kgs. 9:25–6, 36–7), and the latter may well have influenced Jehu’s operations. Also, the policy of conquering large territories in northern Transjordan and in the area of Damascus by the rulers of the dynasty of Jehu (Jehoash and Jeroboam II) may have been motivated by their Transjordanian (Gileadite) origin. Admittedly, none of this circumstantial evidence can definitely prove the above claim. It seems to me, however, that by assigning a Gileadite origin to the House of Jehu and by suggesting that Pekah was a scion of that family — regarding himself as a legitimate heir to the throne of Israel — the history of the Northern Kingdom in the ninth and eighth centuries may be explained better. There are several cases in the history of Egypt in which backwards false counting of a later king occurs. Admittedly, none of these cases offers an exact parallel to the assumed numeration of Pekah’s regnal years. Most illuminating is the case of Hatshepsut and her nephew Thutmose III (Redford 1967:54–87; Murnane 1977:32–44). When Thutmose II died, his son Thutmose III was still young, and Thutmose II’s widow (Hatshepsut) held the effective power in the state. At that stage, she bore only the titles of princess and royal consort, whereas Thutmose III was, officially, the ruler. In actuality, it was his aunt that ruled Egypt in all but name. At some unknown date, between years two and seven of Thutmose reign, Hatshepsut usurped the title of king, ruling thereafter as senior partner, in co-regency with her nephew. She started dating her reign not from the year of her actual coronation but, rather, from the day of her husband’s death. Hatshepsut had also celebrated a jubilee in her 16th year, counting from either the commencement of the reign of her father Thutmose I (Hornung and Staehelin 1974:54) or from the year of his death and her theoretical accession to the throne in the first year of her husband Thutmose II (Wente and van Siclen 1977:220–221). Her name, however, does not appear in the New Kingdom’s king lists, but may have been included in Manetho’s list of kings (Hornung 1964:33–34).


243

In the Mes Inscription from the time of Ramesses II, 59 (or 58) years were assigned to Horemheb. It had been widely accepted that this is an inclusive date incorporating the reigns of the four heretic Amarna Pharaohs (Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun and Ay) to Haremhab.16 An interesting case of false counting is that of Alexander IV, who ruled Babylonia from 316 BCE.17 Although murdered in year 310/309, according to Babylonian sources he went on being fictitiously reckoned to have reigned as king of Babylonia until the year 306/305. If we assume that the above reasoning is valid and that Pekah reckoned his regnal years from the death of Zechariah the son of Jeroboam in 749, then it becomes clear that his first year of actual reign (736) was counted as year 14, and his last year (731/730) was consequently regarded as his 20th year. Pekah’s years 1–13 were, of course, never actually counted, because he was not a king at that time. Of the two hypotheses proposed here, the “legitimate heir” alternative seems to me the more probable, being also the one supplying the better historical explanation for Pekah’s 20 years of reign. Shea (1977:16–27) has recently proposed that years 9–10 mentioned in the Samaria ostraca were counted according to Menahem’s regnal years, whereas year 15 (and probably 17) was numbered in accordance with Pekah’s reckoning and commenced from his assumed independent rule in Gilead. This allusive theory is, unfortunately, hardly possible. The ostraca were found in stratum IV of Samaria (Crowfoot et al. 1957:470; Albright 1958:23; Wright 1959:25–26). Stratum VI was destroyed by the Assyrians, who went on building their provincial center on its ruins. The assumption that Pekah lived in the palace of stratum IV would oblige us to situate the destruction of the three successive strata IV-V-VI between the years 731/730 (Pekah’s death) and 723/722 (the Assyrian conquest). Both archaeologically and historically, this is simply impossible. It would be better to assign the ostraca to the period of the dynasty of Jehu, in conformity with the opinion commonly held by scholars (Lemaire 1977:39–43, with further bibliography). From the viewpoint of biblical chronology, the importance of assigning Pekah a “reign” of 20 years is that it supplements a time-span — independent of the other individual throne tenures — to the period beginning with the death of Zechariah and ending with the accession of Hoshea. This time16. Loret 1901:1–4; Harris 1968:96–97; Wente and van Siclen 1977:231; see recently, von Beckerath 1978:44–45. It is also possible that Manetho equally had counted 59 years for Haremhab. See Hornung 1964:40, n. 83. 17. Parker and Dubberstein 1956:20; van Dijk 1962:58–9. For the historical background of this episode, see Kendall 1969:34–45.

244


span covers the years 749–731/730. In addition to the new synchronism of Hoshea’s accession, there are three other Assyrian-Israelite synchronisms for the 20 years under discussion. (a) Menahem paid his first tribute to Assyria in the sixth year of Tiglathpileser III (740). The list of tributary kings in which Menahem was included appears in a non-annalistic royal inscription describing, in detail, the Assyrian campaign against Media in the year 737. This list can be safely dated, on grounds of internal evidence, to Tiglath-pileser’s campaign of 740.18 This must have been the occasion of the heavy tribute paid by Menahem according to 2 Kgs. 15:19–20. The list of tributary rulers in which Ahaz, the king of Judah, is mentioned appears also in a non-annalistic inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, consecutive to the description of his western campaigns of the years 734–732, although safely assignable on grounds of internal evidence to either the campaign of 734 or that of 733.19 It is clear that the Assyrian scribes recording the topos of “tribute payment” in Tiglath-pileser’s non-annalistic inscriptions were unconcerned about the exactitude of the dates of the listings of tributaries included in their compositions. Thus, the list of tribute payers for 740 was included in the inscription composed during the campaign of 737, whereas the listing of tributaries for 734 or 733 was attached to the summary inscription written after the end of Tiglath-pileser’s Babylonian campaigns of 731–729. (b) Menahem paid his second tribute to Assyria in Tiglath-pileser’s 8th year (738).20 The list of tributaries appears in the king’s annals and, unlike the tribute listings in the summary inscriptions, it was brought up to date in accordance with the reality of that year (Cogan 1973:n. 32; Na’aman 1978:238– 239). (c) Tiglath-pileser’s campaigns of 733–732 against Damascus and Israel were conducted during the reign of Pekah (2 Kgs. 15:29; 16:9).

18. For the original publication of the list of tributaries, see Levine 1972:11–24; cf. Weippert 1973:29–32. For the correct dating of the list, see Cogan 1973:96–99; Katzenstein 1973:204–205; Na’aman 1978:238; Shea 1978:43–49. 19. For the list of tributaries, see Oppenheim 1969:282. For its correct dating, see Mowinckel 1932:180, 183, 192; Tadmor 1979:54; Na’aman 1977:179, n. 58. Panamuwa, the king of Sam’al, was killed during the siege of Damascus of years 733–732, whereas Mitinti, the king of Ashkelon, was replaced by his son, Rukibti, probably in year 732. Both rulers are mentioned in the list of tribute payers. Thus, the list can safely be assigned to either of the campaigns of 734 or 733. 20. For the list of tributaries, see Oppenheim 1969:283. For its correct dating, see Tadmor 1961:252–258; Weippert 1973:33–39. The reasons for Shea’s dismissal of this certain synchronism in his recent discussion of Menahem’s dates (1978:43–49) are not clear to me.


245

If we assume a Tishri calendar for the Northern Kingdom, the following dates may be suggested for the Israelite kings of the eighth century: Jeroboam II — 790/789–750; Zechariah — 750–749; Shallum — 749; Menahem — 749/748– 738; Pekahiah — 738–736; Pekah — 736–731/730 (749–731/730); and Hoshea — 731/730–723/722. The above dates for Menahem and Pekahiah are based on the assumption that the years of their reigns, as well as their synchronisms, were reckoned according to the post-dating system. Counting by the post-dating system, however, is not attested elsewhere for the Northern Kingdom: Even the throne tenures of Pekah and Hoshea were counted in the ante-dating system. Admittedly, reckoning in the post-dating system (under Assyrian influence?) is not impossible. One may wonder, however, whether a solution based on the assumption of slight corruption of text in the years of Menahem is not preferable to the complicated solutions offered so far for Menahem’s ten years’ tenure of the throne (2 Kgs. 15:17).21

III. Co-regencies in the Kingdom of Judah During the Eighth Century The dates of the Judean kings of the eighth century BCE may be established by resorting to the synchronisms recorded in the Book of Kings. If we assume a Nisan calendar for the kingdom of Judah, the following dates may be proposed: Uzziah — 787/786–736/735 (co-regent for 17 years) Jotham — 749/748–731/730 (co-regent for 14 years) Ahaz — 734/733–715/714 (co-regent for 4 years) Hezekiah — 728/727–686/685 (co-regent for 14 years). Uzziah is associated by synchronisms with five Israelite kings (2 Kgs. 15:8, 13, 17, 23, 27); his dates have hardly any problem. Jotham’s 20th year was synchronized with Hoshea’s commencement of reign (2 Kgs. 15:30). This latter date is recalled in a statement describing Hoshea’s conspiracy against Pekah and “has all the earmarks of being genuine and as constituting part of the original record upon which the final compilation of Kings was based” (Thiele 1965a:97). It is also supported by 2 Kgs. 15:37, according to which the SyroEphraimite war started already in the days of Jotham.22 Jotham’s 20 years, however, conflict with the statement of 2 Kgs. 15:33, according to which he reigned for only 16 years.

21. See for example: Thiele 1965a:90–117; Tadmor 1961:259–265; Pavlovský and Vogt 1964:333–334. 22. Mowinckel 1932:228–289. For a different interpretation of the chain of events, see Oded 1972:153–165.

246


Thiele (1965a:122–123, 126–128; 1965b:98–100; 1974:195) explained the conflicting dates by suggesting that Jotham had overlapped for four years with his son Ahaz: the two kings “had reigns of 16 years in one sense and of 20 in another.” Ahaz was attacked by the Syro-Ephraimite allies shortly after ascending the throne as co-regent and taking hold of the political and military powers. Thus, it is clear that Ahaz’s policy towards Assyria must have been the key for his nomination. According to 2 Kgs. 17:1, Hoshea ascended the throne of Israel in Ahaz’s 12th year; yet, this figure does not agree with the chronological scheme proposed above. The 12th year of Ahaz, if counted from the commencement of his co-regency (734/733), falls in 723/722, which is exactly Hoshea’s last year of reign. Would one dare to suggest that the synchronism originally might have designated the fall of Hoshea, being first recorded in the same chronistic form as the synchronism of Hoshea’s conspiracy (2 Kgs. 15:30), and that it was merely the ancient chronographer who recorded it incorrectly, probably on account of the ostensibly contradicted statement of 2 Kgs. 18:9–10? Although this is no more than a hypothesis, it may well suffice to solve the problem of the conflicting dates in 2 Kgs. 15:30 and 17:1. According to the statement in 2 Kgs. 18:13 (= Isa. 36:1), Sennacherib’s campaign to the land of Judah was conducted in the 14th year of Hezekiah. But the Assyrian campaign is dated to 701 BCE. This latter date is in conflict with the synchronism in 2 Kgs. 18:1, 9, 10, according to which, Hezekiah ascended the throne of Judah in Hoshea’s third year (728). Scholars adopting 728/727 as the year of Hezekiah’s accession have offered various explanations for the date in 2 Kgs. 18:13. The number 14 has sometimes been regarded as a secondary derivation from 2 Kgs. 20:1–11 ( = Isa. 38:1–8), where it originally belonged.23 It has also been suggested that year 14 originally designated Sargon’s campaign of 713–712 against Philistia, rather than Sennacherib’s own campaign (Lewy 1976:284–298). The figure 14 was sometimes emended to 24, by making the pivot date coincide with the outbreak of Hezekiah’s rebellion in 704/703.24 M. Vogelstein (1944:2–6) even suggested that, during the reign of Hezekiah, a new era was established, commencing with the reform of 714/713 (for a somewhat similar solution, see Honor 1926:70). All these proposals, however, become unnecessary, once it is understood that the years of Hezekiah, like those of his father Ahaz, refer to the beginning

23. For this proposal, which has several variants, see Honor 1926:70 ; Montgomery 1951:483; Schedl 1962:114–116; Tadmor 1962:278–279; 1979:58; Tadmor and Cogan 1982:198– 201. 24. Aharoni 1950:96–97; Rowley 1961/62:410–13, reprinted in Rowley 1963:98–132.


247

of his sole reign.25 It may be suggested further that, not only the years of the reigns of both Ahaz and Hezekiah, but also their ages refer to the same event. Thus, Ahaz was 16 years old when he ascended the throne as co-regent, and his son Hezekiah was only 11 years old at the start of his co-regency. The problem of recording the co-regencies, as opposed to the registration of the years in which kings reigned alone, exclusive of co-regency periods, should be discussed. One may pose four questions regarding the registration of the chronological data within the Book of Kings. (a) Does the age of a king when he ascended the throne point to his commencement of co-regency or to the beginning of his sole reign? (b) Do the years counted for a king designate his sole rule exclusive of coregency or, rather, his entire term of kingship, including the years overlapping with those of his father? (c) Does the synchronism for the accession refer to the beginning of the co-regency or to the commencement of his sole reign? (d) Are the years of the neighboring king in this synchronism counted from the commencement of his co-regency or from the start of his sole reign? To investigate further these fascinating questions, we shall first have a brief look at the process of co-regency in Israel’s southern neighbor, Egypt.26 Instances of joint rule are known in Egypt from the time of the Middle Kingdom and are attested also during the New Kingdom period, the Third Intermediate period, the Ptolemaic dynasty and the time of the Roman emperors. The nomination of a co-regent was put into effect by his coronation while his father was still in power. After the coronation, the young ruler was recognized as king of Egypt and had, in theory, the same status as the senior king. He also performed formally all the essential functions of kingship. The actual relationship of the two rulers was determined according to the balance of power in each co-regency. In certain cases, the junior partner was dominant; in other cases the opposite was true; and, in still other instances, there was equality of power. Thus, it is important to distinguish real authority and power from formal rank and title, for every two partners. The co-regency was mainly intended to secure the integrity and the succession of the dynasty, particularly when it was threatened (actually or potentially) either by inner forces or by outside opponents. The key to its suc25. This solution was proposed by several scholars: Chapman 1925:60; 1931–1932:152– 161, 166–168; Kitchen and Mitchell 1962:217; Horn 1966:47–52; Gray 1970:74; Kitchen 1973:494. 26. The following description of the institution of co-regency in the history of Egypt is mainly based on the study of Murnane 1977. Compare Ball 1977:268–279.

248


cess was its flexibility, practiced in the most divergent situations throughout the history of Egypt. Some of the co-regencies were recorded by a double-date, that is, a certain document was dated to regnal year x of one king and to regnal year y of another. The majority of the written sources, however, were dated according to the years of one of the partners. The two kings stood at the head of the social pyramid, enjoying at least in principle equal status and authority; thus, it is clear that the records might have been dated in accordance with either ruler’s regnal years. Whether there was some adjustment at bureaucratic levels, making it possible for documents to be dated according to the years of one king during the time of a certain co-regency, is not clear.27 The adaptive nature of the institution, rather, would point toward a flexible system of recording. The years of the junior partner were numbered from the time of his coronation, and the death of his father usually did not disturb this numbering, because his sole reign was regarded as the natural extension of his rule as coregent. In certain cases, however, the tenure of co-regency was ignored, and the king counted his years from the commencement of his sole reign.28 The compositions in which the chronological data were collected by the ancient Egyptian chronographers are also of importance in the discussion. Two such compositions have come down to us: the Turin king list and Manetho’s list of kings. The total length of the Twelfth Dynasty in the Turin Canon fits very well the totals of the figures of the individual kings of that dynasty, exclusive of the coregencies.29 This means that the author of the Turin king list had before him a list of double-dates, by which he was able to calculate the exact length of the co-regencies and to subtract this from the regnal years of the co-regent kings. C. Aldred (1968:116, 138–139) has suggested that the figures in Manetho’s tradition of the Eighteenth Dynasty reflect the number of years of sole reign, without the periods of co-regency. However, the figures in Manetho’s king list are so confused that they can hardly support such a theory (Murnane 1977:118–19, 240). The comparative data of the Egyptian sources exemplify the complicated nature of the records relating to the overlapping years. The regnal years of

27. This problem is not discussed in detail by Murnane. For a partial analysis of the material bearing on this subject, see Simpson 1956:214–219; von Beckerath 1976:45–50; Barta 1979:1–3; Eaton-Krauss 1982:17–20. 28. Ramesses II, though ruling as a co-regent with his father Seti I, nevertheless started counting his regnal years upon the death of his father. See Murnane 1977:57–87; Spalinger 1979:271–286. 29. Murnane 1977:26–9; Beckerath 1976:50–57; Barta 1979:1–9; Eaton-Krauss 1982:17– 20. For a recent analysis and reconstruction of the Turin king list, see Málek 1982:93–106.


249

kings ascending the throne as co-regents may have been counted either from the beginning of the co-regency or, though rarely so, from the commencement of their sole rule. Only a detailed list of double-dating might enable the deduction of the terms of co-regency from the overall throne tenure of the kings. There is, however, no indication of a system of double-dating in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is even possible to doubt whether the author of the Book of Kings had before him the essential data that would have enabled him to calculate tenures of sole rule, exclusive of period of co-regency. He may have had at his disposal not only extensive chronographical compositions (designated by him as “Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” and “Chronicles of the Kings of Israel”), but also some older documents (such as king lists, temple chronicles and prophetic stories). However, this would hardly have been sufficient for composing a unified chronological system in which all the “mysterious numbers” could be harmonized and recorded in a consistent scheme. In this respect, we should regard the author of the Book of Kings as a historian facing, in his time, the same problems that we face now: trying to exploit, for his synchronistic description, all the documents at his disposal and trying to harmonize all of the conflicting data obtained from his various sources. He may well have been aware of the problems involved with the recording of the co-regencies. However, he lived long after the termination of the events described by him. Being dependent exclusively on his sources, he must have been confronted by insurmountable obstacles and, in certain cases, have been unable to do any better than to record faithfully all the conflicting data contained in the documents. It is only the new sources unearthed all over the ancient Near East which — by displaying the problems of recording of the years in many kingdoms and by supplementing direct synchronisms between Israel and Judah and the neighboring countries — now finally allow us to re-evaluate his work and to explain the numerous inconsistencies in his records. When we examine the regnal years of the Israelite and the Judean kings who ascended the throne as co-regents, in relation to the synchronisms, it becomes evident that all the possible ways of counting the years appear in the Book of Kings. These various manners of numbering the years can be summarized as follows: (a) The synchronism for the accession is that of the beginning of sole reign, but the datum for the length of the reign covers both the years of sole rule and the years overlapping with the former king’s rule. This mode of enumeration was discussed in detail by Thiele (1956:39–52; 1974:190–198), who was able to demonstrate that the synchronisms and the regnal years of five kings (Omri, Jehoshaphat, Jeroboam II, Uzziah and Pekah) follow along this line. In addition to this group of five, there is, in my opinion, a sixth king whose years and synchronism were counted in the same way. This king is

250


Jehoahaz, whose synchronism with the 23rd year of Joash, the king of Judah, refers to the first year of his sole reign (814). His 17 years cover both his two years as co-regent and his 15 years of sole rule (817/816–800). The reign of Ahab poses a special problem. According to the “Judean synchronisms” of Asa and Jehoshaphat, he could not have reigned for more than 21 years. Ahab was assigned 22 years of reign (1 Kgs. 16:29); thus, he ruled apparently for one year alongside either his father, Omri, or his son, Ahaziah.30 The first possibility, according to which Omri — usurping the Israelite throne and endeavoring to consolidate his rule and to establish his dynasty — nominated his son Ahab as co-regent, is the more probable. Ahab’s throne tenure, thus, came to be counted from the beginning of his co-regency, whereas his synchronism with Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs. 22:41) is that of his sole rule. (b) Both the synchronism for the accession and the years of reign refer to the entire throne tenure, inclusive of the period of co-regency. The dates of Amaziah and of Jotham were recorded in this manner. Amaziah was co-regent for three years alongside his father Joash (799–797); the synchronism to the 37th year of Jehoash, the king of Israel, refers to his first year as a regent (799). Jotham was co-regent for 14 years, alongside his father Uzziah (749/748–736/735), and the synchronism to the second year of Pekah refers to his first year as a regent (749/748). (c) The synchronism for the accession is that of the commencement of the co-regency whereas the datum for the length of reign covers only the years of sole rule. The regnal years and the synchronisms of Ahaz and Hezekiah were enumerated in this way. The synchronism for the accession of Ahaz in Pekah’s 17th year refers to the beginning of his co-regency (734/733); the 16 years assigned to him covered only the tenure of his sole reign (731/730–715/714). The synchronism for Hezekiah’s ascension to the throne in the third year of Hoshea (728) refers to the commencement of his co-regency; his 27 regnal years covered only the period of his sole rule (714/713–686/685). (d) Both the synchronism for the accession and the years of reign cover the period of sole reign, exclusive of the period of co-regency. The dates of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, were recorded in this manner. Jehoram was co-regent with his father for five years (854–850/849). His synchronism to year 5 of Joram, the king of Israel, refers to the beginning of his sole rule (849/848), and his 8 years were numbered from the same time (849/848– 842).

30. For the latter possibility, according to which Ahaziah was co-regent with his father Ahab, see Gray 1970:66.


251

On the other hand, most of the synchronisms that were recorded with reference to kings who ascended the throne as regents refer to the commencement of co-regency. The only exceptions are: (i) The two synchronisms, Ahaziah 1 = Jehoshaphat 17 and Joram 1 = Jehoshaphat 18, refer to the commencement of Jehoshaphat’s sole rule. (ii) The synchronism Jehoshaphat 1 = Ahab 4 probably refers to Ahab’s beginning of sole rule (see above).31 These differences between the numbering of the regnal years and the counting of the synchronisms may indicate that they were borrowed from two different kinds of sources. The synchronisms seem to represent a tradition that is independent of the regnal years. Indeed, their assumed source was sometimes compared with Mesopotamian synchronistic compositions, such as the Babylonian Chronicle.32 The source for the throne tenures is most probably a king list of the kind that was discovered in several ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. The regnal years of the Judean kings are combined with the data about the ages of the kings when ascending the throne. Both were probably drawn from the same source, thus, representing a unified scheme. We may safely assume that the data for each king were counted from exactly the same date: Whenever the length of reign refers to the commencement of the co-regency, the age of the king refers to the same date. Cconversely, whenever the throne tenure reflects the commencement of the sole reign, the age of the king refers to the same date. Accordingly, we may draw up a list of the ages of the Judean kings at the time when they were officially crowned as co-regents: Jehoshaphat — 35; Jehoram — 27; Amaziah — 25; Uzziah — 16; Jotham — 25; Ahaz — 16; Hezekiah — 11; Manasseh — 12. When we compare the list of the co-regencies of the kings of Judah and Israel, it becomes evident that the appointment of the heir to the throne as co-regent was only sporadically practiced in the Northern Kingdom (Ahab

31. The version of several LXX manuscripts, according to which Uzziah’s coronation fell on Jeroboam II’s 15th year (see Begrich 1929:59), was adopted in my chronological scheme. The synchronism refers to Jeroboam’s commencement of sole reign. However, in light of the uncertainty regarding this synchronism (MT has Uzziah 1 = Jeroboam 27), it has been excluded from the discussion. 32. The importance of the Mesopotamian synchronistic literature and, in particular, the Babylonian Chronicle for the study of the chronological data of the Book of Kings, was first emphasized by Lewy 1927:7–10, 27–31. For the Babylonian Chronicle, see recently Grayson 1975:14–17, 69–87, 280–281. For the Synchronistic King-List from Ashur, see Oppenheim 1969:272–274.

252


under Omri; Jehoahaz under Jehu; Jeroboam II under Jehoash) and, when so practiced, was mainly restricted to the throne tenure of usurpers (Omri and Jehu). In the kingdom of Judah, on the other hand, the nomination of a coregent was the common procedure, beginning from David who, before his death, elevated his son Solomon to the throne. Asa and Jehoshaphat, respectively, crowned their heirs as regents. The practice was disrupted for a while, during the turbulent period of Jehu’s rebellion and Athaliah’s usurpation. It was renewed under Joash and was continued systematically by all subsequent kings of Judah until the time of Manasseh. The usurpation of the throne by Athaliah and the counter-coup of Jehoiada, by which Joash was enthroned, probably laid the foundations for the regularity of the practice, which became a measure of dynastic policy in the kingdom of Judah. The institution of co-regency was even further entrenched during the second half of the 8th century, when the heir to the throne was crowned while still very young. One should further remember that our data about co-regencies in the kingdom of Judah may be lacking and that there may have been co-regents who died before their senior partner, thus, coming to be ignored by the author of the Book of Kings. It is not impossible, therefore, that the practice did not die out with Manasseh, and that a co-regent, who did not live long enough to replace his senior partner, was nominated during Manasseh’s very long reign.33 Unfortunately, there is no biblical Hebrew term to designate this high office (see 2 Kgs. 15:5, where the regent Jotham is described “over the household, governing the people of the land”), and, thus, the many stamps and bullae with Judean official titles fail to help us in tracing further co-regencies. When taking into account the permanent nature of the co-regency in Judah from the time of Joash, one may dare to conclude that dating the co-regencies accurately is indeed the key for solving the problems of biblical chronology in the eighth century BCE.

33. For Egyptian regents who died before their senior partners, see Kitchen 1973:117– 120; Murnane 1977:97–99, 187–188.


253

References Aharoni, Y. 1950. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Tarbiz 21: 92–100. (Hebrew). Albright, W.F. 1945. The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel. BASOR 100: 16–22. Albright, W.F. 1958. Recent Progress in Palestinian Archaeology: Samaria-Sebaste III and Hazor I. BASOR 150: 21–25. Aldred, C. 1967. The Second Jubilee of Amenophis II. Zeitschrift für die ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 94: 1–6. Aldred, C. 1968. Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt — A New Study. London. Ball, E. 1977. The Co-regency of David and Solomon (1 Kings i). VT 27: 268–279. Barta, W. 1979. Die Chronologie der 12. Dynastie nach den Angaben des Turiner Königspapyrus. Studien zur altägyptische Kultur 7: 1–9. von Beckerath, J. 1976. Die Chronologie der XII. Dynastie and das Problem der Behandlung gleichzeitiger Regierungen in der ägyptischen Überlieferung. Studien zur altägyptische Kultur 4: 45–57. von Beckerath, J. 1978. Nochmals die Regierungsdauer des Ḥaremḥab. Studien zur altägyptische Kultur 6: 43–49. Begrich, J. 1929. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher. (Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie 3). Tübingen. Borger, R. and Tadmor, H. 1982. Zwei Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglatpilesers III. ZAW 94: 244–251. Chapman, W.J. 1925. The Problem of Inconsequent Post-Dating in II Kings XV. 13, 17 and 23. Hebrew Union College Annual 2: 57–61. Chapman, W.J. 1931–1932. Palestinian Chronological Data 750–700 B.C., in their Relation to the Events Recorded in the Assyrian Canon. Hebrew Union College Annual 8–9: 151–168. Cogan, M. 1973. Tyre and Tiglath-pileser III: Chronological Notes. JCS 25: 96–99. Cook, H.J. 1964. Pekah. VT 14: 121–135. Coucke, V. 1925. Chronologie des rois de Juda et d’Israël. Revue Bénédictine 37: 325–364. Crowfoot, J.W. et al. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Dalley (Page), S. 1969 A Stela of Adad-nirari III and Nergal-ereš from Tell al Rimah. Iraq 30: 139–153. van Dijk, J. 1962. Die Inschriftenfunde. In: Lenzen, H.J. XVIII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeintschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Berlin: 39–62. Eaton-Krauss, M. 1982. Middle Egyptian Coregencies and the Turin Canon. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 17–20. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary (2nd revised ed.). Philadelphia. Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5). Locust Valley, NY. Harris, J.R. 1968. How Long was the Reign of Ḥoremḥeb? JEA 54: 95–99. Honor, L.L. 1926. Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine. New York. Horn, S.H. 1966. The Chronology of King Hezekiah’s Reign. Andrews University Seminary Studies 2: 40–52. Hornung, E. 1964. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden. Hornung, E. and Staehelin, E. Studien zum Sedfest. Geneva.

254


Jenkins, A.K. 1976. Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year. A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13xix 37. VT 26: 284–298. Katzenstein, H.J. 1973. The History of Tyre, from the Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem. Kendall, T. 1969. The War for Asia and the Rise of Seleucus: 312–307 B.C. Serapis 1: 34–45. Kitchen, K.A. 1973. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 B. C.). Warminster. Kitchen, K.A. and Mitchell, T. C. 1962. Chronology of the Old Testament. In: Douglas, J.D. ed. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: 212–223. Kugler, F.X. 1922. Von Moses bis Paulus: Forschungen zur Geschichte Israels. Münster. Landsberger, B. 1954. Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter.” JCS 8: 31–73, 106–133. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques, vol. I. Les ostraca. Paris. Levine, L.D. 1972. Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran. Toronto. Lewy, J. 1927. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda. Giessen. Lewy, J. 1928. Sanherib und Hizkia. OLZ 31: 150–163. Loret, V. 1901. La grande inscription de Mes à Saqqarah. Zeitschrift für die ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 39: 1–10. Luckenbill, D.D. 1926. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia I. Chicago. Málek, J. 1982. The Original Version of the Royal Canon of Turin. JEA 68: 93–106. Mastin, B.A. 1979. Was the šālîš the Third Man in the Chariot? Supplement to VT 30: 125– 154. Miller, J.M. 1966. The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars. JBL 85: 441–454. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mowinckel, S. 1932. Die Chronologie der israelitischen und jüdischen Könige. Acta Orientalia 10: 161–277. Murnane, W.J. 1977. Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 40). Chicago. Na’aman, N. 1977. Campaigns of Assyrian Kings to Judah in the Light of a New Assyrian Document. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 2: 164–180. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1977–78. Looking for KTK. WO 9: 220–239. Na’aman, N. 1979. The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6: 68–90. Oded, B. 1972. The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34: 153–165. Olmstead, A.T. 1904/05. The Fall of Samaria. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 21: 179–182. Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd revised ed. with supplement. Princeton: 265–317, 556–567. Parker, R.A. and Dubberstein, W.H. 1956. Babylonian Chronology 626 B. C. — A. D. 75 (3rd ed.). Providence. Pavlovský, V. and Vogt, E. 1964. Die Jahren der Könige von Juda und Israel. Biblica 45: 321– 374. Philips, A.K. 1977. Horemheb, Founder of the XIXth Dynasty? Orientalia 46: 116–121. Reade, J. 1981. Mesopotamian Guidelines for Biblical Chronology. Monographic Journals of the Near East. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4/1: 1–9. Redford, D.B. 1967. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. Toronto.


255

Rost, P. 1893. Die Keilschriftexte Tiglat-Pilesers III I. Leipzig. Rowley, H.H. 1961/62. Hezekiah’s Reform and Rebellion. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44: 395–431. Sauneron, S. 1951. La tradition officielle relative à la XVIIIe dynastie d’après un ostracon de la Vallée des Rois. Chronigue d’Égypte 26: 46–49. Schedl, C. 1962. Textkritische Bemerkungen zu den Synchronismen der Könige von Israel und Juda. VT 12: 88–119. Shea, W.H. 1977. The Date and Significance of the Samaria Ostraca. IEJ 27: 16–27. Shea, W.H. 1978. Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser III. JNES 37: 43–49. Simpson, W.K. 1956. The Single-Dated Monuments of Sesostris I: An Aspect of the Institution of Coregency in the Twelfth Dynasty. JNES 15: 214–219. Spalinger, A. 1979. Traces of the Early Career of Ramesses II. JNES 38: 271–286. Tadmor, H. 1958. The Camaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study. JCS 12: 22–40, 77–100. Tadmor, H. 1961. Azriyau of Yaudi. Scripta Hierosolymitana 8: 232–271. Tadmor, H. 1962. Chronology. Enc. Miqr. IV: 245–310. (Hebrew). Tadmor, H. 1967a. Introductory Remarks to a New Edition of the Annals of TiglathPileser III. Proceedings of the Israel National Academy of Sciences and Humanities II, No. 9. Jerusalem. Tadmor, H. 1967b. The Conquest of Galilee by Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. In: Hirschberg, H.Z. ed. All the Land of Naphtali. (The Twenty-Fourth Archaeological Convention October 1966). Jerusalem: 62–67. (Hebrew). Tadmor, H. 1979. The Chronology of the First Temple Period. In: Malamat, A. ed. The Age of the Monarchies: Political History. (The World History of the Jewish People IV/1). Jerusalem: 44–60, 318–320. Tadmor, H. and Cogan, M. 1982. Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: The King’s Illness and the Babylonian Embassy. Eretz-Israel 16: 198–201. (Hebrew). Thiele, E.R. 1944. The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel. JNES 3: 137–186. Thiele, E.R. 1956. The Question of Coregencies Among the Hebrew Kings. In: Hobbs, E.C. ed. A Stubborn Faith. Papers on Old Testament and Related Subjects Presented to Honor William Andrew Irwin. Dallas: 39–52. Thiele, E.R. 1965b. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. (2nd revised ed.). Grand Rapids. Thiele, E.R. 1965a. Pekah to Hezekiah. VT 16: 83–107. Thiele, E.R. 1974. Coregencies and Overlapping Reigns among the Hebrew Kings. JBL 93: 174–200. Vogelstein, M. 1944. Biblical Chronology. I. The Chronology of Hezekiah and His Successors. Cincinnati. Vogelstein, M. 1945. Jeroboam II: The Rise and Fall of his Empire. Cincinnati. de Vries, S.J. 1962. Chronology of the Old Testament. In: The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 1. New York and Nashville: 580–599. Weippert, M. 1973. Menahem von Israel und seine Zeitgenossen in einer Steleninschrift des assyrischen Königs Tiglathpileser III. aus dem Iran. ZDPV 89: 26–53. Wente, E.F. and van Siclen, C.C. 1977. A Chronology of the New Kingdom. In: Johnson, J. and Wente, E.F. eds. Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes. (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 39). Chicago: 217–261. Wiseman, D.J. 1951. The Historical Inscriptions from Nimrud. Iraq 13: 21–26. Wright, G.E. 1959. Israelite Samaria and Iron Age Chronology. BASOR 155: 13–29. Zobel, H.J. 1966. Abel-Mehola. ZDPV 82: 83–108.

On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings1 The chronology of the Israelite and Judean kings has been discussed innumerable times in the past and various chronological systems have been offered in an effort to account for the “mysterious numbers” in the Book of Kings. One issue that has been discussed is the reliability of the transmitted regnal years and the possibility that errors entered the text in the course of transmission. The problem of errors is particularly emphasized in the discussion of the difference of regnal years between the MT and the Greek versions. It is the purpose of this article to suggest an observation not yet proposed in the long history of research. It seems to me that this observation can shed new light on the problem of the antiquity of the “mysterious numbers” in the Book of Kings. J. Wellhausen (1878:231–232) has pointed out the schematic pattern of 2 x 480 years centered on the foundation of the First Temple (1 Kgs. 6:1). The number of regnal years of all kings of Judah, from the division of the monarchy to the exile, amounts to 394. The temple was founded in Solomon’s fourth year (1 Kgs. 6:1, 37) and Solomon reigned for forty years. Thus, 430 years passed from the building of the temple to its destruction. Another 50 years passed from the destruction of the temple to the foundation of the Second Temple in Cyrus’s second year (Ez. 3:8–9) (587/586–538/537 BCE). Therefore, according to biblical chronology, 480 years passed from the First Temple’s foundation to that of the Second Temple (Hughes 1990:36–39, 57, with earlier literature). C.F. Burney (1903:61; see Hughes 1990:32–33) drew the conclusion that 1 Kgs. 6:1 “appears to be the work of a post-exilic editor, the same no doubt as will later on come into prominence through the insertions made by him under the influence of the Priestly Code.” All scholars have recognized the late date of 1 Kgs. 6:1.2 We may ask, what is the scope of the Priestly ed-

1. Reprinted with permission. Theologische Zeitschrift 55 (1999), 44–46. 2. Stade 1883:135; Benzinger 1899:30; Montgomery 1951:38, 143–144; Gray 1970:159.

256

On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings

257

iting in the pericope of the building of the temple (1 Kings 6–8)? Are there other passages that may be attributed to this editorial work? Wellhausen (1878:232; 1889:267) noticed that 1 Kgs. 6:1 uses ḥōdeš, whereas vv. 37–38a has yeraḥ, and suggested that this is a mark of different authors. His analysis was accepted by other scholars, and the use of yeraḥ, plus a name of a Phoenician month, was sometimes considered as indicating the use of an old archival source (Montgomery 1951:38, 143–144; Gray 1970:23–24, 159; Halpern 1988:148–149). However, all epigraphic parallels to the dating formulae in 1 Kgs. 6:1, 37–38 and 8:2 are no earlier than the Persian period (KAI 14 from the fifth century BCE is the earliest epigraphic parallel) (see the references in Hurowitz 1992:227–233). Moreover, one Hellenistic inscription even uses ḥōdeš instead of yeraḥ (KAI 43:4), in parallel to 6:1 (bĕḥōdeš ziw). The assumption that the three month names used for dating different stages of the building and dedication of the temple (ziw, bul, hā’ētanîm) are old Canaanite and reflect the dating of the First Temple period is without concrete foundation. The close similarity to the date formulae of the Persian and Hellenistic inscriptions establishes the date of the biblical texts. I, therefore, agree with J. Van Seters that these date formulae are late additions to the text.3 In my opinion, the chronological system in 1 Kgs. 6:1, 37–38a and 8:2 is part of a larger Priestly redaction of the history of Solomon, the founder of the temple and, hence, the focus of an extensive priestly editorial work that encompasses (inter alia) 1 Kgs. 4:20–5:5 (English 4:20–25) and 8:1–11.4 We may now analyze the way in which the Priestly editor established his chronological system. As noted above, his chronology is based on the pattern of 2 x 480 years, centered on the foundation of the First Temple. According to his calculation, 50 years separate the destruction of the First Temple from the Second Temple’s foundation. He has combined the regnal years of the kings of Judah and arrived at the sum total of 394 years. By dating the foundation of the temple to Solomon’s fourth year (1 Kgs. 6:1, 37), the Priestly editor reached the number of 480 years. I believe that the pattern of 480 years (12 generations, each of 40 years) is the result of a calculation based on the regnal years of the kings of Judah, plus the 50 years span from destruction to foundation, plus an artificial dating for the foundation of Solomon’s temple. The number of years at which the Priestly editor arrived (480) was counted 3. Van Seters 1997:52–53. Hurowitz (1992:232) considered the assumption that the date formulae are secondary, but dismissed them for no obvious reason. Contrary to the evidence collected by him, he concludes (p. 233) that “verses 1–2 reflect a votive or a building inscription, while vv. 37–38 echo the royal or temple chronicle.” 4. For 1 Kgs. 4:20–5:5 (English 4,20–25), see Na’aman 1996. For the Priestly expansion in 1 Kgs. 8:1–11, see Hurowitz 1992:263–266.

258


backwards from the foundation of the temple to the beginning of the Exodus (1 Kgs. 6:1). In this light, it is clear that the regnal years of the kings of Judah, as recorded in the MT, are identical to the regnal years that were used by the Priestly editor. Otherwise, he would have dated the foundation of the temple differently to make it fit his chronological pattern of 480 years. Whether mistake(s) occur in the regnal years of the kings of Judah in an earlier stage of transmission (namely, from the composition of the Deuteronomistic history onward) remains unknown. We may conclude that the regnal years of the Judean kings remained stable, at least from the time of the Priestly editing of the Book of Kings during the Persian period. This conclusion may support the authenticity of the regnal years in the MT as against the tradition of the LXX, but the discussion of this problem is beyond the scope of this paper.

References Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament). Leipzig and Tübingen. Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford. (Reprint 1970. New York). Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd revised edition. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Halpern, B. 1988. The First Historians. The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco. Hughes, J. 1990. Secrets of the Times. Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 66). Sheffield. Hurowitz, V.(A.) 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115). Sheffield. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Na’aman, N. 1996. Sources and Composition in the History of David. In: Fritz, V. and Davies, P.R. eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 228). Sheffield: 170–186. Stade, B. 1883. Der Text des Berichtes über Salomos Bauten. 1 Kö 5–7. ZAW 3: 129–177. Van Seters, J. 1997. Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59: 45–57. Wellhausen, J. 1878. Die geschichtlichen Bücher [Richter, Ruth, Samuelis, Könige]. In: Bleek, F. ed. Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift. Erster Theil: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. (4th ed.). Berlin: 181–267. Wellhausen, J. 1889. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testament. (2nd ed.). Berlin.

The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers1 In their article on Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser in the Book of Kings, Cogan and Tadmor (1979:499–508 [505]) suggest that the term „Á˘ in 2 Kgs. 16:8 was deliberately selected to express the author’s negative attitude concerning the appeal for help to a foreign king. They note that the same critical term appears in the story of the message sent by Asa to the king of Damascus (1 Kgs. 15:19) and suggest that here, too, it expresses the author’s disapproval: “The tenor of the story implies that the appeal of Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser marked the start of Judah’s servitude to Assyria, a servitude which was initiated by Ahaz.” Ackroyd (1984:249–251, 258 n. 11), on the other hand, assumes that 2 Kings 16 contains no comment on Ahaz’s appeal to Assyria; any negative evaluation of that appeal depends rather on the broader context in which Ahaz is condemned. Thus, the term „Á˘ may be regarded as a technical term with no negative connotation. The overall picture of Ahaz suggests that a particular politico-religious view, namely that appeal for help to an alien power was to be regarded as bad theologically, has contributed to the negative assessment of that particular king in the context of the more evidently religious condemnations which are offered of him.

It is the purpose of the present article to re-examine the author’s evaluation of appeal and surrender to foreign kings in the wider context of the Book of Kings. I would suggest that the author (or rather authors, see below, section 3) of Kings adopt a critical attitude toward certain rulers in whose time Israel/ Judah voluntarily became vassal to a foreign power. This attitude is expressed by a combination of explicit and implicit polemic.2 Open criticism is expressed by a negative religious assessment of the king and hidden or indirect criticism by a subtle coloring of the description of the king’s acts and the way in which he became vassal to a foreign ruler. We shall consider a number of elements woven into the fabric of each story and the common denominator of all these

1. Reprinted with permission. JSOT 65 (1995), 37–53. 2. For indirect open polemic and hidden polemic, see recently Amit 1990:4–12.

259

260


stories, which, it will be argued, reflects the attitude of the author(s) toward a recurring political phenomenon.

1. Menahem of Israel Menahem was possibly born in Tirzah, which served as his base of power during the revolt. He first conspired against Shallum, the former king, and killed him (2 Kgs. 15:14), then attacked Tappuah, possibly the ancestral city of his rival (2 Kgs. 15:16).3 “ Then Menahem attacked Tappuah (MT Tiphsah) and all who were in it and its border areas from Tirzah, because it would not open (the gate) (Á˙Ù) and he defeated it, and he ripped open all its pregnant women.

“Ripping open pregnant women” is a literary phrase used to impress upon the reader the horrors of war (Cogan 1983:755–757). In two instances it refers to atrocities (2 Kgs. 8:12; Amos 1:13) and once to the future fate of Samaria (Hos. 14:1). Cogan (1983:757; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:171) suggests that here it is a late editorial remark appended to an annalistic quotation (16a). However, it was more probably composed by the author as part of his characterization of Menahem. By portraying him as a brutal usurper who treated the citizens of an Israelite city as cruelly as did the Arameans and Ammonites, the author prepared the way for depicting his conduct in his relations with the Assyrian ruler. And he did what was displeasing to YHWH; he did not depart all his days (ÂÈÓÈ ÏÎ) from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin (v. 18). . . . 4

The deliberate emphasis on Menahem’s sins “all his days,” which departs from the common formula (compare, e.g., 2 Kgs. 15:9, 24, 28), is part of the open criticism of the Israelite king by the author of Kings.

3. For the suggestion that Shallum was the leader of the Ephraimite, whereas Menahem was the leader of the Manassite party, see Gray 1970:622–623. For further discussion, see Jones 1984:522–524. 4. LXX reads ÂÈÓÈ· in place of MT ÂÈÓÈ ÏÎ. Most commentators omit “all his days” and attach the words “in his days” to the next verse. See, e.g., Benzinger 1899:168; Burney 1903:322; Montgomery 1951:450, 455; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:169. However I believe it best to follow the MT, but assume a haplography at the end of v. 18 by which an original ÂÈÓÈ· was mistakenly omitted in the course of transmission. Thus, it is suggested that both the MT and the LXX preserved a corrupted text in which either ÂÈÓÈ· or ÂÈÓÈ ÏÎ was omitted due to haplography.

The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers

261

, Pul king of Assyria marched against the country. Menahem paid Pul a thousand talents of silver so that he would support him in holding on to the kingdom (v. 19).

Indirect polemic against Menahem is expressed here by the negative presentation of his motive in paying the tribute: to gain the support of the Assyrian king in his efforts to retain control of the throne. It goes without saying that Menahem was obliged to pay the tribute to forestall the destruction of his kingdom. Depicting the paying of a tribute exacted by the Assyrian king as self-seeking is clear evidence for the author’s opinion of Menahem. Menahem levied (‡ˆÈÂ) the silver from Israel, that is, every man of means had to pay to the king of Assyria fifty shekels of silver per person. Then the king of Assyria withdrew and did not remain there in the country (v. 20).

The text continues in a similar critical vein: Not only did Menahem pay the tribute to maintain his throne, but the payment cost him nothing — it was all levied from his subjects. The use of ‡ˆÈ in the hiph‘il with “money” is unique, and it is impossible to accurately establish whether it has the meaning of “he exacted” (so RSV; compare 2 Kgs. 23:35)5 or, more neutrally, “he levied.” To better understand this description of Menahem’s reign, therefore, one must distinguish between source material and the composition of the historian. The source material included notes on (a) Menahem’s rebellion, in the course of which he killed Shallum in Samaria and destroyed the city of Tappuah, which refused to open its gates before his troops; (b) his ascendency to the throne of Israel; (c) the Assyrian campaign against “the country” and Menahem’s payment of a heavy tribute to the Assyrian king; and (d) Menahem’s death and his son’s ascent to the throne. These written sources were worked by the historian; it is he who was responsible for the negative shaping of the personality of the usurper. To accomplish this, he inserted a combination of open and hidden critical remarks into the description. These tendentious notes include the comment concerning ripping open pregnant women (v. 16b), the expansion of the regular mention of cultic sins by the words “all his days” (v. 18), the emphasis on an unworthy motive for the payment of the tribute to Tiglath-pileser (v. 19), and the levying of the silver from the people rather than paying from the royal treasure (v. 20). Why did the historian describe Menahem in such a manner? The answer may be found in the fact that Menahem’s rule marks the start of Israel’s ser5. For the translation “he exacted,” see Šanda 1912:186; Jones 1984:526.

262


vitude to Assyria, a servitude that ends with the annexation of Israel and the deportation of its people. Menahem’s readiness to pay the tribute was presented as acquiescence in a state of vassalage, and he was regarded as the king who opened the way for subsequent events. With these considerations in mind, the historian worked his sources and depicted the king’s reign in a distinctly unfavorable light, from the time of his rebellion to the paying of tribute to Assyria.

2. Ahaz of Judah The religious assessment of Ahaz in 2 Kgs. 16:2b–4 is utterly negative. The words “he followed the ways of the kings of Israel” (v. 3a) are also applied to Jehoram of Judah in 2 Kgs. 8:18, where it is clear that “the ways of the kings of Israel” refers to the ways of “the house of Ahab” (compare 2 Kgs. 8:27). However, whereas, in Jehoram’s case, there is a statement of YHWH’s unwillingness to destroy Judah at that time (2 Kgs. 8:19), no such statement appears about Ahaz. Furthermore, Ahaz passed his son through the fire, “imitating the abominations of the nations whom YHWH dispossessed before the Israelites” (2 Kgs. 16:3b). A similar expression appears in 2 Kgs. 17:8, at the beginning of the lengthy protasis that explains in religious terms the fall of the kingdom of Israel and the deportation of its people. Passing one’s son through the fire and imitating the dispossessed nations of Canaan are also mentioned among the sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs. 21:2, 6), during whose reign the fate of the kingdom of Judah was determined and sealed by YHWH (2 Kgs. 21:10–15; see 2 Kgs. 23:26–27; 24:3). Thus, it is evident that, according to the author of the Book of Kings, the days of Ahaz mark the beginning of the period that ends with the destruction of Judah and the deportation of its people (Ben Zvi 1987:17–21). Tadmor and Cogan (1979:498–499) correctly note the deliberate juxtaposition of 2 Kgs. 16:1–4 and 5–6 to convey the sense of punishment meted out to Ahaz for his sins. This editorial device has parallels in 1 Kgs. 11:1–28, 40; 14:21–26; 1 Kgs. 22:52–2 Kgs. 1:1; 2 Kgs. 8:16–22; 13:1–3 (and vice-versa in 2 Kgs. 18:3–8). The juxtaposition of sin and punishment in these passages is the work of the author of the book, who combined the source material in such a way as to convey his own message to the reader. The description of the Syro-Ephraimite war is introduced in 2 Kgs. 16:5 thus: Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to do battle against Jerusalem. They besieged Ahaz, but they were unable to attack.

In the parallel passage, Isa. 7:1, the words ÊÁ‡ ÏÚ Â¯ˆÈÂ are missing. It has been suggested that the phrase is an erroneous copy of an original ‰ÈÏÚ Â¯ˆÈÂ


263

(see BHS; Würthwein 1984:385). However, the expression “to besiege someone” appears in 1 Sam. 23:8 and 2 Sam. 20:15, and it would appear that the text in 2 Kgs. 16:5 was deliberately formulated in this manner to emphasize that the campaign was conducted against the king rather than against his city or his subjects. According to the author of Kings, Ahaz’s appeal for help to the Assyrian king was motivated like Menahem’s payment of the tribute, to save his skin and to keep his throne, rather than save the kingdom or the city. The following words (“but they were unable to attack”) again convey a negative message: The king’s appeal to Tiglath-pileser took place even though no real danger threatened his city. We may conclude that the presentation of Ahaz in v. 5 is tendentious and designed to present his attitude during the war in an unfavorable light. For a better appreciation of the text of 2 Kgs. 16:5, it should be compared with the closely related text of Isaiah 7:1: In the days of Ahaz . . . Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to do battle against it, and he (Ahaz) was unable (ÏÎÈ ‡ÏÂ) to fight for it.6

RV gives “but could not prevail against it”; RSV gives “but they could not conquer it.” I suggest that the translation should follow the MT. This is required by the emphasis placed on the state of panic induced both in the royal house and among the people (vv. 2, 4).7 It seems to me that the Isaianic editor faithfully reflected his Vorlage, by conveying the threat to the city (“to do battle against it”) and Ahaz’s helplessness in face of the attack (“and he was unable to fight for it”) in a dry chronistic style. Isa. 7:1 serves as an introduction to the prophetic narrative in vv. 2–9, which mainly emphasizes the calmness of the prophet in a situation of real threat and his trust in YHWH’s help as against the state of panic of the king and his people.8 The difference in the words of 2 Kgs. 16:5 and Isa. 7:1 is remarkable. The former text forms an integral part of the anti-Ahaz presentation in Kings; its

6. Gray (1970:632) reconstructed in 2 Kgs. 16:5bb “and he (Ahaz) could not fight for it.” Budde (1899/1900:327–330) suggested reconstructing “and he was unable to fight against them.” Unfortunately, this attractive suggestion has no versional support. 7. For the various reconstructions and translations of the text, see Irvine 1990:80–84, 135–38, with earlier literature. 8. For a different interpretation, see Ackroyd 1968:27–30. The prophet’s confidence in YHWH and his calmness are significant only in a state of emergency. If there were no real threat to the king and the people, the prophet’s behavior would have no special meaning in the narrative.

264


author rewrote his Vorlage to portray Ahaz in a an unfavorable light. The latter text serves as an introduction to the prophetic narrative; its author would have had no reason to amend his Vorlage, because it was quite appropriate to his literary and theological aims. Ahaz’s appeal for help to the Assyrian king is related in 2 Kgs. 16:7–8: Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria with the words: “I am your servant and your son. Come, rescue me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel who are attacking me.” Ahaz took the silver and the gold stored in the House of YHWH and in the palace treasury, and sent a bribe („Á˘) to the king of Assyria.

Verse 8b characterizes Ahaz’s payment as a „Á˘. On the basis of inner-biblical exegesis and semantic similarity to Akkadian ṭātu, Tadmor and Cogan (1979:499–503; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:188) have pointed out that „Á˘ means here “bribe” and reflects a critical attitude on the part of the author toward the deed of Ahaz. They have further discussed Ahaz’s declaration of submission to the Assyrian king: “I am your servant and your son” (v. 7).9 The combination of the terms “son” and “servant” is unique in the Bible and is rarely attested in ancient Near Eastern documents. In the Assyrian royal correspondence, the writer always refers to himself as “servant” when addressing the king. It is clear that the expression in v. 7 was coined by the author of the story and is not borrowed from an ancient source. Does the expression “your servant and your son” carry a pejorative connotation? Tadmor and Cogan did not discuss this problem. Irvine (1990:87– 88) suggested that, according to the Judean royal ideology, the Davidic king was the servant and son of YHWH. Ahaz’s declaration in his letter to Tiglathpileser may reflect unfaithfulness to YHWH and is perhaps used pejoratively. This interpretation is highly unlikely. If unfaithfulness to YHWH was indeed intended, why did not the author simply use “your servant” rather than this unique expression? Nowhere in the Bible is a king of Judah regarded as both son and servant of YHWH, thus, the expression can hardly have a religious implication. It seems to me that “servant” and “son” together convey the message that Ahaz’s submission to Assyria was of his own free will. All vassals of the Assyrian king were his “servants,” but Ahaz at this stage was also a “son,” i.e., a minor independent political partner. He became a “servant” of Assyria only

9. Tadmor and Cogan 1979:504–505. For further literature, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988:187; Irvine 1990:87, n. 39. The combination “your son” and “your servant” appears also in the letter from Ugarit that was unearthed at Tel Aphek. See Owen 1981:7, line 6, 11.


265

by virtue of his voluntary submission, a deed that is described in detail in vv. 7–10. Another indication of the author’s critical attitude toward the action taken by Ahaz is the emphasis on the payment of silver and gold stored “in the House of YHWH and in the palace treasury.” The motif of the taking/ paying of treasure is quite common in the Book of Kings and was formulated by the author on the basis of logical deduction from his sources.10 Treasures are reported taken either by force as booty (1 Kgs. 14:26; 2 Kgs. 14:14; 24:13), paid in response to a threat to Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 12:19; 18:15) or paid as a “bribe” to foreign rulers (1 Kgs. 15:18; 2 Kgs. 16:8; compare Isa. 30:6–7). The payment of treasure under threat of siege may have been described in a non-critical tone.11 The voluntary dispatch of silver and gold from the palace and temple treasures, on the other hand, has clearly unfavorable connotations and appears in our text as part of the author’s critical attitude toward Ahaz. A short discussion of the passage describing Asa’s appeal to the Aramean king (1 Kgs. 15:18–20) will clarify the author’s attitude toward the two kings. According to v. 18, Asa sent all the treasures of the temple and the palace to Ben-Hadad of Damascus. His message to the Aramean king is cited in v. 19: Let there be a covenant between me and you, as between my father and your father. Behold I am sending to you a bribe („Á˘)of silver and gold; go, break your covenant with Baasha king of Israel, that he may withdraw from me.

The negative connotation of the word „Á˘ has already been discussed. The voluntary payment from the treasures of the temple and the palace to the king of Damascus to invite an attack on the Northern kingdom has a distinctly negative flavor. Most remarkable of all, however, is the request to

10. On the Deuteronomistic Historian’s treatment of despoliations of the royal and temple treasuries, see Mullen 1992:231–248. However, I would very much doubt Mullen’s suggestion that these notices consistently serve as a part of the “punishment” for numerous rulers who failed to remove the high places. For the motif of the payment to an enemy king in exchange for a military aid in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, see Liverani 1983: 43–66. 11. There is a notable difference between the episodes of Jehoash and Hezekiah. The former is said to have paid the king of Aram all the sacred objects and all the gold (2 Kgs. 12:19), whereas the latter paid the Assyrian king both gold and silver, but, according to the text, took only the silver from the treasury (2 Kgs. 18:14–15). The difference is apparently due to the author’s positive judgement of Hezekiah and his efforts to present him in the most favorable light possible.

266


break the covenant. Asa is portrayed here as the instigator of a violation of a covenant, an act with serious implications in biblical literature (compare, e.g., Deut. 31:16, 20; Jer. 11:10; 31:31; 33:20; Ezek. 17:11–21). Asa is depicted in this passage in an unfavorable light: The author accuses him of (a) sending the treasures of the temple and palace as a bribe to the king of Damascus, a traditional enemy of Israel; (b) inciting the latter to break a covenant between Aram and Israel; and (c) bringing heavy destruction to the Northern Kingdom (v. 20). The entire passage is a harsh criticism of Asa based upon an early source that the historian reworked extensively according to his own historical outlook. The historian likewise reworked his sources concerning Ahaz’s reign according to his own theological concepts and historical outlook. He expanded the account of the king’s idolatrous sins (vv. 2b–4), juxtaposing them with his military weakness (vv. 5–6). He further depicted him unfavorably in the episode of the attack on Jerusalem by emphasizing (a) that the siege was conducted against the sinning king rather than against his people or his city; (b) that his appeal to Assyria took place when there was no real threat to him or his city; (c) that he was still in a position to choose whether or not to be an Assyrian vassal; and (d) that to achieve his ends he took the treasures of the temple and the palace and sent them as a bribe to the king of Assyria. By the combination of explicit and implicit criticism, the author succeeded in fashioning a coherent picture of Ahaz that is the main source for the utterly negative representation of his reign in Chronicles. Irvine (1990:88) has suggested recently that the “deuteronomistic editors” copied 2 Kgs. 16:5–6 from ancient sources and reworked vv. 7–9 on the basis of received information. In my opinion, the entire description in 2 Kgs. 16:1–9 is the work of the author of Kings who composed his description on the basis of source materials and extensively reworked them according to his own interpretation. The construction of the new altar (2 Kgs. 16:10–16) occupies a considerable part of the history of Ahaz. Some scholars have emphasized that there is no disapproval of Ahaz’s act in the passage and that criticism is inferred only from the inclusion of the passage in the history of the apostate king (2 Kgs. 16:2b–4).12 McKay (1973:7) has noted however that “since it is the Deuteronomist’s intention to portray Ahaz an an apostate (2 Kgs. 16:2–4), the incident must have been included in the history as an example of the evils of his reign.”

12. Šanda 1912:207; Spieckermann 1982:365–366; Gonçalves 1986:40–41, with earlier literature in n. 95.


267

Are there negative allusions in the description of Ahaz’s new altar construction? In my opinion the answer is “yes.” A case in point is that no changes in the temple of Jerusalem are ever ascribed to reformer kings. Rather, the kings who carried out extensive reforms in the temple are Ahaz and Manasseh, the two major apostate kings of Judah; it is the righteous king Josiah who purged the temple and restored everything to its original purity. Within the Book of Kings, this “original purity” pertains to the time of Solomon, when the temple was built and all the sacred objects and vessels were fixed therein.13 It seems to me that a third major theme — the continuity of the original cult in the temple of Jerusalem — must be added to the two grand themes of the Deuteronomistic History identified by Cross (1973:274– 289), the sins of Jeroboam and the promise to David. The theme of the temple cult and sacred objects opens with the building of the temple and reaches its lowest ebb with the sins of Manasseh and its peak with the reform of Josiah.14 According to the author of the original composition of the Book of Kings (Dtr1), the juxtaposition of the three themes, of threat, promise, and cultic purity, provides the platform of the Josianic reform. The various reports of the payments to foreign kings from the temple treasures, of the rebellion in the temple against Athaliah (2 Kings 11), or of the restoration of the temple by Joash (2 Kgs. 12) are all constituent parts of this major theme. When examined in this light, it is clear that the historian judged Ahaz’s altar reform negatively. The sending of the priest to the former enemy’s capital city (Damascus), the stress on the imitation of the Aramean altar in all details (i.e., the import of a foreign plan and design for the new altar), the emphasis on the king’s personal participation in the sacrifice, the removal of the Solomonic bronze altar (see 1 Kgs. 8:64) and its appropriation by the king for his own private worship — all these are elements in the historian’s indirect criticism of the deed. Also, the narrative continuity between Ahaz’s voluntary surrender to Assyria (vv. 7–9) and the episode of the building of the new altar (vv. 10–16) were intended to link the two episodes by suggesting that the second is the direct result of the first. No doubt, the story in vv. 10– 16 is based on an ancient written source, but I would very much doubt that it was copied literally from the original document.15 The source must have been

13. Cogan and Tadmor (1988:193) suggested that “Ahaz’s innovations . . . are criticized . . . because they upset the order of things in the Temple as established by Solomon.” 14. For the development of the theme in the post-exilic and Second Temple period, see Ackroyd 1972:166–181. 15. Benzinger 1899:159, 170–171; Rendtorff 1967:49–50; Hoffmann 1980:141–145; Spieckermann 1982:365–366; Gonçalves 1986:39–40; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:193.

268


adapted by the historian to present Ahaz in an unfavorable light, although the criticism is indirect and sometimes appears only between the lines. In the historian’s historiographical pattern, Ahaz is the negative figure of Hezekiah. The latter is described as a just and righteous king, unlike any other king either before or after, who undertook a cultic reform (2 Kgs. 18:3–7). In opposition to his righteousness are his military success (v. 8) and his rebellion against Assyria (v. 7). Whereas Ahaz had voluntarily yielded to Tiglath-pileser, Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria and was his vassal no longer.” We may conclude that the servitude to Assyria, initiated by Ahaz, considerably influenced the historian’s criticism of that king’s reign, whereas Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria was regarded favorably by the historian and deeply influenced his portrayal of the figure of the king.

3. Jehoiakim of Judah A large number of scholars support the suggestion (first presented in its full form by Cross) that the original edition of Kings was composed in the time of Josiah to promote his reforms and that a second redactor updated the work in the exile, with the addition of 2 Kgs. 23:25b–25:30 and a series of other passages.16 The history of Jehoiakim was written according to this theory (with which I wholly agree) by the post-exilic redactor (Dtr2), unlike the histories of Menahem, Ahaz and Hezekiah, which were composed by the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr1). Jehoiakim is one of the four last kings of Judah who did “what was displeasing to YHWH.” The brevity of the religious evaluation of all four kings is due to historiographic considerations: The fate of Judah had already been sealed (2 Kgs. 21:12–15; 23:26–27; 24:3–4), and there was no need for further comment. According to 2 Kgs. 23:31–35, Jehoiakim was elevated to kingship by Pharaoh Necho after the captivity and exile of Jehoahaz, his brother. Necho “imposed an indemnity on the land of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold” (v. 33). The payment of the heavy tribute by Jehoiakim is related in v. 35: Jehoiakim paid Pharaoh the silver and the gold, but assessed the land so as to pay the amount set by Pharaoh. He exacted (˘‚) the silver and the gold from the people of the land, each according to his assessment, so as to pay Pharaoh Necho.

16. For the suggestion that the Deuteronomistic History was written by an author during the reign of Josiah, see, e.g., Cross 1973:274–289; Nelson 1981; Friedman 1981a; 1981b:167–192; Levenson 1975:103–133; McKenzie 1991.


269

The heavy “indemnity” of silver and gold paid by Jehoiakim must have been the “price” for the recognition and legitimation of his rule by the pharaoh. However, unlike the history of Menahem, where this is stated explicitly (2 Kgs. 15:19 “so that he would support him in holding on to the kingdom”), the motif of payment for recognition is only implicit here. A good parallel for both histories is the heavy tribute paid, according to the Assyrian royal inscriptions, by Hoshea to Tiglath-pileser immediately after the assassination of Pekah and his own coronation. The payment was the “price” for the recognition and legitimation of Hoshea by the Assyrian king (Borger and Tadmor 1982:244–249; Na’aman 1986:71–74). Remarkable in the text of 2 Kgs. 23:31–35 is the use of the verb ˘‚ (“to exact”) to describe the way in which Jehoiakim collected the tribute from his subjects. This verb and its derivatives have a distinctly negative connotation in the Bible. For example, these words refer to the exaction of debt by a creditor (Deut. 15:2, 3), to the exactor of tribute (Dn. 11:20), to task masters who forced the people to work (Ex. 3:7; 5:6, 10, 13, 14), and to the tyranny of foreign powers (Isa. 9:3; 14:2, 4). It is clear that the narrator deliberately selected the verb to express his disapproval of Jehoiakim’s deed. Furthermore, the expression “People of the Land” (ı¯‡‰ ÌÚ) always appears in a favorable light in Kings. By emphasizing that the tribute was exacted from ı¯‡‰ ÌÚ (i.e., the free population of Judah), the author has cast Jehoiakim’s deed in an unfavorable light. It is worth noting that the motif of payment of the treasuries of the palace and temple to a foreign king is not employed here. It appears in the history of Dtr1 in all episodes in which Judean rulers paid tribute to an actual or potential conqueror (Rehoboam, Jehoash, Amaziah, Hezekiah) or to procure the services of a foreign monarch (Asa, Ahaz) and was evidently abandoned by Dtr2. I would very much doubt the suggestion of Begg (1986:31–32; see Mullen 1992:236, 247) that the motif of the loss of the wealth of the palace and temple to foreign kings was narrated with the intention of foreshadowing the final destruction of the temple in 587 BCE. The history of Dtr1, in which the payments of the treasuries are included, reached its climax in the reign of Josiah; the destruction and despoliation of the temple were counter to the author’s optimistic outlook for the future. The narrator’s critical attitude to Jehoiakim is also expressed in the description of his rebellion against the king of Babylonia (2 Kgs. 24:2a): YHWH let loose bands of Chaldeans, Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites against him and he let them loose against Judah to destroy him.

LXXB omits YHWH in v. 2, thus, allowing the subject to be construed as Nebuchadnezzar. Some commentators have followed this version and read

270


also “to destroy (it)” or “to destroy them” in place of MT “to destroy him.”17 Neither correction is necessary (Barthélemy 1982:421–422). One may suggest, rather, that the description reflects the negative attitude of the author to the rebellion of a king who began his political career by a voluntary surrender to the pharaoh. The downfall of the rebel king is interwoven with the motif of the destruction of the kingdom, as is evident from the mention of YHWH’s prophecy of doom following the sins of Manasseh (vv. 2b–4). The havoc wrought by the bands of foreign troops is regarded both as the destruction of Jehoiakim and the fulfillment of the earlier prophecy of doom against Judah. The indirect critical attitude toward Jehoiakim in 2 Kings stands in marked contrast to the direct, vehement criticism of the king in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 22:13–19; 26; 36). This is another remarkable demonstration of the large gap in the outlook of the two authorities, “historians and prophets,” to the persons and to the events in which they played the major role.

Conclusions The evidence analyzed in the discussion suggests a critical approach on the part of the deuteronomistic authors of Kings (Dtr1 and Dtr2) to certain rulers who voluntarily brought about Israel’s and Judah’s vassaldom to foreign powers. Menahem’s payment of the tribute to Tiglath-pileser and Ahaz’s appeal to the Assyrian king marked the beginning of Israel’s and Judah’s servitude to Assyria. Jehoiakim’s payment of the tribute to Necho and his subsequent surrender to Nebuchadnezzar marked the beginning of Judah’s servitude to Egypt and Babylonia. Furthermore, Menahem initiated the servitude to the kingdom that would later destroy Israel; the reign of Ahaz is viewed as the beginning of the period that ends with the final destruction of Judah; and Jehoiakim inaugurated the servitude to the kingdom that would later destroy Judah. This perception of events served as the context for the authors’ critical approach to these three kings. This is not to say that there were no other reasons for this presentation. Theological interpretation and historiographical pattern certainly played a major role in shaping the description. At least in the case of Ahaz, the historian may have had some source material from which he drew his negative conclusion about the king’s religious and cultic sins. However, it is important to note the authors’ critical stand regarding servitude to foreign powers as a kind of “national” ideology which deeply influenced the depiction of the history of the three kings.

634.

17. Montgomery 1951:552, 554; Gray 1970:757 and n. a; Würthwein 1984:468; Jones 1984:


271

Another case in point is the description of Asa’s appeal to Damascus for help. Asa is described as a reformer king who did what was pleasing to YHWH. Yet the appeal for help to an enemy of Israel, which brought about the conquest of Upper Galilee by the Arameans (1 Kgs. 15:20), is perceived negatively by the historian and, thus, is depicted in an unfavorable light. In marked contrast to these kings stands Hezekiah in his rebellion against Assyria. Historically, the rebellion was an utter failure, bringing about largescale destruction, mass deportation, desolation of large districts, loss of extensive territories, and worse subjection than ever before. Yet, according to the author, Hezekiah met with impressive success: The insolent Assyrian king retreated from Judah following the intervention of the God of Israel, and Assyria is not mentioned any more in accounts of the reign of later Judean kings. It is not my intention here to discuss the enormous gap between history “as it was” and the description of the Book of Kings (see Ackroyd 1984:247–259; Na’aman 1991:96–97). I would rather emphasize that ideological considerations played a major role in the shaping of Hezekiah’s history. Thus, the rebellion, which brought about such catastrophic results for the kingdom of Judah, is treated favorably by the historian, just like all the other deeds of the righteous king. Remarkable in the descriptions of the kings considered here is the combination of open direct criticism and indirect criticism or even hidden polemic. This is due to a literary decision on the part of the authors, who sought to create a multi-layered composition. Their religious message in the introduction to each reign is always direct and open, whereas their “political” message is usually more subtle and sometimes may be read only between the lines. Finally, a word of caution must be added about the assumption of verbatim citation of sources in the Book of Kings. It must be remembered that the deuteronomistic historians were authors in the full sense of the word and should always be treated as such. To speak of “deuteronomistic editor(s)” and to assume passive verbatim citation of sources may lead us far astray from reality. As authors, the historians had full freedom to treat their sources at will, according to their own literary, ideological, and theological inclinations. It is perfectly legitimate to look for the ancient sources within the Book of Kings and try to isolate them from later additions and elaborations. But one must always take into account the possibility of the reworking, at times very extensive, of these ancient sources by the historian, even to the extent that their original words and/or core are no longer traceable.18 Admittedly, this is

18. The view that the Deuteronomistic Historian was a creative author rather than an editor or redactor was emphasized by Hoffmann 1980:315–322; Van Seters 1983:299–302, 315–321.

272


a serious limitation for the modern historian who is trying to collect all the fragments of evidence for reconstructing the history of Israel. However, it is better to have an incomplete picture than one seemingly more complete in which facts and misrepresentations are hopelessly intertwined in a way that precludes the understanding of history as it really transpired.

References Ackroyd, P.R. 1968. Historians and Prophets. Svensk Exegetisk Åarsbok 33: 18–54. Ackroyd, P.R. 1972. The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme. Supplement to VT 23: 166– 181. Ackroyd, P.R. 1984. The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. In: Barrick, W.B. and Spencer, J.R. eds. In the Shelter of Elyon. Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 31). Sheffield: 247–259. Amit, Y. 1990. Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges xvii-xviii. VT 40: 2–20. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Begg, C.T. 1986. 2 Kings 20:12–19 as an Element of the Deuteronomistic History. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48: 27–38. Ben Zvi, E. 1987. Judah in the Days of the Assyrian Hegemony. MA Thesis. Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige erklärt. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament IX). Leipzig and Tübingen. BHS = Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W. eds. Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia. Stuttgart. Borger, R. and Tadmor, H. 1982. Zwei Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglatpilesers III. ZAW 94: 244–249. Budde, K. 1899/1900. Isaiah vii. 1 and 2 Kings xvi. 5. Expository Times 11: 327–330. Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford. Cogan, M. 1983. “Ripping Open Pregnant Women” in Light of an Assyrian Analogue. JAOS 103: 755–757. Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City. Cross, F.M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epics. Cambridge, Mass. Friedman, R.E. 1981a. The Exile and Biblical Narrative. The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. Chico, CA. Friedman, R.E. 1981b. From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2. In: Halpern, B. and Levenson, J.D. eds. Traditions in Transformation. Turning Points in Biblical Faith. Winona Lake: 167–192. Gonçalves, F.J. 1986. L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne. (Etudes Bibliques 7). Louvain-la-Neuve. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Hoffmann, H.-D. 1980. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten and Neuen Testaments 66). Zürich.


273

Irvine, S.A. 1990. Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis. (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 123). Atlanta. Jones, G.H. 1984. 1 and 2 Kings. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Levenson, J.D. 1975. Who Inserted the Book of the Torah? Harvard Theological Review 68: 103–133. Liverani, M. 1983. Kitru, Katāru. Mesopotamia 17: 43–66. McKay, J. 1973. Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732–609 BC. (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 26). London. McKenzie, S.L. 1991. The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. (Supplement to VT 42). Leiden. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mullen, E.T. 1992. Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasuries. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54: 231–248. Na’aman, N. 1986. Historical and Chronological Notes on the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth Century B.C. VT 36: 71–92. Na’aman, N. 1991. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course of the Assyrian Campaigns to the West. In: Cogan, M. and Eph‘al, I. eds. Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem: 80–98. Nelson, R.D. 1981. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 18). Sheffield. Owen, D.I. 1981. An Akkadian Letter from Ugarit at Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 8: 8–17. Rendtorff, R. 1967. Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten Israel. (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Šanda, A. 1912. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. 2. Das zweite Buch der Könige. (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9/2). Münster. Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129). Göttingen. Tadmor, H. and Cogan, M. 1979. Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings. Historiographic Considerations. Biblica 60: 491–508. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven. Würthwein, E. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2). Göttingen.

The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in Light of Historical and Archaeological Research1 Hezekiah’s cultic reform is mentioned in the Book of Kings in two separated verses: once in the introduction to the description of his reign (2 Kgs. 18:4) and again in the words of the Rab-shakeh (18:22). Some scholars have accepted its historicity and have suggested various explanations for this early reform, which antedated the reform of Josiah by almost a century.2 Other scholars have doubted its historicity, regarding it as an artificial projection of Josiah’s reform and suggesting historiographic and theological explanations for the author’s attribution of such reform to Hezekiah.3 The silence of the prophets Isaiah and Micah, contemporaries of Hezekiah, concerning the reform has sometimes been regarded as added evidence for the non-historical character of the references in Kings.4 Many more details of Hezekiah’s cultic activity are mentioned in the Book of Chronicles (2 Chr. 29–31). Some scholars have suggested that the Chronicler’s narrative concerning Hezekiah corroborates and supplements the data found in Kings, and they reconstruct the reform by combining the two sources.5 However, Chronicles is a problematic source for the reconstruction of history. It seems that the work is based mainly on the Books of Samuel 1. Reprinted with permission. ZAW 107 (1995), 179–195. 2. See the extensive literature cited by Spieckermann 1982:174, n. 34. See also Haran 1978:132–142; Ahlström 1982:65–68; Miller and Hayes 1986:356–357; Gonçalves 1986:73–88, 100–101, with earlier literature; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:218–220; Halpern 1991:47–48, 65– 70; Weinfeld 1992:156–162. 3. For the list of literature, see Spieckermann 1982:174, n. 34; Hoffmann 1980:146–155; Gonçalves 1986:74, nn. 83, 85–86; Würthwein 1984:411–412; Handy 1988:111–115. 4. For the suggestion that the prophecy in Mic. 5:9–14 was delivered to stimulate or promote the religious reform of Hezekiah, see Willis 1969:353–368. However, the prophecy should certainly be dated to the exilic period, as suggested by Willis himself (1969:357). His reconstruction of the prophecy’s historical background and the tradition upon which it rested is highly speculative. 5. See for example: Todd 1956:288–293; Bright 1960:265–267; Albright 1963:76–77; Myers 1965:lxi; Nicholson 1963:383–386; Moriarty 1965:399–406; McKay 1973:15–17; Oded 1977:442–444; Reviv 1979:193–195; Rosenbaum 1979:23–43; Williamson 1982:361, 371–373; Herzog, Aharoni, Rainey and Moshkovitz 1984:21–22; Jones 1984:559–561.

274

The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform

275

and Kings and that the Chronicler had at his disposal a very limited number of pre-exilic sources (Willi 1972; Welten 1973). Furthermore, as described in Chronicles, Hezekiah’s involvement in the affairs of the newly founded Assyrian province of Samaria is highly unlikely. Samaria was conquered by Sargon II in 720 BCE and turned into an Assyrian province. Sargon implemented a “two-way” population transfer, relocating thousands of inhabitants from Samaria in various parts of the Assyrian empire and bringing in their place various groups from Babylonia and from the Syro-Arabian desert (Na’aman and Zadok 1988:36–46). He rebuilt the city of Samaria, established his own administration in the new province and imposed a tribute (Dalley 1985:31–36). The inhabitants of Samaria became Assyrian citizens. Any involvement of Hezekiah in the affairs of the newly founded province would have been seen as interference in internal Assyrian affairs and would have been severely punished by the energetic and powerful king of Assyria. It seems to me that the Chronicler had no source other than Kings for his account of Hezekiah’s reform, and that the description in 2 Chr 29–31 is not historically reliable. His description would best be omitted from the historical discussion.6 In this article I will first discuss the literary problem of 2 Kgs. 18:4, 22 and then examine the results of recent archaeological and historical research and their possible contribution to the long debate on the historicity of Hezekiah’s reform.

1. The Literary Problem of 2 Kgs. 18:4, 22 A. 2 Kgs. 18:4 summarizes the act of reform thus: He removed the high-places (bāmôt), and broke the sacred pillars (maṣṣebôt), and cut down the ’ašerîm7 and smashed in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until these days the Israelites were burning food offering (meqaṭṭerîm) to it. It was called Nehushtan.

The Deuteronomic law of extirpating the Canaanite cult objects runs thus: But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire (Dtr. 7:5).

6. For similar conclusions based on different arguments, see recently Gonçalves 1986: 88–99, with earlier literature. 7. See BHS.

276

Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography You shall tear down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire and hew down the graven images of their gods . . . (Dtr. 12:3).

When comparing the law of Deuteronomy with the text describing Hezekiah’s reform, it is clear that the latter fulfilled the law in every detail. Bāmāh is the Deuteronomistic (henceforth, Dtr.) appellation for a forbidden cult place, and bêt bāmôt is the designation for a forbidden temple. These negative appellations and their referents are counterposed in Dtr. literature to the temple of Jerusalem, the sole legitimate place of worship, which is referred to by “positive” appellations such as miqedāš, hêkāl, bêt YHWH and bêt ’elohîm (Haran 1978:13–25). The interchange of cult places (bāmôt) and altars (mizbeḥôt) in similar contexts in the Deuteronomic and Dtr. literature is because the altar was the major element in all cult places. The bronze serpent occupies exactly the same place in 2 Kgs. 18:4 as the graven image (pesel) in the passage of Deuteronomy cited above. That the serpent was regarded by the author of Kings as an image is further indicated by the words meqaṭṭerîm lo (“offering sacrifices to it”). Qiṭṭer (picel) has a distinctly pejorative connotation in the Dtr. literature; it appears mainly in descriptions of the burning of food offerings to “foreign” deities.8 Noteworthy also is the formulation “burning food offerings to it,” i.e., to the image rather than to YHWH, to whom the image was dedicated. Some scholars have suggested that only the record of the destruction of the Nehushtan is original and that v. 4a is an editorial expansion that was borrowed from the description of Josiah’s reform (McKay 1973:84, n. 5). In light of the above discussion, it seems more plausible to assume that the entire verse was formulated by the historian according to the pattern of the Deuteronomic law. He apparently combined paratactically the Deuteronomic triad of the altars (= bāmôt) — sacred pillars — Asherim with the archival note of the removal of the Nehushtan. The integration of the two sources would explain the use of the waw with the perfect (wekittat) (in place of the expected waw-consecutive) after v.4a.9 One may further note the similarity in the execution of the reforms of Asa and Hezekiah as described in the Book of Kings (1 Kgs. 15:12–13; 2 Kgs. 18,14): Both kings removed (hiphcil of swr) the “forbidden” cults and then destroyed a specific cult object (mipeleṣet made for Asherah; Nehushtan). One may assume that, for both kings, the author had an isolated archival note,

8. See Haran 1978:23–24, 233–234; Edelman 1985:401–404, with earlier literature. 9. For this problem, see the discussion in McKay 1973:84–85, n. 5, with earlier literature. For similar suggestions, see Hoffmann 1980:151–155; Spieckermann 1982:174–175, 420.


277

around which he wove a description of reform formulated in similar pattern and with lexicon borrowed from the Dtr. literature. Finally, we may note the deeds of Manasseh that partly reversed the reform of Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 21:3): He rebuilt the high-places (bāmôt) which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he erected altars for Bacal, and made an Asherah . . . and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

Hezekiah’s cultic centralization was reversed, according to 2 Kgs. 21:3, by the rebuilding of the destroyed cult places (bāmôt), a deed that is historically improbable, because, at that time, most of the Judean sites lay in ruins (see below). The rest of Manasseh’s recidivism as described in 2 Kings refers to his cultic arrangements in the temple of Jerusalem. In conclusion, there is a firm basis for the claim that the Dtr. historian composed his account of Hezekiah’s reform in 2 Kgs. 18:4 by combining an archival note of the removal of the Nehushtan with the law of Dtr. 7:5 and 12:3.10 The assumption that the text of 2 Kgs. 18:4 is a unitary excerpt from a pre-exilic archival source is quite unlikely, in light of the considerations reviewed above. B. There is scholarly controversy about the originality of 2 Kgs. 18:22 (and Jes. 36:7) within the speech of the Rab-shakeh. Some regard it as an integral part of the speech, and others suggest that it is a gloss or a part of the Dtr. redaction (Gonçalves 1986:74, nn. 85–88, 390–392). It seems to me that the latter alternative is better founded, because in several ways the verse departs from the inner structure of the first speech of the Rab-shakeh (2 Kgs. 18:19–25): (a) All passages open with the time adverb “now” (‘attāh), except for v. 22. (b) All other passages address Hezekiah in the second person singular, whereas v. 22 addresses the delegation in the second person plural. (c) Whereas the other passages address Hezekiah in the second person, this passage refers to him in the third person. It seems to me that v. 22 was inserted by the Dtr. historian when he integrated the narrative of the siege and the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem into his work and that it did not form part of the Rab-shakeh’s speech in the pre-Dtr. work. C. We may note, in passing, Jer. 26:17–19, which some scholars have considered a reference to Hezekiah’s reform under the impact of Micah’s preach-

10. There is no textual evidence for Haran’s suggestion (1978:132–148) that Hezekiah’s reform was based on the ideology of the Priestly source.

278


ing (Williamson 1982:372; Jones 1984:561). In this passage, Hezekiah is mentioned in connection with the prophet Micah (instead of Isaiah), and Mic. 3:12 is quoted. From Mic. 3:11, it is clear that the prophet is refuting those who have put their trust in the divine inviolability of Jerusalem (“Is not YHWH in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us”). Jeremiah has a similar message: Divine commitment to Jerusalem notwithstanding, without repentance the city will be destroyed (Jer. 26:2–6, 12–13). For the author of Jeremiah 26, Hezekiah serves as the model of true repentance: He heeds the prophet’s word, beseeches YHWH, and his city is saved (v. 19). The fact that it is Hezekiah’s response to the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem that is invoked here implies that the author of Jeremiah 26 is referring not to the short note on Hezekiah’s cultic reform, but, rather, to the king’s repentance in face of a threat to Jerusalem. Instead of trusting in the city’s inviolability, he appealed to the prophet, repented, entered the temple and prayed to YHWH (2 Kgs. 19:1–4, 14–19). It is evident that, to teach his readers a lesson, the author of Jeremiah 26 combined Micah’s warnings against relying on the divine inviolability of Jerusalem with the narrative of Hezekiah’s reaction to the Assyrian threat as expressed in the words of the Rab-shakeh. (This is contrary to Smelik 1986:86, 92, n. 94.) We may conclude that the narrative in Jer. 26:17–19 refers to the story of the Assyrian campaign against Jerusalem and has nothing to do with the short note of Hezekiah’s cultic reform. In conclusion, 2 Kgs. 18:4 and 22 appear to have been formulated by the historian. No pre-Dtr. written source referring to a large scale cultic reform can be discovered in the history of Hezekiah. One may assume, of course, that Hezekiah did carry out a cultic reform in his kingdom and that its memory was still alive in the time of the historian. Whether this is the most reasonable assumption is another matter and will be discussed below.

2. Archaeological Research and Cultic Reforms For many years, archaeologists have been trying to find evidence for the reforms mentioned in the Book of Kings. The assumption has been that destroying cult places (bāmôt), demolishing altars and smashing sacred pillars — as the reforms are described in the Bible — would leave traces that archaeologists would easily be able to identify in the excavated sites. So far, however, these efforts have had no success. Neither at the late eighth century BCE strata nor at those of the late seventh century BCE are there signs of a drastic change in the cult. Nor is there archaeological evidence for iconoclasm of the kind described in the histories of Hezekiah and Josiah. Controversial data were uncovered in the excavations of Tel Arad and Tel Beer-sheba and will be presented in the following two sections:


279

(a) A small shrine with a courtyard and altar was unearthed at Tel Arad and was published in preliminary reports.11 The dates of its foundation and end are debated among scholars. Aharoni (1967:248–249; 1968a:26– 27; 1975a:85–86) attributed its inception to the Solomonic period (Stratum XI) and dated the termination of the altar to the end of the eighth century (Stratum VIII) and of the shrine to the late seventh century BCE (Stratum VII). He (1968a:31, 26) concluded the discussion thus: Arad seems to elucidate the two stages in the centralization of worship carried out by Hezekiah and Josiah, respectively. Its first stage, in the days of Hezekiah, was the prohibition of sacrifice, while only its second stage, in the days of Josiah, brought about the complete abolition of worship outside Jerusalem.

In a later article published by the members of the Arad publication team (Herzog et al., 1977:19–22), the termination of both the shrine and the altar was dated to the late eighth century BCE (Stratum VIII). This date contradicts Aharoni’s conclusions according to which the shrine was abolished only in the late seventh century BCE. Many scholars have expressed doubts concerning the chronology and interpretation of the findings both as suggested by Aharoni and by his team.12 Recently Ussishkin (1988:142–157 [cited from p. 156]) suggested dating the foundation of the temple either to the later part of the eighth century or to the seventh century, and its end to the late seventh or early sixth century BCE. He further suggested that the shrine was destroyed by fire at the same time as the final destruction of the Judean fort, at the end of Stratum VI. He concluded the discussion thus: The dating of the shrine . . . means that its construction and destruction can hardly be related in any way to the religious reforms conducted in Judah by Hezekiah and Josiah.

In light of the many controversies and ambiguities concerning the dating of both the foundation and the end of the sanctuary, the empirical data uncovered at the shrine of Arad do not establish the claim of a reform conducted at the site by the kings of Judah. (b) Fragments of a large-ashlar built horned altar were found in the course of the excavations at Tel Beer-sheba. Four stones were found sealed under the Stratum II rampart, and many others were incorporated into the rebuilding of the Stratum II Pillared Storehouse (Aharoni 1974:2–6; 1975b:154–156; 11. Aharoni 1967:247–249; 1968a:18–32; 1975a:82–89; Herzog et al. 1977:1–22. 12. For a list of critical notes, see Holladay 1987:285, n. 39; Ussishkin 1988:151, nn. 21, 22, 25 and p. 156, n. 45.

280


Herzog 1977:53–58). Aharoni assumed that the big altar must have been associated with a sanctuary. This suited his hypothesis that the place is identical with biblical Beer-sheba and his long search for a temple at the site. In spite of the large scale excavations conducted at the site, no sanctuary was discovered. Aharoni came to the conclusion that the “lost” temple must have been situated under Building 32. The latter was built in Stratum II; its builders dug a huge pit upon which the new building, with its deep foundations and basements, was erected. According to Aharoni’s interpretation, the big pit was dug not for the sake of the new building, but to obliterate all signs of the sanctuary that formerly stood on the site. Aharoni dated the foundation of Stratum II at Tel Beer-sheba to the early years of Hezekiah and its destruction to the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE. Thus, he concluded that the horned altar was dismantled and the sanctuary razed to its foundations when King Hezekiah conducted his cultic reform.13 This highly hypothetical reconstruction suffers from many flaws. First, it is questionable whether Tel Beer-sheba should be identified with biblical Beer-sheba; the latter should best be located at Bir es-Seba‘, as was suggested long ago by Alt.14 Second, it is not necessary to look for a sanctuary at the site. As observed by Yadin (1976:7–8), the big altar might have been part of an open cult place, rather than a temple. Third, the theory of a temple that was completely uprooted as part of a cultic reform is highly unlikely. It seems that Building 32 was erected as part of the defensive construction at the site in face of the Assyrian threat in the late eighth century BCE. It is located at the focal point of the town’s urban plan and must have served as the seat of its military governor. The deep basements served for storing arms and supplies, and the deep foundations indicate that the building rose high above its surroundings. These remarkable features of the building are well explained by its military-administrative function; there is no need for farfetched theories to interpret the building’s structure and function. Fourth, the date of the destruction of the altar and its historical background remain unknown. All that legitimately can be inferred is that it preceded the building of Stratum II. The original location of the (possibly desecrated) altar remains unknown; thus, it is not even clear whether (or not) another altar was built to replace it. Ascribing the destruction of the altar to

13. Aharoni 1975b:154–156. The members of the Tel Beer-sheba publication team adopted Aharoni’s views about the sanctuary and the altar. See Herzog et al. 1977:53–58. 14. Alt 1935:320–321; Abel 1938:263; Noth 1953:93; Na’aman 1980:149–151; Fowler 1982: 7–11.


281

Hezekiah’s cultic reform is entirely hypothetical. In the present state of our knowledge, we should best leave the Tel Beer-sheba altar outside the discussion of Hezekiah’s religious policy. So far, I have discussed the archaeological evidence suggested by scholars for cultic reforms. However, there are other cult places that were destroyed or abandoned during Iron Age II, but never discussed in reference to the problem of reforms. The reason for ignoring them is clear: They do not fall into the time of biblical reformer kings. In other words, it is the biblical history and the assumption of its fundamental correctness that has dictated the interpretation of the archaeological evidence thus far. To illustrate the problem, let me present a specific case. Ussishkin (1989:149–172) suggested recently that Building 338 at Megiddo was a temple and was deliberately buried at the end of the tenth century BCE.15 He further suggested (1989:170–172) that Building 2081 at Megiddo was also a shrine and was partly buried at the same time. Another cultic structure was unearthed at nearby Tel Taanach, although its plan remains unclear.16 P. Beck (1990:417– 446 [esp. 445–446]) suggested that the two cult stands unearthed at the site were used as seats for the statues of the god and goddess of the shrine. It seems that, like the shrines of Megiddo, the cultic site at Taanach and its sacred objects were buried following its destruction in the late tenth century BCE. A structure that may be a small shrine was unearthed at Tel cAmal, east of Beth-shean and was published in a preliminary report.17 The identification of the structure as “cultic” is due to the density of artifacts with cultic associations (stone “trepoid” full of ashes, basins, chalics, bowls, etc.). It was destroyed in the late tenth century BCE, and its artifacts were buried under the ruins of the building. A small shrine and a neighboring “high place” were discovered at Lachish (Aharoni 1975c:26–32). The shrine was found with its altar and cult vessels. A large block of limestone (maṣṣebāh) and, possibly, the remains of an Asherah were discovered in a nearby “high place.” Aharoni (1975c:30–31, 41–42) suggested that the shrine was destroyed and covered over in the late tenth century BCE and that the “high place” remained in use in Strata IVIII. Alternatively, one may suggest that both the shrine and the “high-place”

15. For criticism of the suggestion, see Stern 1990:102–107. 16. Sellin 1904:75; Lapp 1964:26–32; 1967:19–23; 1969:42–44; Glock 1978:1138–1147. Fowler’s claim (1984:30–34) that there is no proof for the cultic nature of the structure unearthed at Tel Taanach, in my opinion, is hardly convincing. 17. Lewy and Edelstein 1972:329, 338–340, 341–343, 362–363 and Pls. XIX, XXI.

282


were buried in the late tenth century BCE and that, at a later time, a pile of broken pillars (maṣṣebôt?) and a “favissa” were dug in and buried within the sacred place. The above data indicate that several shrines in northern Israel (Megiddo, Taanach and possibly Tell ‘Amal) and in the south (Lachish) were destroyed and buried, with their sacred objects, in the late tenth century BCE. The burial may have been intended to prevent a possible future desecration of the sacred sites (compare 2 Kgs. 10:27). The destruction of the northern shrines is linked by scholars to the campaign of Pharaoh Shishak against Jeroboam I. The background of the destruction of the Lachish shrine remains unknown.18 The evidence for the destruction of the four/five shrines and their burial in the late tenth century BCE is quite impressive, certainly more impressive than the “evidence” for reforms in the late monarchial period. Is it possible that the shrines were buried and not restored as a consequence of an official decision? As nothing is said in the Bible of cultic reforms at that time, this attractive possibility has never been examined. Biblical archaeologists are mainly concerned with corroborating and authenticating the scriptures by extra-biblical evidence. Such efforts are perfectly legitimate, as long as the limitations of the biblical data are taken into account, as long as the archaeological evidence is not “squeezed” to fit it into the scriptures, and as long as additional archaeological data, not directly related to the Bible, are also given appropriate consideration. In conclusion, there is, as yet, no clear archaeological evidence for any of the cultic reforms mentioned in the Bible. Although lack of positive evidence does not indicate that reforms did not take place, we must remember that the Bible is our only source for both Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms and that textual, literary and historical analysis are our main tools for establishing the authenticity of the scriptures.

3. The Break Between the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE marks a major break in the settlement history and economy of the kingdom of Judah. Dozens of its cities were destroyed and many thousands of its inhabitants deported. Vast districts were grievously damaged or even totally abandoned. This is particularly true of the Shephelah. According to a recent archaeological survey, all settlements in the area were destroyed and many sites abandoned for hundreds of years. By the end of the sev-

18. Aharoni’s assumption that Lachish Stratum V was destroyed by Shishak in the course of his campaign (1975c:41) is unlikely. Shishak’s campaign never reached the Shephelah of Judah. See recently: Na’aman 1992:79–86.


283

enth century BCE, a century after the 701 campaign, only about 25% of the former inhabited area in the Shephelah had been resettled (Dagan 1992:259–262). Parts of the lowlands were transferred to the Philistine kingdoms.19 The kingdom of Ekron took the place of Judah in the northern Shephelah, expanding its territory and gaining considerable political and economic power (Gitin 1989: 23–58; Na’aman 1991:49). Details of the population decrease in the hill country of Judah and the district of Benjamin are still missing, but there seems to have been a decline of population in these areas in the seventh century BCE, although not on the same scale as in the Shephelah. Sennacherib’s campaign greatly increased the extent of Judah’s subjugation of to Assyria. Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah, the latter in his early years, were Assyrian vassals who paid tribute and were obliged to obey the orders of the overlord and his officials. Only in the eighth decade of the seventh century, about 70–75 years after the 701 campaign, did the Assyrians retreat from Syro-Palestine (Na’aman 1991:33–41). During the long period of subjection to Assyria, Judah slowly and gradually recovered from the heavy destruction of 701 BCE, restored some of its settlements and strengthened its economy. With the pax Assyriaca, borders were opened and manifold contacts with various regions within the Assyrian empire became possible. The penetration of “non-Yahwistic” cult practices to the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 21:3–7; 23:4–12) is an indication of the political and cultural climate of this period. However, it must be emphasized that in all matters relating to the extent of its borders, its strength of settlement, and its economic power, Josiah’s kingdom was considerably weaker than the kingdom that had existed in the eighth century BCE (Na’aman 1991:57–58). We may conclude that the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE marks a turning point in the history of Judah and breaks a continuity of more than 200 years that began with the division of the monarchies of Israel and Judah ca. 931 BCE. There must have been considerable differences in many aspects of pub-

19. The suggestion of scholars that Sennacherib transferred districts in the hill country of Judah and in the Negeb to Judah’s neighbors is arbitrary. Even the assumption that the Philistine kingdoms had effective control over the entire Shephelah region during the first half of the seventh century BCE is uncertain. The long settlement gap in the lowlands is mainly the result of lack of manpower following the massive Assyrian deportation of 701 BCE. Thus, the Philistines were able to use the deserted territories as grazing fields for their sheep. However, Philistine settlements were found only around the city of Ekron, and the rest of the Shephelah remained unsettled until the recovery of the kingdom of Judah in the second half of the seventh century BCE. For the problem, see Alt 1929:80–88; Elliger 1934: 140–148; Junge 1937:24–27; Ginsberg 1950:349–351, nn. 12–13; Halpern 1991:60.

284


lic and private life between the eighth century kingdom of Hezekiah and the seventh century kingdom of Josiah.20 These conclusions are significant for the debate over Hezekiah’s cultic reform. Scholars who have accepted the historicity of this early reform emphasize the close connection between Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms and assume a linear development linking the two kings. For example, Weinfeld has suggested a continuity in the political and cultural climate between the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah that brought about the emergence of the Deuteronomic laws and movement. He refers to this time span as “the Hezekianic-Josianic period” and suggests a close connection between the cultic centralization of the two kings.21 I believe that the opposite is true and that one must emphasize the break, rather (or, at least, no less) than the continuity between the reigns of the two kings. The idea of a miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem during the campaign of 701 BCE and of the city’s divine inviolability may well have played an important role in the centralization of the cult under Josiah (Maag 1956:10–18). But this idea must have developed long after the campaign, when memories of its disastrous results had faded considerably (Clements 1980:52–108). The destruction of many cult places in the course of the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE would have facilitated the completion of the late reform. The fall of the northern kingdom, the destruction of vast areas of the kingdom of Judah, and the long subjection to foreign power may have been regarded as the fulfilment of the warnings of the eighth century prophets. Deep spiritual reckoning must have followed these events and would have played an important role in the growth of the Deuteronomic movement. It is clear that a better understanding of Sennachrib’s campaign of 701 and its disastrous results may help us explain the emergence of the Deuteronomic school and the reform of Josiah. But Josiah’s reform does not help in understanding the background of Hezekiah’s debated reform. The latter must be analysed in its own right; the variegated factors that played an important role in the development and implementation of the late seventh century reform can hardly be applied to the conditions that prevailed a century before.22

20. Junge 1937:28–99; Rofé 1976:207–209; Halpern 1991:59–77. Various suggestions raised by Halpern in his pioneering work require further study and elaboration. 21. Weinfeld 1985:89–95. The continuity between Hezekiah and Josiah was emphasized by Weinfeld in his early works; see 1964:211–212. 22. M. Weinfeld (1964:202–212) put forward the suggestion that Hezekiah’s cult reform was a move to increase the king’s authority by strengthening the link among the king, the Temple and the provincial towns at the time of his rebellion against Assyria. He found an analogy in the act of Nabonidus, who gathered the statues from provincial cit-


285

4. The Lachish Reliefs Sennacherib’s attack on the city of Lachish is portrayed in detail on a series of stone reliefs erected in his royal palace at Nineveh. The reliefs were discovered and published by Layard (1853 Pls. XX-XXIV), re-drawn by Dekel and studied afresh by Ussishkin (1982). I would like to draw attention to the spoils of the city as depicted in the reliefs (Ussishkin 1982:84, 105, 107). To the right of the city two columns of people are seen moving to the right and approaching the king sitting on his throne. A line of captives and deportees and their escorting Assyrian soldiers appears in the upper column. The last soldier holds a short sword, its sharpened end threatening the captives who walk before him.23 At the rear of the column eight Assyrian soldiers appear, carrying the booty. The first and second soldiers bear large incense burners that, in general, resemble smaller Iron Age clay incense burners.24 The cult vessels must have been made of bronze, as indicated by their placement at the head of the spoils procession. The third soldier holds a chair with armrest (Akkadian nēmedu), and the fourth and fifth soldiers pull a ceremonial chariot. The last three soldiers bear weapons: three spears, two shields and six swords. The relief depicts three kinds of objects that are mentioned many times in Assyrian royal inscription booty lists: cult vessels, the treasures of the palace and weapons. Aharoni (1975c:42–43) has pointed out that the cult vessels on the Lachish reliefs must have come from a cult place. This was regarded by him as support for his assumption of a continuous tradition of worship at Lachish from the tenth century until the Hellenistic period. Whether or not one accepts his hypothesis, it is clear that there was a cult place in Lachish in the late eighth century BCE. It was destroyed by Sennacherib, and the Assyrian relief depicts the most extravagant booty taken from the site: a pair of bronze incense burners. In the eighth century BCE, the city of Lachish was second in importance only to Jerusalem and served as the major Judean center in the Shephelah.

ies into Babylon on the eve of the Persian attack in 539 BCE. For a refutation of the analogy and dissociation of Hezekiah’s reform from his policy toward Assyria, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988:219. As they observe: “At a time when efforts were being directed toward the physical fortification and provisioning for war, wise counsel would not have recommended cult reforms.” 23. Ussishkin (1982:105) suggested that this soldier carries a ceremonial spoil of a sceptre or a mace and heads the booty carriers. For other scenes of captives or deportees escorted by soldiers holding a short sword whose sharpened edge is pointed upwards, see Layard 1853. Pls. XIX, XXVI, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXVII, XLII. 24. See Aharoni 1968b:164; 1975c:42; Holladay 1987:288, n. 86 and 290, n. 104.

286


A considerable part of the city was occupied by the governor’s palace-fort, with its storehouses, stables and broad courtyard (Ussishkin 1983:103, 147– 154; 1990:81–84). Lachish was under direct royal control, and one would assume that, had there been an extensive cult reform in the kingdom of Judah, Lachish would have been the first place to be purged. The fact is that its cult place apparently remained intact until the town’s conquest by Sennacherib. This is an indication of the non-reliability of the text of 2 Kgs. 18:4, 22, according to which Hezekiah removed the cult places from all the towns of Judah.

Conclusions The combination of textual, archaeological, historical and pictorial evidence sheds new light on the long debated problem of the cult reform assigned to Hezekiah in biblical tradition. An analysis of the text of 2 Kgs. 18:4, 22 indicates that the two verses were composed by the Dtr. historian and that he had before him no written source referring to reform, except for a note of the removal of the bronze serpent. No unequivocal evidence of cultic reform either in the days of Hezekiah or in the days of Josiah has been discovered in the many excavations conducted so far in the area of the kingdom of Judah. Rather, there are indications of the destruction and the closing of shrines during the late tenth century BCE, incidents that are not mentioned in the Bible. This is an example of the enormous gap that separates the biblical descriptions of the past from the archaeological evidence. Establishing the relationship between these two entirely different kinds of source is always complicated. In general, it would seem wise to study and evaluate the biblical text on its own, before applying it to archaeological research and historical reconstruction. Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE marks a break in the history of Judah. The destructive Assyrian conquests and mass deportations of the last third of the eighth century BCE, the words of the late eighth century prophets, the long subjection of Judah to Assyria, and the “foreign” influences infiltrating the kingdom — the combination of these factors explains, at least partly, the emergence of the Dtr. school in the seventh century BCE. However, there is no evidence for the emergence of the Dtr. movement as early as the late eighth century. Hezekiah’s reform has sometimes been regarded as the first concrete test of the program of this movement and, thus, as evidence for its emergence at that time. However, because the execution of a wide-ranging reform by Hezekiah is doubtful, there remains no evidence for activity of the Dtr. movement prior to the seventh century. Finally, there is evidence for the persistence of a cult place at Lachish, Judah’s major royal city in the Shephelah in the eighth century, until the


287

Assyrian conquest of 701. This fits well with all the other evidence presented above and leads me to conclude that a comprehensive cultic reform did not take place in the time of Hezekiah. Why, then, was such a reform ascribed to Hezekiah in the Dtr. history? The answer may be found in the description of the king in the story of 2 Kgs. 18:17–19:37. Hezekiah’s depiction as a righteous king, who trusted YHWH, turned to his prophet and prayed in his temple at a time of crisis, was interpreted by the historian as an indication of utmost devotion to YHWH. Accordingly, he integrated Hezekiah within his scheme of four kings (badgood-bad-good) who spanned the period from Ahaz to Josiah (Amon does not fit this pattern and is treated as an appendage to Manasseh’s period).25 Hezekiah is presented in this scheme as the antithesis of Ahaz and as the prototype of Josiah. According to the historian’s written source, Hezekiah had removed the bronze image of the serpent. Whether there were some other oral traditions of the king’s deeds is not clear. The historian, thus, portrayed the righteous king as the first to carry out the Dtr. program and as forerunner of Josiah, the king who fulfilled the Deuteronomic law in every detail.

References Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine II. 1938. Aharoni, Y. 1967. Excavations at Tel Arad. Preliminary Report on the Second Season, 1963. IEJ 17: 233–249. Aharoni, Y. 1968a. Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. BA 31: 2–32. Aharoni, Y. 1968b. Trial Excavation in the “Solar Shrine” at Lachish — Preliminary Report. IEJ 18: 157–169. Aharoni, Y. 1974. The Horned Altar of Beer-sheba. BA 37: 2–6. Aharoni, Y. 1975a. Arad. In: Avi-Yonah, M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I. Jerusalem: 82–89. Aharoni, Y. 1975b. Excavations at Tel Beer-sheba, Preliminary Report of the Fifth and Sixth Seasons, 1973–1974. Tel Aviv 2: 146–168. Aharoni, Y. 1975c. Investigations at Lachish. The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Tel Aviv. Ahlström, G.W. 1982. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine. Leiden. Albright, W.F. 1963. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York. Alt, A. 1929. Nachwort über die territorialgeschichtliche Bedeutung von Sanheribs Eingriff in Palästina. PJb 25: 80–88. (Reprint: 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 242–249).

25. For the schematic nature of the evaluative comments in the Book of Kings, see recently Ben Zvi 1991:359–361.

288


Alt, A. 1935. Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Topographie des Negeb: III. Saruhen, Ziklag, Horma, Gerar. JPOS 15: 294–324. (Reprint 1959. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel III. München: 409–435). Beck, P. 1990. The Taanach Cult Stands: Iconographic Traditions in the Iron I Cult Vessels. In: Na’aman, N. and Finkelstein, I. eds. From Nomadism to Monarchy. Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Jerusalem: 417–446. (Hebrew). Ben Zvi, E. 1991. The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in II Reg 21,1–18 and the Redactional History of the Book of Kings. ZAW 103: 355–374. BHS = Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W. eds. Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia. Stuttgart. Bright, J. 1960. A History of Israel. London. Clements, R.E. 1980. Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 13). Sheffield. Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City. Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Survey. (MA thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Dalley, S. 1985. Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II. Iraq 47: 31–48. Edelman, D. 1985. The Meaning of Qiṭṭēr. VT 35: 395–404. Elliger, K. 1934. Die Heimat des Propheten Micha. ZDPV 57: 81–152. Fowler, M.D. 1982. The Excavation of Tell Beer-sheba and the Biblical Record. PEQ 114: 7– 11. Fowler, M.D. 1984. The “Cultic Structure” at Taanach. ZDPV 100: 30–34. Ginsberg, H.L. 1950. Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E. In: Lieberman, S. ed. Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume. New York: 347–368. Gitin, S. 1989. Tel Miqne-Ekron: A Type Site for the Inner Coastal Plain in the Iron Age II Period. In: Gitin, S. and Dever, W.G. eds. Recent Excavations in Israel. Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. (AASOR 49). Winona Lake: 23–58. Glock, E.A. 1978. Taanach. In: Avi-Yonah, M. ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land IV: 1138–1147. Gonçalves, F.J. 1986. L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne. (Etudes Bibliques 7). Louvain-la-Neuve. Halpern, B. 1991. Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability. In: Halpern, B. and Hobson, D.W. eds. Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 124). Sheffield: 11–107. Handy, L.K. 1988. Hezekiah’s Unlikely Reform. ZAW 100: 111–115. Haran, M. 1978. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel — An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford (2nd ed. 1985. Winona Lake). Herzog, Z., Aharoni, M., Rainey, A.F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1984. The Israelite Fortress at Arad. BASOR 254: 1–34. Herzog, Z., Rainey, A.F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1977. The Stratigraphy at Beer-sheba and the Location of the Sanctuary. BASOR 225: 49–58. Hoffmann, H.-D. 1980. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 66). Zürich.


289

Holladay, J.S. 1987. Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach. In: Miller, P.D., Hanson, P.D. and McBride, S.D. eds. Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: 249–299. Jones, G.H. 1984. 1 and 2 Kings. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Junge, E. 1937. Der Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda unter Josia. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 75). Stuttgart. Lapp, P. 1964. The 1963 Excavation at Tell Ta‘annek. BASOR 173: 4–44. Lapp, P. 1967. Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo. BA 30: 2–27. Lapp, P. 1969. The 1968 Excavations at Tell Ta‘annek. BASOR 195: 2–49. Layard, A.H. 1853. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London. Lewy, S. and Edelstein, E. 1972. Cinq années de fouilles à Tel ‘Amal (Nir David). RB 79: 325– 367. Maag, V. 1956. Erwägungen zur deuteronomischen Kultzentralisation. VT 6: 10–18. McKay, J. 1973. Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732–609 BC. (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 26). London. Miller, J.M. and Hayes, J.H. 1986. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia. Moriarty, F.L. 1965. The Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah’s Reform. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27: 399–406. Myers, J.M. 1965. I Chronicles: Introduction, Translation and Notes. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City, NY. Na’aman, N. 1980. The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon. ZDPV 96: 136–152. Na’aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3–71. Na’aman, N. 1992. Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 19: 71–93. Na’aman, N. and Zadok, R. 1988. Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (710–708 B.C.). JCS 40: 36–46. Nicholson, E. 1963. The Centralisation of the Cult in Deuteronomy. VT 13: 380–389. Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Oded, B. 1977. Judah and the Exile. In: Hayes, J.H. and Miller, J.M. eds. Israelite and Judaean History. Philadelphia: 435–488. Reviv, H. 1979. The History of Judah from Hezekiah to Josiah. In: Malamat, A. ed. The Age of the Monarchies: Political History IV/1 (The World History of the Jewish People). Jerusalem: 193–204. Rofé, A. 1976. The Organization of Justice in the Book of Deuteronomy (16:18–20; 17:8–13). Beit Miqra 21: 199–210. (Hebrew). Rosenbaum, J. 1979. Hezekiah’s Reform and the Deuteronomistic Tradition. Harvard Theological Review 72: 23–43. Sellin, E. 1904. Tell Ta‘annek. (Denkschriften der Kaiserischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 50/4). Wien. Smelik, K.A.D. 1986. Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii. Oudtestamentische Studiën 24: 70–93. Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 129). Göttingen. Stern, E. 1990. Schumacher’s Shrine in Building 338 at Megiddo: A Rejoinder. IEJ 40: 102– 107. Todd, E.W. 1956. The Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Scottish Journal of Theology 9: 288– 293. Ussishkin, D. 1982. The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Tel Aviv.

290


Ussishkin, D. 1983. Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978–1983, Second Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 10: 97–185. Ussishkin, D. 1988. The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad. IEJ 38: 142–157. Ussishkin, D. 1989. Schumacher’s Shrine in Building 338 at Megiddo. IEJ 39: 149–172. Ussishkin, D. 1990. The Assyrian Attack on Lachish: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Corner of the Site. Tel Aviv 17: 53–86. Weinfeld, M. 1964. Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy. JNES 23: 202–212. Weinfeld, M. 1985. The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement — The Historical Antecedents. In: Lohfink, N. ed. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Leuven: 76–98. Weinfeld, M. 1992. The Reform of Hezekiah, From Joshua to Josiah: Turning Points in the History of Israel from the Conquest of the Land until the Fall of Judah. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Welten, P. 1973. Geschichte and Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament 42). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Willi, T. 1972. Die Chronik als Auslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 106). Göttingen. Williamson, H.G.M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Willis, J.T. 1969. The Authenticity and Meaning of Micah 5 9–14. ZAW 81: 353–368. Würthwein, E. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2). Göttingen. Yadin, Y. 1976. Beer-sheba: The High Place Destroyed by King Josiah. BASOR 222: 5–17.

“The House-of-no-Shade Shall Take Away its Tax from You” (Micah 1:11)1 Literary Structure of Micah 1:8–16 The most difficult passage in Micah is 1:8–16. Numerous attempts have been made throughout the years to analyze its internal structure and to understand its meaning, and many textual corrections and emendations have been suggested. The most radical reconstruction is that of Elliger (1934:81– 99), who hypothesizes damage to the outer right edge of the original page, resulting in loss of the first word in a number of lines. Others have suggested various, less radical solutions for the text, yet no decipherment or translation has gained broad scholarly consensus.2 Methodologically, it is best to take the MT as our surest basis and to work with the mechanisms commonly invoked to explain textual corruption (i.e., metathesis, haplography, interchange of similar letters, etc.) (Rudolph 1975:44, n. 24). The various versions must be treated with caution, because the ancient translators probably confronted the same textual problems as have modern commentators, the result being more a kind of interpretive translation than a word-for-word translation of the original text. A central issue in the discussion is the internal structure of the prophecy. One problem is the place of vv. 8–9: do they refer to the preceding passage about Samaria (vv. 6–7) or introduce the prophecy about Judah and Jerusalem (vv. 10–16)? Wolff (1982:47–48; cf. Hillers 1984:23) has demonstrated that ‘alzō’t in v. 8 has an anaphoric meaning and that it functioned differently from the single demonstrative pronoun zō’t. Thus, it can only refer to the preceding passage. V. 9, which refers to an impending disaster to the kingdom of Judah and its capital Jerusalem, serves as an introduction to the following passage (vv. 10–16). This verse contains double ky-clauses with verbs in the

1. Reprinted with permission. VT 45 (1995), 516–527. 2. From the extensive literature dedicated to the deciphering and understanding of Micah 1:8–16, note in particular: Rudolph 1975:32–51; Wolff 1982:8–36, with earlier literature in p. 8; English Translation 1990:39–66; Hillers 1984:22–29; Barthélemy 1992:717–729.

291

292


perfect. The ky-conjunction may be interpreted as introducing two causal clause and translated “because . . . (and) because.” Moreover, v. 9 has an exact parallel in v. 12, which also contains double ky-clauses. Each of these double ky-clauses opens a strophe, consisting of eight bicola (vv. 9–11, 12–15). Together they are followed by a two-line summons to lament disaster (v. 16), just as the preceding section about Samaria (vv. 5–7) is followed by a twolines rite of dirge (v. 8). We may further suggest that each of these two strophes of eight bicola (vv. 9–11, 12–15) is divided into two parts of four bicola, the second sub-strophe is introduced by the adverb lākēn (“therefore”) and connected causatively to the preceding sub-strophe. Thus, Micah’s words in vv. 9–16 have a well-planned literary structure and reflect the work of an author who has transformed the oral prophecy into a literary work. Scholars agree that each bicolon in vv. 10–15 names only one town and that there were word-plays on the names of many towns. The first of each pair of bicola in vv. 11–15 has the phrase “the inhabitants of ” (yôšebet); in v. 14a, the name of the city môrešet (gat) reproduces the sound of yôšebet and takes its place (Mays 1976:52) In the light of the above suggested reconstruction of the structure of the passage in vv. 9–16 (which is closer to that of Van der Woude [1971:347–353] than to any other reconstruction suggested so far), I will present a translation of the text, accompanied by a commentary and some general remarks. Translation 9. Because her woundsa are incurable, (and) because it has come as far as Judah, it has reached (ng‘ ) b as far as the gate of my people, as far as Jerusalem -10. Tell it not in Gath, weeping do not weep (there) c Within ‘Aphrahd roll yourselves (htplšw)e in the dust. 11. Pass on therefore (lkn)f, O inhabitants of Shaphir.g ‘Eriahh ashamed has not come forth. O inhabitants of Zaanan,i raise (<spdy?>)j lamentation. The House-of-no-shade (byt h’(y)-ṣl)k shall take away its taxl from you.m

“The House-of-no-Shade Shall Take Away its Tax from You”

293

12. Because the inhabitants of Maroth hoped for good, (and) because evil has come down from YHWH to the gate of Jerusalem — 13. Harness the horses to the chariot, O inhabitants of Lachish. You are ()n the choisesto sin-offeringp for the daughter of Zion (for in you were found the crimes of Israel)q 14. Therefore, you shall give parting gifts to Moresheth-gath. The housesr of Achzib shall be a deception to the kings of Israel. 15. Yet the heir will come (yb’) s to you O inhabitants of Maresha. Up to Adullamt will come, the (heir of) the glory of Israel.u 16. Make yourself bald and cut off your hair for the children of your delight. Make yourselves as bald as an eagle, for they have gone away into exile.

Commentary Inasmuch as the passage has been treated many times in the past and other commentaries have all the necessary bibliographic details, only a few works will be cited in the following comments. (a) See Barthélemy 1992:717. (b) The subject is feminine (wounds); a change to the feminine (nāge‘â) is necessary. (c) The omission of ’al or its alteration to ’ap is arbitrary (Rudolph). The parallelism to David’s lament (2 Sam. 1:20), which probably formed the verbal source of inspiration for this bicolon, indicates that the second negative is exactly what one expects here. The prophet wanted to distinguish between Philistia, for which he foresaw destruction. (d) For discussion, see Barthélemy 1992:718–720. Alternatively, I suggest rendering it bebêt-lō’-‘aprâ (“in the house-of-no-dust”). Compare Lo-dabar (“a thing of nought”) in Amos 6:13, which is an ironic twist of the name of the town (Lo-debar). The “house-of-no-dust” may reflect a distortion of the name of the place where the rite of mourning by rolling in the dust would take place.

294


(e) I follow here the majority of critics who read hitpallāšû. The MT’s kethibh htplšty is probably a secondary alteration of the verb to form a pun on the name pelešet (Philistia), where Gath is located. (f) Confusion between m and n is common in early Hebrew. The adverb lākēn appears for a second time in v. 14, both forming part of the well-planned structure of the qīnâ. The MT lākem does not make sense in this context. (g) The place-name Shaphir derives from the root špr, “to be beautiful, pleasant.” The irony here is that the “place of pleasantness” will be deserted. (h) ‘Eriah must be interpreted as a place-name, which was distorted by the prophet to convey the message of “nakedness”; bōšet (“shame”) is a pun on the name. Whereas the “place of pleasantness” will be evacuated in light of the impending danger, the “place of nakedness” will remain indoors because of its “shame.” An alternative interpretation is to take bōšet as a defamed revocalization of Ba‘al and regard it as a toponym (compare 1 Chr. 4:33; cf. Josh. 15:9–11, 29, 60; 2 Sam. 6:2; 1 Chr. 13:6). In this case we may translate: “Boshet (i.e., Ba‘al) naked (‘eryâ) has not come forth.” (i) The place-name ṣenān (Josh 15:37) was deliberately given as ṣa’anān to evoke an association with ša’anān (“at ease, secure”). The irony is similar to that of Shaphir: the “place of security” will mourn its impending fate. (j) The verb sipedi may have been dropped by haplography. For the noun mispēd with a cognate verb, see Gen. 50:10 (Hillers). (k) bêt hā’ēṣel has been regarded by all commentators as a place-name (Beth-ezel). Recently, von Soden (1990:218–219) suggested that it is an intentional misrepresentation of the town’s real name and should be transliterated bêt-hā’î-ṣēl, i.e., “House of no-shade.” He has compared it with a few other biblical names which have the element ’i (“no”) at the beginning. However, bêt hā’ēṣel must be construed with the verbal form yiqqaḥ and, hence, can hardly be a place-name. It seems to me that the “House-of-no-shade” is a mocking designation for the ruling house of Assyria, who boasted that its subjects live safely under their aegis. The protective function of the “shade of the king” is a widespread motif in the ideology of ancient Near Eastern kings, especially in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and finds a vivid expression in Jotham’s parable (Judg. 9:15). A.L. Oppenheim collected the material for the “shadow of the king” in Mesopotamia,3 and it now included in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (s.v. ṣillu). The majority of the entries are known from the royal correspondence

3. Oppenheim 1947; see also Bordreuil 1966; Crüsemann 1978:21–22; Schwab 1989: 1034–1042.


295

of the Sargonids, and it is clear that living ina ṣilli šarri (“under the shadow of the king”) was a central element in the ideology of the Assyrian kings. It may be illustrated by an example from the late years of Sargon II (721–705 BCE), very close to the time of Micah’s prophecy. In a letter that the king wrote to the Assyrian governor of Que, he sent the following message to Kilar, an Assyrian vassal who ruled over some (or all) of the land of Ḫilakku (a kingdom in the Taurus region) (Postgate 1973:23): Say to him as follows: “Before, you were afraid of the Phrygian, (but) now the Phrygian has made peace with us, so what are you afraid of? Now eat your bread (and) drink your water (under) the shadow of the king, my lord, (and) be glad. Have no anxiety with regard to the Phrygian.”

Thus, it is suggested that Micah was well aware of the use made of this trope in the propaganda of the Assyrian kings and deliberately portrayed the ruling house of Assyria as a “House-of-no-shade.” The mocking name was constructed to convey the impression of a toponym, similar to the other place names discussed above. Furthermore, the names of numerous kingdoms in the Mesopotamian-Syro-Palestinian areas were constructed by combining bīt/bêt (“house”) with the name of an earlier prominent king (e.g., Bīt Ḫumri = Israel; Bīt Ḫazaili = Damascus; Bīt Agusi = Arpad; Bêt David = Judah).4 The pseudo-toponym bêt-hā’î-ṣēl follows this pattern and may allude to both Assyria and its ruling dynasty. Machinist (1983, with earlier literature in p. 729, nn. 57–59) collected material from First Isaiah in which the propaganda of the Assyrian monarchs finds clear echoes. Micah’s words are another example of the cognizance of official Assyrian pronouncements exhibited by the educated class of the kingdom of Judah in the late eighth century BCE. (l) The hapax legomenon noun ‘emdâ is usually translated as “standing place” (i.e., “The House-of-no-shade shall take away from you its standing place”). Kutscher (1939/1940), on the other hand, demonstrated that the verb ’md/‘md and its derivatives in Mishnaic and Talmudic Hebrew were borrowed in the post-exilic period from Babylonian emēdu “to impose (tax).” He further suggested that ‘emdâ in Micah 1:11 was borrowed from the Assyrian language and may be translated “tax.” Vargon (1981:264) elaborated on this proposal by identifying ‘emdâ with Assyrian imdu “tax” “obligation to work” (see CAD I 110). Provided that this attractive solution is correct, it can be suggested that Micah deliberately selected two nouns, ṣillu and imdu, from the vocabulary of the Assyrians, “Hebreaized” them and, for the sake of rhetorical effect, used both in a single bicolon. 4. For the “House of David,” see Biran and Naveh 1993:87, 93.

296


(m) The MT has mikkem, which is a second-person masculine plural and may refer to the inhabitants of the three towns mentioned above. Alternatively, one may assume metathesis and read mimmēk (as suggested by Schwantes 1964:457; Rudolph, Hillers). The second-person feminine singular would refer to the town of Zaanan. (n) The pronoun ’at may have been dropped by haplography. The double personal pronoun (’at hî’) may be interpreted as an amplification of this ’at (compare Ps. 44:5) (Budde 1917/18:99; Rudolph). (o) For the interpretation of rē’šît as “choicest,” see Deut. 33:21; 1 Sam. 15: 21; Eze. 20:40; Amos 6:6. (p) The problem involved with the meaning and religious concept of the sacrifice ḥaṭṭā’t has recently been debated by scholars.5 My translation follows the traditional interpretation of ḥaṭṭā’t as “sin offering.” Lachish was the most important city in the Shephelah, second only to Jerusalem. Thus, it is presented as a kind of offering, the best that the daughter of Zion was able to render in atonement for its sins. (q) It is not clear to me whether this line is original, or whether it was inserted by a Deuteronomistic redactor, as has been suggested by some commentators (Wolff, Rudolph). (r) The precise meaning of bāttê remains uncertain. It is usually translated either as “houses” or “workshops.” Recently, Mittmann (1991:57–66) suggested interpreting bāttê ’akzib as “das Doppelbath(gefass) von Achzib.” However, it is not at all clear that the royal Judean workshop producing the lmlk jars were indeed located at Achzib, and there is indication that the standard Judean bath-measure was called “the bath of Achzib.” Also, a prophecy that “the double-bath vessels of Achzib” shall be a deception for the Judean kings sounds odd (it is the workshop — not the vessels — whose destruction will be “a deception” to the Judean rulers). We would do well to retain the commonly held translations of either “houses” or “workshops.” We should also retain the plural of the MT and not read a singular form, even if the uncertain reading lbyt ’kzy[b] (of/to the house of Akhzi[b]”) in the last line of an ostracon from Lachish is proved correct.6 It is remarkable that byt has a different meaning each time it appears: “within” (v. 10), “ruling house” (v. 11b) and “house/workshop” (v. 14). 5. Milgrom 1983:67–84; Marx 1989, with earlier literature; Schenker 1994, with earlier literature. 6. For the ostrach from Lachish, see Aharoni 1968:168–169; Lemaire 1977:136–137. A close examination of the photograph published by Aharoni indicates that the reading is uncertain. There are traces of a missing letter after the k, and there is no trace of the hypothetical final [b] sign. The line may possibly be deciphered lbyt ‘k[x]zy.


297

(s) The MT has ’ābî (“I will bring”), but the first-person singular (i.e., direct intervention of YHWH) does not fit the context. Commentators suggested an original text had yābô’ (“will come”), which was deformed due to metathesis. The reading is also necessary for the correct understanding of v. 15b (see below). The “heir” is a transparent allusion to the Assyrians, who will conquer the land and dispossess it (see Jer. 8:10). (t) The place-name Adullam was selected because of its similarity to the phrase ‘ad ‘ôlām (“forever”), a collocation that is particularly ironic in the context of destruction and exile. (v) Identity of the two verbal forms in v. 15 would indicate that “the heir” is also the subject of v. 15b. The meaning of this bicolon, thus, becomes clear: The enemy (i.e., the Assyrians) will reach and inherit the town whose name sounds like promise for eternity. This is a proper ending for the series of predictions of the impending doom of the cities of the Shephelah, Micah’s place of birth.

Concluding Remarks (1) The names of towns have been selected mainly on the basis of their suitability for the play on words sought by the prophet. Therefore, I very much doubt all efforts to find a strategic layout or a line of march in the list of towns mentioned in the prophecy. Furthermore, the suggestion that some of the towns may be located in Philistia, outside the confines of the kingdom of Judah, in my opinion, is untenable.7 A large number of settlements dated to the late eighth century BCE have been discovered in the recent survey conducted in the Shephelah (Dagan 1992). All these settlements were destroyed by Sennacherib during his campaign of 701 BCE and their inhabitants deported to remote areas within the Assyrian empire. Relatively few of the deserted sites have been resettled in the course of the seventh century BCE, and the names of those are known to us from the town list of Judah in Josh. 15:33–44.8 However, no list enumerating the towns of eighth century Judah has come down to us, and the names of most of the Shephelah towns at that time remain unknown. The lack of further details about towns like ‘Aphrah, Shaphir, ‘Eriah and Maroth goes without saying. Micah, it is suggested, lamented the impending fate of towns in the Shephelah, not far away from his place of birth (Moresheth-gath), and the settlements cited in the qînâ, logically, must be sought in this area.

7. For this suggestion, see recently Mittmann 1990:101–102; Schmitt 1990:164–170, with earlier literature. 8. For the date of the list of towns in Josh 15:21–62, see Na’aman 1991:23–33.

298


Tentatively, some geographical relationships may be established among towns mentioned in the text. Shaphir and ‘Eriah are possibly located close to Zaanan, particularly if we retain mikkem (a plural form) in v. 11b. Zaanan/ Zenan should be sought in the northeastern corner of “district III” of the Shephelah;9 the other towns may be sought in this general area, possibly south and southeast of Lachish. Moresheth-gath, tentatively, may be sought north and northeast of Lachish, in the area of Achzib, Maresha and Adullam. I suggest, with all due reservation, that Lachish, appearing in the center of the summons to mourn, is the axis around which the towns mentioned in the lament are situated. This may support the suggestion of Van der Woude (1976:19–22) that there was a large gathering at Lachish and that the qînâ was delivered on that occasion. However, there can be no certainty about such matters, and Moresheth, Micah’s home town, may as well be the place were the words have been addressed to the public (Wolff 1982:54, with earlier literature). The location of Maroth cannot be established. Tentatively, it may be sought either near Lachish or in the vicinity of Jerusalem. (2) Micah’s words apparently referred to a future destruction, as suggested by some scholars (Fohrer, Rudolph, Wolff, Vargon). The verbs in the perfect in vv. 9, 11bα, 12b, 16b should be interpreted as indications of the prophetic futures, proclaiming an impending doom to the kingdom of Judah. The prophet portrays the coming disaster and calls upon the inhabitants to lament the imminent catastrophe. When was the qînâ delivered? Three major alternatives have been suggested by scholars: (a) short time after the conquest and annexation of Samaria in 720 BCE; (b) following the conquest and annexation of Ashdod in 711 BCE; or (c) on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah in 701 BCE.10 These three alternative datings must be examined, each against the others, to find out which one is the most probable. Dating the passage immediately after the destruction of Samaria in 720 BCE is mainly supported by ‘al-zō’t (“therefore”) in v. 8 referring back to the destruction of Samaria (vv. 6–7). The fate of Samaria functions as a harbinger of the destruction that will befall Judah; the blow against Samaria will recur in the south, against the kingdom of Judah. The lament over the past event (v. 9), thus, is combined with the plaint over future devastation.11 Yet, 9. For the order of listing of the towns of Judah and Benjamin in districts, see Na’aman 1991:16–21. 10. The recent suggestion of Shaw (1987) that the qînâ should be dated in the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war (ca. 734/733 BCE) is not convincing. 11. Wolff 1982:53–54, 64–66. For the dating suggested for the passage by various scholars, see the list in Fohrer 1967:67–68.


299

the chronological gap between the past event and the impending future one is not specified and may be either short or quite longer. It must be emphasized that Ahaz’s policy of subjection to Assyria and his refusal to take part in the anti-Assyrian alliances of 734/733 (2 Kgs. 16:5, 7–10) and 720/722 could hardly give rise to the perception of immediate impending disaster, as expressed in the prophecy. Moreover, the lament refers particularly to the towns of the Shephelah and gives the impression of an imminent destruction. Thus, the period immediately subsequent to the conquest and annexation of the hill country of Samaria in 720 BCE is definitely not the likeliest of the three alternatives for dating the passage presented above. We should do better to assume that the coupling of the summons to lament over the imminent destruction of Judah with the prophecy of judgement on Samaria is due to thematic, literary and didactic considerations. The name “Israel” may well have been applied the kingdom of Judah (vv. 14–15) to minimize the gap between the two kingdoms, suggesting that their fate would be similar. This usage does not imply, however, a chronological proximity between destruction and Traueraufrufe. Dating of the passage to either 711 BCE or shortly before 701 BCE is equivalent to saying that a certain length of times had elapsed since the destruction of Samaria related in vv. 6–7. However, either of the two later dates would locate the qînâ in a period when the impending threat against Judah described in vv. 9–16 would have seemed more immediate. Which of the two dates is more probable? In 711 BCE, the Assyrian army under the leadership of the Tartan (Akkadian turtānu) conquered the kingdom of Ashdod and annexed it to the Assyrian territory. The boundary of the Assyrian empire touched the western border of the kingdom of Judah. Some scholars have suggested that Micah’s lament was recited on that occasion.12 However, it must be emphasized that the kingdom of Judah was not involved directly in the rebellion of Ashdod. It is mentioned only once in a prism fragment of Sargon that describes Ashdod’s rebellion. The relevant passage may safely be restored as follows (Oppenheim 1969:287; Na’aman 1974:32; Borger 1984:381): To the k[ings] (a-na L[UGALmeš-ni]) of Philistia, Judah, Ed[om and] Moab, who dwell by the sea, payers of tribute and gifts to Ashur my lord, (they sent) evil words and unseemly speeches to incite (them) to rebel against me; toward Pharaoh king of Egypt, a prince who could not save them, they sent their presents and asked him for (military) aid.

12. For a dating of the passage to ca. 711 BCE, see Fohrer 1967:67–70, 79–80; Rudolph 1975:38–39.

300


The rulers in the vicinity of Ashdod are described in the text as loyal vassals of Assyria (“payers of tribute and gifts to Ashur my lord”), whom the Ashdodites (who are the subject of the plural verbs in this passage) tried to incite to rebel by means of letters and messengers. The Ashdodites also sent envoys and presents to the Egyptian Pharaoh asking for military help. This was the normal course of organizing an anti-Assyrian rebellion: The participation of Egypt would ensure the joining of some local kings joined the alliance. Sargon immediately reacted to this threat with a campaign headed by the Tartan and succeeded in thwarting the crystallization of an alliance. Sargon’s inscriptions indicate that the campaign was directed against Ashdod alone, and there is no evidence that other kingdoms took part in the rebellion.13 Indeed, Isaiah repeatedly warned his countrymen against relying on Egyptian help as a counterforce to the might of Assyria (see, e.g., Isa. 18:1–6; 20:2–6; 30:1–5, 6–7, 31:1–3), in contrast to the nationalistic party in the court of Jerusalem that trusted the power of Egypt and was willing to join the anti-Assyrian rebellion. Thus, we may conclude that Judah rebelled against Assyria only after the death of Sargon II in the battlefield in 705 BCE. It was only then that Hezekiah abandoned his father’s cautious policy of subjection to Assyria and chose the hazardous course of leading an anti-Assyrian alliance. In marked contrast to the situation in 711 BCE, the impending Assyrian campaign following the rebellion endangered the very existence of the kingdom of Judah and the safety of each of its towns and citizens. It is clear that the most reasonable date for Micah’s address is on the eve of Sennacherib’s campaign of 701 BCE. The genuine atmosphere of impending catastrophe and the premonition that the fate of Judah would be the same as that of Samaria fit this time perfectly. I can only join the majority of scholars who have associated the prophecy with the situation prevailing at the time of Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria. Indeed, the prophet’s fears materialized. The results of the Assyrian campaign were disastrous for the kingdom as a whole, and in particular for Micah’s place of birth, exactly as envisaged in his prophetic words. 13. For the detailed discussion of this problem, see Na’aman 1994.


301

References Aharoni, Y. 1968. Trial Excavation in the “Solar Shrine” at Lachish: Preliminary Report. IEJ 18: 157–169. Barthélemy, D. 1992. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Ptophètes. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/3). Fribourg and Göttingen. Biran, A. and Naveh, J. 1993. An Aramatic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan. IEJ 43: 81–98. Bordreuil, P. “À l’ombre d’Elohim.” Le thème de l’ombre protectrice dans l’Ancien Orient et ses rapports avec “L’Imago Dei.” Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 46: 368– 391. Borger, R. 1984. Historische Texte in akkadischer Sprache aus Babylonien und Assyrien. In: Kaiser, O. ed. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments I/4. Gütersloh: 354–410. Budde, K. 1917/18. Die Rätsel von Micha 1. ZAW 37: 77–108. CAD = 1956-. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago. Crüsemann, F. 1978. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alters Testamentes and der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat. (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alters und Neuen Testament 49). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Dagan, Y. 1992. The Shephelah during the Period of the Monarchy in Light of Archaeological Excavations and Survey (M.A. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Elliger, K. 1934. Die Heimat des Propheten Micha. ZDPV 57: 81–152. Fohrer, G. 1967. Micha 1. In: Maass, F. ed. Das Ferne und Nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonard Rost. (Beiträge zur ZAW 105). Berlin: 65–80. Hillers, D.R. 1984. Micah (Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible). Philadelphia. Kutscher, Y. 1939/1940. ’md, ‘md, ‘mdh. Leshonenu 10: 295–299. (Hebrew). Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques. Vol. 1. Les ostraca. Paris. Machinist, P. 1983. Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah. JAOS 103: 719–737. Marx, A. 1989. Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rite de passage? Quelques réflexions sur la fonction du ḫaṭṭā’t. RB 96: 27–48. Mays, J.L. 1976. Micah, A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Milgrom, J. 1983. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36). Leiden. Mittmann, S. 1990. Hiskia und die Philister. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16: 91– 106. Mittmann, S. 1991. “Königliche bat” “ṭēt-Symbol.” Mit einem Beitrag zu Micha 1,14b und 1 Chronik 4,21–23. ZDPV 107: 57–76. Na’aman, N. 1974. Sennacherib’s “Letter to God” on his Campaign to Judah. BASOR 214: 25–39. Na’aman, N. 1991. The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3–71. Na’aman, N. 1994. Hezkiah and the Kings of Assyria. Tel Aviv 21: 235–254. Oppenheim, A.L. 1947. Assyriological Gleaning IV. The Shadow of the King. BASOR 107: 7– 11. Oppenheim, A.L. 1969. Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts. In: Pritchard, J.B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Third Edition with Supplement. Princeton: 265–317, 556–567. Postgate, J.N. 1973. Assyrian Texts and Fragments. Iraq 35: 13–36.

302


Rudolph, W. 1975. Micha-Nahum-Habakuk-Zephanja. (Kommentar zum Alten Testament). Gütersloh. Schenker, A. 1994. Interprétations récentes et dimensions spécifiques du sacrifice ḥaṭṭāt. Biblica 75: 59–70. Schmitt, G. 1990. Moreschet Gat und Libna mit einem Anhang: zu Micha 1:10–16. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16: 153–172. Schwab, E. 1989. ṣl. In: Botterweck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 6. Stuttgart: 1034–1042. Schwantes, S.J. 1964. Critical Notes on Micah I 10–16. VT 14: 454–461. Shaw, C.S. 1987. Micah 1:10–16 Reconsidered. JBL 106: 223–229. Van der Woude, A.S. 1971. Micha I 10–16. In: Caquot, A. and Philonenko, M. eds. Homages à André Dupont-Sommer. Paris: 347–353. Van der Woude, A.S. 1976. Micha. (De Prediking van het Oude Testament). Nijkerk. Vargon, S. Two Dirges on Judean Towns — Literary-Historical Study of Micah 1,10–16. In: Lurie, B.Z. ed. Baruch Ben Yehudah Jubilee Volume. Tel Aviv: 259–280. (Hebrew). von Soden, W. 1990. Zu einigen Ortsbenennungen bei Amos und Micha. Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3: 214–220. Wolff, H.W. 1982. Dodekapropheten 4. Micha. (Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament 14). Neukirchen-Vluyn. (Eng. trans. 1990. Micah, A Commentary. Minneapolis).

“The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of YHWH where Women Weave Coverings for Asherah” (2 King 23:7)1 The Asherah has recently been the focus of many studies that have examined all biblical references to the goddess and her cult in great detail.2 Josiah’s reform and the destruction of the image of Asherah hold a central place in the discussion. 2 Kgs. 23:6 relates how the image was removed from the temple of Jerusalem and burned, ground to dust and scattered. The text of verse 7 is an old crux interpretum having two ambiguous terms: battê haqqedēšîm and battîm. The second is translated ad sensum “hangings,” “coverings,” “vestments,” “curtains,” etc., and various explanations have been offered for the term, which normally means “houses.”3 The term qedešîm, which is the subject of this paper, is translated variously as “male prostitutes,” “cultic prostitutes” or even “unorthodox cultic officials.”4 However, recently, scholars have demonstrated that sacred prostitution never existed in ancient Israel and that the qedešîm did not play a part in fertility rituals of any kind. The recent suggestion that they be regarded as cultic officials also is not convincing. Gen. 38:13–23 and Deut. 23:17–18 indicate that the qedešîm engaged primarily in sexual activity (van der Toorn 1989:200–201; 1992:511–513). Furthermore, an unorthodox term for cultic officials, namely kemārîm, is mentioned in the description of Josiah’s reform, and the appearance of a second term to designate the same class of priests would be redundant. The qedešîm were obviously male prostitutes whose hire was delivered to the temple. It is often suggested that they were part of the temple’s person-

1. Reprinted with permission. Biblische Notizen 83 (1996), 17–18. 2. For recent literature on the Asherah, see, e.g., Maier 1986; Olyan 1988; Pettey 1990; Dietrich and Loretz 1992; Day 1992; Wiggins 1993; Frevel 1995. 3. Šanda 1912:344; Driver 1936:107; Montgomery 1951:539; Delcor 1981:117–121; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:286. 4. Loewenstamm 1976:35–36; Fisher 1976:225–236; Gruber 1983:167–176; Barstad 1983: 22–33; van der Toorn 1989:193–205; 1992:510–513; Kornfeld and Ringgren 1989; Goodfriend 1992:505–510, with earlier literature.

303

304


nel and served within its confines, an assumption that is entirely dependent on the text of 2 Kgs. 23:7. However, the reference to the qedešîm in v. 7 is far from conclusive. First, according to the Book of Kings, the qedešîm were “in the land” in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kgs. 14:24) and were removed by Asa (1 Kgs. 15:12) and Jehoshaphat (22:47). They are not included in the list of “Manasseh’s sins,” against which Josiah’s reform was directed. Thus, anyone reading the history of the Kingdom of Judah since the time of Jehoshaphat and finding there no mention of the qedešîm would have to conclude — in view of the internal sequence of events — that they were abolished and had disappeared long before the time of Josiah.5 Second, the long-term service of male prostitutes within the temple of Jerusalem is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. If qedešîm were part of the official cultic personnel of the temple, is it conceivable that they would not have been mentioned in any of the biblical sources that criticize the temple and its cult? Third, there is no reasonable explanation for the assumed manufacture of the Asherah coverings in the houses of the qedešîm. Why should the garments for the image of Asherah be woven or embroidered in such an unlikely place? All these difficulties disappear once we make a minor change of vocalization and read the consonants qdšym as qodāšîm (instead of qedešîm), translating battê haqqodāšîm as “buildings of the dedicated treasures.” The act of donation to a temple is well known from biblical and ancient Near Eastern documents6 and is attributed in the Deuteronomistic History only to “righteous” kings: David (2 Sam. 8:11), Solomon (1 Kgs. 7:51), Asa (1 Kgs. 15:15) and Jehoash (2 Kgs. 12:19) (see Mullen 1992:231–248). Within the history of the Book of Kings, it serves a definite purpose: to explain how the temple’s treasures were gathered before being transferred to foreign kings (Shishak — 1 Kgs. 14:26; Ben Hadad — 1 Kgs 15:18; Hazael — 2 Kgs. 12:19).

5. Seeligmann (1956 = 1992:301–302) suggests that the LXX translation of 2 Chr. 35:19 in which the qedešîm are mentioned reflects an early text of 2 Kgs. 23:24. This original version was later replaced by the summary phrase “all the abominations.” However, Dion (1981:41– 48) has pointed out that the Chronicler suppressed the four references to the qādēš/qedešîm that he found in the Book of Kings. The LXX version of 2 Chr. 35:19 must have been composed by the Greek translator. It was apparently this translator who suppressed “all the abominations,” inserting instead the qedešîm, possibly to attribute to Josiah the removal of this group that, according to his understanding of 2 Kgs. 23:7, operated in the temple. 6. Galling 1951:134–142; de Vaux 1961:139, 320–322, 325; Delcor 1962:353–377; Haran 1978:284–286.

“The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of YHWH”

305

The “dedicated treasures buildings” are the stores in which the treasures of the temple were assembled. Each temple had its own stores that must have included a combination of depositories and workshops (for the foundry of the temple, see Delcor 1962:372–377). 2 Kgs. 23:7 indicates that the coverings of the image of Asherah were woven by expert women in such workshops and that Josiah has destroyed not only the image of Asherah but also the workshops and storerooms in which her garments were manufactured and kept. Eliminating the qedešîm from 2 Kgs. 23:7 may contribute to a better understanding of the term. Qādēš and qedēšā in biblical Hebrew are designations for male and female prostitutes whose hire was delivered to the temple, as against the zônā, who took her wages for herself. This kind of prostitution was profitable for the temple, which at times may have organized it and perhaps encouraged the prostitutes to act near the cult places. However, no evidence suggests that qedešîm or qedēšôt were members of the personnel of the Jerusalem temple in the monarchial period. Their participation must have taken place on a basis other than membership in the temple staff (for details, see van der Toorn 1989:193–205).

References Barstad, H.A. 1983. The Religious Polemics of Amos. (Supplement to VT 34). Leiden. Barstad, H.A. 1992. Cultic Prostitution. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 510–513. Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible). Garden City. Day, J. 1992. Asherah. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1: 483–487. Delcor, M. 1962. Le trésor de la maison de Yahweh des origines à l’exil. VT 12: 353–377. Delcor, M. 1981. Les cultes étrangers en Israël au moment de la réforme de Josias d’après 2 R 23. Étude de religions sémitiques comparées. In: Caquot, A. and Delcor, M. eds. Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. (AOAT 212). NeukirchenVluyn: 91–123. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1992. “Jahwe und seine Aschera.” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bildverbot. (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 9). Münster. Dion, P.E. 1981. Did Cultic Prostitution Fall into Oblivion during the Postexilic Era? Some Evidence from Chronicles and the Septuagint. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43: 41–48. Driver, G.R. 1936. Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament. JBL 55: 101–120. Fisher, E.J. 1976. Cultic Prostitution in the Ancient Near East? A Reassessment. Biblical Theology Bulletin 6: 225–236. Frevel, C. 1995. Aschera und der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch YHWH: Beiträge zu literarischen, reliogionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion I-II. Weinheim. Galling, K. 1951. Königliche und nichtkönigliche Stifter beim Tempel von Jerusalem. ZDPV 68: 134–142.

306


Goodfriend, E.A. 1992. Prostitution. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 505–510. Gruber, M.I. 1983. The qādēš in the Book of Kings and in Other Sources. Tarbiz 52: 167–176. (Hebrew). Haran, M. 1978. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel — An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford (2nd ed. 1985. Winona Lake). Kornfeld, W. and Ringgren, H. 1989. QDŠ. In: Botterweck, G.J. and Ringgren, H. eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 6. Stuttgart: 1179–1204. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1976. qādēš. Enc. Miqr. VII: 35–36. (Hebrew). Maier, W.A. 1986. ’Ašerah: Extrabiblical Evidence. (Harvard Semitic Monographs 37). Atlanta. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Mullen, E.T. 1992. Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasures. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54: 231–248. Olyan, S.M. 1988. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 34). Atlanta. Pettey, R.J. 1990. Asherah: Goddess of Israel? (American University Studies Series VII. Theology and Religion 74). New York. Šanda, A. 1912. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. 2. Das zweite Buch der Könige. (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9/2). Münster. Seeligmann, I.L. 1956. Researches into the Criticism of the Massoretic Text of the Bible Tarbiz 25: 118–139. (Reprint: 1992. Studies in Biblical Literature. Jerusalem: 295–318). (Hebrew). van der Toorn, K. 1989. Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel. JBL 108: 193–205. van der Toorn, K. 1992. Cultic Prostitution. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5: 510–513. de Vaux , R. 1961. Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions. London. Wiggins, S.A. 1993. A Reassessment of “Asherah.” Study According to Textual Sources of the First Two Millenia B.C.E. (AOAT 235). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn.

The Fire Signals of Lachish Revisited1 Ostracon 4 from Lachish has been discussed innumerable times since it was first published by H. Torczyner (1938). The transcription formerly suggested by D. Pardee (1982) was adopted recently by J. Renz (1995) in his new edition of the corpus of “Old Hebrew” texts (1995). It fits well the letters of the text, as shown on the published photographs of the ostracon (save for the end of lines 8- 9; see below) and is the point of departure for my discussion. Although the text of the ostracon is quite clear, the interpretation of its content is debated among scholars, and various suggestions have been offered to overcome the difficulties. To facilitate the discussion, I will first transcribe the text, translate it, discuss a few solutions offered by scholars, and suggest my own interpretation for the letter. 1. yšm‘ yhwh [’t ’dn]y ‘t kym 2. šm‘t ṭb w‘t kkl ’šr šlḥ ’dny 3. kn ‘śh ‘bdk ktbty ‘l hdlt kkl 4. ’šr šlḥ[th] ’ly wky šlḥ ’ 5. dny ‘l dbr byt hrpd ’yn šm ’ 6. dm wsmkyhw lqḥh šm‘yhw w 7. y‘lhw h‘yrh w‘bdk ’yn[n] 8. y šlḥ šmh ’th ‘w'd' [hym?] 9. ky ’m btsbt hbqr 'b'[. . .] 10. wyd‘ ky ’l mś’t lkš nḥ 11. nw šmrm kkl h’tt ’šr ntn 12. ’dny ky l’ nr’h ’t ‘z 13. qh Translation May YHWH let my lord hear good news at this time. And now, your servant has done everything that my lord sent. I have written down on the writing board everything that my lord sent me. As regards what my lord sent about Beth-harapid, there is no one there. As for Semakhyahu, Shema‘yahu 1. Reprinted with permission. PEQ 131 (1999), 65–67

307

308


has taken him and made him go up to the city. As for your servant, I cannot send him there stil[l today]; but by the turn of the morning [he will take?? the road??], so that he may notify (yōdia‘ or yōda‘) that we are watching for the (fire) signals of Lachish according to all the signs that my lord has established, for we do not see Azekah. Notes Line 3: For the translation of delet as “a writing board,” see Hicks 1983:51– 53. An alternative translation is “a column (of a papyrus sheet).” End of line 8: For the reading, see Lipiński 1977:90; Lemaire 1997:164–165. Part of the daled is visible in the photograph recently published by Ahituv (1992:43). End of line 9: An oblique tail of a letter is visible in the photograph after the break (Ahituv 1992:43). It fits best either kaf or bet. There is no room for another letter before it (contra Pardee and Renz). Michaud (1958:79) translates “fi[dèlement],” apparently reading b[’mt]. But his readings and interpretation of lines 7–8 are quite different from those offered here. Tentatively (and with a big question mark), I propose reading b[drk ylk] (“he will take the road”), which fits the context and the assumed lacuna at the end of the line.

Discussion A major problem involved with the interpretation of the text is the statement about the fire signals of Azekah and Lachish. Most scholars assume that the statement is directed to Ya’ush, the recipient of the letter, and translate it thus: “And let (my lord) know that . . .” But, why is the expression “my lord” (’dny) omitted in line 10, if Ya’ush is indeed the addressee? Furthermore, why would the writer refer to the city of Lachish and its commander in the third person (“we are watching for the (fire) signals of Lachish according to all the signs that my lord has established”), rather than in the second person? Finally, why should one report to the commander of Lachish, who established the fire signal between towns in the Shephelah, about the topographical situation in the area, and what were his orders? In light of these considerations, I very much doubt the common interpretation according to which lines 10– 13 were addressed to Ya’ush. Pardee (1982:92–93), on the other hand, suggested that a certain “witness” (‘ēd), which he restored in line 8, is the subject of the verbal form wyd‘ at the beginning of line 10. However, not only is the reading h‘d questionable (Lemaire 1997:164–165), but the sudden drop of “the witness” into this statement with no introduction remains unexplained (as Pardee admits). In my opinion, the “servant” mentioned in line 7 is referred to by the accusative with pronominal suffix ’th (“him”) in line 8 and is the subject of the

The Fire Signals of Lachish Revisited

309

verbal form wyd‘ in line 10. The key to the correct understanding of the lines 7–13 is the verb yd‘, which is added by means of a wāw copulative with the jussive and should be interpreted as a hiph‘il — “to make known,” “to notify.” For parallels, see Num. 16:5; Isa. 38:19; Ps. 103:7. The writer first relates that he did not this day send the servant “there,” namely to Jerusalem, and adds that he will send him tomorrow morning (btsbt hbqr) (lines 7–9). He then gives the contents of the message that this man will relate before the authorities in Jerusalem (lines 10–13). The officials in Jerusalem are the ones who will hear the message that the writer cannot see the fire signals of Azekah and that, instead, he is watching for the fire signals of Lachish. What all the officers in the Shephelah must have known might not have been known to officials who lived in the city of Jerusalem.

Interpretation It seems to me that the entire letter deals with the consequences of a single episode that took place in a location called Beth-harapid (which was a village, manor or royal factory). It may have been located between Azekah and the town of the writer (Mareshah according to Jack 1938:185; Thomas 1939:5; Lemaire 1977:114–115), and some disaster (a raid, a fire, or the like) happened there. The neighboring town of Azekah called for help by raising fire signals, but the guardians did not see them and failed to come to their aid. The authorities of Jerusalem sent an official named Shema‘yahu to investigate the case, and he took Semakhyahu, either the commander of the place or the officer in charge of its guard, to be tried in Jerusalem. Ya’ush, the commander of Lachish, ordered the writer of the letter to investigate the matter and instructed him to prepare a detailed report on a delet (either a writing board or a papyrus sheet), and at the beginning of the letter the latter confirms that he has written it. The quality of the writing material (as against the writing on ostracon) indicates that it was prepared for an official purpose, probably to be sent to Jerusalem. The writer further reports that Beth-harapid is still vacant. He then relates that Shema‘yahu took Semakhyahu to Jerusalem and that Ja’ush’s servant, who must have transmitted his master’s orders to the writer, would take the road to Jerusalem tomorrow morning. Finally, he states the message that the servant will convey at Jerusalem: Azekah cannot be seen from his place, and the commander of Lachish was aware of it and instructed them to watch for the fire signals of Lachish. The verbal message and the detailed report on a writing board should clear Semakhyahu of the blame of not observing the fire signals of Azekah and failing to arrive in time to help Beth-harapid.

310


References Ahituv, S. 1992. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. From the Period of the First Commonwealth and the Beginning of the Second Commonwealth. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Hicks, R.L. 1983. Delet and Megillāh. A Fresh Approach to Jeremiah xxxvi. VT 33: 46–66. Jack, J.W. 1938. The Lachish Letters: Their Date and Import. PEQ 70: 165–187. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques. I. Les ostraca. Paris. Lemaire, A. 1997. Review of J. Renz and W. Röllig, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik I, II.1, III. Bibliotheca Orientalis 54: 161–166. Lipiński, E. 1977. North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 8: 81– 117. Michaud, H. 1958. Sur la pierre et l’argile. Inscriptions hébraïques et Ancien Testament. (Cahiers Archéologie Biblique 10). Neuchâtel. Pardee, D. 1982. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. A Study Edition. Chico, California. Renz, J. 1995. Die althebräischen Inschriften. Part 1 Text und Kommentar. In: Renz, J. and Röllig, W. Handbuch der althebräischn Epigraphik I. Darmstadt. Thomas, D.W. 1939. The Lachish Letters. Journal of Theological Studies 40: 1–15. Torczyner, H. 1938. Lachish I. The Lachish Letters. London.

No Anthropomorphic Graven Image

Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-exilic Period1 Introduction The question of whether anthropomorphic cult statues stood in YHWH’s temples in the pre-exilic period has been extensively discussed in recent years. The impetus for these studies came from what is known of the religions and cults in ancient Near Eastern kingdoms and the assumption that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah did not differ from all their neighbors.2 There is no explicit reference in the Bible to the presence of anthropomorphic cult statues in YHWH’s temples either in Israel or Judah. However, scholars have recently attributed exilic or post-exilic dates to many biblical texts that refer to the cult in the two kingdoms, texts that previously had been dated to the pre-exilic period. These scholars have also emphasized the tendentiousness of biblical authors in their description of the Israelite religion and cult. As a result, a growing number of scholars have been questioning the validity of many biblical texts as reliable sources for the investigation of religion and cult in pre-exilic Israel. Recently, some scholars questioned the former consensus on the absence of graven images in the cult of YHWH, suggesting that anthropomorphic cult statues of YHWH were indeed present in the major sanctuaries of the two kingdoms.3 Not all the arguments raised by these scholars carry the same weight. A cult statue was a standard requisite in ancient Near Eastern temples, but its

1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 31 (1999), 391–415. 2. T.N.D. Mettinger presented several examples of first millennium BCE aniconic cults among West Semitic peoples (Nabateans, pre-Islamic Arabian tribes, Phoenicians, Punics). See Mettinger 1994; 1995:57–113; 1997a. However, because most of these examples are later than the monarchial period, they cannot serve as evidence for pre-exilic aniconism in Israel and Judah. 3. Dietrich and Loretz 1992 (esp. pp. 158–172); Loretz 1994a; Schmidt 1996; Niehr 1997:73–95; Uehlinger 1997; Becking 1997; van der Toorn 1997:239. See also Loretz 1994b; Uehlinger 1996.

311

312


existence in the cult of YHWH cannot be taken for granted and requires some indications. The evidence of the Assyrian royal inscriptions and reliefs will be discussed below. Verbal anthropomorphic expressions that appear in the Bible and that appear to presuppose the existence of YHWH’s image in the temple can hardly prove anything. Biblical laws forbid the making of graven images, but ignore either conceptual anthropomorphic forms or their metaphorical expressions in oral speech and scriptural literature.4 Anthropomorphic descriptions of God and their verbal expressions in literature appear in rabbinic literature until the Middle Ages (and later in the Qabbalah literature), when monotheism had been firmly established in Judaism for hundreds of years. The biblical laws concerned the cult and divination and the many ways in which they were practiced in daily life, whereas figurative language and “mythic” forms of conceptualizing religious experience and perception became a concern of Judaism only in post-biblical periods.5 Moreover, the expression “to see the face of God” indeed reflected reality. The sight of the cult vessels, and particularly the ark, which were brought out in front of the believers in festivals during the time of the First Temple, were considered representations of the divine. This is proved by the commandment “to see the face” in the time of the Second Temple; this commandment was fulfilled by the observation of cult vessels that were brought out to the court of the temple, in front of the people, during the thrice-yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem.6 Thus, the presentation of the ark and other cult vessels to the believers in the pre-exilic period must have been considered a kind of public divine revelation, expressed in anthropomorphic language in the Psalms (Smith 1988). We may conclude that figurative language and verbal metaphors cannot decide the case of the cult image of YHWH.7 A different kind of problem concerns the interpretation of what C. Uehlinger calls “primary evidence for anthropomorphic cult statuary in Iron Age Palestine.”8 Some of the objects and artifacts to which he referred

4. For an analysis of the anthropomorphic expressions that appear in Ugarit and the Bible, see Korpel 1990:88–522, 626–628, 639–643; see recently Schart 1999. 5. See, e.g., Marmorstein 1927; 1937; Kaufmann 1952:231–241; Smith 1958; 1970; Goshen-Gottstein 1994. 6. Knohl 1991:139–142, and the references in notes 6–9 (Hebrew). Knohl demonstrates that the Pharisee halakhic tradition held that every effort is made to involve the people in the festival worship. 7. This was correctly noted by Mettinger 1997b:187. For a different interpretation, see Loretz 1985:71–75; 1997:258–266; Niehr 1997:83–90. 8. Uehlinger 1994; 1996. For a survey and literature, see recently Berlejung 1998:284– 305.


313

came from the antiquities market and their origin and context is unknown. Whether these objects were cult statuary cannot be decided with any degree of certainty. The archaeological contexts of other objects are unclear, and the presence of a “cultic” object in a building does not necessarily mean that the building is either a shrine or an open cult place. Moreover, almost all the objects discussed by Uehlinger are small, and not one of them carries an inscription that identifies its function.9 Let me illustrate the problem of the interpretation of these small, seemingly cultic, objects by comparison with Mesopotamian examples. Postgate (1994) examined figurines unearthed in excavations in the light of textual evidence. By using texts, he was able to demonstrate that anthropomorphic metal figures “may be images of gods, or of humans, or of demons and other supernatural beings, but not of animals.” He divided the “effigies” (which is his translation for Akkadian ṣalmum) unearthed in Mesopotamia into four different types: (1) the god’s effigy; (2) the human worshipper’s figure; (3) figurines representing supernatural beings; (4) the effigy of a human, used as a channel through which magical influences are conveyed to the human individual. In the light of the textual evidence, Postgate was able to establish the match and mismatch of texts with some figurines, but the function of many others remained unknown. In Palestine, on the other hand, there is no epigraphic comparative material, and the decision as to whether certain objects are cult statuary is fraught with difficulties. Examining the large corpus of “cult objects” collected by Uehlinger, I cannot find a single object that was found in a cultic site in the kingdoms of Israel or Judah and that could be unequivocally interpreted as an anthropomorphic cult statue of a god. T.J. Lewis (1998:45) noted that “a cult object (e.g., altars, incense stand) can have power and efficacy derived from a deity without being the equivalent of a divine symbol.” Indeed, some of the objects presented by Uehlinger may have been attributed to divine power and efficacy derived from a god, without being considered his representation. It is useful to analyze presumed cult objects unearthed in excavations and to make assumptions as to their original cultic function, but without conclusive evidence these remain purely conjectural and cannot prove that the objects represents the god as such. Before proceeding to discuss some recent suggestions offered by scholars, let me raise an important methodological issue. Finkelstein (1999a; 1999b) recently discussed the socio-political and cultural roots of the kingdoms of

9. For a critical discussion of this problem, see recently Lewis 1998:42–47. For a thorough discussion of the metal figurines, see Moorey 1984 (esp. pp. 77–80).

314


Israel and Judah and emphasized the many differences that divided the two kingdoms. Let me quote two passages from the summary of his Hebrew article (1999a:233*): Israel and Judah were two distinct territorial, socio-political and cultural phenomena. This dichotomy stemmed from their different environmental conditions and their contrasting history in the second millennium B.C.E. Israel was characterized by significant continuity in Bronze Age cultural traits, by heterogeneous population and by strong contacts with its neighbors. Judah was characterized by isolation and by local, Iron Age cultural features, as evidenced in the layout of its provincial administrative towns. Israel emerged as a full-blown state in the early ninth century B.C.E., together with Moab, Ammon and Aram Damascus, while Judah (and Edom) emerged about a century and a half later, in the second half of the eighth century. The early appearance of Israel was caused by a combination of internal and external factors. Locally, Israel emerged in an arena which was characterized by demographic, cultural and political traits that continued almost undisturbed from the second millennium B.C.E. Externally, the early emergence of Israel was stimulated by its openness to surrounding areas: contacts with the Phoenician trade centers, proximity to the core areas of the growing Aramean states and its relatively early encounter with the Assyrian threat. Judah opened to international trade and to neighboring civilizations only with the Assyrian takeover of the entire region in the late 8th century B.C.E. The Assyrian conquest brought about the collapse of the cultural barriers between the inland national states of the Levant.

In light of these differences and the clear dividing lines that separate the two kingdoms, we must be cautious not to draw conclusions regarding the cult from one kingdom to the other. The fact that both kingdoms worshiped YHWH does not indicate similarity in the cult objects, in the organization of the cult, or in the rituals practiced in their sanctuaries. When discussing the problem of cult statues in Israelite and Judean temples, conclusions drawn regarding one kingdom should not be immediately applied to the other kingdom. Even if we find indications for anthropomorphic cult statues in one kingdom, it does not indicate that similar statues were erected in the other. Each kingdom should be studied in its own right, and inferences from one kingdom to the other should be drawn with great caution.

The Evidence of the Nimrud Prisms of Sargon II Two identical hexagonal prisms of Sargon II were discovered in the excavations of Nimrud (ancient Calah) and published by Gadd (1954:173–198 and Pls. XLIV-L). The prisms are classified as summary inscriptions, that is, their author arranged episodes according to a geographical principle — unlike the annals, which have a chronological order and relate the campaigns of the king year by year.


315

The episode of Sargon’s campaign against Samaria (column IV 25–41) recounts the rebellion of the inhabitants of Samaria, the conquest of their country, the deportation of its people and the annexation of its territory to Assyria. The passage under discussion runs as follows (lines 29–34): With the power of the great gods, my [lor]ds (ilāni rabûti bēliya), I foug[ht aga]inst them. [4?]7,280 people, together with [their] chariots, and the gods in whom they trusted (ilāni tiklīšun), I counted as spoils. 200 chariots for [my] royal force I collected from their midst.

Gadd (1954:181), in his publication, noted that “the allusion here to the ‘gods in whom they trusted’ is doubtless interesting evidence for the polytheism of Israel.” Some scholars adopted his position.10 Others suggested that the phrase “the gods in whom they trusted” is a literary topos of the kind that appears in the descriptions of city’s conquests and should not be interpreted verbally (Galling 1995:136). Cogan (1974:104–105) assumed that the “gods” mentioned in the prisms are the calves and that Sargon II considered them to be the gods of Samaria. Tigay (1986:35) argued that in Assyrian eyes, the cult objects carried away from Samaria were representation of divine beings. But the use of ilāni (“gods”) does not permit conclusions as to the specific nature of these objects. The episode of the conquest and annexation of Samaria was recently discussed in detail by Becking (1997). He (1997:171) rejected all the suggestions that interpret the passage either as a literary topos or as a reference to theriomorphic divine images and concluded that Sargon was referring to anthropomorphic statues. He, therefore, suggested that the Nimrud Prisms “support the assumption that divine images were used in the royal cult of Samaria.” Strangely enough, in spite of the centrality of this account for the discussion of cult images in Israel, its historical reliability was never examined. Let me discuss the usefulness of the prisms as a source for the history of Sargon’s early campaigns. Scholars have analyzed in detail the system of dating by years of reign (palû) in Sargon’s annals and have established the dates of his campaigns.11 The prisms are summary inscriptions, arranged according to the geographical principle. Thus, dating its episodes depends on the royal annals. Many inscriptions of Sargon were composed around 707 BCE and were erected in Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), the king’s new capital. Among them are the Khorsabad Annals

125.

10. See the literature cited by Becking 1997:162, n. 23; Niehr 1997:79; Uehlinger 1996:

11. Olmstead 1916:36–42; Weidner 1941–44; Tadmor 1958; Fuchs 1994:378–387; 1998: 81–96.

316


and the Great Display Inscription, both containing long, detailed descriptions of Sargon’s early campaigns. The Nimrud Prisms were written in approximately 706 BCE, later than all other inscriptions of Sargon (with the exception of the Tang-i Var inscription; see below) (Gadd 1954:176, 194). Two features indicate this: (a) In column vii 16–19 Sargon states that he presented gifts to the gods of Babylonia “from the outset of my reign up to (my) fourth year.” Sargon counts his years in Babylonia from 709 BCE, and 706 is his fourth year. In the Great Display Inscription written in 707 BCE, the gifts are said to have been given “from the outset of my reign up to (my) third year” (Fuchs 1994:232, line 144). (b) In the inscriptions from Dur-Sharrukin, Uperi is the king of Dilmun who sent gifts to Sargon. In both the Nimrud Prisms and in the recently published rock inscription from Tang-i Var, which was engraved in about 706 BCE (Frame 1999 [esp. pp. 46, 48–52]), Aḫundara is the name of Dilmun’s king who sent gifts. He was Uperi’s successor and ascended the throne in about 706 BCE. The passage in the Nimrud Prisms that relates the conquest of Samaria and its annexation appears almost verbatim in the Khorsabad Annals of Sargon, but without the statement about the removal of the city’s gods. It is also missing from all other inscriptions of Sargon that relate the conquest and annexation of Samaria.12 Did the later author of the prisms compose his text on the basis of sources and insert an element that was missing in Sargon’s other inscriptions? When we compare the Nimrud Prisms with the earlier inscriptions of Sargon, and particularly the Khorsabad Annals, the dependence of the prisms on the annals becomes obvious.13 For example, the combination of the conquest of Samaria with the opening of the sealed harbor of Egypt in the prisms (IV 25–49) was taken from the annals (lines 10–18), where the two episodes are ascribed to Sargon’s accession year. According to the annals, Sargon conducted two successive campaigns against Babylonia (712–711 BCE). In the prisms, the first campaign is almost entirely absent, and only the second campaign is described in detail (col. VI). The campaigns against the kingdoms of Kammanu and Gurgum are related in the Khorsabad Annals and the Great Display Inscription (and in the Nineveh Prism as well) (Fuchs 1998:47– 12. For the conquest of Samaria in the inscriptions of Sargon, see Becking 1992:25–45; Fuchs 1994: 457, s.v. Samerīna. 13. In the following discussion, references to the inscriptions from Dur-Sharrukin are cited from the edition of Fuchs (1994); reference to the Nimrud Prisms are cited from the edition of Gadd (1954).


317

49, 75–76) as two different episodes. In the Nimrud Prisms, on the other hand, the two campaigns are combined in one episode (V 41–75). If we examine the details of countries, cities, peoples, etc., that are mentioned in the prisms, they all are known from the early sources, unless these sources — and in particular the Khorsabad Annals — are broken. The Nimrud Prisms supplement unknown data only in places where the early sources are damaged. It is clear that the author of the prisms wrote his composition on the basis of the early sources and that the text he wrote depends on them. Furthermore, in several places, the author of the prisms arbitrarily enlarged the data of his sources. For example, according to the annals (lines 192–193), the tribute delivered by Ellipi, Allabria and Madai to Sargon included 4609 horses, whereas in the prisms (III 55–56) the number of horses is 8,609. According to the annals (line 75) 200 cavalry were taken from Carchemish, whereas the prisms give the number 500 (IV 21). According to the annals (line 15) and the Great Display Inscription (line 24) 50 cavalry were taken from Samaria; in the prisms, the number is 200 (IV 33).14 Finally, the number of Israelite deportees possibly was doubled in the prisms (see translation). The analysis of the Nimrud Prisms indicates that it is an inferior source, compared with Sargon’s earlier inscriptions, and that its author felt free to manipulate his sources and write his own version of Sargon’s campaigns. This is typical of the scribes of Assyrian royal inscriptions, who felt free to omit or abridge older texts, replace words or sentences by others, or insert new elements into the texts. The author of the prisms composed his work according to the norms of his time. We are now ready to analyze the reference to the gods of Samaria in the Nimrud Prisms. Becking (1997:165) may be justified in his conclusion that the phrase “the gods in whom they trusted” is not a literary topos. But the conclusion he draws, that the statement is “the description of real event,” goes far beyond the evidence he presents. It is well known that the annexation of a kingdom and its reorganization as a province frequently involved the deportation of local gods and their removal to Assyria. The author of the prisms was aware of this procedure, and in his effort to magnify the Assyrian conquest of Samaria, inserted the motif of the spoliation of divine images into his account. The motif of “the gods in whom they trusted,” which had failed to defend the inhabitants of Samaria, appears in the text in contrast to 14. For variations of numbers in the inscriptions of Sargon II, see De Odorico 1995:52– 57, 106. However, De Odorico (1995:72, 106) erroneously dated the Nimrud Prisms earlier than the Khorsabad Annals and suggested that the quantifications were reduced from the early to the later inscription.

318


“the gods, my lords,” who had helped Sargon to achieve his victory. We may conclude that the statement is a literary embellishment by the later author and does not reflect a genuine memory of the captivity of the cult images of Samaria.

The Reliefs of Sargon II from Dur-Sharrukin Room V in Sargon’s palace at Dur-Sharrukin was a reception hall decorated by reliefs from the king’s western campaign of 720 BCE.15 The order of the reliefs within the room is controversial, and several reconstructions have been offered by scholars. A few years ago, Franklin (1994) suggested that the Room V reliefs deal with Sargon’s western campaigns from 722 to 709 BCE and that a series of slabs from the upper register depict the siege and conquest of Samaria. These reliefs are only partially preserved and are located in a central point in the room. The main basis for the identifying of the conquered city with Samaria is the curved swords that are wielded by the defenders of the besieged city, whose closest parallel are the swords taken as booty by Sennacherib from the city of Lachish.16 According to Franklin’s reconstruction, the scene ended with a parade of the booty of Samaria that is brought before Sargon. She concluded that the conquest of Samaria was given a prominent place in the depiction of Sargon’s campaigns to the west. Franklin’s identification of Samaria in the Room V reliefs was dismissed by Becking (1997:167–171) and was recently re-examined by Uehlinger (1998). He (1998:765–767) rejected Franklin’s suggestion that Ashdod, which was conquered in 711 BCE, is depicted in Room V and that several western campaigns are portrayed in this room. The reliefs of Room V depict scenes selected from Sargon’s western campaign of year 720 BCE and should be analyzed in the context of the events of this campaign alone. Uehlinger examined the scenes depicted in the lower and upper registers and concluded that the conquest of three cities is depicted in the upper register. He analysed the partially damaged scenes on slabs 4-U – 2-U, which depict booty carried off by Assyrian soldiers. On the basis of the comparison with the reliefs of Tiglath-pileser III, he suggested that these slabs depict the carrying off of a conquered city’s statues of gods before the king of Assyria.17 He then (1998:768–769) examined in detail the soldiers’ weapons 15. El-Amin 1953:35- 47; Wäfler 1975:27–35; Reade 1976:99–102; Na’aman 1994:241–242; Uehlinger 1998:765–767. 16. Franklin 1994:264. For a recent discussion of the curved swords from Lachish, see Maeir 1996. 17. See the reconstruction of the damaged reliefs in Uehlinger 1998:764–765.


319

and dress and concluded — contrary to Franklin — that they are not exclusively Israelite. Uehlinger (1998:769–771) suggested that the key for the identification of the city and the booty depicted in the upper register is the spoliation of the city’s cult statues. He rejected Becking’s suggestion of identifying the city with Hamath, which headed the coalition that fought Assyria in 720 BCE, because the removal of cult statues is not mentioned in reference to the city’s conquest. A spoliation of statues is not mentioned in reference to Qarqar, which was conquered by Sargon after he defeated the coalition of SyroPalestinian states headed by Yaubi’di of Hamath. The inscriptions of Sargon mention the capture of cult statues from only four cities: Samaria, Muṣaṣir (714 BCE), Ashdod (712 BCE) and Dur-Yakin (709 BCE), and of these, Samaria alone fits the context of the Room V’s reliefs. In the first part of the article, I suggested that the Nimrud Prisms are an unreliable source for Sargon’s campaign against Samaria in 720 BCE. Two other observations may be made against the identification of Samaria with the city depicted in Room V’s reliefs: (a) The conquest of Samaria is ascribed in the Khorsabad Annals to Sargon’s accession year (722 BCE). No inscription of Sargon connects the conquest of Samaria with the participation of its inhabitants in the rebellion of Yaubi’di of Hamath in the Assyrian king’s second year (720 BCE). On the contrary, the two episodes are always referenced separately.18 The Sargon reliefs follow the organization of campaigns in the annals; thus, Samaria can have no place in the Room V’s reliefs that depict the struggles and conquests of Sargon’s second year. (b) Two slabs (lines 27–52) recounting the 720 BCE campaign are missing in the Khorsabad Annals, and only a few lines, relating the beginning (lines 23–26) and end (lines 53–57) of the campaign, survived (Fuchs 1994:82, 89– 90). It is clear that the campaign was described in great detail, and what we have now in Sargon’s summary inscriptions is only a small part of an originally long and detailed text.19 In this situation, we must treat the reliefs with caution. Several toponyms mentioned in the reliefs (Gabbutunu, ‘Amqarruna, Ba’il-gazara, Sinu), which are missing from the extant inscriptions of Sargon, might have originally been mentioned in the annals. The spoliation of statues

18. For comparison of the references to the conquest of Samaria and the anti-Assyrian rebellion under the leadership of Yaubi’di of Hamath, see Becking 1997:25–39, with earlier literature. 19. For two broken steles that relate Sargon’s campaign against Hamath, see ThureauDangin 1933; Lambert 1981:125.

320


from some conquered cities equally might have been mentioned in the annals, although are missing in all other inscriptions of Sargon (see below). It seems that the conquered city depicted in Sargon’s upper reliefs from room V should be identified with Hamath, the center of the anti-Assyrian rebellion. The city apparently suffered a heavy destruction in 720 BCE and, according to the archaeological excavations, was not substantially reoccupied until the Hellenistic rebuilding of the city (Hawkins 1972–75:69–70, with earlier literature). The city of Hamath was probably conquered and plundered by Sargon, and its inhabitants and statues of gods were deported to Assyria. Hamath’s prominent place in Sargon’s 720 BCE campaign matches its centrality in the Assyrian king’s reliefs that depict selected episodes from his western campaign of that year.

A Relief of Tiglath-Pileser III Depicting the Carrying of Statues of Gods The discussion of Sargon’s inscriptions and reliefs raises an important question regarding the identification of non-inscribed reliefs: When is the extant corpus of royal inscriptions complete enough to justify the claim that a textual reference to the removal of gods is identical to a pictorial scene of spoliation? Also, Assyrian kings did not systematically record all the deportations of cult statues. It is quite possible that the authors of royal inscriptions sometimes ignored the captivity of gods, whereas the artist chose the scene for representation. In such a case, the corpus of royal inscriptions would mislead us, as we may erroneously identify the un-inscribed scene under investigation with another episode of the spoliation of images mentioned in the inscriptions. The depicted removal of statues in a Tiglath-pileser relief is a case in point, illustrating the problem of the written source vis à vis un-inscribed scenes on reliefs. The removal of the “gods” of the city of Gaza is mentioned in one of Tiglath-pileser’s summary inscriptions (Summ. 4). The Gaza episode is related in this inscription as follows (Tadmor 1994:138–141, lines 8–15): Hanunu of Gaza, [who] fle[d before] my weapons and escaped [to] Egypt — Gaza, [his royal city, I conquered. His people (UN.MEŠ-šú)], his goods and [his] gods [I despoiled. An imag]e [of the great] gods, my [lords], and my royal image [I fashioned of gold and set up] in the palace [of Gaza]. I counted (them) among the gods of their land, and established [th]eir [regular offerings?] ([ginû/sattukki-šu]-nu ú-kín).20 As for [him (i.e., Hanunu), the fear of my majesty] overwhelmed him and like a bird he flew [from Egypt . . .]. I returned him to his position, and his [port? I counted as an Assyrian] em[porium. Gold], silver, multi-coloured garments, linen garments, large [horses, . . . I re]ceived. 20. The restoration was suggested by Berlejung 1998:344.


321

Unlike the authors of two other summary inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser (Summ. 8 and Summ. 9), who combined in one passage the taking of booty and the payment of tribute, the author of Summ. 4 kept them apart.21 In the first part of the episode, the author mentioned the booty (people, valuable goods and statues), and in the second part he listed the tribute. Details of the deportation from Gaza are mentioned in another inscription (Summ. 8), which lists the king’s wife and sons, after which the text is broken (Tadmor 1994:176, line 15). We may safely assume that the deportation included members of the royal family and statues of the royal house of Gaza, all transferred to Assyria to assure the loyalty of Gaza’s king to his lord. Tiglath-pileser’s policy toward Gaza may be compared with that of Sennacherib toward Ashkelon. After the conquest of the city in 701 BCE, Sennacherib deported the rebellious king (Ṣidqa), some members of his family, and “the gods of his (i.e., Ṣidqa) father’s house.”22 Retaining the statues of royal houses was an effective step that could assure loyalty. Whether the despoiled statues were returned after some time remains unknown. The removal of the gods from Gaza is juxtaposed in the inscription with the transfer to Gaza of a golden image (probably a golden plaque in the form of a stele) of the Assyrian king and gods.23 This image was established in the palace of Gaza, where a chapel was probably built for it and regular offerings made. The establishment of a golden divine image in the palace of a conquered king has no parallel in the Assyrian royal inscriptions. In the abovecited episode, the Assyrian image(s) set up in the palace take the place of the statues deported from Gaza to Assyria. A relief of Tiglath-pileser III depicts soldiers carrying away large statues from an unnamed city (Layard 1849:pl. 65; Barnett and Falkner 1962:29, pls. 88, 92–93). The slab to the right of this relief is missing, and the next preserved slab depicts the submission of a king to Tiglath-pileser. The removal of four cult statues is depicted on the extant slab, and a few more cult stat21. For a synopsis of the three summary inscriptions that relate the Hanunu episode, see Tadmor 1994:222–225. A division of the spoils, which took place after the battle, and the payment of tribute after the surrender of the ruler to the Assyrian king, also appear in all descriptions of the Samsi episode. See Tadmor 1994:225–229. 22. Oppenheim 1969:287b. 23. The plural form [. . . -šu]-nu in Summ. 8:17 and the conjunctive ù in Summ. 4:10 indicate that the text refers to two images and must be translated formally in the plural. However, the author probably described a golden plaque in the form of a stele on which were depicted the king and the symbols of the great gods of Assyria, similar in form to the statues erected by the Assyrian kings. See Tadmor 1994:177, n. 16; Uehlinger 1997:310. The plural form was necessary for the juxtaposition of the deported statues with the new golden image set in the palace. For the mounting of statues of gods with gold, see Parpola 1970:No. 277; 1983.

322


ues must have been depicted on the missing slab, as the two soldiers on the right side of the relief show. Barnett suggested that the scene describes the deportation of the divine statuary from Gaza (Barnett 1985:21–23). His identification was made on the basis of Tiglath-pileser’s above-cited text. Keel and Uehlinger have adopted the identification, suggesting that the scene of submission describes the surrender of Hanunu before Tiglath-pileser.24 The identification was made on the basis of the prostrating ruler’s cap, which Wäfler identified as Philistine.25 Four lines of criticism may be raised against this identification: (a) Only a relatively small part of Tiglath-pileser’s annals survived, and the accounts of many years are missing. We lack the details of some western campaigns, and no more than a few details are known of other campaigns. It is impossible to reconstruct the scope of the spoliation of divine images, originally mentioned in Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions, on the basis of the summary inscriptions alone. (b) Gaza was not annexed by Tiglath-pileser, and, after his flight, Hanunu, its king, was restored to the royal throne. The relief depicts the removal of the major deities of a conquered city, and it is quite unlikely that the cult statues of a vassal king were removed to Assyria. We have already suggested that “the gods” mentioned in Summ. 4 are the ancestral gods of Hanunu, rather than Gaza’s cult statues. The city of Gaza does not, therefore, fit the scene on the relief. We had better assume that the despoiled images were carried from the capital of a kingdom that Tiglath-pileser conquered and annexed, and that the relief on the right side shows the sparing of the life of its king, who had broken his oath and death penalty hung over his head. (c) The identification of the prostrating king as Philistine on the basis of his cap is uncertain (see note 25). Tadmor (1994:240), in the edition of Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions, characterized the prostrating king’s dress as “typical north Syrian.” (d) The deportation of cult statues might have been ignored by the authors of Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions, but chosen by the artists to depict the campaign. As noted again and again by art historians, texts and reliefs are different forms of expression and may select different episodes to narrate the same event. 24. Keel and Uehlinger 1994:412–413; 1996:124–125; 1997:309–312. 25. Wäfler 1975:37–40. Wäfler (1975:40 and pl. 1) compared the prostrating king’s cap with the cap of the kneeling captive depicted on relief in Sargon’s throne room (Room VIII, 12), whom he identified as Philistine. However, there is no certainty that the captive shown on Sargon’s relief was indeed Philistine, and it is even more hazardous to establish the ethnic identity of the kneeling captive in Tiglath-pileser’s relief on the basis of this questionable pictorial detail.


323

Tadmor (1994:240) suggested that the statues depicted on the relief were taken from Kullani, the capital of Unqi/Patina, or from Arpad. Although the suggestion cannot be verified and the statues could have been taken from some other annexed city, his line of thought seems preferable to the suggestion that the major cult statues of a vassal king were removed to Assyria. We may conclude that an evaluation of the surviving remnant of the corpus of inscriptions of each Assyrian king is essential for the identification of non-inscribed reliefs. Moreover, there are limitations to any corpus of royal inscriptions when it is used for identifying non-inscribed reliefs, and various considerations should be taken into account before reaching conclusions in such a complicated matter.

The Lachish Reliefs and the Sanctuary of Arad Sennacherib’s conquest of Lachish is not mentioned in his annals, but is portrayed in a series of reliefs at his royal palace in Nineveh.26 Fortunately, an epigraph inscribed on the reliefs mentions the conquered city’s name — otherwise scholars might have searched Sennacherib’s annals for the city’s name and would have proposed erroneous identifications. The Lachish reliefs indirectly illustrate the problem of identifying cities depicted on noninscribed reliefs. Until now, these reliefs have not been discussed in the context of Judah’s cult images, because no image appears there. Nevertheless, in this case the absence of statues is no less instructive than their presence in other reliefs. Let me first describe the spoils of the city as depicted on the reliefs.27 To the right of the city are seen two columns of people moving to the right and approaching the Assyrian king sitting on his throne. A line of captives and deportees and their escorting Assyrian soldiers is shown in the upper column. At the rear of the column appear eight Assyrian soldiers carrying the booty. The first and second soldiers are bearing large incense burners. The cult vessels must have been made of bronze, as indicated by their placement at the head of the spoils procession. The third soldier is holding a chair with armrests, and the fourth and fifth soldiers are pulling a ceremonial chariot. The last three soldiers bear weapons: three spears, two shields and six swords. The Lachish reliefs depict the theme of booty by presenting three types of objects that are frequently mentioned in the booty lists of Assyrian royal inscriptions: cult vessels, the treasures of the palace and weapons. 26. The reliefs were discovered and published by Layard 1853:Pls. XX-XXIV. They were re-drawn by Dekel and studied afresh by Ussishkin. See Ussishkin 1982. 27. For a recent discussion of the booty shown on the relief, see Na’aman 1995:191–193; cf. Maeir 1996:210–214.

324


The cult vessels on the Lachish reliefs must have come from a cult place that was built in Lachish and functioned until 701 BCE, when the Assyrians destroyed the city and despoiled its treasures. Why did the artist omit the cult statue(s) from the booty? Cult images, symbolyzing the surrender of the city’s god(s) to the gods of Assyria, were more important and pictorial than bronze incense burners. If such graven image(s) had been taken from Lachish’s cult place, they would have been shown at the head of the booty procession, as in some other reliefs of Sennacherib.28 It seems that no graven cult image was found in the sacred site, and the artist depicted the most impressive booty taken: a pair of bronze incense burners (similar to the depiction of the Menorah and cult vessels on the Arch of Titus). In the eighth century BCE, the city of Lachish was second in importance only to Jerusalem and served as the major Judean center in the Shephelah. A considerable part of the city was occupied by the governor’s palace-fort, with its storehouses, stables and a broad courtyard. Lachish was under direct royal control, and its cult place (probably a sanctuary) reflected the official cult of the Kingdom of Judah. Thus, the absence of figurative cult statues at Lachish may indicate the situation in other cult places in Judah. For a better understanding of the presumed absence of cult statue(s) on the Lachish reliefs, I shall examine the findings from the sanctuary of Arad, the only one discovered so far in Judah.29 The cult place was built in the northwestern corner of the fortress. It is constructed along an east-west axis, and its main entrance is on the east. Its courtyard has an altar, and four steps lead from the courtyard to the raised cella (debîr). Two limestone altars were found carefully laid on the second stair, and a well-dressed, long (90 cm.) limestone pillar (maṣṣebah), with traces of red pigment on it, was found in the cella. Aharoni (1967:247–248; see Mettinger 1995:148–149) uncovered two other long stone slabs, one laid on the right side of the cella’s entrance and the other leaning against the back wall of the sanctuary and covered with plaster. He suggested that they had previously stood in the temple, and later, together with the two altars, fell out of use and were covered with plaster and buried. However, the two stone slabs differ in work and dimension from the well-dressed maṣṣebah and were apparently part of the construction of the temple, one serving as a door post and the other supported the sanctuary’s western wall (this was suggested by Herzog 1997:192). Only one maṣṣebah

28. See references in Berlejung 1998:41–42, n. 222, and pp. 478–482, pls. 3–6. 29. On the sanctuary of Arad, see Aharoni 1967:247–249; 1968; 1975:85–86; Herzog, Aharoni, Rainey and Moshkovitz 1984:11–22; Herzog 1997:182–203; Ussishkin 1988.


325

stood in the sanctuary, and served as the central symbol of the deity’s presence in the place. Evidence that after its desertion the sanctuary was covered with a thick layer of earth was discovered mainly in the courtyard area, near the altar.30 Taking into account the careful treatment of the maṣṣebah and the two altars, we may assume that the whole sanctuary was covered with layers of earth to protect the sanctuary from desecration (Herzog et al. 1984:19; Herzog 1997:202–203). Whether the site was destroyed before it was covered is a matter of interpretation. Those who plastered the altars, laid down the maṣṣebah and covered the temple with earth could have cleared away all signs of desecration, obliterating the evidence of destruction. Moreover, the massive wall of the later fortress of Arad cut through the cella, and a Hellenistic pit cut through part of the courtyard, both disturbing the stratified debris in the cella and courtyard. Ussishkin (1988:154) noted a thick diagonal layers of ash in the cella and suggested that the shrine in its final phase was destroyed by fire. Herzog (Herzog et al. 1984:19–21; Herzog 1997:202–203) argued that there were no signs of destruction in the sanctuary, and that its covering is evidence of Hezekiah’s cultic reform, related in 2 Kgs 18:4. The date of the destruction/desertion of Arad’s sanctuary is also controversial. Aharoni dated the termination of the altar to the end of the eighth century BCE (Stratum VIII) and that of the shrine to the late seventh century BCE (Stratum VII).31 Herzog and Rainey (Herzog et al. 1984:19–22) dated the termination of the shrine and altar to the late eighth century BCE (Stratum VIII). Ussishkin (1988:154–157) suggested that the shrine was destroyed by fire at the same time as the final destruction of the Judean fort (Stratum VI). Recently, Herzog (1997:199–203, 294) assigned the termination of the Arad temple to stratum IX and suggested that the area of the temple was already deserted in Stratum VIII. On the basis of the account of Hezekiah’s reform (2 Kgs 18:4), he dated the end of Stratum IX and the termination of the sanctuary to Hezekiah’s reign, suggesting that Stratum VIII was destroyed shortly aftrwards, during the Assyrian campaign of 701 BCE. Strangely enough, the most important evidence for dating the end of the Arad sanctuary has not been discussed. A lion-weight of an Assyrian type was found in the ash of the sacrificial altar (Aharoni 1975:94; Herzog et al. 1984:18, 30. This observation led Aharoni to the conclusion that the temple was abolished in two stages: First the sacrificial altar was abolished by Hezekiah (Stratum VIII), and later the inner shrine was terminated in connection with Josiah’s reform (Stratum VII). See Aharoni 1968:26–27, 30; 1975:85–86. 31. Aharoni 1967:248–249; 1968:26–27, 30; 1975:85–86; M. Aharoni 1993:83; Herzog 1981: 120.

326


fig. 20). It was correctly identified by Bron and Lemaire (1983:765, notes 19– 20), who compared it with a few similar weights found in the Syro-Palestinian area. The lion-weight weighs 82.3 grams, about 1/12 of the Assyrian heavy mina (Ornan 1997:276–277). The Assyrian lion-weights from Nimrud have recently been discussed in detail. Their legends clearly indicate that they were official Assyrian royal standard weights (Fales 1995; Zaccagnini 1999, with earlier literature). It seems that the weights were primarily intended for use in trade/tribute relationships, both in the Assyrian empire and between Assyria and its western vassals (Zaccagnini 1999:264). A few artifacts that were either imported from Mesopotamia or are imitations of Mesopotamian artifacts were discovered in late eighth century BCE Judean sites.32 However, the lion-weight from Arad’s sanctuary is the earliest genuine Assyrian artifact discovered in south Judean sites and was probably used in the commercial relationship that developed from the late eighth century BCE along the Beer-sheba Valley. It could not have reached Arad before this time, when Judah was integrated into the Assyrian commercial system, revealing as unlikely Herzog’s recent dating of the termination of the Arad’s sanctuary to Stratum IX. To understand the many differences in interpretating the results of the Tel Arad excavations, we must remember that the excavations were conducted many years ago, and that the excavator is no longer with us. The tell was fully excavated, so that it is impossible now to check the results of the excavations, and all that remains are preliminary reports and field registrations, which today, after so many years, are open to different interpretations. In these circumstances, no final decision about the stratigraphy and history of the sanctuary can be reached, and every suggested reconstruction must be considered tentative. With all due caution, I would suggest that the Assyrians destroyed Arad Stratum VIII in 701 BCE. Following the destruction of the fortress and the desecration of its sanctuary, some devotees of YHWH returned to the site, cleared the sanctuary and covered it with earth to avoid further desecration. The devotion and care for the sanctuary and its artifacts is in marked contrast to the description of Hezekiah’s cult reform (2 Kgs 18:4), which stresses the breaking and destroying of the altars and maṣṣeboth. This contrast makes unlikely the suggestion of Aharoni and his team of matching the end of the sanctuary with either Hezekiah’s or Josiah’s cult

32. Ornan 1997:265 (Tel Beer-sheba), 276–277 (Arad); Singer-Avitz 1999:38–41, with earlier literature.


327

reforms. 33 Arad is, rather, a case against the historicity of the biblical description of Hezekiah’s reform in the late eighth century BCE (Na’aman 1995:184–189). According to this dating, admittedly tentative, the Arad sanctuary was destroyed at the same time as the presumed cult place of Lachish. We have seen that the Arad sanctuary had one maṣṣebah, which was probably the symbol of YHWH’s presence in the cult place. A similar situation must have existed in the Lachish cult place, where a maṣṣebah must have symbolized the presence of YHWH in the place. A stone pillar does not look impressive, so the artist who carved the Lachish reliefs chose the large bronze incense burners to represent the booty taken from the sanctuary.

Arad and Ḥorvat Qiṭmit The evidence suggested so far for an aniconic cult in the Kingdom of Judah may be supported by a comparison between the cult objects of the Arad sanctuary and those of Ḥorvat Qiṭmit, an Edomite shrine in the southeastern margin of the Beer-sheba Valley (Beit-Arieh 1995). The Edomite nature of Qiṭmit is indicated by its inscriptions,34 cult objects (Beck 1995 [esp. pp. 179–190]) and pottery.35 The shrine was built and maintained by the local pastoral nomads, who lived on the southern periphery of the Kingdom of Judah and profited from the intensive commerce conducted along the Beersheba Valley in the seventh century BCE, and from service in the Judean settlements that developed in this area.36 Finkelstein suggested that the Qiṭmit cult place was a “road shrine” used by caravaneers of various origins.37 However, shrines were always built and maintained by settled or nomadic groups who lived in well-defined areas, and the gods of these cult places were family/tribal or urban/stately ones. The idea that there were inter-state “road shrines,” visited by both the local people and foreign caravaneers who passed along the road, is a scholarly inven33. See the literature cited in notes 63–64 and recently Rainey 1994; Herzog 1997:202– 203, 294. 34. The Edomite national god Qaus is mentioned in several inscriptions, either as a theophoric element in names or as the name of a god. See Beit-Arieh 1995:258–268. 35. About 83% of the cooking pots found at Ḥorvat Qiṭmit are of Edomite types. See Freud and Beit-Arieh 1995:216, Table 4.4. 36. For the role of seventh century BCE commerce in the economic prosperity of the pastoral nomads living near the Beer-sheba Valley, see Finkelstein 1992:159–162. 37. Finkelstein 1992:162–166. In his words (p. 166): “The cultural mélange seen in its finds indicates that it was visited by caravaneers of various origins — Arabs, Phoenicians, Judahites, Edomites and others; at the same time it reflects the special cultural koine of the period.”

328


tion, borrowed from the reality of later periods. Qiṭmit was built for the worshippers of Qaus, not for the devotees of Chemosh, YHWH, Dagon or Melqart. Moreover, the conclusion that Ḥorvat Qiṭmit was visited by caravaneers of various origins was reached on the basis of a straightforward “pots and people” equation and was aptly criticized by P. Beck in her article on the Edomite shrines of Ḥorvat Qiṭmit and ‘En Ḥaṣeva (Beck 1996:112). In her words: The eclectic nature of the art is not directly applicable to ethnicity or political domination. While the location of Ḥorvat Qitmit is problematic with regard to the question of whether it reflects Edomite political domination in that region, the “eclectic nature of the cultic materials” should not surprise us. Throughout its history, the iconography of the Levantine cultic art was “eclectic” in nature. It adapted visual constructs from the religious symbols of the established cultures in the Near East . . . to suit the needs of a particular local art or cult. It was the combination of such borrowed or loaned elements which created the particular Israelite, Judaean, Ammonite, Moabite, and most probably Edomite art that until now is known only from two sites in the Negev and Arava.

The idea that Qiṭmit was a “road shrine” visited by people of various origins is untenable and should be abandoned. Beck contrasted the finds from Qiṭmit’s shrine and the Arad sanctuary (Beck 1995:182). The cult statues and anthropomorphic representations found at Qiṭmit are in striking variance from the finds in Arad, where no anthropomorphic figures were found and an aniconic object (maṣṣebah) stood in the cella. She concluded that, “despite the claim of some scholars that the absence of Iron Age statuary should be attributed to archaeological chance, the cumulative evidence of a century of archaeological excavations bears eloquent testimony to an intentional abstention from making statues.” Beck’s emphasis on the contrast between the anthropomorphic iconography of the cult objects of the Edomite shrine of Qiṭmit and the aniconic nature of these of Arad’s sanctuary accord well with the results of my study.38 It corroborates the conclusions about the aniconic nature of the cult images of Judah in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE.

The Ark of Jerusalem and Cult Statues Scholars noted long ago that in a number of biblical passages, the ark fulfilled the role played outside Israel by divine images or standards of gods. 39 38. For a criticism of Beck’s conclusions, see Uehlinger 1996:136–139. I very much doubt Uehlinger’s conclusion (p. 139), that Qiṭmit was “an integral part of Judah’s religious history.” The opposite is true: Qiṭmit is alien in all cultural characteristics to the material culture of Judah, and although Qiṭmit is located on Judah’s southern periphery, the worshippers of Qaus, not devotees of YHWH, visited it.


329

Like the divine image in other ancient Near Eastern civilizations, the ark was a focal point of the divine presence. It was carried into battle in accordance with the idea that God marches in front of His people, just as standards of gods were taken to battle by other Near Eastern nations (Pongratz-Leisten, Deller and Bleibtreu 1992). Just as the Philistines carried their “idols” to the battlefield (2 Sam. 5:21), so the Israelites carried the ark (1 Sam. 4:1– 11; 14:18;40 2 Sam. 11:11). The capture of the ark during the wars with the Philistines and its return by its divine owner’s autonomous will (1 Samuel 4– 6) are paralleled in several ancient Near Eastern texts that describe the captivity and return of cult statues (Miller and Roberts 1977:9–17). A few passages in the Book of Psalms seem to indicate that, in certain festivals, the ark was carried out of the temple and then returned to its place, much as cult statues in Mesopotamia “marched out” to celebrate the New Year festival and then returned to their adytons.41 On the basis of some Egyptian reliefs, M. Metzger (1985:352–365; cf. Haran 1985:246–259) suggested that conceptually the ark was conceived as a stand for the Cherubim throne. Its form was of a chest, and, in the Solomonic temple, the ark was laid under the huge Cherubim throne, the earthly seat of YHWH in the temple of Jerusalem (1 Kgs. 6:23–28; 8:1–9), hence, the assumption that it was conceived as a stand for the divine throne and a footstool of the God who sat on the throne (Ps. 99:5; 132:7; 1 Chr. 28:2). The Cherubim throne was the most sacred cult object of YHWH in Judah, and the title “who sits upon the Cherubim” (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kgs. 19:15; Isa. 37:16; Ps. 80:2; 99:1) was derived from his divine seat on earth. Its function as YHWH’s seat in his “house” in Jerusalem was the equivalent of the golden calves in YHWH’s “houses” in the Kingdom of Israel. The great sanctity attached to the ark in biblical historiography and the psalms was because it was the most sacred object of YHWH that was taken out of the temple and shown in public. Although the Cherubim throne was located inside the Holy of Holies and was seen only by a few priests of high rank, the ark was taken out for festivals and wars and was seen by the people. No wonder that the people who saw this sacred object identified it with God (see 1 Sam. 4:3–8), or regarded it as the seat of YHWH, hence, the notion that the ark was YHWH’s throne, expressed in numerous biblical passages (e.g., Num. 10:33, 35–36; Jer. 3:16–17). The capture of the ark by the Philistines is 39. See the literature cited by Berlejung 1998:284, n. 1294; Ahlström 1984:142, 147–148; van der Toorn and Houtman 1994:215–216, 229. 40. Van der Toorn and Houtman 1994:210–219, with earlier literature. 41. Bentzen 1948; Porter 1954; Mowinckel 1962:106–192; Henton Davies 1963; van der Toorn 1991, with earlier literature.

330


described in the Ark Narrative as “the Glory has gone into exile from Israel” (1 Sam. 4:21–22) (de Robert 1979:351–356; Smelik 1992:53–58). It appears in similar words in Hosea’s description of the captivity of the calves of Bethel (Hos. 10:5) (de Robert 1979:352–353; Smelik 1992:54–55). However, unlike the calves, which were officially regarded as statues of the god and his divine seat (see below), the ark was officially considered as a stand for YHWH’s Cherubim throne and a footstool for his feet. The ark was basically a chest, and its lid might have been covered with a Cherubim relief, possibly the artistic source of the design for the kappōret in the ark of the Priestly source (for a different interpretation, see Haran 1985:247–251). A chest-like form of a sacred object that is part of god’s throne and represents him in festivals and wars is unique in the ancient Near East. According to the Book of Deuteronomy (10:1–5), the ark was made of acacia wood and contained the tablets of the law. The description of the ark as a container for the tablets appears in other passages that stemmed from the pens of deuteronomistic authors (Deut. 31:9–13, 24–29; 1 Kgs. 8:9). It reflects the efforts of these authors to reform the Jerusalem cult by a decisive change in the role of the sacred ark, transforming it from an object that represents YHWH in ceremonies and wars to a kind of container that holds the tablets of the law (Fretheim 1968). The transformation probably meant that the ark would have remained under the Cherubim throne and was no longer presented to the public. Many scholars assumed that before the emergence of the deuteronomistic movement, the ark was a container (Behälter) for sacred objects. Some scholars suggested that it contained image(s) of YHWH.42 According to this suggestion, which has many variants, cult images of YHWH were set in Israelite and Judean adytons, and their replicas were deposited in the ark. However, there is no indication of the presence of an ark in any north Israelite sanctuary in the tenth-eighth centuries BCE, and there is no evidence that anthropomorphic/theriomorphic images of YHWH stood in Judean sanctuaries in the time of the First Temple. It is, therefore, unlikely that the ark contained image(s) that were replicas of the statue of YHWH in the temple. Other scholars assumed that the ark contained a symbol of YHWH and suggested that the ark had contained two maṣṣeboth, substituted by the deuteronomistic authors by the two tablets of the law.43 Given the place of the maṣṣeboth in YHWH’s cult in Judah, the suggestion is worth consider42. Maier 1965:56, notes 104–106; Schmitt 1972:107–110, with earlier literature; van der Toorn 1997:241–242; Berlejung 1998:289–290, n. 1347. 43. Maier 1965:55–56; Schmitt 1972:102–128, with earlier literature; Mettinger 1997b: 198.


331

ing. Uncertainty remains, of course, as to whether two maṣṣeboth, or only one, were originally deposited in the ark. In light of the excavations at Arad, where only one maṣṣebah was discovered, the second alternative is no less likely than the first. However, it is not certain that the ark originally contained anything at all. Provided that Metzger’s suggestion (that the ark was considered the stand for the Cherubim throne) is acceptable, the idea of the ark as a container looses its raison d’être. Scholars have searched for parallels for a chestlike sacred object in which documents were deposited, but until now no exact parallel has been found. It is true that certain Near Eastern documents were deposited “under the feet” of God — i.e., in the temple under his protection and religious sanction (Herrmann 1908:299–300; de Vaux 1967a:254– 258; 1967b:272–273) — but these and other documents were never deposited in an object similar in form and function to the ark. Thus, it is possible that the transformation of the ark into a container for the tablets of the law is a deuteronomistic innovation, and, previously, the ark had been an empty chest representing the stand for YHWH’s throne. The suggestion that the tablets of the law replaced the maṣṣebah/maṣṣeboth as an icon of YHWH deposited in the ark is alluring, but it is equally possible that the ark was an empty chest until the emergence of the deuteronomistic movement in the seventh century BCE. There is no indication that there was more than one ark in Judah in historical time. Van der Toorn and Houtman may be justified in suggesting that originally there were two traditions about David’s ark (although the evidence for the Saulide tradition is tenuous), but the two assumed traditions refer to one and the same ark (Van der Toorn and Houtman 1994; see Davies 1975; 1977). This ark was either empty or contained an aniconic symbol of YHWH and, possibly, bore a Cherubim relief on its lid. As noted above, the ark of Jerusalem fulfilled the same role played in the ancient Near East by divine images or standards of gods. Thus, it is evident that there was no cult statue of YHWH in Jerusalem and that the ark alone represented YHWH in festivals and wars.

Conclusions We noted in the introduction the profound difference between the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and emphasized that the two kingdoms must be dealt with separately, each in its own right. No evidence of an anthropomorphic image of YHWH has been found in the course of the debate, either in Israel or Judah. Moreover, all the available evidence from the Kingdom of Judah supports the assumption that the image of YHWH in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE was aniconic and that YHWH was represented in the cult places by a standing stone (maṣṣebah).

332


The cultic situation in the Kingdom of Israel in the ninth-eighth centuries BCE is less clear. Israel emerged on the territory of many former Canaanite city-states and was characterized by population and cultural continuity from the Late Bronze Age. The bull iconography of the state cult in Israel is an example of this continuity. Some scholars differentiated the representation of the calves from their identity, arguing that the calves were pedestals for the invisible god, rather than divine images.44 However, such a differentiation is modern, being developed for the first time in later Judaism and Islam. No such separation was made in the religion and cult of the ancient Near East, where even the distinction between god and image tended to blur.45 The calves were considered both statues and pedestals of YHWH, and theriomorphic divine images were part of the official cult in Israel. In view of the Canaanite cultural inheritance of the Kingdom of Israel, it is not impossible that anthropomorphic images of YHWH were also set in some Israelite sanctuaries, although no conclusive evidence for such statues has been found. Two biblical references seemingly support this assumption. 2 Kgs. 18:34b (following the LXX version): “<Where are the gods of Samaria?> Did they save Samaria from me?”46 and Isa. 10:9–11 “Is not Calno as Carchemish, or Hamath as Arpad, or Samaria as Damascus? As my hand grasped for these idol kingdoms – and their idols are indeed more numerous than those of Jerusalem and Samaria — can I not, as I dealt with Samaria and its idols, also deal the same way with Jerusalem and its idol images?” (Translation cited from Wildberger 1991:411)

However, not only is the concrete reality behind the pejorative designations “idols” (’elīlîm) and “idol images” (‘āṣābîm) unclear, both statements were made by foreigners (Assyrians). It is well known that in some texts, biblical authors deliberately let foreigners express ideas that indicate their misunderstanding of the religion of Israel or Judah, and the speech of the Rabshakeh is the best example of a pun on a foreigner’s misapprehension (see Ben Zvi 1990:79–92). We must be careful not to draw conclusions from these highly literary references, but use them cautiously in conjunction with all the other available evidence for the cult in Israel.

44. The differentiation between pedestal and cult image was first suggested by Obbink 1929. 45. This important observation was made by Weippert 1961 (esp. pp. 105–107). 46. The end of verse 34 requires a preceding question, such as the one found in the Lucianic and Vulgate versions. For the restoration, see Burney 1903:342; Šanda 1912:260; Orlinsky 1939:46; Anbar 1990:7–8.


333

The suggestion that the cult images in the Kingdom of Judah in the preexilic period were aniconic must be the point of departure bpth for elucidating the emergence of the deuteronomistic movement in the seventh century BCE and for the study of later developments in the concept and iconography of the cult image in the exilic and post-exilic periods. It goes without saying that my conclusions are not new and have been suggested by many scholars, particularly by Mettinger (1994; 1995:57–113; 1997a) in a series of important works on the aniconic tradition in Israel. His No Graven Image is an excellent example of the analysis of texts and archaeology, artifacts and iconography, epigraphic texts and the Bible, all combined to investigate the problem of aniconism in the ancient Near East and Israel. In this article I have tried to follow this approach to clarify some problems and suggestions raised since the publication of Mettinger’s recent works. In summary, there is no unequivocal evidence that an anthropomorphic cult image of YHWH stood in Israelite sanctuaries, although, taking into account the cultural background of Israel, we cannot rule out the possibility that such cult images did exist. As for the Kingdom of Judah, I will paraphrase the name of a well-known book (Schroer 1987) and state that in Juda gab es keine anthropomorphen YHWH-Bilder.

References Aharoni, M. 1993. Arad: The Israelite Citadels. New Enc. Arch. Exc. 1: 82–87. Aharoni, Y. 1967. Excavations at Tel Arad: Preliminary Report on the Second Season, 1963. IEJ 17: 233–249. Aharoni, Y. 1968. Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple. BA 31: 2–32. Aharoni, Y. 1975. Arad: The Upper Mound. Enc. Arch. Exc. 1: 82–89. Ahlström, G.W. 1984. The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition. JNES 43: 141– 149. Anbar, M. 1990. Kai pou eisin oi theoi tēs choras Samareias “et où sont les dieux du pays de Samarie?” Biblische Notizen 51: 7–8. Barnett, R.D. 1985. Lachish, Ashkelon and the Camel: A Discussion of Its Use in Southern Palestine. In: Tubb, J.N. ed. Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell. (Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publications 11). London: 15–30. Barnett, R.D. and Falkner, M. 1962. The Sculptures of Aššur-Naṣir-Apli II (883–859 B.C.), TiglathPileser III (745–727 B.C.), Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.) from the Central and South-West Palaces of Nimrud. London. Beck, P. 1995. Catalogue of Cult Objects and Study of the Iconography. In: Beit-Arieh, I. ed. 1995. Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, No. 15). Tel Aviv: 27–197. Beck, P. 1996. Ḥorvat Qiṭmit Revisited via ‘En Ḥazeva. Tel Aviv 23: 102–114. Becking, B. 1992. The Fall of Samaria. An Historical and Archaeological Study. (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 2). Leiden, New York and Köln.

334


Becking, B. 1997. Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel? In: van der Toorn, K. ed. The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: 157–171. Beit-Arieh, I. ed. 1995. Ḥorvat Qiṭmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 15). Tel Aviv. Ben Zvi, E. 1990. Who Wrote the Speech of the Rabshakeh and when? JBL 109: 79–92. Bentzen, A. 1948. The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel. JBL 67: 37–53. Berlejung, A. 1998. Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 162). Freiburg and Göttingen. Bron, F. and Lemaire, A. 1983. Poids inscrits Phénico-Araméens du VIIIe siècle av. J.-C. In: Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma 5–10 Novembre 1979. vol. 3. Rome: 763–770. Burney, C.F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford. (Reprint: 1970. New York). Cogan, M. 1974. Imperialism and Religion. Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19). Missoula. Davies, P.R. 1975. Ark or Ephod in I Sam XIV. 18? Journal of Theological Studies 26: 82–87. Davies, P.R. 1977. The History of the Ark in the Books of Samuel. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 5: 9–18. De Odorico, M. 1995. The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 3). Helsinki. Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O. 1992. ”Yahwe und seine Aschera”: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bildverbot. Münster. El-Amin, M. 1953. Die Reliefs mit Beischriften von Sargon II. in Dûr Sharrukîn. Sumer 9: 35– 59, 214–228. Fales, F.M. 1995. Assyro-Aramaica: The Assyrian Lion Weights. In: van Leberghe, K. and Schoors, A. eds. Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. Leuven: 35–55. Finkelstein, I. 1992. Ḥorvat Qiṭmīt and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron Age II. ZDPV 108: 156–170. Finkelstein, I. 1999a. The Beginning of the State in Israel and Judah. Eretz Israel 26: 132– 141. (Hebrew). Finkelstein, I. 1999b. State Formation in Israel and Judah. A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory. Near Eastern Archaeology 62: 35–52. Frame, G. 1999. The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-i Var. Orientalia 68: 31–57. Franklin, N. 1994. The Room V Reliefs at Dur-Sharrukin and Sargon II’s Western Campaigns. Tel Aviv 21: 255–275. Fretheim, T.L. 1968. The Ark in Deuteronomy. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30: 1–14. Freud, L. and Beit-Arieh, I. 1995. Pottery. In: Beit-Arieh, I. ed. Ḥorvat Qiṭmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv: 209–257. Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen. Fuchs, A. 1998. Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr. nach Prismenfragmenten aus Ninive und Assur. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 8). Helsinki. Gadd, C.J. 1954. Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud. Iraq 16: 173–201. Galling, K. 1968. Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels. (2nd ed.). Tübingen. Goshen-Gottstein, A. 1994. The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature. Harvard Theological Review 87: 171–195. Haran, M. 1985. Temple and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake.


335

Hawkins, J.D. 1972–75. Hamath. RLA IV: 67–70. Henton Davies, G. 1963. The Ark in Psalms. In: Bruce, E.F. ed. Promise and Fulfilment. Essays Presented to S.H. Hooke. Edinburgh: 51–61. Herrmann, J. 1908. Ägyptische Analogien zum Funde des Deuteronomiums. ZAW 28: 291– 302. Herzog, Z. 1981. Israelite Sanctuaries at Arad and Beer-sheba. In: Biran, A. ed. Temples and High Places in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: 120–122. Herzog, Z. 1997. The Arad Fortress. In: Amiran, R., Ilan, O., Sebbane, M. and Herzog, Z. eds. Arad. Tel Aviv: 113–292. (Hebrew). Herzog, Z., Aharoni, M., Rainey, A.F. and Moshkovitz, S. 1984. The Israelite Fortress of Arad. BASOR 254: 1–34. Kaufmann, Y. 1952. History of the Religion of Israel, vol. 1. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Keel, O. and Uehlinger, C. 1994. Der Assyrerkönig Salmanassar III. und Jehu von Israel auf dem Schwarzen Obelisken aus Nimrud. Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 116: 391– 420. Knohl, I. 1991. Participation of the People in the Temple Worship — Second Temple Sectarian Conflict and the Biblical Tradition. Tarbiz 60: 139–146. (Hebrew). Korpel, M.C.A. 1990. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Münster. Lambert, W.G. 1981. Portion of Inscribed Stela of Sargon II, King of Assyria. In: Muscarella, O.W. ed. Ladder to Heaven. The Treasures from Lands of the Bible. Ontario: 125. Layard, A.H. 1849. The Monuments of Nineveh, from Drawings made on the Spot. London. Layard, A.H. 1853. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. London. Lewis, T.J. 1998. Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel. JAOS 118: 36–53. Loretz, O. 1985. Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. Leberschau und Jahwestatue in Psalm 27. Leberschau in Psalm 74. Altenberg. Loretz, O. 1994a. Gottes Thron in Tempel und Himmel nach Psalm 11. Von der altorientalischen zur biblischen Tempeltheologie. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 245–270. Loretz, O. 1994b. Semitischer Anikonismus und biblisches Bildverbot. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 209–223. Maeir, A. 1996. The “Judahite” Swords from the “Lachish” Reliefs of Sennacherib. Eretz Israel 25: 210–214. (Hebrew). Maier, J. 1965. Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum. (Beiheft zur ZAW 93). Berlin. Marmorstein, A. 1927. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God. vol. 1 The Names and Attributes of God. London. Marmorstein, A. 1937. The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, vol. 2 Essays in Anthropomorphism. London. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1994. Aniconism — a West Semitic Context for the Israelite Phenomenon. In: Dietrich, W. and Klopfenstein, M.A. eds. Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Freiburg and Göttingen: 159–178. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Near Eastern Context. (Coniectanea Biblica 42). Stockholm. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1997a. The Roots of Aniconism: an Israelite Phenomenon in Comparative Perspective. Supplement to VT 66: 219–234. Mettinger, T.N.D. 1997b. Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins. In: van der Toorn, K. ed. The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: 173–204.

336


Metzger, M. 1985. Königsthron und Gottesthron. Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament. Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Miller, P.D. and Roberts, J.J.M. 1977. The Hand of the Lord. A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. Baltimore and London. Moorey, P.R.S. 1984. Problems in the Study of the Anthropomorphic Metal Statuary from Syro-Palestine before 330 B.C. Levant 16: 67–90. Mowinckel, S. 1962. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1. Oxford. Na’aman, N. 1994. Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria. Tel Aviv 21: 235–254. Na’aman, N. 1995a. The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research. ZAW 107: 179–195. Niehr, H. 1997. In Search of YHWH’s Cult Statue in the First Temple. In: van der Toorn, K. ed. The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: 73–95. Obbink, H.T. 1929. Jahwebilder. ZAW 47: 264–274. Olmstead, A.T.E. 1916. Assyrian Historiography: A Source Study. (The University of Missouri Studies. Social Science Series III/1). Columbia. Orlinsky, H.M. 1939. The Kings-Isaiah Recensions of the Hezekiah Story. Jewish Quarterly Review 30: 33–49. Ornan, T. 1997. Mesopotamian Influence on the Glyptic of Israel and Jordan in the First Millennium B.C. (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew). Parpola, S. 1970. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part I: Texts. (AOAT 5/1). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Parpola, S. 1983. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices. (AOAT 5/2). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pongratz-Leisten, B., Deller, K. and Bleibtreu, E. 1992. Götterstreitwagen und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager. Baghdader Mitteilungen 23: 291–356 and Pls. 50–69. Porter, J.R. 1954. The Interpretation of 2 Samuel VI and Psalm CXXXII. Journal of Theological Studies 5: 161–173. Postgate, J.N. 1994. Text and Figure in Ancient Mesopotamia: Match and Mismatch. In: Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E.B.W. eds. The Ancient Mind. Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge: 176–184. Rainey, A.F. 1994. Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beer-Sheba and Arad. In: Coogan, M.D., Exum, J.C. and Stager, L.E. eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville: 333–354. Reade, J. 1976. Sargon’s Campaigns of 720, 716 and 715 B.C.: Evidence from the Sculptures. JNES 35: 95–104. de Robert, P. 1979. Le gloire en exil. Réflexions sur I Samuel 4, 19–22. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 59: 351–356. Šanda, A. 1912. Die Bücher der Könige übersetzt und erklärt. 2. Das zweite Buch der Könige. (Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9/2). Münster. Schart, A. 1999. Die “Gestalt” YHWHs. Ein Beitrag zur Körpermetaphorik alttestamentlicher Rede von Gott. Theologische Zeitschrift 55: 26–43. Schmidt, B.B. 1996. The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts. In: Edelman, D.V. ed. The Triumph of Elohim. From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Grand Rapids: 75– 105.


337

Schmitt, R. 1972. Zelt und Lade als Thema alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft. Eine Kritische forschungsgeschichtliche Darstellung. Gütersloh. Schroer, S. 1987. In Israel gab es Bilder. Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 74). Freiburg and Göttingen. Singer-Avitz, L. 1999. Beersheba — A Gateway Community in Southern Arabia LongDistance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26: 3–74. Smelik, K.A.D. 1992. Hidden Messages in the Ark Narrative. An Analysis of I Samuel iv-vi and II Samuel vi. Converting the Past. Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography. (Oudtestamentische Studiën 28). Leiden: 35–58. Smith, M. 1958. The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with especial Reference to Goodenough’s Work on Jewish Symbols. Bulletin of the Johns Rylands Library 40: 473–512. Smith, M. 1970. On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles. In: Neusner, J. ed. Religions in Antiquity. Leiden: 315–326. Smith, M.S. 1988. “Seeing God” in the Psalms: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50: 171–183. Tadmor, H. 1958. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study. JCS 12: 22–40, 77–100. Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1933. La stèle d’Asharné. RA 30: 53–56. Tigay, J.H. 1986. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Atlanta. van der Toorn, K. 1991. The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study. Supplement to VT 43: 331–344. van der Toorn, K. 1997. The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah. In: van der Toorn, K. ed. The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: 229–248. van der Toorn, K. and Houtman, C. 1994. David and the Ark. JBL 113: 209–231. Uehlinger, C. 1994. Eine anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan? Biblische Notizen 72: 85–100. Uehlinger, C. 1996. Israelite Aniconism in Context. Biblica 77: 540–549. Uehlinger, C. 1997. Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images. In: van der Toorn, K. ed. The Image and the Book. Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: 97– 155. Uehlinger, C. 1997. Figurative Policy, Propaganda und Prophetie. Supplement to VT 66: 297– 349. Uehlinger, C. 1998. “. . . und wo sind die Götter von Samarien?” Die Wegführung syrischpalästinischer Kultstatuen auf einem Relief Sargons II. in Ḥorsābād/Dūr-Šarrukīn.” In: Dietrich, M. and Kottsieper, I. eds. “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf.” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. Münster: 739–776. Ussishkin, D. 1982. The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. Tel Aviv. Ussishkin, D. 1988. The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad. IEJ 38: 142–157. de Vaux, R. 1967a. Les chérubins et l’arche d’alliance, les sphinx gardiens et les trônes divins dans l’Ancien Testament. Bibel et Orient. Paris: 231–258. de Vaux, R. 1967b. Arche d’alliance et tente de réunion. Bibel et Orient. Paris: 261–275.

338


Wäfler, M. 1975. Nicht-Assyrer neuassyrischer Darstellungen (AOAT 26). Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn. Weidner, E.A. 1941/44. Šilkan(ḫe)ni, König von Muṣri, ein Zeitgenosse Sargons II. AfO 14: 40–53. Weippert, M. 1961. Gott und Stier. ZDPV 77: 93–117. Wildberger, H. 1991. Isaiah 1–12. A Commentary. Minneapolis. Zaccagnini, C. 1999. The Assyrian Lion Weights from Nimrud and the “Mina of the Land.” In: Avishur, Y. and Deutsch, R. eds. Michael. Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: 259–265.

The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site near Shechem1 Introduction The cultic site located near Shechem, between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, is mentioned, directly and indirectly, in four places in Deuteronomy and Joshua: Deut. 11:26–30; 27; Josh. 8:30–35; 24. All scholars agree that the story describing the building of the altar in Mount Ebal and the ceremony of blessing and cursing between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:30–35) was interpolated into the texts at a later date.2 Several features have been noted to suggest this. First, in the sequence of events narrated in Joshua, it appears that the altar was built after the conquest of Ai, but before the capture of the territory between Ai and Shechem. Second, when the continuous narrative resumes in chapter 9 (from v. 3 on), it picks up where it had left off after the capture of Ai, without any mention of the altar that had supposedly just been built. Also, the brief passage that follows the altar story, Josh. 9:1–2, is not connected to its surroundings. Thus, these two passages appear to disrupt the narrative flow from the victory over Jericho and Ai to the affair of the Gibeonites and the war near Gibeon. The story in Josh. 8:30–35 is dependent upon Deut. 27:4–8 and, as we shall see, was composed later and interpolated, probably with the two editorial verses that follow it. The date of composition of Joshua 24 is debated. This chapter, or at any rate its early core, was believed for many years to have been composed in the northern kingdom before its downfall and to reflect a very early stage in Israelite history. However, recently, the trend has been to assign it a late, post-exilic, date (Koopmans 1990:1–95; Anbar 1992:7–20). Anbar (1992:69– 144) demonstrated that the passage was composed during the exile, if not later. Its author wrote a complex, original work, using materials he had found

1. Reprinted with permission. In: S.L. McKenzie and T. Römer (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, Berlin and New York 2000, 141–161. 2. Dillmann 1886:477–478; Steuernagel 1900:184; Cook 1918:72–74; Noth 1953:51–52; Fritz 1994:94.

339

340


in the early biblical text and adapted them in a manner that may be described as “midrashic.” The texts he used included all the sources of the Pentateuch; thus, the new work must have been composed later. The author’s style and worldview place him in the Deuteronomistic (henceforth, Dtr) school. But his style is not the pure Dtr one finds in early compositions, and his worldview reflects a later phase of that school. He addresses an audience familiar with the exile and with the tendency of the deportees in Mesopotamia (“Beyond the River”) and Egypt to follow alien gods and calls upon them to worship YHWH alone. Provided they did so, they would be granted their greatest wish — to return and inherit the Promised Land again. Certain elements in this chapter appear in no other biblical source relating to the establishment of the people of Israel: Joshua is depicted as a kind of prophet who addresses the whole nation — like Moses in Deuteronomy and Samuel in 1 Sam. 12; the worship of idols had been widespread among the Israelites before the time of Joshua; only after the conquest were the people required to choose unequivocally between the worship of alien gods and the worship of YHWH; the covenant of Sinai is missing from the speech altogether; at the covenant of Shechem the Israelites undertook to worship YHWH alone; and it was Joshua who made the covenant between Israel and YHWH, gave them “statutes and ordinances,” and recorded it all in a “book of the law of God.” There is an obvious inconsistency between this description and the tradition of Deuteronomy, in which Moses plays the part attributed to Joshua here. In Deuteronomy, the covenant was concluded between YHWH and Israel at Horeb, after which (see Deut. 29:13) Moses wrote the Ten Commandments for the people and gave them “the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances” (Deut. 5:31 [MT 5:28]; 6:1). The discord between the two covenants stems from the fact that a later writer put Shechem in the place of Horeb and attributed to Joshua what the Deuteronomist had attributed to Moses. The two passages in question, that of Joshua’s building of the altar at Mount Ebal and that of his making the covenant in Shechem, were written at a later date, and it is necessary to explain their composition individually. It is hardly a trivial matter when a composition that suggests an alternative history for such a major and decisive event in the history of Israel, such as the Horeb covenant, is interpolated in the “official” early history, and when Shechem — a cultic site of the province of Samaria during the Second Temple

3. Deut 29:1 [MT 28:69] is a heading for the following text, rather than a conclusion of the preceding. See: Steuernagel 1923:155–156; von Rad 1966:177–178; Rofé 1985:310– 311.

The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site near Shechem

341

period — appears as the site of the covenant. Depicting Shechem as a center of worship, where an altar to YHWH was built at the start of the conquest, where the covenant between YHWH and the Israelites was made, and where the law was given at the conclusion of the conquest, plainly conflicts with the depiction of Jerusalem as the sole and exclusive cultic site for the people of Israel. Furthermore, the description of “all the assembly of Israel” gathering for the dedication of the altar at Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:33,35) is very similar to the description of “the people gathered as one man” in Jerusalem to rebuild the altar to YHWH (Ez. 3:1–2).4 The fact that, at some unknown time after the fall of the First Temple, Shechem’s place in the history of Israel was being stressed by linking it to Joshua, and that such descriptions were interpolated into the “official” history of Israel (despite their conflicts with the Deuteronomist version) calls for an explanation.

“Heritage Literature” and the Law of the Altar in Deut. 27:4–8 Deuteronomy is the only book of the Pentateuch that explicitly enjoins a single cultic site and the destruction of all other places of worship in the land. It was composed in the seventh century BCE, and there is no doubt that “the place which the Lord your God will choose” means Jerusalem. The capital city did not figure into the history of Israel before David, thus, mentioning it in Moses’ address at Horeb would have appeared artificial and forced; the author was unquestionably referring to the temple in Jerusalem. At the same time, there is explicit mention in Deuteronomy of Mount Ebal as a place where an altar to the Lord was to be built (Deut. 27:4–8) and the valley between Ebal and Gerizim as a site where a ceremony of blessing and cursing for all Israel was to be enacted (Deut. 11:26–30; 27:11–13). Thus, a literal reading of the law about the centralization of cult means that the sanctuary should be built near Shechem, and, indeed, that was how the Samaritans interpreted it. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the contents of Deut. 27 (and the commandment in Deut. 11:26–30) and to determine its place and antecedents in the Bible. Scholars noted quite early that chapter 27 is out of context. It separates the conclusion of the “statutes and ordinances” given by Moses at Horeb (Deut. 11:31 — 26:15) and the solemn announcement of the covenant of YHWH with the people of Israel (Deut. 26:16–19) from the blessing and cursing that conclude the Horeb covenant (Deut. 28:1–68). There is no doubt that this chapter has been interpolated and did not form a part of the primary composition of Deuteronomy.5 Likewise, the commandment to hold a ceremony of blessing 4. Regarding this comparison, see Anbar 1985b:351. 5. Dillmann 1886:364; Driver 1902:294–295; Hölscher 1922:162, 217–221; L’Hour 1962:162– 164, 182–184; Nicholson 1967:19, 34; Mayes 1981:337, 340–348.

342


and cursing at Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. 11:26–30) does not belong where it is. It lies between two interrelated passages, separating the “commandment” with which Moses opens his speech at Horeb (Deut. 6:4–11:25) from the “statutes and ordinances” he had laid down in his speech (Deut. 11:31 – 26:15). Therefore, the two passages relating to Shechem are incongruous in their places in the text. Although scholars recognized that the passages were out of place, they sometimes assumed that they belonged to Israel’s ancient “heritage literature” and, therefore, belonged to an earlier stratum than Deuteronomy. The law of the altar (Deut. 27:4–8) conflicted with the law about the centralization of worship; thus, these scholars held that it belonged to that early stratum and that its inclusion testified to its great antiquity.6 The widespread premise was that refugees from the fallen kingdom of Israel arrived in Jerusalem, bringing with them diverse literature of northern origin, some of which — including the law of the altar — was then incorporated in Deuteronomy.7 Weinfeld (1985:76–83) follows a common supposition in maintaining that the author of Deuteronomy adopted the ancient sacral tradition of Shechem and incorporated it in its entirety, fitting it into the beginning of the statutes and ordinances (Deut. 11:26–30) and at its conclusion (chapter 27). After the commandment to build an altar on Mount Ebal and write the Law on the stones (Deut. 27:4–8), the author added the solemn announcement: “Keep silence and hear, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the Lord your God” (Deut. 27:9). He wished to emphasize that the establishment of the people of Israel in their land was inseparably linked to the building of the altar on Mount Ebal and the ceremony at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. In Weinfeld’s view, the establishment of the people as a nation took place in the plains of Moab, near the place where they crossed over, and in association with Shechem, a city with an ancient sacral tradition. A more explicit establishment tradition, likewise associated with Shechem, is given in Josh. 24. Hence, Weinfeld (1985:83) draws a far-reaching conclusion: Deuteronomy has chosen the Shechemite tradition and sees the act of the establishment of Israel against the background of the ceremony at Gerizim and Ebal. Judah did not preserve any such tradition of foundation and the Deuteronomist could only rely on the northern heritage in this matter. For this matter he chose neither Gilgal nor Shiloh, but Shechem, and it seems that the Shechemite northern tradition left its imprint on other aspects of the ideology of Deuteronomy.

6. Some scholars held that all of Deut. 27 was composed late by editors of the Dtr school. See Hölscher 1922:218–221; Mayes 1981. For an exposition of Bentzen’s view (in his book in Danish, which is not available to me), see Nielsen 1959:44–46; compare: Bentzen 1952:41. 7. Cf. Nicholson 1967:58–106, and further literature on p. 58, n. 1; Rofé 1988:274; Weinfeld 1985:83–98.


343

Weinfeld makes no attempt to answer the question of why the Deuteronomist chose to incorporate the Shechem establishment tradition, even though it conflicted with the concept of Jerusalem as the “chosen place.” Also, he does not explain why the author took such pains to install it at the heart of his composition, a central idea of which was that the cult must be concentrated in Jerusalem, the rival of Shechem and of the kingdom of Israel. Apparently, Weinfeld believes that the ancient tradition was so potent that it imposed itself upon later authors, even when their ideological positions are entirely at odds with it. Rofé (1985:185; 1972:224–226; Merendino 1980:194–207) provides a more clear explanation of supposition of a “heritage literature.” About the covenant in Moab (Deut. 28:30–68; 20), the core of which (29:10–20a, 29 [MT 29:9– 19a, 28]), he maintains, belongs to that ancient literature, he writes: And should anyone ask, for what reason did the compiler, or redactor, add at the end of the Horeb covenant another act of covenant in the plains of Moab? — we should have to reply that, as a rule, the biblical authors were not free to do as they pleased with the materials in hand. The tradition they inherited compelled them to put it in writing and pass it on to the succeeding generations. If the compiler of the Deuteronomistic school had a book of the covenant, he was not free to suppress it, but was constrained to attach it to the core of the Book of Deuteronomy. And yet another question may be asked: Why did the redactor see fit to edit his book as a second covenant, instead of attaching its parts to the story of the covenant at Horeb? The most reasonable explanation is that here, too, existing traditions decided the matter — the Horeb traditions being so important and solid, it was out of the question to incorporate segments of another covenant into them.

The supposition that there existed ancient literature and traditions that biblical authors felt obliged to incorporate in their works, even when they conflicted with their own religious and ideological ideas, stems from the hypothesis that substantial parts of the ancient Israelite tradition were composed and written in the tenth and ninth centuries BCE and were available to later authors. The basis for this hypothesis has fallen under suspicion, so it is necessary to question the idea of adherence to ancient inherited tradition and a “heritage literature.” 8 However, even for those scholars who assume that the biblical authors painstakingly preserved the “heritage literature” and the ancient tradition, Deut. 27:4–8 remains problematic. The book of Deuteronomy is revolutionary and innovative in its laws and commandments and was intended to alter drastically the reality that prevailed till that time. Its main innovation lies in 8. See, e.g., Van Seters 1975; 1983; Schmid 1976; Zuber 1976; Rendtorff 1977; Vorländer 1978; Auld 1980; Rose 1981; Whybray 1987.

344


the idea of centralizing religious worship “in the place which the Lord your God will choose,” with all that this revolutionary commandment entailed. Can we believe that in this most significant message of his composition the author deviated from his principles and, because of a “heritage literature,” contradicted his own doctrine and put in a commandment to build an altar on Mount Ebal? An argument put forward by some scholars, namely, that prior to the conquest of Jerusalem by David it was possible to discuss, even in the Dtr school, another cultic site outside Jerusalem (Noth 1930:141–142), seems forced. Support for it may ostensibly be drawn from Deut. 12:8–11, which stipulated that the law of a single cultic site would come into force only when Israel enjoyed safety from all its surrounding enemies and lived in security — a condition that was realized only in Solomon’s time (1 Kgs. 5:17–18). However, the doctrine of living “in security” in the land is a marginal one in this passage and cannot explain why the author included a commandment that contradicts his principle by ordering the construction of a cultic site near Shechem, in the heart of the rival kingdom, far north of Jerusalem.9

Stages in the Composition of Deut. 27 and its Place in the Book Deut. 27 is made up of four main divisions: (a) a commandment to build the altar and inscribe the words of the laws upon the stones (vv. 1–8); (b) the proclamation of the “establishment”’ (vv. 9–10); (c) the proclamation of the blessing and cursing by the tribes on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (vv. 11– 13); (d) the twelve “cursed be’s” (vv. 14–26). The chapter is uneven, and scholars have noted that there are inconsistencies among its various parts.10 In what follows, I shall systematically examine these four main divisions. (a) The commandment to built the altar on Mount Ebal and write the laws upon the stones (27:1–8) raises major problems and has been discussed often.11 Most notable are the two commands to set up the stones, coat them with plaster and write upon them (vv. 2–3, 4, 8). The law of the altar (vv. 5– 7) appears within the second commandment, between the instruction to set up and plaster the stones (v. 4) and the instruction to write upon them (v. 8).

9. Anbar (1985a:309) pointed out this problem, but without offering a solution. Some scholars have argued that the presence of the law of the altar in Deuteronomy shows that the work was composed even before the division of the monarchy, because otherwise it would not have included a law concerning Shechem. See Wenham 1971:117–118; Craigie 1976: 49, 52–53. 10. Dillmann 1886:364–369; Driver 1902:294–300; Steuernagel 1923:146–150; L’Hour 1962:161–176; Nielsen 1952:50–85; Mayes 1981:340–348. 11. Nielsen 1959:50–62, with additional literature; Anbar 1985a:304–309.


345

There is also a close affinity between the second commandment (vv. 4–8) and the passage about Joshua’s building of the altar (Josh. 8:30–32), with the latter unquestionably based on the former. Therefore, we must examine the literary relationship between, on the one hand, the commandment in vv. 2–3, and, on the other, the commandment in vv. 4–8 and its fulfillment in Josh. 8:30–32. Verses 2–3 are written in an unmistakable Dtr style, with characteristic Dtr phraseology (“the land which the Lord your God gives you”; “all the words of this law”; “a land flowing with milk and honey”; “the Lord, the God of your fathers, has promised you”).12 They differ from the instructions (in vv. 4–8) in that here the commandment to set up the stones is linked to the day of crossing the Jordan — even before entering the land — whereas in the latter there is no time limit, and the geographic reference to Mount Ebal implies that a considerable length of time would pass from the crossing of the Jordan before the stones were set up and written upon (Driver 1902:295). Dillmann (1886:364–366) attributed the law of the altar (vv. 5–7a) to a stratum predating the book, vv. 1–3 to the author of the book, and vv. 4, 7b–8 to a Dtr editor. Many scholars attributed vv. 4–8 to the early E source, assuming that the author incorporated them in his text and wrote vv. 2–3 to identify the altar stones at Ebal with the Jordan stones at Gilgal (Josh. 3–4).13 Others accepted this reconstruction as a whole, but maintained that the writing of vv. 2–3, connecting them to an early stratum (vv. 4–8), and attaching the whole segment to the book of Deuteronomy, was the work of a later Dtr editor (L’Hour 1962:175–177). Anbar (1985:304–309) proposed that the primary stratum included vv. 4 and 8; at a later stage the law of the altar was interpolated between them (5–7), and the commandment to set up stones beside the Jordan was written at a third stage and was attached to the commandment to set up stones on Mount Ebal.14 All these reconstructions suppose that there existed a prior commandment about building an altar and writing on large stones at Mount Ebal. This supposition seems to be the main obstacle to a correct understanding of the evolution of the text. It seems best to assume the opposite, namely, that the passage concerning Mount Ebal is the later one and is actually a reworking of, on the one hand, the original commandment to set up large stones and to write on them in Gilgal (vv. 1–3), and, on the other hand, the law of the altar 12. L’Hour 1962:176–177; Anbar 1985a:307 n. 18, with additional literature. 13. See the literature listed in L’Hour 1962:174 n. 214. 14. Anbar 1985a. These are but a few of the solutions and reconstructions proposed by the scholars. See, for example, Steuernagel 1923:146–149; Noth 1930:143–150; Haran 1978: 6–15; Mayes 1981:340–343.

346


in Ex. 20:24–25. This is borne out by v. 4: “And when you have passed over the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, concerning which I command you this day.” Though the pronoun and the subordinate clause might be referring to the text that follows (Anbar 1985:307 n. 17), vv. 4–8 contain no description of the stones upon which the writing must be inscribed; such a description appears only in v. 2 (“large stones”), and the words “these stones” must refer to it. The introduction of v. 4 (“And when you have passed over the Jordan”) refers back to v. 3 (“when you pass over”). Also, the words “which I commanded you this day” in v. 4 refer back to v. 1 (“all the commandment which I commanded you this day”). Verses 1–3 were written by a Dtr editor, to introduce a commandment into the Dtr story of the setting up of the twelve stones by Joshua and the children of Israel after they crossed the Jordan (Joshua 4) (Steuernagel 1923:147; L’Hour 1962:174–175; Anbar 1985:307). Verse 1 is not originally Deuteronomic, as evidenced by its incongruity at the end of chapter 26 and the appearance of the elders of Israel beside Moses, in contrast to Moses’ solitary appearance in the primary stratum of Deuteronomy (Dillmann 1886, 365; L’Hour 1962:174 n. 213). The expression lm‘n ’šr (instead of merely lm‘n) in v. 3 may also hint at the late origin of this passage (Anbar 1985:307 n. 18). The author of this passage reworked the text in Ex. 24:4 (the setting up of the twelve pillars and writing “all the words of the Lord” upon them) and ordered that the large stones be plastered, and “all the words of this law” be inscribed upon them, perhaps assuming that in the arid region around Gilgal it would be easy to protect the inscribed stones from the winter rains. The proposition that vv. 1–3 are earlier than vv. 4–8 makes it possible to understand how the latter were composed. The author of the commandment reworked vv. 4 and 8 into vv. 2–3, and in between he interpolated the law of the altar (vv. 5–7), which is merely a reworking of the original law of the altar in Ex. 20:24–25, in order to protect it.15 There is also a close association between Ex. 24:4–5 and Deut. 27:4–8 (the building of an altar at the foot of a mountain, the setting up of twelve stones/pillars, inscribing “all the words of the Lord,” and the offering of burnt offerings and sacrifices), suggesting that our author worked on the former passage, as well (L’Hour 1962:355–361).

15. Anbar 1985a:305–307. Fishbane (1988:159–162) noted that 1 Kgs. 6:7 was an exegetical addition in the Book of Kings, based both on the law of the altar in Ex. 20:25 and the passage about the building of the altar at Mount Ebal in Deut. 27:5–7. The verse’s author distinguished between the quarrying of stones for the Temple and the work that was done within the Temple precinct, where iron tools were banned. We have no way of knowing if the exegete had the text in Deuteronomy before him or was relying only on the law of the altar in Exodus.


347

It seems to me that the passage about building the altar at Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:30–32) was, likewise, the work of that same author. That would account for the perfect consonance between, on the one hand, the description of the building of the altar and the inscription of “a copy of the Laws of Moses, which he had written” on its stones, and, on the other hand, the injunction commanding this in Deuteronomy.16 The description in Joshua 8:32 (“and there, in the presence of the people of Israel, he wrote upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses”) rested upon the commandment in Deuteronomy and was closely linked to it.17 The account of building the altar and writing upon the stones in Josh. 8:30–32 was deliberately brief, having been given previously in detail in Deut. 27 (Dillmann 1886:487). Thus, we should interpret Josh. 8:30–32 in the light of Deut. 27:1–8 and assume that the author meant that the laws would be inscribed upon large stones, as stated in Deut. 27:2–3, which was the source that the author of the passages in Deut 27:4–8 and Josh. 8:30–32 had before him. (b) Verses 9–10 appear after the commandment to build the altar and write the laws upon its stones (vv. 4–8) and before the commandment to hold a rite of blessing and cursing on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (vv. 11–13). Verses 9–10 are independent, and several scholars supposed that they had originally linked chapter 26 to chapter 28, but were detached by a later editor.18 Verse 9a is not originally Deuteronomic, as shown by the phrase “levitical priests” and the mention of priests and Levites beside Moses, in contrast to the appearance of Moses alone in the primary stratum of Deuteronomy (Steuernagel 1923:45; 1900:184; L’Hour 1962:174 n. 213, and 178). Special attention should be given to the solemn proclamation: (9b)“Keep silence and hear, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the Lord your God. You shall therefore, obey the Lord your God, keeping his commandments and his statutes, which I commanded you this day.”

Licht (1980:98–128) has dealt extensively with the claim that the God of Israel established his people as a nation by a decisive historical act. He showed that this text explicitly spells out the “establishment claim,” whereas in other writings it is implied, directly or indirectly, and reflects the general biblical tendency to depict several events (exodus from Egypt, covenant in 16. For a comparison between the two versions, see Anbar 1985a:305. 17. Many scholars assumed that the description in Josh. 8:32 stemmed from an incomprehension of the commandment in Deuteronomy. See Holzinger 1901:29; Steuernagel 1923:184; Noth 1953:52; Nielsen 1959:78; Anbar 1985a:349; Fritz 1994:97. 18. Kuenen 1886:124, 126, n. 21; Dillmann 1886:364, 367; Driver 1902:297–298; Noth 1930:144.

348


Sinai/Horeb, covenant in the plains of Moab) as founding events. The question inevitably arises as to why the author chose this particular place to bring up the “establishment claim” in the most explicit form. The answer may have to do with the author’s wish to emphasize the centrality of the cultic site at Shechem. Scholars have pointed out that vv. 9–10 are largely a restatement of Deut. 26:16–19, the passage that originally concluded the codex of “statutes and ordinances.”19 There, the establishment claim emphasizes the idea that Israel became YHWH’s people on a particular day and on a specific occasion, including a precise explanation of that statement. A third claim of being established, differently phrased, is integrated into the description of the covenant made in Moab (Deut. 29:10–13 [MT 29:9–12]), which also emphasizes that Israel became a people on a particular day and on a specific occasion and, moreover, that this was, in fact, the fulfilment of the promise made to the patriarchs. The passage, thus, bridges over the discrepancy between the actual establishment event in the plains of Moab and the oath made to the patriarchs, which is depicted as a promise for the future. We see, then, that three establishment claims appear in the Book of Deuteronomy, each associated with a different narrative: The first is the book’s original founding claim, associated with the covenant at Horeb (Deut. 26:16–19); the second, whose author knew the tradition about the oath given to the patriarchs, is associated with the covenant in the plains of Moab (Deut. 29:10–13 [MT 29:9–12]); and the third, which is also the most explicit, is associated with the building of an altar at Mount Ebal (Deut. 27:9– 10). The last-named claim appears to refer to the covenant at Horeb, being given within its framework, but its interpolation after the commandment to build the altar and write the laws upon its stones suggests that it was written to conclude the passage of the altar. The connection between the establishment claim in 27:9–10 and the region of Shechem was noted by Weinfeld (1985:76–79), who maintained that it reflected a very ancient founding tradition, originating from Shechem, which the author of Deuteronomy accepted and turned into a central element in his composition. It seems to me that, on the contrary, all the texts in Deuteronomy that have to do with the region of Shechem were composed at a late date and were only then inserted to “the book of the law of Moses.” The “establishing” or “establishing tradition” in vv. 9–10 was composed to legitimate the cult at Shechem, and its explicit phrasing was intended to give it prominence, so that it would over-

19. For comprehensive discussions of this passage, see Smend 1963:8–11, 22–25; Lohfink 1969:517–553; Licht 1980:107–108; Rofé 1988:276–277; Weinfeld 1985:76–79.


349

shadow, to some extent, the older “establishing tradition” of Horeb that preceded it (26:16–19).20 (c) The connection of a blessing and curse with the two mountains, Ebal and Gerizim (11:26–30; 27:11–13), is extraordinary in Deuteronomy. Blessings and curses are spoken words designed to affect others, with their power usually deriving from God, although the blessing or curse by a ruler or head of family may also have special potency. The blessing and the curses in Deuteronomy were uttered conditionally and directed at the future, based on the assumption that YHWH would requite each man according to his just deserts. Connecting these concepts to topographic objects, in the belief that reward or punishment would emanate thence as needed, was plainly incompatible with the message of Deuteronomy, whose author deliberately avoided anything that suggested a permanent affinity between YHWH and the land as a physical entity (Nielsen 1959:47–48; Rofé 1988:277). Linking the mountains with the blessing and the curse might lead to the disassociation of YHWH from them and even give rise to the magical belief that these could operate independently. Thus, both the commandment to build an altar at Ebal (Deut. 27:4–8), and the commandment to link the blessing and the curse to the nearby mountains (Deut. 11:26–30; 27:11–13), conflict with the essential tenets of the Deuteronomist’s doctrine. Therefore, it is doubtful that the two passages were in fact penned by that author. Some scholars have held that the commandment about the blessing and cursing at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (11:26–30) belonged to the “heritage material” that was incorporated in Deuteronomy.21 It seems to me, on the contrary, that the commandment was penned by a late scribe, who intentionally interpolated it before “the statutes and ordinances.” The commandment, thus, tightens the connection between the law of the book of Deuteronomy and the region of Shechem and rounds off the law regarding the altar that must be built thereabouts. There is an obvious link between Deut. 11:26–30 and Deut. 27:11–13. The former passage sets for the Israelites the conditions for the blessing and the curse (vv. 27–28), after which they were enjoined to pronounce the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal (v. 29), whose location was given in detail (v. 30). The latter passage (Deut. 27:11–13) explains that the giving of the blessing and the curse on the two mountains, as commanded in Deut. 11:29–30, 20. It is difficult to say whether the “establishment tradition” of Shechem was written before or after that of the plains of Moab. We cannot tell, therefore, if its author had before him two “establishment traditions” or only one. 21. Sellin 1917:22–60; Eissfeldt 1970:90–101; Nielsen 1959:43–48, 85; L’Hour 1962:166– 168; Rofé 1988:21–22; Weinfeld 1985:76–80.

350


should take place after the Jordan crossing, with the proclamation of the twelve tribes on the two mountains. Conversely, there is an obvious inconsistency between Deut. 27:11–13 and Josh. 8:33–35. In the latter, there is no mention of the division into two groups of six tribes each, and they do not perform the ceremony of blessing and cursing. The ceremony is performed in the valley, rather than on the mountains. It is evident that only one of the two descriptions was linked originally to the commandment in Deut. 11:26–30. The ceremony in Josh. 8:33–35 is no less compatible with the commandment in Deut. 11:26–30 than with the ceremony described in Deut. 27:11–13, because the commandment does not specify how the blessing and the curse are to be pronounced on the mountains.22 In view of the close correlation between the altar commandment in Deut 27:4–8 and the description of the building of the altar in Josh. 8:30–32, it seems to me that the ceremony in Josh. 8:33–35 is the original one and that Deut. 27:11–13 was written by a later editor. The original commandments relating to the area of Shechem in Deuteronomy (Deut. 11:26–30; 27:4–8) were concluded in the “establishing tradition” in vv. 9–10, just as the “statutes and ordinances” given at Horeb (Deut. 11:26–31; 15) were concluded in the “establishing tradition” in Deut. 26:16–19. Conversely, the description of the ceremony in vv. 11–13 was composed and inserted by a later editor, no doubt to round off the commandment relating to the blessing and cursing with precise instructions how to perform it. (d) There is obvious incompatibility between the ceremony of the blessing and cursing on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (vv. 11–13) and the twelve “cursed be’s” (vv. 14–26).23 First, in the former, the Levites are listed as one of the tribes, and, in the latter, the Levites are the ones performing the ceremonies and enjoying special status (v. 14). Second, in vv. 14–26 there are only curses and no blessings. Moreover, vv. 14–26 are inconsistent with Deut. 11:27–28: They spell out the conditions (=deeds) that are cursed, but not the punishment for these acts, and the conditions are quite unlike those given in Deut. 11:27–28. It would seem, therefore, that vv. 14–26 were introduced in this place at a later date and do not belong to the chapter’s primary composition (Nielsen 1959:83–84; Mayes 1981:344–348). 22. Vink (1969:78–79) tried to show that there are several differences between the commandment to build the altar in Deut. 27 and the description of its execution in Josh. 8:30– 35. However, these differences may be explained by the supposition that the same author wrote both compositions and, therefore, kept the instructions brief and expanded on the description of their solemn performance. 23. Dillmann 1886:367–369; Steuernagel 1923:148–149; L’Hour 1962:168–174; Rofé 1988: 22.


351

In summary, it seems to me that the commandments relating to the region of Shechem were added to Deuteronomy at a late date by a scribe who sought to stress the antiquity and sanctity of the Shechem cultic site. The combination of passages was very clever: The commandment about the blessing and the curse on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (Deut. 11:26–30) was inserted between the “commandments” and the “statutes and ordinances,” whereas the injunction to build the altar and the “establishing tradition” (Deut. 27:4–10) were inserted in between the conclusion of the “statutes and ordinances” and the “establishing tradition” at Horeb, on the one hand, and the blessing and curse, on the other. In this way, the commandments relating to Shechem form a kind of framework, enclosing the “statutes and ordinances” enjoined upon the Israelites at Horeb. The description of the building of the altar at Shechem in Joshua (Josh. 8:30–32) and the accompanying ceremony, which took place facing Mounts Gerizim and Ebal (Josh. 8:33–35), were combined to illustrate how the commandments given in Deut. 11:26–30 and 27:4–8 were carried out on the historical plane. Finally, the narrative about the covenant made in Shechem (Joshua 24) offers a vivid description how the act of “establishing,” mentioned in Deut. 27:9–10, was actually performed. This entire literary complex relating to the region of Shechem was penned, in my opinion, by a late scribe. Now we must try to discover when he did so and to what purpose.

The Legitimization of the Cultic Site near Shechem All the biblical accounts that mention the Israelite cultic site near Shechem refer to the same location.24 According to Gen. 12:6–7, when Abraham reached Canaan, he “passed through the land to the place of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh,” and there built an altar to YHWH. When Jacob reached Shechem, “he encamped before the city,” purchased the field where he camped and there “erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel” (Gen. 33:18–20). The cultic site stood opposite the city, in a grove, which is why it was called “the oak of Moreh” (Gen. 12:6; Deut. 11:30). In the center stood the altar (Gen 12:6–7; 33:20), and beside it grew the sacred terebinth oak (Gen. 35:4; Josh. 24:26). 25

24. Wächter 1987:1–12; Na’aman 1987:19, with additional literature in n. 58. 25. Schenke (1968:164–166, 181–184) suggested that these etiological legends referred to a site near the spring of the village of ‘Askar, at the foot of Mount Ebal. He found ceramics dating from the Iron Age I-II and from the Hellenistic period onward and concluded that there was a settlement there from the Iron Age on. However, Campbell (1991:21–23) argues that the pottery found in Schenke’s survey came from graves that had been dug there and that prior to the Hellenistic period no settlement was there at all. Wächter (1987:11– 12) proposed two possible locations for the cultic site: either beside the spring of ‘Askar (as held by Schenke), or near the village of Salim, east of Shechem.

352


Both the commandment to build an altar at Mount Ebal (Deut. 27:4–8) and the description of its construction by Joshua at the start of the conquest refer to this site. It was in this place, beside the newly built altar, that the ceremony was held in which the Israelites stood, “half of them in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal” (Josh. 8:33). The previous commandment, stipulating that the blessing must be said on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal, which are “beside the oak of Moreh” (Deut. 11:29–30), also refers to the same site. Similarly, the covenant made at Shechem “before God” (Josh. 24:1) and the setting of “a great stone . . . under the oak in the sanctuary of the Lord” (v. 26) were also held at that site. Thus, the commandments in Deuteronomy (Deut. 11:26–30; 27:1–8), the description of the building of the altar and the accompanying ceremony (Josh. 8:30– 35), and the passage about the making of the covenant at the precinct where the terebinth oak stood (Joshua 24) all refer to the cultic site located at the foot of Mount Ebal, near Shechem, and were written to legitimate this sacred place. This site may have existed in the pre-monarchic era; it may have been the place where some tribal groups crowned Jeroboam king of Israel (1 Kgs. 12:20). However, Jeroboam established the cult centers at Bethel and Dan and made them into the central shrines in his kingdom, so the Shechem cultic site might have lost some of its importance. We have no information about the history of that site in the time of the divided monarchies of Israel and Judah. It is reasonable to assume that it was overshadowed by the Bethel shrine until the latter was demolished and defiled by Josiah ca. 622 BCE (2 Kgs. 23:15–16). Then, it was overshadowed by the temple of Jerusalem, which probably attracted some of the people of Samaria, who had previously worshipped at Bethel.26 This situation prevailed until the end of the

26. According to Jer. 41:5, eighty men, from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria passed through Mizpah, bringing offerings and frankincense “to present at the house of the Lord.” This is a curious description, because Shiloh was a small, insignificant settlement throughout the monarchic period, and it is not known if it was inhabited in the sixth century BCE. See: Finkelstein, Bunimovitz and Lederman 1983:138, 174. The mention of Shiloh alongside the two major centers in the regions of Samaria during the seventh-sixth centuries BCE seems to hint at the author’s purpose: to show that Jerusalem retained its central cultic position even after the fall. He chose the cultic centers and important sites in Samaria — one (Shiloh) the region’s most important cult center in the past, and the other two (Shechem and Samaria) the most important in the author’s time — and described how their inhabitants continued to make the pilgrimage to the Jerusalem temple even after its destruction. It is possible that some people who lived in Samaria did indeed continue to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but it is doubtful that the description in Jer. 41:5 accurately reflected the current state of affairs.


353

First Temple period. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 587/586 BCE led to the rise of other cult centers, particularly in the territory of the former kingdom of Israel, and it seems to me that this accounts for the rise (or revival) of the cultic site near Shechem to a central status in the region of Samaria. The site’s sacred legends were associated, as we have seen, with Abraham (Gen. 12:6–7) and Jacob (Gen. 33:18–20). To further strengthen its sanctity and give it additional legitimacy, an attempt was made to connect the site to the sacred commandments that had been given at Sinai and at the establishment of the nation in the land of Israel. Hence, a later (post-Dtr) scribe composed commandments regarding the founding of the site and descriptive passages about their fulfilment and interpolated them in the framework of Israel’s early history. In this way, the passages relating to Shechem were introduced into works that did not originally refer to that city at all. As we have seen, Deuteronomy does not name “the place which the Lord your God will choose,” because of “pseudoepigraphic” constraints. But the seventh century BCE author and his readers were fully aware that the reference was to the temple in Jerusalem. The temple’s destruction in 587/586 raised doubts about whether it was the chosen site referred to in the scripture. Under such circumstances, the view could have spread that the cultic site in Shechem (which must have enjoyed a revival after the fall of Jerusalem and whose sacral legends went back many years earlier than that of the Jerusalem temple) was the chosen place to which Deuteronomy referred. In my opinion, a later, possibly Ephraimite, scribe who sought to advance this argument and reinforce the idea of Shechem as the chosen place, was the author of the passages referring to Shechem in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The cultic site near Shechem became the chosen place about which YHWH spoke to Moses at Horeb, and Shechem acquired the status of an ancient sacred center. Joshua, Moses’ successor, had founded the “place of Shechem” at the time of the conquest, and it was there that the first covenant was made with YHWH in the newly conquered land. In this way, the late scribe substantiated the claim of Shechem’s greater sanctity and gave it a legitimacy that only Jerusalem’s traditions of sanctity could rival. Weinfeld (1988a:270–283; 1988b:324–332) pointed out common features between descriptions of settlement in Greece and in Israel. The Shechem “tradition” served him as an illustration of an Israelite custom of building an altar when founding a new settlement, which paralleled ancient Greek traditions, according to which the settlers built an altar in a newly founded place. He (Weinfeld 1988b:283; 1985:76–83) even compared the “establishment tradition” of Shechem with the founding stories (ktisis) that were widespread in pre-classical Greece. In his view (Weinfeld 1988b:329–332),

354


these similarities reflect the “regulations for settlement in a new place, which were generally accepted throughout the Mediterranean area.” This common heritage was shared by various ethnic groups in the Aegean world and the eastern Mediterranean during the twelfth-eleventh centuries BCE, all of which were subject to “fixed procedures in their settlements” of not less than six diverse elements that may be found in Greek historiography and in the Bible. The Greek “founding traditions” discussed by Weinfeld go back no further than the seventh century BCE, and even the oldest biblical historiographical compositions were written down at the earliest in the eighth century BCE. Thus, the assumption of the extreme antiquity of the Greek and biblical traditions remains entirely hypothetical. It is more reasonable to assume that some of the shared features derived from the direct or indirect influence of Greek historiography upon biblical literature in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Van Seters (1988:1–2; 1992:78–103) pointed out certain marked resemblances in the primeval histories in the Bible and Greek literature and suggested that an ancient Greek historiographic tradition influenced Israel. He (1983:31–54) also noted the similarity of the historiographical literature in Greece and Israel and suggested that Phoenicia served as a meeting ground for the two civilizations. Rofé (1986:205–239) discussed the similarity between Greece and Israel with regard to the priestly law of cities of refuge. Many of the analogies pointed out by Weinfeld are from P and may reflect the influence of Greek historiography on the Judean scribes who worked in the early Second Temple period. The similarity between the “Shechem traditions” and the Greek traditions reflects the influence of Greek historiography upon a scribe who was writing in the sixth or early fifth century BCE. The description of Joshua’s building of the altar at Mount Ebal could rest on an established pattern of settlement, according to which the founder of a city built an altar to his god and offered sacrifices upon it in a solemn ceremony; it is also possible that the explicit “establishment claim” in Deut. 27:9–10 likewise rested on a pattern current in contemporary Greek literature. In conclusion, a group of biblical texts in Deuteronomy (11:26–30; 27:4– 10) and Joshua (8:30–35; 24) was written at some time after the fall of the First Temple and possibly before the re-establishment of the temple in Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, with the purpose of substantiating the central position of the cultic site at Shechem. The interpolation of these texts in the two books strengthened the claim of the inhabitants of the Samaria hill country for the special status and higher sanctity of the cultic site near Shechem, whose sacral legends were probably linked to Jacob. This led to the rivalry between the Shechem cultic site and the temple of


355

Jerusalem, giving rise to tensions between the circles associated with the two holy places. The cultic site at Shechem inherited the one at Bethel. The latter was built by Jeroboam and rivaled the temple in Jerusalem throughout the First Temple period, until it was destroyed by Josiah. The “place of Shechem,” which soon began to rival the temple in Jerusalem, then occupied a central position in the province of Samaria. The Jerusalemite polemic, which, during the First Temple period, had been aimed at Bethel, was now aimed at Shechem and its inhabitants. Once the central position of the temple in Jerusalem had been reestablished, some Jerusalem writers sought to tackle the texts that already included the “Shechem traditions.” In one place (Deut. 11:30), they attempted to garble the commandment relating the area of Shechem.27 In another, (Deut. 27:14–26) they added the twelve “cursed be’s” to stress the negative nature of the ceremony on Gerizim and Ebal.28 Elsewhere, they wrote polemical compositions to disparage the sanctity of the cultic site, its adherents, and the city associated with it (Gen. 34; 35:2, 4–5;29 2 Kgs. 17:24–41). These polemical 27. “In the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, over against Gilgal” may have been inserted into Deut. 11:30 to garble the text and link it to Gilgal in the Jordan Valley. See Nielsen 1959:41–43; L’Hour 1962; Rofé 1988:24. 28. The twelve “cursed be’s” in Deut. 27:14–26, which are merely adaptations of diverse laws in the Pentateuch, likely were composed and introduced into the end of chapter 27 by a late Jerusalemite scribe. In this way, the passage concerning the altar at Shechem concludes with twelve curses, matching the tribes named in vv. 12–13 and conveying an unmistakable hostility toward the cultic site and the ceremony held in it. There is no mention of a blessing as a reward or a curse as punishment in connection with the ceremony; there are only forbidden acts requiring the “cursed be” to be pronounced against their perpetrators. The list of curses may contain an implied argument against the place where these words are pronounced. The first (v. 15 “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret”) may be referring to the burial of the alien gods under the terebinth oak in the Shechem temple (Gen. 35:4). The final one (v. 26 “Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them”) is directed at the creation of a cultic site in a place that was not the chosen one. 29. Y. Zakovitch (1980:30–37) suggested that Gen. 35:2b, 4 is a secondary stratum in the story of the pilgrimage to Bethel and the building of the altar there. In his opinion, what the author was telling his public was: That place which you regard as a legitimate temple of God (Josh. 24:26) is nothing but an unclean place; what was buried under the terebinth was nothing but the idols which Jacob had removed from the place. It is not possible for a place in which alien worship was buried to be regarded as a sacred place!” (p. 33) The author of the passage intentionally described how Jacob buried the idols, instead of burning and destroying them, as he should have done by law (Deut. 7:5, 25; 12:3). These

356


writings no doubt aggravated the relations between Jerusalem and Samaria, and were among the factors that led to the final rift between them in the fourth century BCE.30

References Anbar, M. 1985a. At that time Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, at Mount Ebal. Beit Mikra 30: 345–352. (Hebrew). Anbar, M. 1985b. The Story about the building of an Altar on Mount Ebal: The History of Its Composition and the Question of the Centralization of the Cult. In: Lohfink, N. ed. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 68). Leuven: 304–309. Anbar, M. 1992. Josué et l’alliance de Sichem (Josué 24:1–28). (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 25). Frankfurt. Auld, A.G. 1980. Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938. Edinburgh. Bentzen, A. 1952. Introduction to the Old Testament II. Copenhagen. Campbell, E.F. 1991. Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale. The Shechem Regional Survey. Atlanta. Cook, G.A. 1918. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge. Craigie, P.C. 1976. The Book of Deuteronomy. (The New International Commentary of the Old Testament). London. Dillmann, A. 1886. Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament). Leipzig. Driver, S.R. 1902. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Eissfeldt, O. 1970. Gilgal or Shechem? In: Durham, J.I. and Porter, J.R. eds. Proclamation and Presence. Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. London: 90–101. Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. 1983. Excavations at Shiloh 1981–1984: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv 12: 123–177. Fishbane, M. 1988. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford. Fritz, V. 1994. Das Buch Josua. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. Haran, M. 1978. Shechem Studies. Zion 38: 1–31. (Hebrew). Hölscher, G. 1922. Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums. ZAW 40: 161–255. Holzinger, H. 1901. Das Buch Josua. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Abteilung VI). Tübingen and Leipzig.

verses were added to Gen. 35 with the obvious intent of undermining the story in Josh. 24, which stresses the sanctity of the temple of the terebinth near Shechem. It seems to me that vv. 35:2b, 4 were composed by the author of Gen. 34 and that the entire anti-Shechem stratum was added to Genesis at the same time. In this way it joins the other texts, which were all written with the purpose of vilifying the cultic site near Shechem. 30. After this study was sent to publication, the study of Noort 1997, came to the writer’s attention.


357

Koopmans, W.T. 1990. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 93). Sheffield. Kuenen, A. 1886. An Historical-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. London. L’Hour, J. 1962. L’Alliance de Sichem. RB 69: 5–36, 161–184, 350–368. Licht, J. 1980. The Biblical Claim of Establishment. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 4: 98–128. (Hebrew). Lohfink, N. 1969. DT 26, 17–19 und die “Bundesformel.” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 91: 517–553. Mayes, A.D.H. 1981. Deuteronomy (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Merendino, R.P. 1980. Dt 27,1–8. Eine literarkritische und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie. Biblische Zeitschrift NF 24: 194–207. Na’aman, N. 1987. Beth-aven, Bethel and Early Israelite Sanctuaries. ZDPV 103: 13–21. Nicholson, E.W. 1967. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford. Nielsen, E. 1959. Shechem, A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen. Noort, E. 1997. The Traditions of Ebal and Gerizim. Theological Positions in the Book of Joshua. In: Vervenne, M. and Lust, J. eds. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133). Leuven: 161–180. Noth, M. 1930. Das System der Zwölf Stämme Israels. (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament IV/1). Stuttgart. Noth, M. 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd revised ed. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/7). Tübingen. von Rad, G. 1966. Deuteronomy, A Commentary. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia. Rendtorff, R. 1977. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. (Beihefte zur ZAW 174). Berlin. Rofé, A. 1971. The Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship in Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement. Supplement to VT 22: 221–226. Rofé, A. 1985a. The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Deut 28:69–30:20). Beer-sheva 2: 167– 186. (Hebrew). Rofé, A. 1985b. The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Dt 28,69–30,20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations. In: Lohfink, N. ed. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 68). Leuven: 310–320. Rofé, A. 1986. The History of the Cities of Refuge. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31: 205–239. Rofé, A. 1988. Introduction to Deuteronomy. Part I and Further Chapters. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Rose, M. 1981. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des alten und Neuen Testaments 67). Zürich. Schenke, H.M. 1968. Jakobsbrunnen — Josephsgrab — Sychar. Topographische Untersuchungen und Erwägungen in der Perspektive von Joh. 4,5.6. ZDPV 84: 159–184. Schmid, H.H. 1976. Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung. Zürich. Sellin, E. 1917. Gilgal. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Einwanderung Israels in Palästina. Leipzig. Van Seters, J. 1975. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven and London. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven and London. Van Seters, J. 1988. The Primeval Histories of Greece and Israel Compared. ZAW 100: 1–22.

358


Van Seters, J. 1992. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville. Smend, R. 1963. Die Bundesformel. (Theologische Studien 68). Zürich. Steuernagel, C. 1990. Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament). Göttingen. Steuernagel, C. 1923. Das Deuteronomium übersetzt und erklärt. (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament). Göttingen. Tsafrir, Y. 1977. The Walls of Jerusalem in the Period of Nehemiah. Cathedra for the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv 4: 30–42. (Hebrew). Vink, J.G. 1969. The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament. Oudtestamentische Studiën 15. Leiden Vorländer, H. 1978. Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes. (Europäische Hochschulschriften 13/109). Frankfurt. Wächter, L. 1987. Zur Lokalisierung des sichemitischen Baumheiligtums. ZDPV 103: 1–12. Weinfeld, M. 1985. The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents. In: Lohfink, N. ed. Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 68). Leuven: 76–98. Weinfeld, M. 1988a. The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan. Supplement to VT 40: 270–283. Weinfeld, M. 1988b. Historical Facts Behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern. VT 38: 324– 332. Wenham, G.J. 1971. Deuteronomy and the Central Sanctuary. Tyndale Bulletin 22: 103–118. Whybray, R.N. 1987. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 53). Sheffield. Williamson, H.G.M. 1984. Nehemiah’s Walls Revisited. PEQ 116: 81–88. Zakovitch, Y. 1980. The Object of the Narrative of the Burial of Foreign Gods at Shechem. Beit Mikra 25: 30–37. (Hebrew). Zuber, B. 1976. Vier Studien zu den Ursprungen Israels. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 9). Freiburg and Göttingen.

Lebo-hamath, Ṣubat-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of the Land of Canaan1 1. Lebo-hamath in Biblical Border Delineations Lebo-hamath is mentioned eleven times in the Bible2. Once it appears as a place on the northern boundary of “the Land of Canaan in its full extent” (Num. 34:8) and twice as a town on the northern boundary of Ezekiel’s future Land of Israel (Ezek. 47:20; 48:1). In all other descriptions, it appears as a northernmost border point in the juxtaposition “from . . . unto. . . .” Among the latter group of references, Lebo-hamath is mentioned in a Priestly insertion in the story of the spies (Num. 13:21), as marking the northern limit of the Land of Canaan.3 It is mentioned twice in descriptions of the “remaining land” (Josh. 13:5; Judg. 3:3), and three times as the northernmost limit of David’s and Solomon’s kingdoms (1 Kgs. 8:65; 1 Chr. 13:5; 2 Chr. 7:8). Once it designates the northern extent of Jeroboam II’s conquests (2 Kgs. 14:25), in juxtaposition with the Sea of the Arabah, the southern border of the Kingdom of Israel. Finally, in a prophecy of Amos (6:14), Lebo-hamath and the Brook of the Arabah are named in a vision of a future reversal of Israel’s fortune: It will be oppressed in all the territories that now it dominates. Most of the eleven references of Lebo-hamath are late, either exilic (Josh. 13:5; Judg. 3:3;4 Ezek. 47:20; 48:1), or late post-exilic (1 Chr. 13:5; 2 Chr. 7:8). 1. Reprinted with permission. Ugarit-Forschungen 31 (1997), 417–441. 2. Lebo-hamath is a place name and should not be translated “the entrance of Hamath,” or “the Hamath corridor” (North 1970–71:97–101). For discussion, see Elliger 1936:42–45; Weippert 1992:59 n. 100, with earlier literature. 3. MT mentions “unto Rehob of Lebo-hamath.” Rehob is most probably the name of a kingdom located in the southern Beqa‘ of Lebanon. I, therefore, suggest that the author of the text mentioned two toponyms located in the same direction, the second being more remote than the first. For biblical parallels, see Josh. 10:10; 16:3; 1 Sam. 17:52; Neh. 3:16, 24, 31. For discussion and earlier literature, see Na’aman 1992:287–288. Num. 13:21 may be translated thus: “So they went up and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob (and unto) Lebo-hamath.” 4. The descriptions of the “remaining land” (Josh. 13:2–6; Judg. 3:1, 3) are postDeuteronomistic. See Smend 1971:497–500; 1983.

359

360


Numbers 13:21 and 34:8 are part of the Priestly composition, which is usually dated to the early post-exilic period. However, some scholars date the P source to the pre-exilic period.5 The date of 1 Kgs. 8:65 requires clarification. The description of Solomon’s founding and consecration of the temple is the focus of an extensive Priestly editorial work (Hurowitz 1992:263–270; Van Seters 1997:52–53; Na’aman 1999:44–46). Hurowitz demonstrated how extensive the Priestly reworking and expansion of 1 Kgs. 8:1–11 is. In my opinion, the Priestly expansion in 8:62–66 is no less extensive. The original text probably included only vv. 62– 63, and the episode of the dedication of the temple was concluded by the words, “So the king and all the people of Israel dedicated the house of YHWH” (v. 63b). The rest (vv. 64–66) is a late insertion that, in conjunction with the Priestly expansion in v. 2, joined the dedication of the temple to the feast of Booths and emphasized the element of two feasts of seven days to celebrate a great festival.6 The border delineation in v. 65, which marks the northern limit of Solomon’s kingdom at Lebo-hamath, was inserted in this redaction and is not part of the original Deuteronomistic history. Two unequivocal pre-exilic references to Lebo-hamath appear in 2 Kgs. 14:25 and Amos 6:14 (as already suggested by Noth 1937:48). The text of 2 Kgs. 14:25, 28 relates that Jeroboam II conquered Damascus and “restored” the Israelite border as far as Lebo-hamath, obviously a place on Damascus’ northern border. Thus, in pre-exilic texts, Lebo-hamath marked the northern limit of Damascus conquered by Jeroboam (Elliger 1936:34–73),7 in Priestly texts it marked Canaan’s northern border, and in the Book of Ezekiel it marked the northern border of the future Land of Israel. The question arises, what are the relationships among these three boundary systems that share the same northern border town? In the Deuteronomistic history, the northern border of Canaan is identical with the northern boundary of the tribal allotments. This is indicated by the author’s emphasis that Canaan was conquered up to its extreme limits (Josh. 10:40–42; 11:16–20; 12:7–8), and the northernmost toponyms he mentions in the conquest account (Josh. 11:3, 8, 17; 12:7) are identical with the toponyms located on the northern border of the tribal allotments (Josh. 19:28–29; see

5. For the debate on the date of the Priestly source, see recently Blenkinsopp 1996:495– 518, with earlier literature; Milgrom 1999:10–22, with earlier literature. 6. The description in vv. 65–66 is closely related to the late text of 2 Chr. 30:23–26. See Montgomery 1951:201. 7. Elliger suggested that “der Eingang (lebô’) nach Hamath,” was first the northern border of David’s kingdom, later becoming the ideal northern border of the Land of Canaan. Noth (1935:242–248) recognized that Lebo-hamath is a genuine place name, denoting a

Lebo-hamath, Ṣubat-Hamath and the Northern Boundary

361

Josh. 13:4–6; 2 Sam. 24:6–7) (Aharoni 1967:213, 215–217; Kallai 1975:27–34; 1986, passim; Na’aman 1986:39–73). In Num. 13:21 and 34:7–9, on the other hand, Canaan’s northern border is located further north, at Lebo-hamath. Thus, there is a marked difference between the northern extent of Canaan in the Deuteronomistic and Priestly compositions. The Dtr historian emphasized in his work the utter destruction of the Canaanites in all parts of the conquered land (e.g., Josh. 10:40; 11:8, 10–12, 14; 21:41–42). To “correct” this description, a post-exilic Dtr redactor (DtrN according to Smend 1971; 1983; DtrG2 according to Blum 1997:184–187) wrote and inserted several passages that emphasized the persistence of Canaanite elements within the Land of Canaan, thereby explaining the apostasy of the Israelites, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the exile. Among the passages that this redactor wrote are the descriptions of the unconquered southern and northern territories, where non-Israelite elements (Philistines, Avites, Canaanites, Sidonians, Hivites) remained after the conquest (Josh. 13:2–6; 23; Judg. 3:1, 3). In the north he marked the southern extremity of the “remaining land” along the northern boundary of the tribal allotments and its northern extremity on the line of the northern limit of Mount Lebanon and Lebo-hamath (Na’aman 1986:39–73, with earlier literature). Technically, the territory of the “remaining land” bridges the gap between the Deuteronomistic and Priestly northern boundaries of Canaan. However, the systems of the “remaining land” and the Priestly Land of Canaan share only one toponym (Lebo-hamath), whereas all other border points mentioned in the two descriptions are different. In light of these differences, it is unlikely that the author of Josh. 13:2–6 and Judg. 3:1, 3 conceived the Priestly Land of Canaan and referred to it in his delineation of the “remaining land.” Rather, the two authors marked the boundary along the same line, which was a frontier for hundred years (see below). This short introduction demonstrates the importance of the borderline in which Lebo-hamath has a central place for biblical historiography and raises the problem of the history of the border and its relationship to the biblical boundary systems mentioned above. In the next three sections of the article, I will discuss the history of the border near Lebo-hamath from the Late Bronze Age down to the Persian period. In light of this reconstruction, I will try to clarify the chronological and territorial relationship between the history of this border and the various biblical descriptions which integrate this remote borderline within Israelite configurations of the borders.

town named Lebo and the epexegetic genitive Hamath. However, he mistakenly identified it in the northernmost Golan area, near Mount Hermon.

362


2. Lab’u in the Egyptian Sources of the New Kingdom The city of Lab’u is mentioned several times in Egyptian inscriptions of the second millennium BCE (for a list of references, see Ahituv 1984:131). It appears for the first time in the Execration texts (No. 31, l-b-y) of the early 18th century BCE. It is further mentioned in the topographical list of Thutmose III (No 82, l-bw-’) among the other cities conquered in his first campaign to Canaan (1457 BCE). There it appears next to Hermel (h-r-m-i-l), which is doubtless identified with the present-day town el-Hermel, located about 20 kms. southwest of Qidshu (Tell Nebi Mend). In fact, the entire group of toponyms in which Lab’u and Hermel are included (Nos. 72–85) is located west and east of the Orontes River, in the area between the sources of the Orontes and Qidshu (for identifications and earlier literature, see Astour 1991:64 and n. 54). This is the territory called Taḫsi in the Egyptian inscriptions, identified with the territory of the strong central Syrian kingdom of Qidshu (Gardiner 1947:150*–151*; Helck 1971:270–271).8 Lab’u is mentioned in Amenophis II’s inscription of his seventh year (1421 BCE). On his way back from central Syria, the Egyptian king arrived in Qidshu, and after the surrender of its ruler, the Egyptian king shot at two copper targets on the south side of the city and conducted large-scale hunt in Lab’u (l-biw). From Lab’u, he proceeded to Ḫashabu (Tell Hashbe), located in the northern part of the southern Beqa‘ of Lebanon (Edel 1953:146–156; Helck 1971:157–160). Lab’u is not mentioned in the Amarna letters.9 Ramesses II mentions Lab’u in conjunction with his campaign to Qidshu in his fifth year (1275 BCE). In the “Poem,” he describes how the Hittites attacked him at Qidshu, while the division of Re‘ was still crossing the ford south of Shabtuna, a distance of one iter (about 10.5 km) south of his camp. The division of Ptah was south of the city of Arnam (=Hermel), and the division of Suteh was still on the march, far from the battlefield. In one of the reliefs, Ramesses II refers to the march of his division, stating that, when the battle began, the divisions of Re‘ and Ptah had not yet arrived, and their soldiers were still in the forest of Lab’u (l-bw-‘). Thus, it is clear that the forest of Lab’u is located in the area of the modern village Lebwe, south of modern el-Hermel (Arnam). Both the inscrip-

8. For a list of references to Taḫsi, see Ahituv 1984:185–187, with additional literature in n. 575. 9. It goes without saying that Lab’u is not identical with Labana, a city-state mentioned in the topographical inscription of Thutmose III (No. 10) and in several Amarna letters (EA 53:35, 57; 54:27, 32). Tiwate/Teuwatti, the ruler of Labana, was an ally of Arzawiya of Ruhiṣṣi, and their seats must be sought near the borders of Qidshu. For an erroneous identification of Lab’u and Labana, see Aharoni 1967:66, 137, 147.


363

tion of Amenophis II and that of Ramesses II mention a forested area near Lab’u, which lies between the sources of the Liṭani and Orontes Rivers (Edel 1952:258; Rainey 1971:145–146,149; Kuschke 1979; Kitche1982:52–56; Mayer and Opificius-Mayer 1994). We may conclude that Lab’u was a town on the southern border of the kingdom of Qidshu, near the northern boundary of the Egyptian province in Asia. Lab’u was conquered by Thutmose III in his first campaign (1457 BCE), but in his late years was held by the king of Qidshu, a vassal of the king of Mitanni. Amenophis II’s campaign along the Orontes River had no lasting effect. When, sometime later, Egypt and Mitanni concluded a peace treaty, the border between their vassal states passed near the watershed between the southern Beqa‘ of Lebanon (‘Amqi) and the kingdom of Qidshu (Taḫsi). With the collapse of Mitanni and the conquest of its territories by Hatti, fights along the border zones of the two empires broke once again. Seti I and Ramesses II, in his early years, tried to push the border northward and attacked the kingdoms of Qidshu and Amurru. However, in spite of initial Egyptian military successes, Hatti succeeded in defending its territories, and when a peace treaty was concluded between Ramesses II and Ḫattushili III (1259 BCE), the border between the two empires remained unchanged. Qidshu remained in Hittite hands and Lab’u, its southernmost town, once again became a border town near the northern boundary of the Egyptian empire. Lab’u is commonly identified with Tell Qaṣr Lebwe, a site near the modern village of Lebwe (see Elliger 1936:44–45; Maisler (Mazar) 1946:91–102; Edel 1952:153–154; Kuschke 1958:96–97; North 1970–71:87–92). According to the surveys conducted at the site, the tell is quite small; its upper terrace covers an area of about 100x80 m. It was occupied for thousands of years, including the Late Bronze Age (Kuschke 1954:128; Kuschke, Mittmann, Müller and Azouri 1976:24–27; Marfoe 1995:271–272). These findings match the conclusions drawn from the documentary evidence. It is clear that Lab’u was a small border town located near the sources of the Orontes River, in a forested area. Its importance was due to its strategic location, on the frontier between the empires of Egypt and Mitanni/Hatti and between the city-states of the southern Beqa‘ and the kingdom of Qidshu. From a Canaanite point of view, Lab’u marked the entrance to Qidshu when leaving the territories under Egyptian control.

3. The City of Lab’u and the Province of Ṣubat in Neo-Assyrian Texts The earliest extra-biblical reference to Lab’u in the first millennium BCE is in Tiglath-pileser III’s list of towns, in which they are arranged in groups according to country (Tadmor 1994:144–149). In col. II, after the town lists of Bīt-Agusi (Arpad), Unqi and Hamath, the city of Lab’u (URULa-ab-’u-ú) is men-

364


tioned (line 25), and then the text breaks. Lab’u most probably heads the city list of Bīt-Ḫazaili (Damascus) and is not a city of Hamath. A group of letters from the time of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II refer to the Assyrian province of Ṣubat/Ṣubite.10 These letters are our main source for the measures taken by the Assyrians to establish and consolidate their new province. Although many scholars have discussed the documentary evidence for the scope and administration of Canaan in the second millennium, the border system in southern Syria in the first millennium BCE has not been clarified sufficiently.11 Because of the importance of the Assyrian sources for establishing Ṣubat’s scope and its place in the system of Assyrian provinces in southern Syria, I will discuss these in detail, beginning with the two early letters from the time of Tiglath-pileser III. (1) Letter ND 2644 (NL 23) was probably written soon after Tiglath-pileser’s campaigns of 733/732, when he conquered the kingdom of Damascus and annexed it to the Assyrian territory (Saggs 1955:142–143; Eph‘al 1982:94). It is a draft of the “king’s order” to a certain Nabû-bēlu-uṣur, who was possibly a high-ranking officer. In the first part of the letter, the king instructs his officer concerning the Arabs (lines 3–18). Lines 18–24 may tentatively be rendered thus: “Until . . . they should inform you (ú-šaḫ-ka-mu-k[a]) of the road of URU Ta-ab/p-l[i?-x], just as the forts of [GN1], of Ni’u, of Qidisi and of [GN2].” The direction of the Ta-ab/p-l[i?-x] route is not known. Ni’u (Qal‘at el-Mudiq)12 is located on the kingdom of Hamath’s northern border with the Assyrian province of Ḫatarikka, and Qidisi on Hamath’s southern border with the newly established province of Ṣubat. The need for information concerning the route and forts indicates that the prefect had only recently been appointed to his post. The last part of the letter deals with harvesting of the sown land that the author of the letter cultivated. (2) ND 2766 (NL 70) is a letter of a certain Šamaš-aḫu-iddina to Tiglathpileser (Saggs 1963:79–80). He was appointed to guard the city of Rablê

10. The province’s name has several variants (Ṣu-p/bat, Ṣu-ba-te, Ṣu-pi-te), and I will write it as Ṣubat. For the spelling, see Weippert 1972:159–160. 11. The most detailed works on the place and scope of biblical Aram Zobah and the Assyrian province Ṣubat in the first millennium were written in the 1930s. See Elliger 1936: 34–73; Noth 1937:36–48; Lewy 1944:443–454; Alt 1945:147–159. For recent literature, see Dion 1997:172–176. 12. The preferred identification of the fort of Ni’u with the Late Bronze central Syrian city of Niya (Klengel 1969:58–74) is with Neia, mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum and located along one of the routes connecting Palmyra with Damascus or Ḥoms (Oded 1964:273 n. 13; Eph‘al 1982:94 n. 309).


365

(Riblah), with the instructions: “Let half of the draught animals come into Rablê and the other half let go into Qidisi.” The next part of the letter is broken, and the author of the letter possibly discusses the feeding and guarding of the draught animals. In the last part of the letter, he asks for guards and adds that “the towns into which they have brought the draught animals are within the steppe (mudabiru).” A certain m A-i-ni-ilu appears in a broken passage (line 12), and Saggs identified him with Eni-ilu, the king of Hamath, whom Tiglath-pileser placed on the throne after conquering it in 738 BCE (Saggs 1963:80; Weippert 1973a:44– 45, n. 72). The letter illustrates the early stage of the organization of the province of Ṣubat immediately after its annexation by Tiglath-pileser III, in 732 BCE. The next seven letters of the time of Sargon II were transcribed and translated by Parpola (1987) in his edition of the correspondence of Sargon, and the numbers at the beginning of each letter (No. 175, etc.) refer to his publication.13 (3) No. 175 (ND 2381; NL 19) was sent by Adda-ḫati, the governor of Hamath, to Sargon. He reports that Ammi-li’ti, an Arab leader, with 300 shecamels, intended to attack Assyrian booty being transferred from Damascus to Assyria and that he went with Bēl-liqbi, the prefect of Ṣubat, to meet the booty bearers. The continuation of the letter is partly broken, but it seems that Ammi-li’ti was successful both in seizing part of the booty and in escaping the pursuing force. It is possible that reports of this kind gave rise to the campaign against the Arabs in 716 BCE, and that letters Nos. 173–174 (ABL 224–225) were sent immediately afterwards.14 They both report that “we have not heard anything specific about the Arabs since the king, my lord, went to Assyria; all is well.” (4) Letter No. 176 (ND 2437; NL 20) was sent by Adda-ḫati to Sargon. He first reports that he received the silver dues from the commandants and village managers and sent them to the king together with his gift. In the next paragraph he complains that his manpower is reduced by 500 men. After a broken passage, he asks to transfer men from A[rgite?], possibly a city in a neighboring province (see below), to the provincial center at Ṣ[ubat]. He then states that he harvested the fields of URUḪi-x[xx] (Hermel?) and URULa-ba-’u-u (Laba’u), and asks for Assyrian and Itu’ean troops to hold the steppe (madbar). Then he adds: “there is no Assyrian city-overseer, nor any Assyrian gate-guards in Ṣubat.” 13. See also the detailed review of Watanabe 1991:194–195. 14. For Sargon’s 716 BCE campaign against the Arabs, see Tadmor 1958:77–78; Eph‘al 1982:36–39, 105–111.

366


In the last paragraph, Adda-ḫati cites the king’s order to mobilize the people “living on the mounds” for building operations and asks permission to mobilize the “ten fortified towns in the steppe (madbar).” There must have been extensive building operations in the new provinces in the time of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, and manpower was needed badly. Also, there was the constant threat from the Arabs, and troops were needed to defend the old and new settlements located on the east-Syrian front of the Assyrian empire. Therefore, anyone who could be was conscripted for building and defense operations. (5) No. 177 (ABL 414) is a letter sent by Bēl-liqbi, the prefect of Ṣubat, to Sargon (Alt 1945:153–159; Eph‘al 1982:95–97). The letter discusses the affairs of two road-stations, Ḫēsa and Sazana. Ḫēsa is identified as present-day Ḥasiyeh, a village located on the Ḥoms-Damascus road, at the northern extremity of Mount Anti-Lebanon. Bēl-liqbi complains that the station is short of people and asks the king to send him 30 families to be settled there. To make room for these families, he wanted to evacuate a group of craftsmen (who belonged to Nabû-uṣalla, a neighboring prefect and who were temporarily stationed in Ḫēsa) and settle them in Argite, a town administered by Nabû-uṣalla.15 He further asks the king to send an official (called Ya’iru) to supervise the road station of Ḫēsa and another official (called Sin-iddina) to supervise Sazana. The latter should be sought along the modern ḤomsDamascus road, either north or south of Ḫēsa.16 In the last paragraph of the letter, Bēl-liqbi reports that Ammi-li’ti arrived at the provincial center of Ṣubat, a move that indicates a state of temporary peaceful relations between the Assyrian authorities and the Arabs. (6) Letter No. 179 (CT 53 10) was again sent by Bēl-liqbi to Sargon. He first reports that Arabs stayed out of his towns, entered there temporarily and left. Arabian farmers and gardeners did enter his towns, and others built sheepfolds on their outskirts. It is clear that the Assyrian activity in the province attracted the pastoral nomadic elements, who drew near the towns or entered them. The Assyrian authorities did not trust the Arabs, and Bēl-liqbi ordered their expulsion and destroyed their yards. He then negotiated with their leader, Ammi-li’ti and suggested that the Arabs settle in the land of Yasubuq. Provided that Yasubuq is identical to the land of Yasbuq, whose king (Bur15. Argite is possibly identical to URUḪa-ar-ge-e, mentioned in the Annals of Ashurbanipal before “the district of Ṣubite” (see Eph‘al 1982:97, with earlier references). Weippert (1973b:61–63) suggested that most of the places mentioned by Ashurbanipal were administrative districts of the Assyrian empire. If this is indeed the case, Argite might have been the center of a sub-district in the province of Nabû-uṣalla. 16. For the identification of Sazana, see Eph‘al 1971; Na’aman 1988:189–190.


367

Anate) joined the coalition that fought Shalmaneser III in 858 BCE (Grayson 1996:17); it may be located on the northeastern periphery of the province of Ṣubat, possibly on the eastern front of the former kingdom of Hamath. The Assyrian king prohibited the selling of iron to the Arabs, and, to enforce the prohibition, he placed Assyrian toll collectors in Ṣubat, the provincial capital, and in Ḫuzaza, a central town located on the province’s periphery. The toll collector of Ḫuzaza charged that Bēl-liqbi’s agents sold iron to the Arabs. In his defense, the prefect claims that he did business only in Ṣubat and that his agents in Ḫuzaza sold only grapes to the Arabs. He further adds that he did sell iron to the captives, but not to the Arabs. (7) Letter No. 180 (CT 53 199) was sent by Bēl-liqbi, but is badly broken. He reports that Ammi-li’ti encamped near the city of Rablê and came to see him (the rest is broken). (8) Letter No. 181 (ABL 1070) was probably sent by Bēl-liqbi to Sargon. The letter illustrates the Assyrian system of supplying grain to troops stationed in the province. The grain was stored in sealed depots located in villages under the supervision of the prefect. The prefect was responsible for the grain’s distribution and instructed the deputies in accordance with the orders he received from his superiors. Unfortunately, no toponym is mentioned in the letter. (9) Letter No. 182 (CT 53 588) again deals with the problem of grain storage and distribution, but it is badly broken. The nine letters shed light on two main aspects: (a) the internal organization of the province of Ṣubat, its extent and main towns; (b) the relationship of the Assyrians to the Arabs and the measures taken to supervise their movements and minimize their danger. The location of the provincial center of Ṣubat is unknown. Tentatively, I suggest locating it near the present-day Quṣer, halfway between Qidisi/ Qidshu and Rablê/Riblah, a place that was an ancient crossroad on the northward route (Kuschke 1979:9, 30–35). Such identification may explain its central place in all contacts with the Arabs and in the organization of the province. The territory of Ṣubat extended between Qidisi in the north and Lab’u in the south. In the west it must have reached the northern slopes of Mount Lebanon, and in the east it bordered on the desert. Some of its towns can be identified (Lab’u, Rablê, Qidisi, Ḫēsa, and possibly Ṣubat and Hermel), and some remain unidentified (Ḫuzaza, Sazana). Many small peripheral villages and manors whose names remain unknown were included in the province (note in particular letter No. 176).

368


The Assyrian Province of Subat


369

4. Ṣubat-Hamath under the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Empires The most surprising aspect of the correspondence is the involvement of Adda-ḫati, governor of Hamath, in the affairs of the province of Ṣubat (Nos. 175–176). What might have been the relationship between the two neighboring districts? It must be emphasized that an Assyrian province of Hamath is nowhere unambiguously attested.17 There was no eponym from Hamath, and Hamath is not mentioned in administrative lists that enumerate Western provinces. It only appears in K4384, a geographical list of names of provinces, cities, mountains and tribal ethnonyms (Forrer 1920:52–53; Fales and Postgate 1995:XIII-XIV, 4–6), as well as in Sargon’s Annals of the year 711 (Landsberger 1948:73–74; Fuchs 1998:43, 72). The former text is usually dated by scholars to Ashurbanipal’s reign, but it may equally well be dated to the late years of Sargon II, enumerating the lands and cities either subject to him or situated near the borders of his empire. Attributing K4384 to Sargon may explain why the list of toponyms opens with Babylon, which he conquered in 709 BCE, and closes with Dur-Sharrukin, which he consecrated in 707 BCE. The list may have served as a source for scribes who wrote royal inscriptions for Sargon’s new capital and, like other Sargonic texts, was transferred by Sennacherib from Dur-Sharrukin to the new capital of Nineveh. Hamath is mentioned twice in this list: URUḪa-ma-a[t-tu] (Rev. I 8) and URU Ṣu-bat URUḪa-ma-a-[tu] (Rev. I 12). Fales and Postgate (1995:XIV) noted that two geographically adjoining or administratively associated, places are sometimes listed on the same line. We may suggest that following its conquest, part of Hamath’s territories were annexed to Ṣubat, and the author of K4384 called the expanded province by the name Ṣubat-Hamath. Adda-ḫati, the author of letters 173–176, was probably the military governor of the newly conquered kingdom of Hamath, whereas Bēl-liqbi was the prefect of the expanded province of Ṣubat. This may explain why they both operated in the same territory and cooperated in military operations conducted against the Arabs. The prism fragment K.1672 describes the mobilization of troops of Western provinces’ governors for campaign against Ambaris of Tabal (713 BCE). The text (lines 3–8) is badly broken, but may tentatively be restored thus (compare Landsberger 1949:73; Fuchs 1998:72): . . . my eunuchs, [the governors] of the cities of Sam’al, [of Ṣubat??], of Hamath, of Damascus, [of Ḫatarikka ??], with my cavalry [which m]y [commanders] stationed in the lands of Hamath [and Ḫatarikka ??] . . .

17. This point was particularly emphasized in the works of Hawkins (1972–75:69; 1987– 90:343; 1995:97).

370


Landsberger and Fuchs restored in line 4 [URUAr-pa-ad-da]. However, in light of the discussion above, I suggest restoring it [URUṢu-bat], assuming that the text refers to the new province of Ṣubat-Hamath. Letters ND 2495 (NL 88) and ABL 1070 (Parpola 1987:Nos. 172 and 181) indicate that, following Sargon’s campaign of 720 BCE, troops and cavalry were stationed in Western provinces. This is the basis for my tentative restoration of lines 6–8. Did the province of Ṣubat-Hamath include all the areas of the former kingdom of Hamath or only its eastern parts? Did the Assyrians establish a new province on Hamath’s western areas, or did they annex it to another province (i.e., Ḫatarikka)? The question is linked with the location of Manṣuate, which the Assyrian sources referred to as a Syrian province. Manṣuate is mentioned in the Eponym Chronicle of year 796 BCE, in a letter dated to the time of either Tiglath-pileser or Sargon (NL 22), and in several Assyrian administrative lists (Hawkins 1987–90:342–343, with earlier literature; Fales and Postgate 1995:Nos 1, 2, 6; 1992:No 116).18 Its prefect was an Assyrian eponym for the year 680 BCE, three years after the prefect of Ṣubat held this honorary office (683 BCE). The Assyrian administrative lists suggest a general location of Manṣuate between Hamath and Damascus, but they do not provide a more precise location. Two possible locations have been offered for Manṣuate: either in the southern Beqa‘ of Lebanon, in the areas of the former kingdom of Beth Rehob, or in the southern territory of Hamath. According to the first suggestion, the name Manṣuate evolved to the Hellenistic-Roman place name Massyas, which, according to Strabo, denoted the Beqa‘ of Lebanon between Qidshu and Chalkis (Honigmann 1924:15–16; Zadok 1977–78:56; Weippert 1992:49– 53, with earlier literature). According to the second suggestion, the name Manṣuate evolved to the present-day Maṣyāf (alias Maṣyād, Maṣyāt, Maṣyāṭ), 45 kms. west-southwest of Tell Ḥamā, at the southeastern foot of Jebel elAnṣariyeh (Lipiński 1971). Locating Manṣuate in the area of present-day Maṣyāf/Maṣyāt may be supported by Amenophis II’s inscription, which describes the king’s campaign in his seventh year (Edel 1953:146–153; Helck 1971:158–159). In this campaign, he moved along the Orontes River from Niya (Qal‘at el-Mudiq) to ’kt,19 and then arrived to Salḫi.20 In my opinion, the land of Salḫi is the ancient name of present-day el-Ghab, a marshy area that the Pharaoh crossed from east to west. He then continued southward along Jebel el-Anṣariyeh, and on his 18. Zadok (1977–78:56) suggested deriving the name Manṣuate from the root N-Ṣ-W “to quarrel, strive,” and noted that the meaning may suit a border district. 19. For the location of the city of ’kt, see Astour 1981:13–14. 20. For the land of Salḫi, see Klengel 1970:5, 22 n.2; Astour 1995:67.


371

way to Qidshu plundered the villages of Mnḏt (m-n-ḏ3-t-w).21 The identification of Mnḏt with present-day Maṣyāf/Maṣyāt is self-evident. This identification may support the proposed identification of Manṣuate with present-day Maṣyāf/Maṣyāt. Manṣuate is further mentioned in a letter from Nimrud (ND 2680; NL 22), which, unfortunately, is quite damaged (Saggs 1955:141–142; Deller 1961:252, 254). As the letter may contribute to the discussion of the location of Manṣuate, I will first present a translation and then discuss it:22 (Beginning destroyed) . . . among the la[ter] captives that the king, my lord, gave to [me/him] from Til Ba[rsip], I say/said: “He should know th[at] indeed there are n[o . . .] among them.” Ḫara-ammu, the chiliarch of Manṣuate, came for me. He has sent his five sons [to . . . but the re]st of [his] people [are with] him. On the 30th day [of . . . the m]en/[so]ldiers ar[rived]. I told [the]ir comrades that I would release and settle them, but their brothers did not agree, and said: “The men/ soldiers are traitors/criminals. They will leave and run away. They have been plo[tting] mur[der].” Why do [these] men/soldiers . . . (end of the letter broken)

According to this restoration, the commander of Manṣuate is mentioned in conjunction with the settlement of Assyrian men/soldiers, who are accused of being traitors/criminals and of plotting murder. Sargon II inscriptions state that he settled in the land of Hamath 6300 Assyrians who had rebelled against him (see Fuchs 1994:421 s.v. Amattu, with earlier literature). It is tempting to combine our letter with Sargon’s royal inscriptions and assume that its author refers to problems emanating from the settlements of the Assyrian rebels in the city of Manṣuate. Provided that this interpretation is accepted, it indicates that Manṣuate is indeed located in the territory of the former kingdom of Hamath. The province of Manṣuate probably encompassed the west Orontes districts of Hamath, whereas its east Orontes districts were annexed to the province of Ṣubat. The southern Beqa‘ of Lebanon, where some scholars located Manṣuate, is a relatively small area, not befitting a separate Assyrian province. It was probably included in the province of Damascus that, like the province of ṢubatHamath, included territories on both sides of Mount Anti-Lebanon. Further evidence for the assumption that Hamath and Ṣubat were included in the same province comes from a Neo-Babylonian chronicle. During 21. The identification of Mnḏt of the Memphis stele of Amenophis II with Assyrian Manṣuāte was first suggested by Astour 1963:235. For criticism, see Weippert 1992:52 n. 68. 22. I am grateful to Professor Simo Parpola, who provided me with a transliteration and translation of this difficult letter.

372


the struggle between Babylonia and Egypt after the fall of Assyria, the city of Riblah “in the land of Hamath” served as the Egyptian headquarters (2 Kgs. 23:33). After the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar pursued the Egyptian fugitives and defeated them in “the province (pīḫat) of Hamath” (Grayson 1975:99 lines 6–7). The fugitives must have retreated from Carchemish toward the center of Rablê/Riblah, located in the province of Hamath, but did not reach the place. After his victory over the Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar established his headquarters in Riblah, “in the land of Hamath,” the former Egyptian center (2 Kgs. 25:6, 20–21). According to a NeoBabylonian contract dated to Nebuchadnezzar II’s 40th year (565 BCE), Qidisi (URUQí-di-iš) was then the capital of the province (Joannès 1982:37 No. 4). In the Book of Chronicles, Solomon’s conquests in Syria are described as follows (2 Chr. 8:3–4): “And Solomon went to Hamath-Zobah and took it. He built Tadmor in the wilderness and all the store cities which he built in Hamath.” Scholars agree that, in many instances, the Babylonian and Persian provinces inherited the Assyrian province system. The scope of the province of Hamath-Zobah of the Chronicler’s time (about mid-fourth century BCE), may be roughly the same as that of the Assyrian province of Ṣubat-Hamath. The oasis of Tadmor/Palmyra was probably annexed to the province, either by the Assyrians or later by the Babylonians and Persians. The Chronicler, who sought to magnify Solomon and describe his conquests beyond those of his father, attributed to him the conquest of Hamath-Zobah and the building of its cities, including the city of Tadmor.23 We may conclude that, from the time of Sargon II down to the late Persian period, Ṣubat and the eastern districts of Hamath were included in a unified province governed by its own prefect. We are now able to better analyze the biblical references to Lebo-hamath. Before the Assyrian annexations of 732 BCE, the city of Lab’u was a Damascene city, located on the southernmost end of the large district of Ṣubat. It was situated about 45 kms. south of the border of Hamath and could hardly have been called “Lebo-hamath.” Only after the Assyrian annexation of Hamath in 720 BCE and the reorganization of the provinces of central Syria, when Lab’u became the southernmost town of the unified province of Ṣubat-Hamath, was it appropriate to call it by a name that connected it to Hamath. From the late seventh century down to the fourth century BCE, Lab’u was the southern town of the province of Ṣubat-Hamath/Hamath-Zobah, the province of

23. Elliger 1936:52 n. 2, 56–57 n. 4; Noth 1937:41–42, 45–47; Rudolph 1955:219; contra Willi 1972:75–78. It goes without saying that no source other than the Book of Kings was available to the Chronicler and that the account in 2 Kgs. 8:3–4 is non-historical; contra Malamat 1963:6–8; Aharoni 1967:275.


373

Damascus’ northern neighbor. The use of the combined name Lebo-Hamath by scribes who worked during this long period is only natural. The combined name Lebo-hamath did not antedate the Assyrian annexation of Hamath in 720 BCE. Thus, its inclusion in reference to the time of Jeroboam II (2 Kgs. 14:25; Amos 6:14) is anachronistic. It may have emerged as a result of a reworking and updating of the early sources by the author of the Book of Kings and by a late editor of the Book of Amos. The inclusion of the combined name in all the other biblical references is due to the late date (no earlier than the exilic period) in which they were put in writing.

5. The Northern Border of the Future Land of Israel in Ezekiel 47 A delineation of the ideal borders of Israel appears in Ezekiel’s vision of YHWH’s returning to the temple and establishing his residence in Jerusalem in the midst of his people. The delineated territory in Ezek. 47:13–23 is YHWH’s land, apportioned and divided among the twelve tribes of Israel. There are several features unifying the description of Ezekiel that indicate that it was written by a single author according to a definite plan. (1) The description moves in a clockwise circle and ends where it began. (2) Each side opens by “to/on the . . . side” (l/wp’t) and ends with “this shall be the . . . side” (z’t p’t). (3) The author did not use verbal forms to connect the toponyms, unlike the descriptions of the tribal allotments (Joshua 13–19), and the boundaries of Canaan (Numbers 34). (4) Each side ends with the name of a certain toponym, which is repeated at the start of the next side: (a) The description of the northern side (vv. 15–16) ends with the words, “which is on the border of Hauran.” V. 18 opens thus: “On the east side: between Hauran. . . .” V. 17 reiterates in a summarized form what was already described in vv. 15–16. At the beginning of v. 18, the author chose to refer back to the end of the more detailed description in vv. 15–16, rather than to v. 17. (b) The demarcation of the eastern side (v. 18) ends with the words, “as far as Tamar” (with LXX and the Syriac).24 V. 19 opens thus: “On the south side: from Tamar. . . .” (c) The delineation of the southern side (v. 19) ends with the words, “to the Great Sea.” V. 20 opens thus: “On the west side: the Great Sea. . . .” (d) The demarcation of the western side (v. 20) ends with the words, “as far as opposite Lebo-hamath,” which was the first town marked on the northern border.25 24. The verbal form tāmôdū (“you shall measure”) is alien to Ezekiel’s description, which does not use verbal forms, and the correct reading tāmārāh (“as far as Tamar”) was recognized by all scholars. See, e.g., Zimmerli 1983:519–520; Barthélemy 1992:425–426, with earlier literature. 25. For the correct rendering of v. 15, see Zimmerli 1983:518; Barthélemy 1992:419.

374


(5) On three sides, there are abbreviated reiterations of all the above or of part of what was already described. These reiterations open with the words, “so the boundary shall run from . . . ” (v. 17); “from the boundary to . . . ” (v. 18); “from the boundary as far as . . . ” (v. 20). Some scholars did not realize the principle of reiteration and inserted unnecessarily textual corrections to the texts in vv. 18 and 20 (reading magbīl in place of MT migebūl) (see Barthélemy 1992:425–426). The description of the ideal Land of Israel in Ezekiel 47:13–23 is original in all its parts and reflects the prophet’s broad familiarity with the borders and areas he delineated. The basis for his description was the system of provinces of his time in southern Syria and Palestine. The author knew many more toponyms along the northern boundary than on the eastern and southern borders. No wonder that the latter borders are only schematically delineated. There are no textual contacts between Ezekiel’s delineation of the southern border (v. 19) and that of Num. 34:3–5 and Josh. 15:1–4, although they describe the same line. The name, “the waters of Meribath-kadesh” (v. 19), may indicate that Ezekiel’s source for the southern border was literary, possibly Ex. 17:7, Num. 20:13, 24, or Deut. 33:8. Tamar was an Edomite fort located near the former boundary of the kingdom of Judah and was probably known to the prophet from his early years in Jerusalem.26 Ezekiel’s description of the northern boundary runs as follows (vv. 15b– 17): (15b–16) On the north side: from the Great Sea the way of Hethlon, Lebo-hamath to Zedad — Berothah (and) Sibraim, which lie between the territory Damascus and the territory of Hamath — as far as Hazer-hattichon,27 which lies on the border of Hauran. (17) So the boundary shall run from the sea to Hazar-enon, that is, the territory of Damascus and north, on the north lies the territory of Hamath.

The boundary is again described in Ezek. 48:1b: Beginning at the northern extreme: along the way of Hethlon, Lebo-hamath, Hazarenan, the territory of Damascus, on the north along the territory of Hamath . . .

26. For the recent excavations at the site of Tamar (‘En Ḥaṣeva), see Cohen and Yisrael 1995; 1996; Beck 1996. 27. There is no textual basis for reading Hazer-enon in place of Hazer-hattichon, as suggested by some scholars. See Cooke 1936:530; Fohrer 1955:257; Zimmerli 1983:518. Hazarenon was located at the eastern end of the Damascus-Hamath border, and Hazer-hattichon was located on the northern end of the Damascus-Hauran border. For discussion, see Barthélemy 1992:420.


375

The boundary ran from the sea to a place called Hethlon, which has been identified with present-day Hetela, a village located northeast of Tripoli and south of Nahr el-Kebir (Furrer 1885:27; Elliger 1936:70). It continued to Lebohamath and to Zedad (present-day Ṣadad), on the edge of the desert. Before proceeding southward, the author adds two other places — Berothah and Sibraim — located between Lebo-hamath and Zedad along the DamascusHamath border. Berothah is mentioned in 2 Sam. 8:8 (written Berothai) as a city of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and is usually identified with presentday Brital, south of Ba‘lbek. However, no ancient site was found near Brital (Kuschke 1954:122–123; 1958:98–99; Marfoe 1994:245–247), so the location of Berothah/i remains uncertain. The place of Sibraim is also unknown. The two places must be sought near the Damascus-Hamath border, either on its northern or southern side. From Zedad, the border ran to Hazar-enan, no doubt a site on the edge of the desert, which was sometimes identified with present-day Qaryaten (Furrer 1885:28; Elliger 1936:66–67). The last toponym mentioned on the northern line is Hazer-hattichon, located at the northern end of the Damascus-Hauran border. Locating it depends on the identification of the district of Hauran. Some scholars identified Hauran with the district of Ḥawwarin, which is mentioned once in the Annals of Ashurbanipal (Furrer 1885:28; Zimmerli 1983:529).28 However, since the eastern boundary of the Land of Israel passed between the districts of Hauran and Damascus (Ezek. 47:18), Hauran was probably the name of an eastern district that covered the territory of the Assyrian province of Qarnini and encompassed the areas of the Hauran and Bashan. Hazerhattichon should be located on Hauran’s northwest corner, far south from Hazar-enan. The northeastern-eastern boundary delineated by Ezekiel probably ran from Qaryaten (Hazar-enan) southward, passing east of Damascus and up to the Yarmuk River and the Jordan. We may conclude that Ezekiel’s future Land of Israel in the north encompassed the Phoenician coast up to Nahr el-Kebir, the province of Damascus and the west-Jordanian areas, leaving the provinces of Hamath-zobah, Hauran and Gilead outside the territory. The identified places in the northern boundary (Hethlon, Lebo-hamath, Zedad, and possibly Hazar-enan) are located near the borderline, so that other unidentified towns (e.g., Berothah and Sibraim) must be sought along this line.

28. For the district of Ḫaurīna in the annals of Ashurbanipal, see Weippert 1973b:62.

376


6. The Northern Boundary of the Land of Canaan in Numbers 34 The detailed delineation of the boundaries of Canaan in Numbers 34 is part of a block of Priestly material dealing with the theme of the occupation and distribution of the land (Num. 32; 33:50–35:34).29 Auld (1980:72–87) examined the relationship of Num. 33:50–35:8 to the distribution of the land in the Book of Joshua and established the priority of Joshua over Numbers for most of the material in question. However, in his discussion of the relationship of Num. 34:3–5 to Josh. 15:1–4, he concluded that “neither text depends on the other, but both on a common list of names.” As for the relationship of Num. 34:1–12 to Ezek. 47:13–23, he suggested that although they describe much the same line, “there can be no certainty about literary priority” (Auld 1980:75– 76; his analysis was accepted by Hutchens 1993:222–224). Contrary to Auld, I suggest that Num. 34:1–12 depends on both Josh. 15:1–4 and Ezek. 47:15–17, as well as on the description of the distribution of the land in Josh. 13–19, and is secondary to all these texts. On the one hand, the extent of the territory demarcated in Numbers 34 is identical with that demarcated in Ezekiel 47, although the latter is called Land of Canaan, and the former is called the Land of Israel (Ezek. 47:18). On the other hand, in Ezekiel, the land is divided among the 12 tribes, whereas in Numbers it is divided among the nine-and-a-half tribes. The name Canaan for the inherited land and its division among the nine-and-a-half tribes is common to the territory delineated in Numbers 34 and the tribal allotments in Joshua 13–19. Moreover, the duality in the status of Transjordan — as a territory that, on the one hand, lies outside the Promised Land, but, on the other hand, will be occupied and allotted to the two-and-a-half tribes — is common to Numbers 34 (vv. 13–15) and to the tribal allotments.30 However, the two boundary systems differ in extent on their northern side: whereas the northern boundary of the tribal allotments reached the line of the southern slopes of Mount Hermon – Dan — the Liṭani River, the Land of Canaan extended further north, up to the line of the northern limit of Mount Lebanon — Lebo-hamath – Zedad.31 It seems to me that the author of Numbers 34 combined the boundaries of the future Land of Israel of Ezekiel 47 with the account of the distribution of the land in the deuteronomistic history and that his boundary system combines these two systems. 29. For discussions on the boundaries of biblical Canaan, see Maisler (Mazar) 1946; Aharoni 1967:61–70; Simons 1959:98–103; de Vaux 1968; 1978:125–132. 30. On the duality in the status of Transjordan in Deuteronomy and Joshua, see Weinfeld 1982:59–75. 31. The northern territory of the “remaining land” (Josh 13:4–6) covers the gap between the two territories; see Na’aman 1986:39–73, with earlier literature.


377

There are several features that unify the description of Numbers 34 and indicate that it was written by a single author according to a unified plan: (1) The description begins at the southeastern extremity of the Dead Sea and moves clockwise on all four sides of the border. (2) Each side opens with a short, though not identical note. (3) Three sides are concluded with the words, “and its termination (toṣ’ōtâw) shall be . . . ” (vv. 5, 9, 12). (4) The boundary is systematically described by verbs in the perfect simple stem, 3rd person sing. masc., apart from the beginning of the northern and eastern sides, which open with the imperfect 2nd person pl.: “you shall mark out” (vv. 7b and 10). The appearance of the 2nd pers. pl. follows the structure of 2nd pers. pl. (“to you”), which opens and closes the delineation on all four sides; only the use of the imperfect is exceptional. An exceptional form appears at the beginning of v. 8 (“you shall mark out”), no doubt as an imitation of the verbal form in v. 7b (Wazana 1998:114). (5) A remarkable feature of the description is the lack of references to adjacent territories. Unlike the description of the boundaries in Ezekiel, which on the northern and eastern sides refers to neighboring districts, the border delineation in Numbers 34 entirely ignores all neighboring districts, except in the introduction in v. 3a (of which see below). The linear description of the boundaries, which has no parallel in internal or external border descriptions in the Bible and ancient Near East texts, calls for an explanation. In my opinion, it is a result of the written sources available to its author (Josh. 15:1–12; Ezek. 47:13–23), enabling him to draw toponyms and avoid mentioning the territories adjacent to the boundaries he delineated. The description of the southern and western boundaries of Canaan (Num. 34:3–6) is closely related to that of the parallel borders of Judah’s inheritance (Josh. 15:1b–4, 12). The key to the relationship between the two texts lies in their respective introductions. The author of the tribal allotments frequently drew borders in relation to adjacent territories. In Josh. 15:1b, he defined the southern border of Judah in relation to the Edomite and desert frontiers: “along the boundary of Edom, to the wilderness of Zin at the farthest south.” The author of Numbers 34, on the other hand, delineated the borders with no reference to neighboring borders, so that the reference to Edom in v. 3 is exceptional. Moreover, the double mention of the southern side in this verse is redundant, and the order of the toponyms in v. 3b is contrary to the direction of the boundary (“your south side shall be from the wilderness of Zin along the side of Edom”). These features indicate that the description in Num. 34:3 depends on the text of Josh 15:1b (as already suggested by Wazana 1998:118–119). The two descriptions of the line in v. 4 — “south of the ascent of Akrabim” and “south of Kadesh-barnea” — are exceptional, as the author of Numbers

378


34 systematically demarcated the boundary by a combination of toponyms and verbal forms. The exception becomes clear when we understand that Num. 34:4 was copied from Josh. 15:3 (Wazana 1998:115). In addition to the southern and western boundaries, which the author of Numbers 34 copied almost verbatim from Josh. 15:1b–4, 12, he also adopted the introductions to the four sides of the land he delineated from the inheritance of Judah. Compare Josh. 15:2 (“and their southern boundary shall be”) with Num. 34:3 (“and your southern boundary shall be”); Josh. 15:12 (“and the western boundary”) with Num. 34:6 (“and the western boundary”); Josh. 15:5b (“and the boundary on the northern side”) with Num. 34:7 (“this shall be your northern boundary”); Josh. 15:5a (“and the eastern boundary”) with Num. 34:10 (“you shall mark out your eastern boundary”). The comparison between Ezekiel 47 and Numbers 34 is more complicated, because Ezekiel’s description depends on the system of Babylonian provinces, whereas Numbers avoids all references to adjacent territories. However, there seems to be an indication that the northern boundary of Numbers is dependent on the text of Ezekiel. As suggested above, Ezekiel opens his description with three places located along the boundary (the way of Hethlon, Lebo-hamath and Zedad), and added two other places (Berothah and Sibraim) that are located along this line. He then proceeds to Hazer-hattichon, which is on the border of Hauran. In the abbreviated repetition of the northern side (47:17) he marked Hazar-enan at its eastern end. The author of Numbers 34 did not comprehend Ezekiel’s description and omitted Berothah and Hazerhattichon, setting Ziphron (=Sibraim) in the wrong place, between Zedad and Hazar-enan. The omission of toponyms (Karka) and the manipulation of names (Hazar-addar in place of Hezron and Addar) are also known from the reworking of Josh. 15:4 in Num. 34:3 and indicate the way that the author of Numbers 34 used his sources. Another noteworthy fact is the lack of concrete knowledge of the northern boundary in Numbers 34. In place of Ezekiel’s “the way of Hethlon” appears Mount Hor (hôr hāhār), which is a general designation for a prominent mountain ridge (see Num. 20:22–27; 21:4; 33:37–41; Deut. 32:50), not a proper name of a mountain. None of the verbs chosen to describe the northern boundary reflects any knowledge of the line (“you shall mark out,” “shall be,” “shall extend”), unlike the delineation of the southern and eastern boundaries. All these characteristics indicate the secondary nature of the description of Canaan’s northern boundary in Numbers 34. The eastern border of the land in Ezekiel 47 is delineated on the basis of provinces and does not fit the description of Numbers 34. This is the only boundary for which the latter’s sources are unknown, and we do not know the location of Shepham and hāriblāh “on the east side of Ain.” Tentatively, I would suggest


379

locating these toponyms on the road from Babylonia to the province of Yehud, which passed from Damascus along the Yarmuk River to the Valley of Jezreel. Either the author of Numbers 34, or one of his acquaintances who had made the journey, was the source for the two place names. In any event, the distance of about 250 kms. from Zedad (Ṣadad) and Hazar-enan (Qaryaten?) to the sea of Chinnereth is covered in Numbers 34 by two toponyms, indicating the author’s poor knowledge of the area. This author was entirely dependent on his written sources, and, when sources were unavailable, he was unable to draw the boundary properly. All demarcations of the eastern boundary of Canaan on the basis of Numbers 34 are guesswork. The line had best be demarcated on the basis of Ezekiel 47 and the system of Babylonian provinces of his time.

7. Summary and Conclusions The delineation of the future Land of Israel in Ezekiel 47:13–23 is original in both concept and all parts of the description. The northward extension of the future land to include the province of Damascus and the Phoenician coast up to Nahr el-Kebir and the division of the territory west of the Jordan among the twelve tribes have no parallel in biblical literature. It differs from the system of tribal allotments in Joshua 13–19 in the extension of the northern boundary, the exclusion of Transjordan from the allotments of the tribes, and the distribution of the west-Jordanian land among the twelve tribes. There is no indication that the author of Ezekiel 47 was aware of the system of tribal allotment in Joshua 13–19, and he may never have read the second part of the book of Joshua. The author of Num. 34:1–15 wrote his description on the basis of the tribal allotments in Joshua 13–19 and the future Land of Israel in Ezekiel 47. From the tribal allotments, he adopted the concept that Canaan is located west of the Jordan, that it is divided among the nine-and-a-half tribes, and that the other two-and-a-half tribes had settled in Transjordan, outside of Canaan. He copied all the details of the southern and western boundaries of Canaan, as well as the headlines of the four sides of the delineated land, from the description of Judah’s allotment (Josh. 15:1–12). From Ezekiel, he took the northward extension of the boundary and the delineation of the northern border. Only the description of the eastern boundary of Canaan is original and possibly is based on personal knowledge. In a widely-cited article written in 1946, Mazar (Maisler) identified the northern boundary of Canaan as described in Numbers 34 with that of the Egyptian province of Canaan in the 13th–12th centuries BCE, and many scholars accepted his suggestion (Maisler (Mazar) 1946:91–102).32 Indeed, there 32. See the literature cited in note 29 above.

380


is a close similarity between the line of the northern border of Late Bronze Canaan and the northern border of Canaan as demarcated in Num. 34:7–9 (Na’aman 1994:411–413). Mazar suggested that Canaan was a fixed territorial-administrative concept, which the Israelites encountered when they occupied the land, using this concept in all the later generations. In light of the above discussion, this assumption cannot be sustained any longer. Another solution must be sought for the territorial continuity between the 13th–12th centuries BCE boundary of historical Canaan and the boundaries of biblical Canaan written by a Priestly author, possibly in the early post-exilic period. I have already noted that the early biblical concept of the Land of Canaan appears in the tribal allotments and that the northern border is demarcated there along the line of the southern slopes of Mount Hermon — Dan — the Liṭani River. As against Mazar’s suggestion, the demarcation of Canaan in early biblical historiography indicates a break in the concept of Canaan’s northern borders between the Late Bronze and the late Iron Age. Contrary to Mazar, Elliger (1936:34–73) suggested that the northern boundary of the land delineated in Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47 reflects the extent of David’s conquests in Syria, which is the furthest northern limit ever reached by a Israelite king. According to the account of David’s wars with the Arameans (2 Sam. 8:3–8), the Israelite king defeated Hadadezer of Zobah and conquered the kingdoms of Zobah and Damascus. The future Land of Israel described in Ezekiel 47:13–21 encompassed the province of Damascus and passed near the southern border of the province of Ṣubat. Noteworthy is the mention of Berothai among the cities that David conquered from Hadadezer (2 Sam. 8:8) and its appearance on the northern boundary of Ezekiel’s visionary land (Ezek. 47:16). Regardless of the historicity of the account of David’s wars, there is a similarity between the northern limits of the territory conquered by David according to 2 Sam. 8:3–8 and the northern boundary of the land delineated in Eze. 47:15–17 and Num. 34:7–9 (as suggested by Elliger). The kingdom of Ṣubat was annexed by Hazael, king of Damascus (possibly in the mid-ninth century BCE; Na’aman 1995:384–387) and became its northern province. The Assyrians conquered and annexed the kingdom of Damascus in 733/732 BCE. They separated the province of Damascus from that of Ṣubat and organized them as two neighboring provinces. In the time of Sargon II, the eastern parts of the kingdom of Hamath were annexed to Ṣubat, and a new province, Manṣuate, was organized in Hamath’s western territory. The Assyrian system of provinces was adopted by the Babylonian and Persian empires. When Ezekiel described the future Land of Israel, he drew on the province system of his own time. He included therein the province of Damascus and left out of it the provinces of Hamath-Zobah and Hauran. The author of Numbers 34 took the territory outlined by Ezekiel and, in accordance with its


381

function in the narratives of the wanderings, conquest and settlement, called it “the Land of Canaan.” Thus, it is clear that the northern boundary of Late Bronze Canaan was transferred from one political-territorial system to another and that the boundary drawn by the author of Numbers 34 reflects the system of provinces of his own time.33 We may conclude that there is no direct relationship between the borders of Late Bronze Age Canaan and the boundary system of Numbers 34, and we should not assume that a memory of the northern border of historical Canaan was carried on for so many centuries. Mazar’s observation of the similarity of the northern border is correct, but the similarity should be explained differently than suggested in his pioneering study. Finally, a short note about the relationship of the Priestly description of the Land of Canaan in Numbers 34 to other biblical texts. The problem of the antiquity of the Priestly source was recently the focus of a hot debate, and a growing number of scholars support Kaufmann’s thesis of a pre-exilic date for the composition of the P source. These scholars suggest that the P source antedated Deuteronomy, as well as the Book of Ezekiel (Kaufmann 1937:113–142).34 My study of the relationship of Numbers 34 vis à vis the tribal allotments in Joshua 13–19, on the one hand, and vis à vis Ezekiel 47, on the other hand, demonstrates its late date. It corroborates Auld’s observations (1980:72–87) of the priority of Joshua over Numbers in the case of Num. 33:50–35,8. The discussion of the relations of the P source to other biblical texts involves many elements, and no single text analysis can resolve such a complicated problem. However, it should be emphasized that, at least in the case under discussion, the late date of P is evident, as against the relatively early date of Joshua 13–19 and Ezekiel 47.

33. Elliger (1936:45–49) was able to demonstrate that the area of Lebo-hamath continued to function as a borderline in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods. 34. For the extensive literature written on the subject, see note 5 above.

382


References Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Ahituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, Jerusalem. Alt, A. 1945. Neue assyrische Nachrichten über Palästina und Syrien. ZDPV 67: 128–159. (Reprint 1953. Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. München: 226–241). Astour, M.C. 1963. Place-Names from the Kingdom of Alalaḫ in the North Syrian List of Thutmose III: A Study in Historical Geography. JNES 22: 220–241. Astour, M.C. 1981. Ugarit and the Great Powers. In: Young, G.D. ed. Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Winona Lake: 3–29. Astour, M.C. 1991. The Location of Ḫaṣurā of the Mari Texts. Maarav 7: 51–65. Astour, M.C. 1995. La topographie du royaume d’Ougarit. In: Yon, M., Sznycer, M. et Bordreuil, P. eds. Le pays d’Ougarit autour de 1200 Av. J.-C. Histoire et archéologie. (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 11). Paris: 55–71. Auld, A.G. 1980. Joshua, Moses, and the Land. Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938. Edinburgh. Barthélemy, D. 1992. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 3. Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/3). Fribourg and Göttingen. Beck, P. 1996. Ḥorvat Qitmit Revisited via ‘En Ḥazeva, Tel Aviv 23: 102–114. Blenkinsopp, J. 1996. An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch. ZAW 108: 495–518. Blum, E. 1997. Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag. In: Vervenne, M. and Lust, J. eds. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133), Leuven: 181–212. Cohen, R. and Yisrael, Y. 1995. On the Road to Edom. Discoveries from ‘En Ḥazeva. (The Israel Museum Catalogue No. 370). Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Cohen, R. and Yisrael, Y. 1996. The Excavations at ‘Ein Ḥazeva: Israelite and Roman Tamar. Qadmoniot 29: 78–92. (Hebrew); Cooke, G.A. 1936. The Book of Ezekiel. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Deller, K. 1961. LÚLUL = LÚparriṣu und LÚsarru. Orientalia 30: 249–257. Dion, P.-E. 1997. Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: histoire politique et structures Sociales. (Études Bibliques, nouvelle série. No 34). Paris. Edel, E. 1952. Zur historischen Geographie der Gegend von Ḳadeš. ZA 50: 253–258. Edel, E. 1953. Die Stelen Amenophis’ II aus Karnak und Memphis. ZDPV 69: 97–176. Elliger, K. 1936. Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids. PJb 32: 34–73. Eph‘al, I. 1971. URUŠa-za-e-na = URUSa-za-na. IEJ 21: 155–157. Eph‘al, I. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem and Leiden. Fales, F.M. and Postgate, J.N. 1992. Imperial Administrative Records. Part I: Palace and Temple Administration. (State Archives of Assyria 7). Helsinki. Fales, F.M. and Postgate, J.N. 1995. Imperial Administrative Records. Part II: Provincial and Military Administration. (State Archives of Assyria 11). Helsinki. Fohrer, G. 1955. Ezechiel (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I 13). Tübingen. Forrer, E. 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches. Leipzig. Fuchs, A. 1994. Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen. Fuchs, A. 1998. Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr (State Archives of Assyria Studies 8). Helsinki.


383

Furrer, K. 1885. Die antike Städte und Ortschaften im Libanongebiete. ZDPV 8: 16–41. Gardiner, A.H. 1947. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Oxford. Grayson, A.K. 1975. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5). Locust Valley. Grayson, A.K. 1996. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, II (858–745 BC). (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Period 3). Toronto. Hawkins, J.D. 1972–75. Hamath. RLA 4: 67–70. Hawkins, J.D. 1987–90. Manṣuate. RLA 7: 342–343. Hawkins, J.D. 1995. The Political Geography of North Syria and South-East Anatolia in the Neo-Assyrian Period. In: Liverani, M. ed. Neo-Assyrian Geography. (Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5). Rome: 87–101. Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2nd rev. ed.). Wiesbaden. Honigmann, E. 1924. Historische Topographie von Nordsyrien im Altertum. ZDPV 47: 1–64. Hurowitz, V.A. 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House. Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 115). Sheffield. Hutchens, K.D. 1993. Defining the Boundaries: A Cultic Interpretation of Numbers 34,1–12 and Ezekiel 47,13–48.1, 28. In: Graham M.P Brown, W.P. and Kuan, J.K. eds. History and Interpretation. Essays in Honor of John H. Hayes (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 173). Sheffield: 215–230. Joannès, F. 1982. La localisation de Ṣurru à l’époque Néo-Babylonienne. Semitica 32: 35–43. Kallai, Z. 1975. The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible, Eretz Israel 12: 27–34. (Hebrew). Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and Leiden. Kaufmann, Y. 1937. The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile 1. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kitchen, K.A. 1982. Pharaoh Triumphant. The Life and Times of Ramesses II. Warminster. Klengel, H. 1969. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 2 — Mittel- und Südsyriens. Berlin. Klengel, H. 1970. Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. Teil 3 — Historische Geographie und allgemeine Darstellung. Berlin. Kuschke, A. 1954. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Biḳā‘. ZDPV 70: 104–129. Kuschke, A. 1958. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Biḳā‘. ZDPV 74: 81–120. Kuschke, A. 1979. Das Terrain der Schlacht bei Qadeš und die Anmarschwege Ramses’ II. ZDPV 95: 7–35. Kuschke, A., Mittmann, S., Müller, U. and Azouri, I. 1976. Archäologischer Survey in der nördlischen Biqa‘ (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr. 11). Wiesbaden. Landsberger, B. 1948. Sam’al. Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstaette Karatepe. Ankara. Lewy, J. 1944. The West Semitic Sun-God Ḥammu. Hebrew Union College Annual 18: 429–481. Lipiński, E. 1971. The Assyrian Campaign to Manṣuate, in 796 BC., and the Zakir Stela. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 31: 393–399. Mazar (Maisler), B. 1946. Lebo Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan. BJPES 12: 91– 102 (Hebrew). English translation: 1986. The Early Biblical Period. Jerusalem: 189–202. Malamat, A. 1963. Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon. JNES 22: 1–17.

384


Marfoe, L. 1994. Kāmid el-Lōz. 13. The Prehistoric and Early Historic Context of the Site, Catalog and Commentary. Revised, enlarged and prepared for publication by Rolf Hachmann and Christine Misamer. Bonn. Mayer, W. and Opificius-Mayer, R. 1995. Der Schlacht bei Qadeš. Der Versuch einer neuen Rekonstruktion. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 321–368. Milgrom, J. 1999. The Antiquity of the Priestly Source: A Reply to Joseph Blenkinsopp. ZAW 111: 10–22. Montgomery, J.A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (International Critical Commentary). Edinburgh. Na’aman, N. 1986. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4). Jerusalem. Na’aman, N. 1988. Biryawaza of Damascus and the Date of the Kāmid el-Lōz ‘Apiru Letters. Ugarit-Forschungen 20: 179–193. Na’aman, N. 1992. Canaanite Jerusalem and its Central Hill Country Neighbors in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Ugarit-Forschungen 24: 275–291. Na’aman, N. 1994. The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder. Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 397– 418. Na’aman, N. 1995. Hazael of ‘Amqi and Hadadezer of Beth-rehob. Ugarit-Forschungen 27: 381–394. Na’aman, N. 1999. On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings. Theologische Zeitschrift 55: 44–46. North, R. 1970–71. Phoenician-Canaan Frontier Lebo’ of Ḥama. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 46: 71–103. Noth, M. 1935. Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches. ZDPV 58: 185–255. (Reprint: (Reprint: Noth 1971: 229–280). Noth, M. 1937. Das Reich von Hamath als Grenznachbar des Reiches Israel. PJb 33: 36–51. (Reprint: Noth 1971: 148–160). Noth, M. 1971. Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde I. Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Oded, B. 1964. Two Assyrian References to the Town of Qadesh on the Orontes. IEJ 14: 272– 273. Parpola, S. 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II. Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West. (State Archives of Assyria 1). Helsinki. Rainey, A.F. 1971. A Front Line Report from Amurru. Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 131–149. Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbücher. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I 21). Tübingen. Saggs, H.W.F. 1955. The Nimrud Letters, 1952 — Part II. Iraq 17: 126–154. Saggs, H.W.F. 1963. The Nimrud Letters, 1952 — Part VI. Iraq 25: 70–80. Simons, J. 1959. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden. Smend, R. 1971. Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte. In: Wolff, H.W. ed. Probleme biblischer Theologie, Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. München: 494–509. Smend, R. 1983. Das uneroberte Land. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Göttingen: 91–102. Tadmor, H. 1958. The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study. JCS 12: 22–40, 77–100. Tadmor, H. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem. Van Seters, J. 1997. Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59: 45–57. de Vaux, R. 1968. Le Pays de Canaan. JAOS 88: 23–30.


385

de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London. Watanabe, K. 1991. Review of Simo Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I, Letters from Assyria and the West, Helsinki University Press 1987. BiOr 48: 183–202. Wazana, N. 1996. Biblical Border Descriptions in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Ph.D. dissertation), Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Weinfeld, M. 1983. The Extent of the Promised Land — The Status of Transjordan. In: Strecker, G. ed. Das Land Israel in Biblische Zeit. Göttingen: 59–75. Weippert, M. 1972. Review of S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, Kevelaer und NeukirchenVluyn 1970. Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 224: 150–161. Weippert, M. 1973a. Menahem von Israel und seine Zeitgenossen in einer Steleninschrift des assyrischen Königs Tiglathpileser III. aus dem Iran. ZDPV 89: 26–53. Weippert, M. 1973b. Die Kämpfe des assyrischen Königs Assurbanipal gegen die Araber: Redaktionskritische Untersuchung des Berichts in Prisma A. WO 7: 39–85. Weippert, M. 1992. Die Feldzüge Adadniraris III. nach Syrien: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen. ZDPV 108: 42–67. Willi, T. 1972. Die Chronik als Auslegung. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels. (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testament 106). Göttingen. Zadok, R. 1977–78. Historical and Onomastic Notes. WO 9: 35–56. Zimmerli, W. 1983. Ezekiel 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (Hermeneia). Philadelphia.

Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies of Asher and Ephraim1 Among scholars today, it is generally accepted that the Chronicler used different kinds of sources for composing the genealogies in the first part of his work. These chapters (1 Chr. 2–9) have been examined in the past mainly as sources for the study of the geographical history of the Israelite tribes and the relationships between families and clans situated in the tribal territories. Recently, however, attention has been focused on the internal structure of the genealogies, particularly on the history of the text (Williamson 1979:351– 359; 1982). Isolation of the sources and understanding of the contribution of the Chronicler are essential for a better evaluation of the material and its application to the history of Israel. The purpose of this article is to examine the genealogies of Asher (7:30–40) and Ephraim (7:20–29) to isolate the sources underlying the Chronicler’s work. The analysis of the source material is involved with the problem of textual reconstruction. As is well known, the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2–9 have suffered a certain amount of damage in the course of transmission, with part of the corruption entering the text during the pre-Chronicles stage. In this case, the Chronicler was unable to do better than faithfully copy his sources as he received them. Reconstructing the pre-Chronicles text is essential to understand its original meaning. Particular attention will be drawn to the manner in which the Chronicler treated his sources when integrating them within his composition. Elucidating the way in which he composed the text of his genealogies may shed further light on his work and historiographical aims.

1. The Asherite Genealogy (1 Chr. 7:30–40) Scholarly attention has been focused on the genealogy of Asher in 1 Chr. 7:30–40 since it became clear that it is associated with the southern parts of Mt. Ephraim, whereas in all other sources the tribe of Asher is connected to the western Galilee area.2 The text is damaged in numerous places, and 1. Reprinted with permission. JS0T 49 (1991), 99–111. 2. In addition to the commentaries, see recently Edelman 1988b:13–23, with earlier literature in p. 21 n. 1. See also: Kallai 1960:42–45; Liver 1971b:205–206; Razin 1976:82–88.

386

Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies

387

there are variant spellings of the same names. Recently, Edelman (1988b:16– 19) suggested that three independent strands can be isolated within the genealogy: a segmented genealogy in vv. 30–35; a linear genealogy in vv. 36–37; and two short genealogies of Jether and Ulla in vv. 38–39. The three genealogies, respectively, were assigned to the late tenth century, the close of the seventh century, and the post-exilic periods. A critique of the proposal will be apparent from the discussion in the following sections. The analysis of a given source is involved in the first place with textual criticism. Therefore, I wish to open the discussion by suggesting a new reconstruction for the text in vv. 35–39, to be followed by a short commentary wherever necessary. (35) The son(s) of Helem/Hothama his brother: Zophah, Imnah, Shalisha (šlš)b and Shaalim (‘lm).c (36) The sons of Zophah: Suah, Harnepher and Shual.d The sons of Imnah (bny ymn/rh):e (37) Bezer, Hod and Shamma. Shalisha:b Jether/ Ithran,f and Beera. (38) The sons of Jether/Ithran:f Jephunneh, Pispa and Ara. (39) The sons of Shaalim >l<m>):g Arah, Hanniel and Rizia.

Notes a. There is no way to decide whether Hotham (v. 32) and Helem (v. 35) is the original. His “brothers” are Japhlet and Shemer/Shomer, both names representing toponyms in the area of Mount Ephraim (Josh. 16:3; Judg.10:1– 2 [Shamir]), so one may assume that the name stands for a third toponym, though its identity cannot be established. b. The original name was šlš(h) (Shalisha). Zadok (1988:45–46) has pointed out the variant forms of names in the genealogy of Asher. These variant spellings should, in my opinion, be attributed to the Chronicler, who copied šlš(h) as Shelesh in one place (v. 35) and as Shilsha in another (v. 37). c. The first letter of the name was omitted due to haplography šlš š‘lm), the m and I were subsequently transposed. d. Shual may be either a toponym (1 Sam. 13:17) or a personal name (Cohen 1976:570–571, with earlier literature; Lawton 1984:346). All other names within the groups of three are personal names; thus, we can interpret Shual in the same manner. e. For the restoration of the text, see Rudolph 1955:74. f. For the interchange of Jether/Ithran, see note b above. g. For the various attempts to reconstruct the name, see Rudolph 1955:74. The initial š may have already been lost in the Chronicler’s source, due to assimilation to the corrupted form of the same name in v. 35. The final m was replaced by an aleph, due to dittography with the following name (’rḥ).

388


Comments The names of the four sons of Helem/Hotham as they appear in the genealogy are the names of the four lands crossed by Saul while searching for the asses which his father lost, according to 1 Sam. 9:4–5: Zuph(ah), Iemini, Shalisha and Shaalim. Each of the four “sons” is assigned three descendants, and, on the basis of this assumed symmetric structure, I have reconstructed a missing name in v. 37. Shalisha’s son Jether/Ithran also had three sons, and, as will be suggested below, the pattern of four and three is a basic feature of the genealogy of Heber. Clarifying the original text and the structure of vv. 35–39 may open the way for a new evaluation of the genealogy attributed to Asher (vv. 30–40). Out of it emerges the genealogy of Heber (vv. 32–39) as a well-defined and coherent unit. It is composed of two genealogical generations of four descendants (vv. 32 and 35b), with all male descendants in these generations possibly representing toponyms. Two other generations in this segmented genealogy are built of three descendants that represent personal names. This compact unit is preceded by a fragmentary and isolated note (v. 31b “he is the father of Birzaith”), which originally had nothing to do with vv. 30–31a. This short note is the remnant of an earlier text, the scope and nature of which are not clear (but see below). It seems to me that vv. 31b–39 are the source received by the Chronicler and that the remaining text (vv. 30–31a, 40) was his contribution. By identifying Heber, the son of Beriah and grandson of Asher (Gen. 46:17), with Heber, the founder of the genealogy in vv. 32–39, he artificially assigned his genealogy to the Galilean tribe, of which he had no other sources apart from those of the Pentateuch.3 Asher was not the only tribe of which the Chronicler had no independent sources. A quick look at the other Galilean tribes would immediately show that northern Dan and Zebulun are entirely missing from the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2–9 and that the genealogy of Naphtali (1 Chr. 7:13) is a paraphrase of the genealogies in Gen. 46:24 and Num. 26:48–50.4

3. The artificial attachment of the two genealogies may be compared with the genealogy of Saul (1 Chr. 8:33–40; 9:39–44), which was artificially combined with the genealogy of Gibeon (8:29–32; 9:35–38), due to the mention of Ner and Kish in the two lists. See Rudolph 1955:80–81; Myers 1965:61–62. For a different opinion, see Williamson 1982:85, with earlier literature. 4. Williamson’s assumption (1982:47–48, 78) that there was “an extensive scribal loss” within the genealogies of the Galilean tribes, in my opinion, is not well founded. The brevity of the genealogy of Naphtali exactly reflects the extent of the Chronicler’s knowledge of the Galilean tribe. Whether the genealogies of Zebulun and Dan fell victim to a textual loss is questionable; their absence hardly supports a theory of a considerable scribal loss.


389

It is clear that the Chronicler copied the genealogy of Asher in 7:30–31a from Gen. 46:17 (compare Num. 26:44–45). Thus, the genealogy in vv. 31b–39 has nothing to do with the Galilean tribe of Asher, as was correctly observed, though on entirely different grounds, by Edelman (1988b:15–19). It should also be dissociated from the ’/gšwry mentioned in 2 Sam. 2:9 (pace Edelman 1985:85–91; see Na’aman 1990). The affiliation of the genealogy with Asher is due to the Chronicler’s speculation and must be entirely disregarded in the discussion of either the tribe or other toponyms and groups whose name have the element ’šr. The Chronicler is also responsible for the summary note in v. 40. It was formulated according to the pattern of the summaries in Numbers 26 and was invented by the Chronicler for a historiographic purpose, having nothing to do with a genuine military census, as scholars have sometimes suggested.5 What might have been the reality behind the genealogy of Heber (vv. 32–39)? The key to the genealogy is the four lands also mentioned in 1 Sam. 9:4–5. The identity of names in the two sources is hardly accidental; the toponyms, necessarily, were borrowed from the old story of Saul’s search for the lost asses.6 As was suggested above, the names of Heber’s male descendants (v. 32) possibly were borrowed from certain texts that mentioned places in the area of Mt. Ephraim. Noteworthy also is the internal, harmonious organization of the genealogy in groups of four or three, in which the toponyms are restricted to the generations of four descendants. All these traits may indicate that the text was built from various kinds of material that were available to its author and that it should be considered a literary construction. The genealogy of Heber originally was composed to describe the origins of the inhabitants of the hill country of Ephraim, or part of it, lumping together toponyms and personal names. None of the persons mentioned in the genealogy of Heber can be safely identified in other sources. Edelman (1988b:16) identified Arah (v. 39) as the bearer of the same name in the list of returnees under Zerubbabel (Ezra 5. For a different opinion, see Rudolph 1955; Liver 1971a:234–248; Williamson 1982; Edelman, 1988b:16. 6. For the geographical description of the search for the lost asses by Saul, see recently Edelman 1988a:44–58, with earlier literature. Edelman’s geographical reconstruction of Saul’s journey is supported mainly by the Asherite genealogy of 1 Chr. 7:30–40. However, if the list of the four descendants of Helem/Hotham (v. 35) was borrowed from the story of 1 Sam. 9:4–5, then the former source can hardly be considered as an independent source for the study of the latter. One may further ask whether the ’rṣ ymyny in 1 Sam. 9:4 must be dissociated from the bn ymyn and ’yš ymyny of v. 1 and whether it should be located in Mt. Ephraim, far north from the inheritance of Benjamin. For a different reconstruction of Saul’s journey, see Na’aman 1986:283 n. 43.

390


2:5; Neh. 7:10) But the identity of these two names may well be accidental. Edelman (1988b:19) also suggested that Harnepher represents an Egyptian garrison established by Necho II in the hill country of Ephraim. However, Egyptian names are not uncommon in the genealogical lists of 1 Chronicles 2–9 and in the Samaria Ostraca.7 We may also note that the mayor of the city of Gezer in 651 BCE was called by an Egyptian name (Ḫaruaṣi, “eye of Horus”) (Becking 1981:81–85, with earlier literature). The presence of Egyptian names in the genealogies is not restricted to any particular time. A prominent feature in the list is the absence of Yahwistic names. This may indicate either an early date or the presence of many non-Israelite elements (i.e., exiles) within the area covered by it. A decision between these two alternatives is hardly possible. It would be better to avoid assigning an exact date to the genealogy, regarding it instead generally as a preChronicles source, possibly of the pre-exilic period, as may be inferred from the correspondence to the onomastic practice of this period and its lack of accord with the onomastic material of the post-exilic community (Weinberg 1981:91–104).

2. The Ephraimite Genealogy (1 Chr. 7:20–29) In his recent commentary on the book of Chronicles, Williamson has followed Rudolph’s textual reconstruction, suggesting that the genealogy of Ephraim (7:20–29) is a combination of three originally separated sources: (a) vv. 20–21a, 25–27; (b) vv. 21b–24; (c) vv. 28–29. All three sections are preChronicle and have been combined by the Chronicler and integrated within his work.8 A critique of the proposal will be apparent from the discussion in the following sections. The first problem to be discussed is the beginning of the original story of the birth of Beriah. Rudolph (1955:71) suggested that it opened with v. 21aβ and translated the introduction: “sowohl Schutelach war sein (d.h. Efraims) Sohn als such Eser and Elead.” However, in the official genealogy of Ephraim (Num. 26:35–36) Elead (*l‘dn; see below) is Shuthelah’s son, not his brother. In light of v. 24 (“His [Ephraim’s] daughter was Sheerah who built . . .”), we may restore the original introduction to the story of the birth of Beriah in v. 21aγb thus: “His (Ephraim’s) sons (<wbny>w; omitted due to haplography) were Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath slew . . .” 7. For the Egyptian names in 1 Chr. 2–9, see Zadok 1985:392–395. For the Samaria Ostraca, see Lemaire 1977:49–50, 54–55, 76. 8. Williamson 1982:80–82; see Rudolph 1955:71–75. Hoffmann (1980:128) suggested that the genealogy of Ephraim is built of two originally independent genealogies (vv. 20–21 and 23–27), parallel to the two independent Benjaminite genealogies of 7:6–12 and 8:1–40.


391

The end of this source is also a subject of debate. Rudolph (1955:71–72)9 suggested that it ends with v. 24 and that v. 25 was originally the continuation of the genealogy in vv. 20–21aα. According to this hypothesis, the story in vv. 21aβ–24 was interpolated into the genealogy, cutting it into two parts. It was also taken for granted that the genealogy ends with Joshua (v. 27). There are three serious objections to this reconstruction. First, one would hardly expect such a clumsy insertion to have occurred at any stage of the transmission of the text. Second, such a long genealogy for Joshua is contrary to all biblical descriptions, according to which only a few generations separate the tribal eponyms from the conquest era. Third, the repetition of names in vv. 20 and 25–26 remained unexplained in this reconstruction. One would better assume that the trio Shuthelah10-Tahan-Laadan in vv. 25–26 opens the genealogy of Joshua and that the originally independent source in vv. 21aγ–25aα was cut off after the words “and Rephah his (Ephraim’s) son.” We may even go one step further and ask whether it is possible to connect this reconstructed source with the half sentence that precedes the genealogy of Heber (v. 31b), reading the combined text “and Rephah his son was the father of Birzaith.” According to this theory, the original source encompassed vv. 21aγ–25aα and 31b–39 and covered the settled area of the sons of Ephraim, both in the northern Shephelah and the hill country. This, of course, is no more than a hypothesis and cannot be verified. The genealogy that opens the description of Ephraim’s descendants includes vv. 20–21aαβ. A close look at the first list of seven names suggests that it is written in the pattern A-B-C-D-C-B-A; brd and zbd are apparently corrupted forms of one and the same name. Scholars have observed that the text suffered certain damage during the process of transmission.11 When the list of names is compared with the genealogy of Num. 26:35–36, the original text may be reconstructed thus: šwtlḥ-bkr(?)-tḥt/n-’l‘dh-tḥt/n-bkr(?)-šwtlḥ. It contradicts the usual habit of the Chronicler: opening his genealogies with a close representation of the material in Numbers 26. Thus, Williamson (1982:80) suggested that it reflects a pre-Chronicles source. It is not impossible that the genealogy represents an old corrupted text received by the Chronicler, but we would do better to assume that it was composed by the Chronicler himself as

9. He was followed by Williamson 1982:80; Michaeli 1967:62. 10. For the original text of v. 25 (wrpḥ bnw wšwtlḥ bnw), see Rudolph 1955:72. As was noted by Rudolph, the š of ršp was originally part of the next name (šwtlḥ), and the rp is a repetition of the preceding name (rpḥ). 11. In addition to the commentaries, see the following textual discussions: Hogg 1901: 147–154; Richter 1914:135–137; 1932:136–137; Loewenstamm 1950:368; 1954:337; Razin 1976:85–87, 118–19, 139–40; Mulder 1975:144–148; Hoffmann 1980:128.

392


an introduction to the story of Beriah. The name of Shuthelah, Ephraim’s eldest son and father of *(l)‘dn, was introduced intentionally before the names of Ezer and Elead, which opened the old source. The present form of the text is the direct result of the Chronicler’s adaptation of his source to his description of the origin of Israel. The appearance of the names ’l‘dh (v. 20), ’I‘d (v. 21) and l‘dn (v. 26) in the genealogy requires clarification (see Loewenstamm 1950; Milik 1961:97–99). Ephraim’s grandson, according to Num. 26:36 is called ‘rn, but on the basis of the versions (see BHS) and the genealogy in 1 Chr. 7:20–29, the name is often emended to ‘dn (Gray 1903:97–99). In light of Chronicles, however, the original name may well be reconstructed as l‘dn (*laadon?). It is easy to understand how the initial l was dropped in Num. 26:36, due to haplography (ll‘dn→l‘dn), and was subsequently omitted in the family name (h‘dny. Such reconstruction may help us to understand all forms of the name in 1 Chr. 7:20–29, i.e., the omission of the ending -ôn and the addition of an aleph, thus, turning the l into a theophoric element (’l). In summary, it seems to me that the Chronicler inherited an older source of the history of the Ephraimite clans and families. It included the story of the birth of Beriah and the building activity of his daughter Sheerah and of his son Rephah. It is possible that the genealogy of Heber (vv. 32–29) was originally an integral part of the same old document, though this cannot be established with certainty. In such case, Rephah was regarded as the founder of Birzaith, a village in the hill country of Ephraim (Abel 1937:223–224). Around the core of this pre-Chronicles source, the Chronicler composed three additional sections, all of them based on earlier sources that may be detected easily in the Old Testament: 1. The genealogy of Ephraim that ostensibly covers seven generations was apparently built on the pattern of A-B-C-D-C-B-A. All names were borrowed from Num. 26:35–36 and were an attempt to introduce Shuthelah, Ephraim’s eldest son, before the names of Ephraim’s descendants in the Beriah story. 2. The genealogy of Joshua covering seven generations (vv. 25b–27), which was composed of (a) three names borrowed from the genealogy of Ephraim (Shuthelah, Tahan and La‘adan; Num. 26:35–36); (b) Elishama son of Ammihud, a leader of the tribe of Ephraim according to the stories of the wanderings in the desert (Num. 1:10; 2:18; 7:48, 53; 10:22); and (c) Joshua and his father (Nun). The artificial nature of the genealogy is self-evident. 3. A description of the scope of the Josephites, which includes the inheritance of Ephraim (v. 28) and the allotment of Manasseh (v. 29a) (Rudolph 1955:73–75; Barthélemy 1982:444–445; Kallai 1986:156–157).


393

Conclusion The isolation of the old sources within the book of Chronicles is of the utmost importance both for historical reconstruction and for the understanding of the Chronicler’s work. These pre-Chronicles sources in 1 Chronicles 2–9 included variegated material that, after a careful analysis, may well contribute to the reconstruction of the process of settlement in the land of Israel.12 The Chronicler’s additions and elaborations, on the other hand, are usually devoid of authentic foundations and should be studied with the utmost caution.13 Understanding the way in which the Chronicler reworked his sources and the manner in which he integrated them within his work is the point of departure for all discussions. Misunderstanding of the literary process may well bedevil our understanding of the older sources. A good example is the genealogy of Heber in 1 Chr. 7:32–39, which was artificially combined by the Chronicler with the genealogy of Asher, a remote Galilean tribe that has nothing to do with the genealogy of Heber. In no case should the Chronicler be regarded simply as an editor; even in those cases in which he faithfully copied his sources, his hand may still be detected by the way in which he organized the old material within his carefully planned composition. 12. See for example: Noth 1932:97–124; 1934:31–47; Abel 1937:217–224; Kallai 1960:35– 45; Liver 1971b:204–208; Aharoni 1967:221–227; de Vaux 1978:523–550, 788–789; 796–797; Razin 1976; Demsky 1986–87:46–59, with earlier literature on pp. 58–59. 13. An exemplary extensive discussion of this kind was written by Welten 1973; see also Na’aman 1987:261–278.

394


References Abel, F.M. 1937. Une mention biblique de Birzeit. RB 46: 217–224. Aharoni, Y. 1967. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1). Fribourg and Göttingen. Becking, B. 1981. The Two Neo-Assyrian Documents from Gezer in their Historical Context. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 27: 76–89. Cohen, G. 1976. Shual. Enc. Miqr. VII: 570–571. (Hebrew). Demsky, A. 1986–87. The Clans of Ephrath: Their Territory and History. Tel Aviv 13–14: 46–59. Edelman, D. 1985. The “Ashurites” of Eshbaal State (2 Sam. 2.9). PEQ 117: 85–91. Edelman, D. 1988a. Saul’s Journey through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4– 5; 10:2–5). ZDPV 104: 44–58. Edelman, D. 1988b. The Asherite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7.30–40. Biblical Research 33: 13–23. Gray, G.B. 1903. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. (International Critical Commentary). New York. Hoffmann, R.E. 1980. Eine Parallele zur Rahmenerzählung des Buches Hiob in 1 Chr 7.20– 29. ZAW 92: 120–132. Hogg, H.W. 1901. The Ephraim Genealogy. Jewish Quarterly Review 13: 147–154. Kallai, Z. 1960. The Northern Boundaries of Judah from the Settlement of the Tribes until the Beginning of the Hasmonean Period. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Kallai, Z. 1986. Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem and Leiden. Lawton, R. 1984. Israelite Personal Names on Pre-Exilic Hebrew Inscriptions. Biblica 65: 330–346. Lemaire, A. 1977. Inscriptions hébraïques. I. Les ostraca. Paris. Liver, J. 1971a. “So All Israel was Enrolled by Genealogies and These are Written in the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah.” In: Studies in the Bible and Judean Desert Scrolls. Jerusalem: 234–248. (Hebrew). Liver, J. 1971b. The Israelite Tribes. In: Mazar, B. ed. The World History of the Jewish People. III. Judges. Givatayim: 183–211. Loewenstamm, S.E. 1950. Elead and Eleadah. Enc. Miqr. I: 368. (Hebrew). Loewenstamm, S.E. 1954. Bered. Enc. Miqr. II: 337. (Hebrew). McCarter, P.K. 1984. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (The Anchor Bible 9). Garden City. Michaeli, F. 1967. Les livres des Chroniques, d’Esdras et de Néhémie. (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament). Neuchâtel and Paris. Milik, J.T. 1961. Textes Hébreux et Araméens. In: Benoit, P., Milik, J.T. and de Vaux, R. eds. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. II: Les grottes de Murabba‘ât. Oxford: 67–205. Mulder, M.J. 1975. 1 Chronik 7,21b–23 und die rabbinische Tradition. Journal for the Society of Judaism 6: 141–166. Myers, J.M. 1965. 1 Chronicles. (The Anchor Bible). New York. Na’aman, N. 1986. Ḫabiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere. JNES 45: 271–286.


395

Na’aman, N. 1987. Pastoral Nomads in the Southwestern Periphery of the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th–8th Centuries BCE. Zion 52: 261–278. (Hebrew). Na’aman, N. 1990. The Kingdom of Ishbaal. Biblische Notizen 54: 33–37. Noth, M. 1932. Eine siedlungsgeographische Liste in 1 Chr. 2 and 4. ZDPV 55: 97–124. Noth, M. 1934. Die Ansiedlung des Stammes Juda auf dem Boden Palästinas. PJb 30: 31–47. Razin, M. 1976. Census Lists and Genealogies and their Historical Implications for the Times of Saul and David. Haifa. (Hebrew). Richter, G. 1914. Untersuchungen zu den Geschlechtsregistern der Chronik. ZAW 34: 107– 141. Richter, G. 1932. Zu den Geschlechtsregistern I Chronik 2–9. ZAW 50: 130–141. Rudolph, W. 1955. Chronikbücher. (Handbuch zum Alten Testament I/21). Tübingen. de Vaux, R. 1978. The Early History of Israel. London. Weinberg, J.P. 1981. Das Wesen und die funktionelle Bestimmung der Listen in I Chron. 1–9. ZAW 93: 91–114. Welten, P. 1973. Geschichte and Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 42). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Williamson, H.G.M. 1979. Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah. JBL 98: 351–359. Williamson, H.G.M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. (The New Century Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids and London. Zadok, R. 1985. Die nichthebräischen Namen der Israeliten vor dem hellenistischen Zeitalter. UF 17: 387–398. Zadok, R. 1988. Notes on the Prosopography of the Old Testament. Biblische Notizen 42: 44–48.

Index of Ancient Personal Names ‘Abdi-Ḫeba, king of Jerusalem, 6n, 7 Abiam, 151 Abimilku, 7 Abinadab, 109 Abishai ben Zeruiah, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 121122 Abner, 67, 68 Abraham, 351, 353 Absalom, son of David, 21, 44, 71, 72 Achish, king of Gath, 40, 63, 68, 72 Adad-idri, see Hadadezer Adad-nirari III, king of Assyria, 203-204, 240n Adbeel, 40 Adda-hati, 365, 366, 369 Ahab, king of Israel, 139, 141-142, 143, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152-161, 168, 179, 183, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 228, 241, 250, 251, 262 Ahaz, king of Judah, 93, 149, 179, 204, 213, 220-225, 233, 239, 244, 245, 246-247, 250, 251, 259, 262-268, 269, 270, 287, 299 Ahaziah, king of Israel, 152, 153, 161, 241, 250, 251 Ahaziah(u), king of Judah, 143, 151, 160, 179, 180, 181, 182-183, 203, 205, 218 Ahijah, 83, 96, 126, 155 Ahilud, 110, 111 Aḫundara, 316 ’I’d, ’l‘dh, 392 A-i-ni-ilu, 365 Akhenaten, 241, 242 Alexander IV, 243 Amalekites, 38, 40, 41, 68, 123 Amasa, 67 Amasai, 63 Amaziah, king of Judah, 31, 53, 54, 148, 149, 150, 151, 204, 228, 229, 233, 250, 251, 269 Ambaris, 169, 369 Amenophis II, 362, 370, 371 Amenophis III, 363 Ammihud, 44, 392 Ammiḥur, 44 Ammi-li’ti, 365, 366, 367 Amminadbi, 169 Amnon, 44

Amon, 151, 283, 287 Amorites, 168, 195 Amos, 28, 29, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 Ara, 387 Arabs, 40, 327n, 364, 367 Arah, 387, 389 ‘rn, 392 Arzawiya, 362n Asa, king of Judah, 131, 148, 149, 150, 151, 204, 250, 252, 259, 265, 266, 269, 271, 276, 304 Asahel, 67 Asher, Asherites, 19-20, 386-390 Ashera (goddess), 276, 277, 281, 303-305 Ashurbanipal, 366n, 369 Ashurnaṣirpal II, 33, 175 ’šwry, 18, 19, 20 Athaliah, 65n, 151, 216, 219, 220, 252, 267 Avites, 361 ’wnm, 129 Ay, 241, 242 Azariah/Uzziah, king of Judah, 150, 151, 213, 228-234, 239, 245, 249, 250, 251 Ba‘al, 45, 150, 152, 153-154, 159, 219, 242, 277 Baana, son of Ahilud, 110, 111 Baana, son of Hushai, 112 Ba’asa, king of Beth-rehob, 26, 42, 43 Baasha, king of Israel, 131, 148, 149 Ba’il, 44, 45, 175 Bar-Hadad, 212n Bar-Hadad II, 47, 50, 174, 203, see also BenHadad, king of Aram Bar-rakib, king of Sam’al, 211, 218, 221 Bar-Rkb, see Bar-rakib Bar-ṣur, 218 Basmath, daughter of Solomon, 116 Beera, 387 Bela‘(am) ben Be‘or, 124n Bēl-liqbi, 365, 366, 367, 369 Benaiah, 63, 65, 66 Ben-Hadad I, king of Aram, 204, 265, 304 Ben-Hadad II, king of Aram, 149, 182, 200, 201, 206, see also Bar-Hadad II Beriah, 20, 388, 390, 392 Berossus, 32

396

Index Bezer, 387 Bichri, 65n bkr, 391 BMH, 179 bn ḥnn, 129 brd, 391 Bur-Anate, 366-367 Carites, 66n Chaldean, Chaldeans, 236, 269 Chemosh (god), 189-190, 191, 195, 328 Cherethites, 65n, 66, 71, 72 Cyrus, 256 Dagon (god), 328 Dan, Danites, 72, 388n Daudoh, 167, 192, 193-194, see also Dwdh David, king of Israel, 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 23-35, 38-56, 62-68, 71-73, 75-76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 102, 121-123, 125, 126, 130, 134, 149, 168, 169, 170, 176, 199, 206, 207, 212, 213, 230, 252, 267, 293, 304, 331, 341, 359, 360n, 380 Dayyan-Ashur, 29, 50 Deker, 108 Dōd, 166-167, 168, 187, see also dwd dwd, 167, 168, see also Dōd Dwdh, 167, see also Daudoh Ehud, 206n Elead, 390 Eleazar, 65, 231 Elijah, 141, 147, 152, 153, 154, 158, 241, 242 Elisha, 141, 143, 147, 148, 152, 153, 154, 182, 200, 204, 241-242 Elishama, 392 Enḫamu, 6n Eni-ilu, 365 Enlil-bani, 156 Ephah, 40 Erra-imitti, 156 Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, 157 Ezekiel, 373, 374, 378, 380 Ezer, 390 Ezra, 354 Gaal, 72 Gabbar, 179 Gad, Gadites, 191 Geber, son of Uri, 105, 106 Geshurites, 19-21, see gšwry Geshurites, Negevite pastoral group, 123 Giammu, 181-182 Girzites, 123 gšwry, see Geshurites

397

Hadad (god), 26, 177, 179 Hadad the Edomite, 76, 82, 83, 84, 85n, 124126, 134, 143 Hadadezer, king of Zobah, 26, 27, 30, 42, 43, 4648, 53, 83, 121, 124, 180, 200, 201, 206, 375, 380 Hadad-yiṯ‘i, 212n, see also Hdys‘y Hammurabi of Babylonia, 76n Ḥanan, 109 Hanniel, 387 Hanunu of Gaza, 320, 322 Ḫara-ammu, 371 Harnepher, 387 Ḫaruaṣi, 390 Ḫattushili III, 363 Ḥayya, 179 Hazael of Aram-Damascus, 26, 27, 29, 43, 44, 46-48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 143, 144, 149, 160, 173, 177-182, 183, 188, 200-201, 202203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 212n, 216, 304, 380 Hdys‘y, 174, see also Hadad-yiṯ‘i Heber, 20, 388, 389, 391, 392, 393 Helem/Hotham, 387, 388 Hesed, 107 Hezekiah, king of Judah, 148, 150, 152, 222, 245, 246-247, 250, 251, 265n, 268, 269, 271, 274-287, 300, 325, 326, 327 Hiram, king of Tyre, 38, 85-89, 95 Hivites, 361 Hod, 387 Horemheb, 243 Hosea, the Prophet, 141, 142, 183, 330 Hoshea, son of Elah, 236-238, 243-244, 245, 246, 250, 269 Hotham, see Helem Hushai, 112 Hyksos, 74, 75 Idrimi, king of Alalakh, 216, 218 Iemini, 388 Ikaushu (’kyš), king of Ekron, 40n Ilushuma of Assyria, 76n Imnah, 387 Irḫuleni of Hamath, 46 Isaiah, 30, 274, 278, 300 Ishbaal, Ish-bosheth, son of Saul, 18-21, 34, 54, 63, 65, 67, 83 Ishmaiah, 63 Ishme-Dagan I, 241 Ithran, see Jether Ittai the Gittite, 71-73 Jacob, 353, 355 Japhlet, 387 Jehoahaz, king of Israel, 145, 149, 179, 204, 250, 252, 268

398


Jehoash/Joash, king of Israel, 52, 143, 145, 148, 149, 168, 201, 203, 204, 229, 230, 233, 240n, 242, 250, 252 Jehoash/Joash, king of Judah, 150, 152, 204, 211, 214-221, 225, 250, 252, 265n, 267, 269, 304 Jehoiada, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223n, 252 Jehoiakim, king of Judah, 268-270 Jehoram, king of Judah, 123, 151, 159, 161, 202, 205, 250, 251, 262 Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, 116, 123, 148, 149, 151-152, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 201, 249, 250, 251, 252, 304 Jehu, king of Israel, Jehuites, 52, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 149, 153, 154, 158, 160, 168, 180, 181, 182, 183, 200-201, 202-203, 205, 207, 218, 219, 240, 241, 242, 243, 252 Jephtah, 72 Jephunneh, 387 Jerahmeel, 130 Jeremiah, 278 Jeroboam I, king of Israel, 52, 75, 82, 83, 85, 96, 124, 126, 148, 149, 150, 155, 240n, 260, 267, 282, 352, 355 Jeroboam II, king of Israel, 148, 149, 150n, 228-234, 242, 243, 245, 249, 251n, 252, 359, 360, 373 Jether/Ithran, 387, 388 Jezebel, 152, 157, 158, 219 Joab, 52, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 122, 123 Joash, king of Israel, see Jehoash Joash, king of Judah, see Jehoash Joram, king of Israel, 46, 140, 141, 143, 151154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 179, 180, 181, 182183, 200-203, 205, 206, 242, 250, 251. Josephites, 392 Josephus, 48n Joshua, 340, 345, 346, 352, 353, 354, 391, 392 Josiah, king of Judah, 93, 94, 151, 214, 215216, 218, 219, 220, 224, 267, 268, 269, 274, 278, 279, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 303-305, 326, 352, 355 Jotham, king of Judah, 150, 151, 239, 245-246, 250, 251, 294 Kenites, 123 Kenizzites, 123 Kilamuwa, king of Sam’al, 170, 174, 178-179, 212n Kilar, 295 Kish, 388n Laadan, 391, 392 Lab’ayu, king of Shechem, 5n, 7 l‘dn, 392

Maacah, daughter of Talmai, 21, 38, 44 Maacathites, 44n Manasseh, king of Judah, 19, 151, 152, 224, 251, 252 Manetho, 32, 242, 248 Massa, 40 Mattan, 219 Melqart (god), 212n, 328 Menahem, king of Israel, 149, 168, 201, 239n, 240, 243, 244, 245, 260-262, 268, 269, 270 Mesha, king of Moab, 30, 31, 51-52, 54, 140, 157, 167, 168, 174, 178, 179, 187-195, 201202, 205, 206, 207, 211, 212n Me’unites, 40 Micah, 274, 277-278, 292, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300 Micaiah, 155, 156 Midianites, 123 Milkom (god), 30, 31, 55 Mitinti, king of Ashkelon, 244n Moses, 275, 340, 341, 342, 347, 353 Nabateans, 311n Nabonidus, 284n Naboth of Jezreel, 141-142, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159 Nabû-bēlu-uṣur, 364 Nabû-uṣalla, 366 Napish, 40 Nebaioth, 40 Nebuchadnezzar II, 269, 372 Necho II, king of Egypt, 268-269, 270, 390 Nehemiah, 4, 354 Ner, 388n Nimshi, 201 Og, the king of Bashan, 112 Omri, Omrides, 75, 110n, 139, 140, 141, 142, 149, 150, 151, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 171, 178, 180, 183, 188, 189, 193, 194, 200, 201, 202, 205, 207, 241, 242, 249, 250, 252 Panamuwa, king of Sam’al, 218, 244n Pekah, son of Remaliah, 149, 231, 233, 236, 237, 238, 239-245, 249, 250, 262, 269 Pekahiah, 240, 245 Pelethites, 65n, 66, 71, 72 Phoenicians, 311n Pinehas, son of Eleazar, 231 Pispa, 387 plt, 129 Ptah, 362 Puduilu, king of Ammon, 169 Pul, king of Assyria, 261, see also Tiglath-pileser III

Index Punics, 311n Qaus (god), 327n, 328 Qedarites, 40, 41 Queen of Sheba, 91-92 Rab-shakeh, 274, 277, 278, 332 (originally title) Rachel, 128n Ramesses I, 74 Ramesses II, 241, 243, 248n, 362, 363 Re‘ (god), 362 Rehoboam, king of Judah, 9, 24, 80, 81, 85, 130, 131, 133, 148, 199, 204, 269, 204 Rephah, 391, 392 Rezin, king of Aram, 238, 262 Rezon the Aramean, 82, 83, 124, 125, 126 Rizia, 387 rpḥ, 391n Rukibti, 244n Šamaš-aḫu-iddina, 364 Sargon II, 28, 40, 49, 132n, 204, 275, 299, 314320, 322, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 380 Saul, king of Israel, 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34, 38, 41, 54, 63, 67, 68, 83, 130, 331, 388 Semakhyahu, 307, 309 Sennacherib, 115, 133, 222, 246, 282, 283, 285, 286, 297, 298, 300, 318, 321, 323, 324, 369 Seti I, 241, 248n, 363 Sha’il, 179 Shaalim, 387, 387 Shalisha, 387, 388 Shallum, 150, 240, 245, 261 Shalmaneser III, 26, 42, 43, 46, 48, 50, 53, 175, 180, 181, 200-201, 203, 205, 367 Shalmaneser V, 238 Shamma, 387 Shammah, 65 Shamshi-Addu I, 34, 241n Sheba, son of Bichri, 40, 41, 65n, 72 Sheerah, 390 Shelesh, 387 Shema‘yahu, 307, 309 Shemer, 159 Shemer/Shomer, 387 Shishak, king of Egypt, 9-10, 23-24, 41, 76, 77, 80-81, 85, 95, 107, 123, 126-133, 134, 135, 144, 171, 174, 199-200, 204, 282, 304 Shobach, 47 Shual, 387 Shuthelah, 390, 391, 392 Siamun, king of Egypt, 76

399

Ṣidqa, 321 Sihon, king of Heshbon, 20, 193, 194, 195 Sin-iddina, 366 šlš(h), 387 Smenkhkare, 241, 242 Solomon, king of Israel, 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24, 31, 32, 34, 38, 41, 42, 54, 64, 76, 77, 79-97, 102-116, 124, 125, 126, 130, 133, 140, 148, 149, 199, 211, 212, 214, 219n, 223, 252, 256, 257, 267, 279, 304, 344, 359, 360, 372 Strabo, 370 Suah, 387 Suteh, 362 šwḥn, 129 šwtlh, 391 Tagu of Ginti-kirmil, 7 Tahan, 391, 392 Talmai, king of Geshur, 21, 38, 44 Taphath, daughter of Solomon, 116 Tartan, 299, 300 (originally title) Thutmose I, 132n, 242 Thutmose II, 242 Thutmose III, 107, 132n, 242, 362n, 363 Tiglath-pileser III, 28, 29, 40, 49, 50, 51, 114, 115, 132n, 168, 179, 204, 221-222, 236, 237, 238, 244, 259, 261, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270, 318, 320-323, 363, 364, 365, 366, 370, see also Pul Tiwate/Teuwatti, 362n TML, 179 Tutankhamun, 241, 242 twlwn, 129 Ulla, 387 Uperi, 316 Uri, 105, 106 Uriah the Hittite, 66 Uriah the priest, 221 Uzziah, king of Judah, see Azariah Yaḫdunlim, 34 Ya’iru, 366 Yaubi’di of Hamath, 319 Yauhazi, see Jehoahaz Ya’ush, 308, 309 Yerahmeelites, 130 yhll’l, 129 yrḥm’l, 129 Zakar, 211 Zakkur, king of Hamath and Lua‘sh, 27, 43, 47, 50, 170, 174 zbd, 391

400


Zebulun, 388n Zechariah, 241, 243, 245 Zedekiah, 155 Zelophehad, 108 Zerah “the Cushite,” 77

Zerubbabel, 389 Zeruiah, 65 Zimri, 150 Zimrilim, 34 Zuphah, 387, 388

Index of Places Abel, 129 Ab[el??], 177, 189n Abel-beth-maacah, 109, 140-141, 160, 169, 178, 202 Abel-meholah, 110, 241, see also Tell Abu Ṣuṣ Acco, 112 Acco plain, 19, 88, 109 Achzib, 293, 296, 298 Adar, ’dr, 129, 130 Addar, 378 Adullam, 68n, 297 Aegean region, 354 Afis, 174 Ai, 339 Aijalon, 4, 127 Ain, 378 Akkad, 175, 264, 313 Akrabim, ascent of, 377 Alalakh, 216, 218 Aleppo, 174 Allabria, 317 ‘lwt, 113 Amana, 26, 42, 43 Amarna, 107, 241, 362 Ammon, Ammonites, 12, 27, 38, 41, 43, 47, 5253, 54, 66, 112, 169, 193, 206, 260, 269, 314, 328, see also Bīt-Ammān ‘Amqarruna, 319, see also Ekron ‘Amqi, 363 Amurru, 363 ‘Anah, 50n Anatolia, 174, 180 southern Anatolia, 90, 168 Aphek, 108 ‘Aphrah, 292, 297 Arabah, 123, 124, 134, 233, 355n Arabia, 91 southern Arabia, 25, 91 Arad, 77n, 129, 279, 323-328, 331, see also Tel Arad Aram, Arameans, 12, 26-28, 29, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52-53, 82, 83, 84, 90, 91, 121, 122, 124, 125, 131, 143, 144, 148, 149, 157, 160, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 178, 182, 183, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 229, 260, 262, 265, 266, 267, 269

Aram-Damascus, 27, 40, 44, 46, 52, 166, 314 Aram-Zobah, 124, 364n Argite, 366 Argob, 20, 105, 111, 112, 113, 115 Arnam, 362, see also Hermel Arnon river, 140, 178, 193, 194, 202, 205, 206, 207 Aroer, 206 Arpad, 29, 50, 166, 168, 169, 203, 230, 295, 323, 332, 363 Arslan Tash, 29n ’rṣ ymyny, 389n Aruboth, see Rubutu Ashdod, 28, 38, 40, 41, 49, 144, 299, 300, 318, 319 Asher, district of, 105, 112, 113 Ashkelon, 25, 28, 38, 40, 49, 244n, 321 Ashnah, 77n Ashtaroth, 112 Asia, 23, 76, 80, 128, 131 western Asia, 11, 132n ‘Askar, 351n Assyria, Ashur, Assyrians, 2, 32, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 76n, 86, 92, 96, 108, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 134, 135, 148, 157, 166, 168, 169, 175176, 180, 181, 182, 183, 200, 201, 203, 204, 216, 221, 222, 223, 224, 236, 237, 238, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 268, 270, 271, 275, 280, 283, 284, 286, 287, 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324, 326, 332, 364, 365 Ataroth, 178, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194 Avaris, 74, 75n Azekah, 308, 309 Azmon, 129 Ba‘al, 294 Baalbek, 43, 375 Baal-meon, 190 Baal-Perazim, 30 Ba’ali-ra’si, 175 Babylon, 93, 285n, 369 Babylonia, Babylonians, 7, 8, 39, 76n, 86, 92, 94, 96, 216, 236, 238, 243, 251, 269, 270, 275, 295, 316, 372, 379

401

402


Ba’il-gazara, 319 Balih, 181 Bashan, 20, 43, 44, 45, 105, 111, 112, 206, 375 plain of, 112 Bealoth, 112 Be’er Luz, 129 Be’er Melaḥ ?, 129 Beer-sheba, 77n, 280, see also Bir es-Seba‘ Beer-sheba Valley, 13, 120, 121, 326 Beirut, 45 Benjamin, district of, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 105, 107, 109, 113, 283 Benjamin, highlands of, 6, 128 Benjamin’s allotment, 389n Beqa‘ of Lebanon, 26, 50n, 42, 43, 359n, 362, 363, 370, 371 Berothah, 374, 375, 378, 380, see also Brital Beth Anath, 77n Bethel, 6, 330, 352, 355 Beth-ezel, 294 Beth-harapid, 307, 309 Beth-horon, 127, 128 Bethlehem, 65, 66, 128n Beth-maacah (Beth Maacah), 166, 169 Beth-rehob (Beth Rehob, Bīt-Ruhūbi), 26-27, 38, 40, 42-43, 44, 47, 48, 53, 166, 169’ 370 Beth-shean, 7, 110, 111, 113, 144, 145, 281, see also Tel Beth-shean Beth-shean Valley, 19, 105, 110, 114, 127, 144 Beth-shemesh, 105, 108, 109, 114, 233 Bethsaida, 45, see also et-Tell Beyond the River, see Ēber ha-nāhār, Bezer, 195 Bir es-Seba‘, 280 Birzaith, 388, 391, 392 Bīt-Adini, 166, 169 Bīt-Agusi, 50, 166, 168, 169, 170, 295, 363 Bīt-Ammān, Bīt- Ammāna, 43, 169, see also Ammon Bīt-Gabbari, 168, 169 Bīt-Ḫaza’ili, 114, 166, 168, 169, 295, 364 Bīt-Ḫumri, Bīt-Ḫumria, 166, 168, 169, 201, 236, 238m 295 Bīt-Jakin, 169 Bīt-Pa’alla, 169 Bīt-Puritish, 169 Bīt-Shilani, 236 B‘lwt, 113 Bozrah (Buṣeirah), 122 Brital, 375, see also Berothah Brook of the Arabah, 359, see also Wādi Arabah Byblos, 44, 45, 46, 174, 176 Cabul (Khirbet Ras ez-Zeitun), 87-88

Calah, see Nimrud Calneh, Calno, 28, 49, 50, 332, see also Kullani (Kinalua) Canaan, Land of Canaan, Canaanites, 4, 7, 9, 18, 45n, 81, 84, 121, 128, 129, 131n, 132n, 133, 168, 174, 262, 275, 332, 351, 355n, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 373, 376-381 Egyptian province of, 6 highlands of, 14 southern Canaan, 12, 25 Carchemish, 317, 332, 372 Chalkis, 370 Chinnereth, see Sea of Galilee Cisjordan, 11, 128, 239n Cyprus, 132n Damascus, 26, 27, 31, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 114, 115, 121, 125, 143, 168, 169, 179, 180, 182, 200, 201, 203, 206, 221, 222, 230, 231, 242, 244, 259, 265, 266, 267, 271, 295, 332, 360, 364, 365, 366, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 379, 380 Dan, 26, 42, 170, 179, 203, 352, 376, 380 Dan’s allotment, 109, 115 Danabu, 43, see also Duneibeh Darb el-Ghaza, 232 Dead Sea, 123, 377 Deir ‘Alla, 124n Diblathaim, 190 Dibon, Dibonites, 51, 190, 191n, 193, 195, 202, 207 Dilmun, 316 Dor (Dū’ru), 19, 41, 105, 109-110, 113, 114 Dothan Valley, 107, 108 Duneibeh, 43, see also Danabu Dur-Sharrukin, 315, 316, 318-320, 369, see also Khorsabad Dū’ru, see Dor Dur-Yakin, 319 Ēber ha-nāhār, Eber-nāri, 27, 47, 96, 340 Edom, Edomites, 12, 31, 38, 53, 54, 82, 83, 84, 121-126, 134, 149, 159, 161, 169, 201, 202, 203, 213, 228, 229, 233n, 299, 314, 327, 328, 377 Edrei, 112 Egypt, 6n, 7, 24, 25, 32, 33, 41, 46n, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 84-85, 86, 90, 91, 121, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 135, 174, 199, 213, 241, 242, 247-248, 270, 294, 300, 316, 320, 329, 340, 347, 363, 372, 379 Ekron, 28, 38, 40, 49, 55, 115, 283 Elath, 213, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233 Gulf of, 231, 232, 233n El-gad, 129

Index el-Ghab, 370 El-hallel, 129 el-Leja, 112 Ellipi, 317 El-mattan, 129 Elon-beth-hanan, 105, 108, 109 El-ra[m], 129 Eltolad, 130 ‘En Gev, 45, see also Khirbet el-‘Ashiq ‘En Ḥaṣeva, 233, 328, 374 see also Tamar Ephraim, 11, 353, 386, 390, 391, 392 Ephraim, district of, 18, 19, 20, 21, 107 Ephraim, highlands of, 21, 105, 127, 128, 390 Ephrath, 128n Eretria, 26 ‘Eriah, 292, 294, 297, 298 Eshtaol, 115 et-Tell, 45, see also Bethsaida Euphrates river, 26, 27, 43, 46, 47, 50, 89n, 96, 97n, 132n Middle Euphrates, 50n Ezem, 77n, 129 Ezion-geber, 213 Fertile Crescent, 10, 92, 135, 168, 169 Gabbutunu, 319 Gad’s allotment, 112, 206 Galilee, 19, 88, 113, 386, 388, 389, 393 Upper Galilee, 19 western Galilee, 19, 88, 386 Gath (Tell eṣ-Ṣafi), 5, 12, 28, 29, 38, 40, 49-51, 53, 63, 68, 71, 72, 144, 292, 294, 390 Gaza, 6n, 25, 28, 38, 40, 49, 127n, 320, 321, 322 Geshur (G[i-šu(r)-r]a-a-a), 19, 20-21, 38, 40, 4346, 53, 112 Gezer, 2, 4, 5, 12, 25, 30, 76, 84, 89, 114, 115, 390 Gibeon, 29, 30, 67, 96, 128, 199, 338n, 339 Gilead, 18, 20, 21, 41, 54, 105, 106, 111, 114, 115, 206, 239, 241, 242, 243, 375 Gilgal, 342, 345, 355n Ginti-kirmil, 5 Gittaim, 127 Golan Heights, 45, 112, 361n southern Golan, 38, 44 Greece, Greek, 353, 354 Grn ’dmm, 123 Gurgum, 47, 170, 316 Habur river, 50n, 174 Hadrach (Ḫatarikka), 29, 50, 51, 230, 364, 369, 370 Ḥagr Abelaim, 129

403

Hamath, 27, 28, 29, 31, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 170, 174, 180, 230, 231, 319, 320, 332, 359n, 363, 364, 365, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 380, see also Subat-Hamath hāriblāh, 378 Ḫashabu (Tell Hashbe), 362 Ḥasiyeh, 366 Ḫatarikka, see Hadrach Hatti, 43, 363 Hauran, 373, 375, 378 Hauronen, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, see also Horonaim Havoth of Jair, 105, 111, 113, 115 Ḥawwarin, 375 Hazar-addar, 378 Hazar-enon/enan, 374, 375, 378, 379 Hazer-hattichon, 374, 375, 378 Hebron, 6, 21, 34, 63, 66, 67, 68n, 74-77 Helam, 27, 47, 48 Hepher, 105, 107-108, 114 Hermel, 362, 365, 367, see also Arnam Ḫēsa, 366, 367 Heshbon, 193, 194, 195 Hetela, see Hethlon Hethlon (Hetela), 374, 375, 378 Hezron, 378 Ḫilakku, 295 Ḫindanu, 91 Hittite kingdom, 90, 91, 362 Ḥoms, 43, 364n, 366 Horeb, 340, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 353 hôr hāhār, see Mount Hor Horonaim, 189, 190, 195, see also Hauronen Ḥorvat Qiṭmit, 327 Ḥorvat Teiman, see Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Ḫuzaza, 367 ḥydb, 130 Idumea, 41 Irbid, 111 Israel, kingdom of, 5, 9, 23, 24, 31, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 52, 54, 68, 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 92, 94, 105, 109, 112, 115, 116, 121, 125, 126-128, 130, 134, 140, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148-151, 152, 160, 162, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 188, 194, 198, 199, 200, 201-202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 236-252, 259, 261, 262, 266, 270, 271, 282, 283, 293, 295, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 341, 342, 343, 352, 353, 359 Israel, Land of Israel, 130, 353, 354, 359, 360, 373-375, 376, 379, 393

404


Israelite state, Israelites, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-14 Issachar, district of, 18, 105, 113 Jabbok river, 111 Jahaz, 188, 189, 194 Jarkon river, 109 Jazer, 206 Jebel ‘Ajlûn, 111 Jebel Druz, 112 Jebel el-Anṣariyeh, 370 Jebus, 34, 55, 83 Jericho, 206n, 339 Jerusalem, 1-15, 23-25, 32n, 33, 34, 39, 48, 55, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79-82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95, 102, 103, 104, 107, 110, 116, 122, 128n, 133, 150, 152, 157, 176, 192, 193, 198, 199, 200, 213, 217, 222, 230, 232, 233, 262, 265, 266, 267, 277, 278, 279, 283, 284, 286, 291, 292, 293, 296, 300, 304, 305, 309, 312, 324, 328-331, 332, 341, 342, 343, 344, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 361, 373, 374 Ophel Hill (the City of David), 3-4, 6, 12, 84 Temple of, 10, 32, 55, 82, 92-93, 214-216, 276, 329, 341, 353, 355 the gate behind the guards, 222, 223 Holy of Holies, 329 Horses Entrance, 219, 223 Temple Mount, 3, 6 Western Hill, 3 Jezreel, 18, 19, 20, 21, 110, 139-145, 150, 154, 160, 183, 242, see also Tel Jezreel Jezreel Valley, 5, 18, 19, 21, 107, 108, 110, 111n, 114, 127, 379 western Jezreel Valley, 105 Jokmeam, 110 Jokneam, 110, 144, 145 Joktheel, 233, see also Sela‘ Jordan river, 6, 11, 12, 46, 113, 134, 140, 206, 239n, 241, 345, 346, 375, 379 Jordan Valley, 5, 127, 128, 134, 355n Judah, kingdom of, 1, 2, 8-9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 21, 23, 25, 38, 39, 42, 46, 49, 55, 71, 77, 80, 81, 82, 93, 103, 105, 111n, 114, 115, 116, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 140, 143, 148-151, 152, 162, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 176, 180, 182, 183, 192, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 211, 213, 216, 218, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236-252, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 267, 268, 270, 271, 277, 279, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 291, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 304, 311, 313, 314, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 342, 352, 374 Judah, Land of Judah, 105-106, 113, 377

Judah highlands, 6, 77n, 283 Judah’s allotment , 377, 378, 379 Judah, house of, 21 Kabul, 88 Kadesh-barnea, 231, 377 Kammanu, 316 Karka, 378 Karnaim, 114, see also Qarnini; Sheikh Sa‘ad Karnak, 127, 131 Keilah, 4, see also Qiltu Khirbet el-‘Ashiq, 45, see also ‘En Gev Khirbet el-Ḥamam, 107 Khirbet Ras ez-Zeitun, see Cabul Khirbet Seilun, 5, see also Shiloh Khirbet Shuweiket er-Ras, 107 Khorsabad, 315, 316, 317, 319, see also DurSharrukin Kinalua, see Kullani Kir-Hareseth, 201, 202, 205, 206 ’kt, 370 Kullani (Kinalua), 29, 50, 168, 175, 323 Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Ḥorvat Teiman), 231, 232, 233 Kurkh, 42, 46 Labana, 362n Lab’u, 362-364, 365, 367, 372 Lachish, 2, 281, 282, 285-286, 287, 296, 298, 307-309, 318, 323, 324, 327 Larnaka, 132n Laruba, 45, see also Riblah Lebanon, 89, 97, 175 Lebo-hamath, 26, 42, 148, 230, 359-361, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378 Lebwe, 362, 363 Lehi, 66 Levant, 314, 328 southern Levant, 2 Liṭani river, 363, 376, 380 Lo-debar, 293 Lua‘sh, 27, 43, 47, 50, 170 ‘lwt, see B‘lwt Maacah, 38, 40, 47, 112 Ma‘aloth, 112 Madai, 317 Magidû, 114, see also Megiddo Mahanaim, 105, 112, 113 Maharith, 190, 191 Ma[ḫazu ??], 127n Makaz, 108 Makkedah, 127n Malaḫa, 43, see also Malah ez-Ezra‘ Malaḥ ez-Ezra‘, 43, see also Malaha Manasseh, 93, 108, 262, 267, 277, 283, 287, 304

Index Manasseh, highlands of, 105, 21, 127, 128 Manasseh’s allotment, 392 Manṣuate, 370, 371, 380 Maresha, 293, 298, 309 Maroth, 293, 297, 298 Massyas, 370 Maṣyāf (Maṣyād, Maṣyāt) 370, 371 Medeba, 178, 188, 189, 190, 194 Media, 244 Mediterranean, 107, 354 Megiddo, 41, 110, 111, 127, 131n, 132n, 144, 145, 174, 281, 282, see also Magidû Melid, 47, 170, 174-175 Meribath-kadesh, 374 Mesopotamia, 11, 33, 41, 75, 76n, 86, 91, 241, 251, 294, 295, 313, 326, 329, 340 northern Mesopotamia, 34 Meṣri, 45, 46n, see also Muṣur Migdal, 128n Migdal-eder, 128n Milḥat?, 129 Mishor, 52, 54, 193, 194n Mitanni, 7, 363 Mizpah, 352n Mnḏt, 371 Moab, Moabites, 12, 31, 38, 41, 42, 51-52, 54, 112, 124, 149, 153, 157, 169, 174, 178, 187195, 199, 201-202, 206, 207, 269, 299, 314, 328, 343, 348 Plains of, 202, 206n, 207, 342, 349n Moresheth-gath, 292, 293, 297, 298 Mount Amanus, 175 Mount Anti-Lebanon, 26, 42, 43, 44, 366, 371 Mount Atalur, 175 Mount Carmel, 109, 141 Mount Ebal, 134, 339, 340, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346n, 347, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355 Mount Ephraim, 75, 105, 107, 108, 113, 386, 387, 389 Mount Gerizim, 339, 341, 342, 344, 347, 349, 350, 351, 352, 355 Mount Gilboa, 18, 20 Mount Hermon, 206, 361n, 376, 380 Mount Hor (hôr hāhār), 378 Mount Lebanon, 43, 367, 376 Mount Perazim, 30 Mount Saniru, 200 Mount Seir, 123, 233 Muṣaṣir, 319 Muṣrāya, 46n Muṣur, 45, 46n, see also Meṣri Muṣuruna, 45, see also Nahr el-Kalb Naḥal Aijalon (Wādi el-Kabir), 109, 115

405

Naḥal Besor, 130 Naḥal Shiloh, 5 Naḥal Sorek (Wādi eṣ-Ṣarar), 109, 115 Naḥal Tirzah (Wādi Far‘ah), 108 Nahr el-Kalb, 45, 175 Nahr el-Kebir, 375, 379 Naphtali, district of, 105, 113, 388 Nawa, 43 Nebo, 178, 189, 190, 192n, 195, 207 Negev, Negeb, 23, 77n, 80, 128-131, 132, 199, 328 Negev Highlands, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135 Neia, 364n Nile river, 89n, 96, 97n the Pelusic arm of, 74 the Tanitic arm of, 74 Nimrud (Calah), 46, 203, 314-318, 371 Nineveh, 285, 316, 323, 369 Niya, Ni’u, 364, 370, see also Qal‘at el-Mudiq Northern Kingdom, 104, 110, 111n, 144, 182, 198, 205, 207, 236, 239, 242, 245, 251 Oak of Moreh, 351-328, 351, 352 Ophir, 92 Orontes river, 45n, 362, 363, 370, 371 Orontes Valley, 50 Palestine, 2, 41, 51, 76, 102-116, 140, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 180, 199, 200, 212, 229, 283, 295, 313, 319, 374 southern Palestine, 13, 168 Palmyra, 364n, 372 Pas-dammim, 66 Patina, 28, 49, 50, 168, 175, 323 Pella (Piḫilum), 5 Penuel, 75 Philistia, Philistines, 9, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 28-30, 38, 40, 49, 53, 55, 66, 76, 83, 109, 128, 129, 134, 144, 148, 203, 232, 246, 283, 294, 297, 299, 322, 329, 361 coast of, 46n, 76 Phoenicia, Phoenicians, 24, 134, 170, 174, 232, 314, 327n, 354, 379 Phoenician coast, 44, 45, 47 Phrygia, 295 Piḫilum, see Pella Pi-Ramesse, 74 Qal‘at el-Mudiq, 364, 370, see also Niya, Ni’u Qantîr, 74 Qarnini, 40, 114, 375, see also Karnaim Qarqar, 42, 171, 200, 319 Qaryaten, 375, 379

406


Qeriho, 140 Qidisi, 364, 365, 367, 372 Qidshu (Tell Nebi Mend), 362, 363, 367, 370, 371 Qiltu, 4, see also Keilah Qiryaten, 190 Que, 90, 91, 170 Quṣer, 367 Rabbah, 30, 31, 52, 66, 212 Rablê, see Riblah Ramoth-gilead, 111, 157, 160, 182, 183, 242 Ramtha, 111 Red Sea, 92 Rehob, 27, 359n Rephaim Valley, 29 Riblah, 45n, 364-365, 367, 372, see also Laruba Rome, 75 Rubutu, 107, 127 Ruhiṣṣi, 362n Salchah, 112 Salḫi, 370 Salim, 351n Sam’al, 168, 169, 170, 174, 178, 212n, 218, 221, 244n, 369 Samaria, Samarians, 41, 75, 108, 139, 141, 142, 150, 152, 154, 158, 159, 183, 203, 232, 237, 238, 239, 240n, 242, 243, 260, 261, 275, 291, 292, 298, 299, 300, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 332, 340, 341, 352, 354, 355, 356, 390 Samaria, hill country of, 108, 109 Samerīna, 114, 115, 168 Samos, 26 Samsimuruna, 45 San el-Hagar, 74 Sarrabānu, 236, 237 Sazana, 366, 367 ŝblt, 130 Sea of Galilee, 45, 379 Sea of the Arabah, 359 Seir, 123, see also Mount Seir Sela‘, 233, see also Joktheel Selbit, see Shaalbim ṣenān, 294 Shaalbim (Selbit), 105, 108, 109, 115 Shabtuna, 362 Shamir, 387 Shaphir, 292, 294, 297, 298 Sharon, 109 coast of, 107, 109 plain of, 5, 105, 107, 108, 114 Sharon, 190, 191 Sheba, 91-92

Shechem, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 75, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355 Sheikh Sa‘ad, 114 Shephela, 2, 6, 13, 55, 124, 128, 234, 282, 283, 286, 296, 297, 299, 308, 309, 378, 391 northern Shephela, 105, 107, 109, 114, 115, 127n, 128, 283 Shilhim/Sharuhen, 129 Shiloh, 5, 134, 342, 352n, see also Khirbet Seilun Shir/lḥon,, 129, 130 Shual, 387 Sibraim (Ziphron), 374, 375, 378 Sidon, Sidonians, 44, 45, 46, 203, 361 Ṣimirra (Ṣ[í-mir-r]a-a-a), 44 Sinai, 340, 348, 353 northeastern Sinai, 231, 232, 233 southern Sinai, 232 Sinu, 319 Sochoh, 105, 107, 108, 114, 127 Ṣubat, 363-369, 370, 372, 380, see also ṢubatHamath Ṣubat-Hamath, 369-373 Suḫu, 91 Ṣumur, 46n Syria, 46, 47, 53, 90, 91, 97, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176, 180, 200, 203-204, 211, 212, 229, 245, 283, 295, 319, 362, 374, 380 northern Syria, 174, 175, 203, 322 southern Syria, 29, 40, 42, 140, 168, 180, 364 Syro-Arabia desert, 275 Taanach, 107, 110, 111, 144, 145, 281, 282, see also Tel Taanach Tabal, 369 Tadmor, 372 Taḫsi, 362, 363 Tamar 233, 373, 374, see also , see ‘En Ḥaṣeva Tangi-i Var, 316 Tanis (Zoan), 74-77 Tappuah, 260 Taurus, 180, 295 Teima, 91, Tel ‘Amal, 144, 281, 282 Tel Aphek, 264n Tel Arad, 120, 278, 279, see also Arad Tel Batash, 109, see also Timnah Tel Beer-sheba, 120, 134, 232, 278, 279, 280, 281, see also Beer-sheba Tel Beth-shean, 144, , see also Beth-shean Tel Dan, 10, 15, 48n, 140, 143, 160, 166, 167, 168, 170, 173, 176, 178, 181, 188, 192, 202, 212n

Index Tel Esdar, 120 Tel Jezreel, 139-145, see also Jezreel Tel Masos, 121, 126, 134 Tel Miqne, 55 Tel Taanach, 144, 192n, 281, see also Taanach Tel Yokneam, 144, see also Jokneam Tell Abu Ṣuṣ, 110, 241, see also Abel-meholah Tell ar-Rimaḥ, 203, 240n Tell el-‘Ajjul, see Shir/lḥon Tell el-Ḥoṣn, 111 Tell el-Muḥafar, 107-108 Tell er-Rumēt, 111 Tell eṣ-Ṣafi, see Gath Tell Faḫariyeh, 174, 212n Tell Halaf, 221 Tell Ḥamā, 370 Tell Hashbe, see Ḫashabu Tell Nebi Mend, see Qidshu Tell Qaṣr Lebwe, 363 Tell Ta‘yinat, 50, see also Calneh; Kullani (Kinalua) Teman, 232n Til Ba[rsip], 371 Timnah (Tel Batash), 109 Tirzah, 127, 260 Tishbe, 241 Tob, 38, 40, 47 Tombstone of Rachel, 128n Transjordan, 5n, 21, 27, 38, 44n, 46, 47, 105, 106, 111, 113, 124, 143, 194, 202, 206, 207, 239, 242, 376, 379 Tripoli, 375 Turin, 248 Tushpa, 132n Tyre, Tyrians, 7, 38, 44, 45, 46, 86, 87, 89, 92, 112, 175, 200, 203 Ugarit, 264n

407

‘Unqi, ‘Umqi, 26, 28, 49, 50, 168, 170, 323, 363 Urartu, 132n Valley of Salt, 31, 53, 54, 83, 121, 122, 229, 233n Via Maris, 127, 128 Wādi Arabah, 123, 232, 233n Wādi el-Hesa, 195 Wādi el-Kabir, see Naḥal Aijalon Wādi el-Wala, 188, 193 Wādi eṣ-Ṣarar, see Naḥal Sorek Wādi Far‘ah, see Naḥal Tirzah Wādi el-Kefrein, 112, 195, 206n Yaḥanu, 168 Yahaz, 178, 190 Yarmuk river, 112, 375, 379 Yasbuq, Yasubuq, 366-367 Y’dy, 168, 170, 179 Yehud, 41, 379 yrḥm, 130 Yurza, 130 Zaanan, 292, 296, 298 Zabedani, 43 Zarethan, 110 Zebulun, district of, 113 Zedad (Ṣadad), 374, 375, 376, 378, 379 Zelzah, 128n Zemaraim, 128 Ziklag, 63, 68 Zin, 359n, 377 Ziph, desert of, 63 Ziphron, see Sibraim Zoan, see Tanis Zobah, 26, 27, 38, 40, 42-43, 44, 47, 48, 53, 83, 121, 124, 230, 372, 375, 380 Zorah, 115

Index of Biblical References Genesis 12:6 351 12:6-7 351, 353 28:22 190 33:18-20 351, 353 33:20 351 34 355, 356n 35 356n 35:2 355 35:2b 355n, 356n 35:4 351, 355n, 356n 35:4-5 355 35:16-21 128n 35:21 128n 36:31 134 36:31-39 124, 125 36:32-33 124n 36:39 187 38:12-23 303 46:17 20, 388, 389 46:24 388 Exodus 3:7 269 5:6 269 5:10 269 5:13 269 5:14 269 12:40 74 14:6 191 17:7 374 17:13 191 20:24-25 346 20:25 346n 24:4 346 24:4-5 346 Numbers 1:10 392 2:18 392 7:48 392 7:53 392 10:22 392 10:33 329 10:35-36 329

13:21 26, 42, 359, 360, 361 13:22 74-77 16:5 309 20:13 374 20:22-27 378 20:24 374 21:4 378 21:23 191 21:26 193 21:27 194 21:27-30 193 21:28 194 22-24 124n 24:18 123 25:11 231 26 391 26:32-33 108 26:35-36 390, 391, 392 26:36 392 26:44-45 20, 389 26:48-50 388 27:1 108 31:8 124n 31:16 124n 32 376 32:41 111 33:37-41 378 33:50–35:8 376, 381 33:50–35:34 376 34 373, 376-379, 380, 381 34:1-12 376 34:1-15 379 34:3 377, 378 34:3a 377 34:3b 377 34:3-5 374, 376 34:3-6 377, 378 34:4 129, 377-378 34:5 377 34:6 378 34:7 378 34:7b 377 34:7-9 361, 380 34:8 359, 360, 377 34:9 377

408

34:10 377, 378 34:11 45n 34:12 377 34:13-15 376 Deuteronomy 2:9-24 206 3:4 112 3:10 112 3:13 112 3:14 20, 44, 111, 112 5:31 [MT 5:28] 340 6:1 340 6:4–11:25 342 7:5 275, 277, 355n 7:25 355n 10:1-5 330 11:26-30 339, 341, 342, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354 11:26-31 350 11:27-28 349, 350 11:29 349 11:29-30 349, 352 11:30 349, 351, 355 11:31–36:15 341, 342 12:2 206 12:3 276, 277, 355n 12:8-11 344 13:9 206 13:16 206 15 350 15:2 269 15:3 269 20 343 20:1-2 191 20:9 191 20:10-18 122 23:17-18 303 26 347 26:16-19 341, 348, 349, 350 27 339, 341, 342n, 344-356 27:1 346 27:1-3 345, 346 27:1-8 344, 347, 352 27:2 346

409

Index 27:2-3 344, 345, 346, 347 27:3 346 27:4 344, 345, 346 27:4-8 339, 341, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 349, 350, 351, 352 27:4-10 351, 354 27:5-7 344, 345, 346 27:5-7a 345 27:7b-8 345 27:8 344, 345, 346 27:9 342 27:9b 347 27:9-10 344, 347, 348, 350, 351, 354 27:11-13 341, 344, 347, 349, 350 27:12-13 355n 27:14 350 27:14-26 344, 350, 355 27:15 355n 27:26 355n 28 347 28:1-68 341 28:30-68 343 29 [MT 29:9–19a, 28] 343 29:1 [MT 28:69] 340 29:10-13 [MT 9-12] 348 29:10-20a 343 31:9-13 330 31:16 266 31:20 266 31:24-29 330 32:50 378 33:2 123 33:8 374 33:21 296 Joshua 3-4 345 4 346 8:3 191 8:10 191 8:30-32 345, 347, 350, 351 8:30-35 339, 350n, 352, 354 8:32 347 8:33 341, 352 8:33-35 350, 351 8:35 341 9:1-2 339 9:3ff 339 10:10 359n 10:40 361 10:40-42 360 11:3 360

11:8 360, 361 11:10 77 11:10-12 361 11:14 361 11:16-20 360 11:17 360 12:4-5 112 12:5 20, 44, 112 12:7 360 12:7-8 360 12:17 107, 108 13-19 114, 373, 376, 379, 381 13:2-6 359n, 361 13:4-6 361, 376n 13:5 359 13:11 20, 44 13:11-12 112 13:13 44 13:23 361 13:30 111, 112 15 114 15:1-4 374, 376 15:1-12 377, 379 15:1b 377 15:1b-4 377, 378 15:2 378 15:2b 108-109 15:3 378 15:4 129, 378 15:5a 378 15:5b 378 15:9-11 294 15:12 377, 378 15:21-32 129 15:21-62 297n 15:29 294 15:30 130 15:32 129 15:33 115 15:33-34 297 15:37 294 15:60 294 15:62 129 16:3 107, 359n, 387 16:5-6 107 16:8 107 17:2-3 108 18:15a 109 19:2-8 129 19:4 130 19:6 129 19:17-23 18 19:18 18 19:28-29 360-361

19:40-46 115 19:42-44 109 21:41-42 361 24 339, 342, 351, 352, 354, 356n 24:1 352 24:26 351, 352, 355n Judges 1:23 19 3 206n 3:1 359n, 361 3:3 359, 361 5:4 123 6 124 9:15 294 9:22 155n 10:1-2 387 18:11 72 18:16-17 72 18:20 72 18:28 26, 42 19:4 111 1 Samuel 4 128 4-6 329 4:1-11 329 4:3-8 329 4:4 329 4:21-22 330 7 128 9:1 389n 9:4 389n 9:4-5 388, 389 10:2 128n 10:5 106 12 340 13-14 128 13:3 106 13:4 106 13:17 387 14:8 329 14:47-48 34, 83 15 124 15:21 296 17:52 359n 21:11 40 22:2 125n 23:8 263 23:13 71 27:2 40, 71 27:2-3 72 27:7-12 124 27:10 130

410


27:30 124 28:4 20 29:1 20 29:3-4 40 29:9 40 29:11 20 30:2-3 72 30:9 71 30:18-19 72 30:27-30 129 30:29 130 31:7 18, 20 2 Samuel 1:5-10 68 1:13-16 68 1:20 293 2:1-3 34 2:2-3 72 2:4 21 2:7 21 2:8 34 2:8-9 83 2:9 18, 19, 20, 21, 389 2:9a 20 2:11 21, 75 2:12-13 67 2:12-32 67, 68 2:14-16 67 2:17 67 2:18 67 2:18-23 67 2:18-24 67, 68 2:23 67 2:24 67 2:25-31 67 2:26-27 67 2:32a 67 2:32b 67 3:2-5 24 3:3 21, 38, 44, 53 3:12 21 3:21 21 3:24-25 68 5:4-5 76 5:6-9 34 5:11 38 5:14-16 24 5:17-21 66 5:17-25 29, 30, 34, 128 5:20 30 5:21 329 5:23 66 5:25 30 6:2 294, 329

8 54, 121, 122, 176, 212 8:1 30, 55, 66 8:2 31, 51, 52, 206 8:3 26, 27, 42, 43, 47, 53, 132n 8:3-4 83, 121 8:3-8 380 8:3-14 213 8:4 47 8:5 83, 121 8:5-6 27 8:6 83, 106, 121 8:7 30, 55 8:8 375, 380 8:9-10 31, 230 8:11 304 8:12 26, 27, 42, 43, 53 8:13 53, 83, 121, 122, 124, 129 8:13-14 31, 206 8:14 83, 106 8:16-18 10, 24, 67 8:17 10, 24, 79, 81 8:18 66 10 52 10:1-5 52 10:1–12:31 206 10:6-7 27, 47 10:6-8 52 10:6-14 53 10:7 64, 122 10:9-14 52 10:10 191 10:16 27, 47 10:18 48 10:19 47 11:1 52, 122 11:11 64 11:16-17 64 11:17 66 11:23-24 64 12:4 232n 12:26-28 122 12:26-31 52 12:29-30a 31 12:30 30, 55 13:37 21 13:37-38 38, 44, 53 13:38 21, 155n 14:23 44 14:32 44 15:8 44 15:13-16:14 71 15:18-22 72 15:18b 71

15:20 71 15:21 71 15:22b 72 16:6 64 18:2 72 18:18 192 20:7 64, 65n 20:10-12 67 20:15 263 20:23 66 20:23-26 10, 24 20:24 14 20:25 10, 24, 79, 81 23 62, 68 23:8 62, 64, 68 23:8-23 63 23:8-39 10, 24, 62, 64, 68 23:9 62, 66 23:11 66 23:13 62, 64, 65, 68 23:13-17 65, 66 23:14-39 63 23:14b-35 63 23:18 62, 65n 23:18-19 63 23:18-19a 65 23:19a 64, 65n, 68 23:19b 65 23:20-21 66 23:20-23 66 23:22 62, 66 23:23 62, 64, 65, 66, 68 23:23a 65n 23:24 62, 64, 67, 68 23:24b-39 63 24:2-9 206 24:5-6 206 24:6-7 361 24:16 123 24:18 123 1 Kings 1-11 94, 95 1:8-10 64 2:11 75 2:39 155n 3-10 97n 3-11 82 3:1 76, 84, 131 3:1-3 84 3:12e 85n (LXX) 3:12a-z 85n (LXX) 3:16abα 84 4 102 4:1 105

Index 4:1-6 89 4:2-6 24, 81, 102 4:2-19 10 4:3 10, 24, 79, 81 4:5 105 4:6 14 4:7 105 4:7-17 106, 116 4:7-19 1, 81, 89, 102-116 4:8 107 4:8-11 116 4:9 108 4:9-19 24 4:10 107, 108 4:11a 109 4:12 110, 111, 113 4:13 106, 111, 112, 115, 116 4:14 112, 113 4:16 112 4:17 116 4:19 105, 106, 112 4:20–5:5 (English 4:20-25) 96, 257 4:27 [ MT 5:7] 105 5:6 91 5:7 89 5:8abα 91 5:9-14 92, 97 5:13 [ MT 5:27] 106n 5:15a 85 5:15b 85 5:15-25 86 5:15-26 (English 5:1-11) 85, 95 5:16 [ MT 5:30] 85, 105 5:17-18 344 5:17-19 85 5:20 85 5:21 85, 96 5:22-24 85 5:24 87, 88 5:25 85 5:26 96 5:26a 85 5:27-28 14 5:27-29 89 5:27-30 97 5:27-32 85 5:30 89 6-7 92-93, 94 6-8 92, 95, 257 6:1 211, 212n, 256, 257, 258 6:1-2 211, 212n, 257n 6:7 346n 6:23-28 329

6:37 256, 257 6:37-38 211, 212n, 257 6:37-38a 257 7:8 76, 84 7:51 304 8:1-9 329 8:1-11 257, 360 8:2 211, 257, 360 8:9 330 8:62-63 360 8:62-66 360 8:63b 360 8:64 267 8:64-66 360 8:65 359, 360 8:65-66 360n 9 88 9:1-9 97 9:10 88 9:10-14 87 9:10–10:29 89n 9:11 87, 88 9:11a 87n 9:11-13 12 9:12 87 9:12-13 87 9:14 87, 88 9:15 14, 24, 81, 89 9:15-18 10, 76, 89n, 97 9:16 12, 76, 84, 89, 131 9:16abα 84 9:17-18 24, 81 9:17a 89 9:17b-18 89 9:19 89n, 97 9:19-22 89 9:20-22 97, 106 9:23 97, 105 9:23a 89 9:24 76, 84, 131 9:24a 84 9:26 89n 9:26-28 92, 213 10:1-10 91, 92, 97 10:11-12 92 10:13 91, 92 10:13-15 92, 97 10:15 97 10:16-22 92 10:19-20 192n 10:23-25 90n, 97 10:26 91 10:27 90n 10:28 90n, 91 10:28-29 90, 91

411 10:29 91 11 124, 155 11-12 125 11:1 76, 84 11:1-28 262 11:7-11 156 11:14 125, 126n 11:14a 125 11:14-16 156 11:14-17 134 11:14-22 76, 123, 124, 125, 126n, 213 11:14-25 12 11:14-28 34, 82-84 11:15 83, 122, 124 11:15-16 121, 122 11:16 122 11:17-18 156 11:18 83 11:19-20 125 11:19b-22 85n 11:20 83 11:22 83, 126 11:23a 125, 126n 11:23-24a 125n 11:23-25 125 11:23-25a 125 11:25a 125 11:25aα 126n 11:25aβb 83 11:25aαb 126 11:25b 126n 11:26 148 11:26a 125 11:26-28 125, 126, 155 11:28 14, 83, 126 11:29-39 83, 96, 126, 155 11:40 34, 82, 83, 85, 125, 126, 148, 155, 262 11:41 79, 88, 96, 116, 149 12:3-14 14 12:16-24 11 12:18 14 12:20 352 12:25 75 13 148 14 148 14:19 148 14:21-26 262 14:24 304 14:24a 151 14:25 132, 214 14:25-26 126 14:25-28 10, 24, 80, 132, 133, 199

412


14:26 131, 265, 304 14:27-28 223n 14:30 148, 231 15:6 231 15:7 231 15:12 304 15:12a 151 15:12-13 276 15:15 304 15:16 231 15:16-20 149 15:16-21 131 15:17-21 233 15:18 133, 265, 304 15:18-20 265 15:19 259, 265 15:20 266, 271 15:22 150 15:23 148, 150 15:32 231 16:5 149 16:16 191 16:20 150 16:21-22 191, 239 16:24 75, 159 16:27 149 16:28 158 16:29 250 16:30-33 152 17-19 147, 152 17:1–22:38 147 18-19 152 18:45 141 18:45-46 141 18:46 141 19:15-18 242 20 147, 148, 154 20:22 200 20:35-43 148 21 141, 148, 156, 158, 159 21:1 141 21:1a 142 21:1-19b 156 21:8-14 154 21:18a 142 21:19 142 21:19b 154, 158 21:20b-22 156 21:20b-24 156, 158 21:23 141 21:24 156 21:27-29 158 21:29 158 22 142, 156, 158, 183 22:1 155n

22:1-4 156 22:1-18 154, 155n, 157, 160, 161 22:1-37 155, 183n 22:1-38 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155n, 182, 183, 228 22:3 155n 22:4 157, 191, 304 22:5 151, 157 22:5-18 156 22:7 157 22:7-8 151 22:18-25 155n 22:19-28 155 22:19b 158 22:20 155 22:20b-22 158 22:20b-24 158 22:24b 158 22:29-37 154, 155n, 156, 157, 160, 161 22:29-38 228 22:32 151 22:34-37 154, 160 22:37 158, 159 22:38 142, 154, 158 22:38aa 154 22:38ab 154 22:39 150, 161 22:40 147, 154, 158, 159, 160, 182, 228 22:41 250 22:43-47 161 22:43a 151 22:44 151 22:45 148 22:46 151 22:48 159, 161 22:49 161 22:49-50 233 22:50 161 22:52 – 2 Kgs. 1:1 262 22:53 153 22:53-54 153 2 Kings 1 148 1:2-17 147 1:2-17a 153n 1:2-17aa 147-148, 153, 154 1:2a 153 2 148 2:1-25 147 3 151, 153, 157, 192, 201, 202, 206

3:2 153 3:2b 153 3:4–8:15 147, 148 3:4-27 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 157, 159 3:5-6 157 3:7 157, 191 3:11 152, 157 3:11-12 157 3:12 152 3:13 153, 157 3:13-14 242 3:14 152, 157 4:1–8:15 154 5 148 5:12 43 6:8-10 153 6:8-23 148 6:21-22 153 6:24–7:20 147, 148 7:2 62 7:17 62 7:19 62 8:4-6 153 8:7-15 143, 182, 201 8:12 260 8:12b 143 8:16-22 262 8:18 151, 152, 262 8:19 262 8:20 159 8:20-22 123 8:20-22a 161, 202 8:21 191 8:26 151 8:27 151, 152, 262 8:27-29 203 8:28 183 8:29 141 9 139, 153, 160, 183, 203 9ff 148 9-10 141, 142, 152, 154, 158, 181, 183, 218, 219 9-11 219 9:1-13 242 9:1–10:28 147 9:6 218 9:7-10 158 9:10 141 9:13 218 9:15 141 9:16 141 9:17 141 9:25 62 9:25-26 153, 159, 242

Index 9:30 141 9:30-31 143 9:36 141 9:36-37 158, 242 9:37 141 10:1 141 10:10-11 158 10:11 141 10:17 158 10:18-27 152 10:25 158 10:26-27 154, 159 10:27 282 10:32-33 46, 143, 149 10:33 202, 206 10:34 149 11 152, 216, 218, 219, 220, 224, 267 11:4 65n 11:4-7 65 11:4-12 217 11:5 222 11:5-7 217 11:6 223 11:7 222 11:9 222 11:12 218 11:13-14 218 11:13-18a 217 11:17 218 11:17-18 220 11:17-18a 218 11:18b-20 217 11:19 65n, 223n 11:19-20 218 11:23-24 27 12 216, 267 12:3-4 152 12:5-9 216, 220 12:5-13 152 12:5-17 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 224 12:7 214 12:10-11 220 12:10-13 216 12:10-17 216, 220 12:12-17 220 12:14-17 216 12:17 29, 49, 144, 220n 12:18 144 12:18-19 46, 143, 216 12:19 133, 265, 304 13:1-3 262 13:3 46, 143, 149 13:3-6a 204

13:5 203 13:7 46, 143, 149, 191, 229 13:8 149 13:8-14 229 13:9 158 13:10a 229 13:12-13 229 13:13 158 13:14-19 143, 204 13:14-21 148 13:15-16 229 13:16 229 13:17 229 13:22 46, 143, 149, 229 13:24 143 13:25 143 14:7 31, 53, 129, 233 14:8-14 229, 231 14:11 114 14:14 133, 265 14:15 148 14:15-16 229, 230 14:16 158 14:17 229 14:18-20 229 14:19-21 228 14:21 229, 230 14:22 228, 229, 230 14:23-24 229 14:25 148, 230, 231, 359, 360, 373 14:28 148, 150n, 230, 231, 233, 360 14:29 158 15:1-4 228, 230 15:5 252 15:8 245 15:9 260 15:13 245 15:14 260 15:15 150 15:16 260 15:16a 260 15:16b 260, 261 15:17 245 15:18 260, 261 15:19 269 15:19-20 204, 244, 261 15:20 260, 261 15:23 245 15:24 260 15:25 62, 239, 240, 241 15:27 239, 245 15:28 260 15:29 244

413 15:30 236, 239, 245, 246 15:32 239 15:33 245 15:37 231, 245 16 259 16:1 239 16:1-4 262 16:1-9 266 16:2-4 266 16:2b-4 262, 266 16:3a 262 16:3b 262 16:5 231, 233, 262, 263, 299 16:5b 263n 16:5-6 262, 266 16:5-9 131 16:7 264 16:7-8 264 16:7-9 231, 266, 267 16:7-10 265, 299 16:8 133, 259, 265 16:8b 264 16:9 244 16:10 221 16:10ff 220, 224 16:10-16 220, 221, 224, 266, 267 16:10-16 224 16:10-18 219 16:17 222 16:18 222, 223, 224 16:22 220, 224 17:1 238, 246 17:6 214 17:8 262 17:24-41 355 18:1 246 18:3-5 152 18:3-7 268 18:3-8 262 18:4 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 286, 325, 326 18:4a 276 18:5 265 18:7 268 18:8 268 18:9 246 18:9-10 214, 246 18:10 246 18:13 133, 214, 246 18:13-16 133 18:14-15 265n 18:15 133 18:16 222 18:17–19:9a 152

414


18:17–19:37 287 18:18 222 18:19-25 277 18:22 274, 275, 277, 286 18:34b 332 19:1-4 278 19:14-19 278 19:15 329 19:36 152 20:1-11 246 20:11 192 20:20 148-149, 150 21:2 262 21:3 152, 277 21:3-7 283 21:6 262 21:10-15 262 21:12-15 268 21:13 152 21:17 149 22:3 214 22:3-7 220 22:8-13 219 23:1-3 218 23:3-6 215, 216 23:4-12 283 23:6 303 23:7 303, 304, 305 23:11 223n 23:12 192 23:15-16 352 23:24 304n 23:25b–25:30 268 23:26-27 262, 268 23:31-35 268, 269 23:33 268, 372 23:35 261, 268 24-25 94 24:2 269 24:2a 269 24:2b-4 270 24:3 262 24:3-4 268 24:13 133, 265 25:1-2 214 25:6 372 25:13-17 94 25:20-21 372 Isaiah 7:1 262, 263 7:2 263 7:2-9 263 7:4 263 7:17a 11

9:3 269 10:9-11 332 14:2 269 14:4 269 18:1-6 300 20:2-6 300 22:22 169 28:21 30 30:1-5 300 30:6-7 265, 300 31:1-3 300 36:1 246 37:16 329 38:1-8 246 38:8 192 38:19 309 Jeremiah 3:16-17 329 8:10 297 11:10 266 22:13-19 270 22:26 270 22:36 270 25:20 28, 40 26 278 26:2-6 278 26:12-13 278 26:17-19 277, 278 26:19 278 26:21 64 31:14 128n 31:31 266 31:39 223n 33:20 266 41:5 352n 52:17-23 94 Ezekiel 17:11-21 266 20:40 296 47 373-375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 381 47:13-21 380 47:13-23 373, 374, 376, 377, 379 47:15-16 373 47:15-17 376, 380 47:15b-16 374 47:15b-17 374 47:16 380 47:17 373, 374, 378 47:18 373, 374, 375, 376 47:19 373, 374 47:20 359, 373, 374

48:1 359 48:1b 374 Hosea 1:4 141, 142, 183 10:5 330 14:1 260 Amos 1:3 143 1:6-8 40 1:7-8 28 1:13 52, 260 6:2 28, 49, 51 6:6 296 6:10 167 6:13 293 6:14 231, 359, 360, 373 Micah 1:5-7 292 1:6-7 291, 298, 299 1:8 291, 292 1:8-9 291 1:8-16 291 1:9 291, 292, 298 1:9-11 292 1:9-16 292-293, 299 1:10 296 1:10-15 292 1:10-16 291 1:11 291, 295 1:11b 296, 298 1:11bα 298 1:11-15 292 1:12 292 1:12b 298 1:12-15 292 1:14 294, 296 1:14-15 299 1:15 297 1:14a 292 1:15b 297 1:16 292 3:12 278 4:8 128n 5:9-14 274n 6:16 152 Zephaniah 2:4 28, 40 Zechariah 9:5-6 28, 40 12:7 169

415

Index 12:12 169 Psalms 44:5 296 60:2 121, 122 80:2 329 99:1 329 99:5 329 103:7 309 122:5 169 132:7 329 Song of Songs 4:8 43 Daniel 11:20 269 Ezra 2:5 389 3:1-2 341 3:8-9 256 Nehemiah 3:1-22 4 3:16 64, 359n 3:24 359n 3:28 223 3:31 359n 6:10 187 7:10 390 1 Chronicles 1:43-51 124 2-4 129 2-9 386, 388, 390, 393 2:23 112 2:25 129 2:26 129 2:28 129 2:33 129 4:11 129 4:16 129 4:20 129 4:28-32 129 4:33 294 7:6-12 390n 7:13 388

7:20 391, 392 7:20-21 390n 7:20-21a 390 7:20-21aα 391 7:20-21aαβ 391 7:20-29 386, 390-392 7:21 392 7:21aβ 390 7:21aβ-24 391 7:21aγ-25aα 391 7:21b-24 390 7:23-27 390n 7:24 390, 391 7:25 391 7:25-26 391 7:25-27 390 7:25b-27 392 7:26 392 7:27 391 7:28 392 7:28-29 390 7:29a 392 7:30-31a 19, 388, 389 7:30-35 387 7:30-39 19 7:30-40 386-390 7:31b 388, 391 7:31b-39 19, 388, 391 7:32 387, 388 7:32-39 20, 388, 389, 392, 393 7:35 387, 389n 7:35b 388 7:35-39 387, 388 7:36-37 387 7:37 387, 388 7:38-39 387 7:39 389 7:40 388, 389 8:1-40 390n 8:23 109n 8:29-32 388n 8:33-40 388n 9:35-38 388n 9:39-44 388n 11-12 68n 11:10-41a 62, 68 11:11 63, 64

11:13 66 11:16 106 11:20 65n 11:20-21 63 11:25 65n 11:42 68 12:4 63, 68 12:18 63, 68 13:5 359 13:6 294 14:8-16 29 14:11 30 14:13 30 14:16 30 18:4 47 18:12 121, 122 18:13 27, 47 18:15-17 67 18:17 66 19:18 48 27:6 68 28:2 329 29:27 76 2 Chronicles 1:16b 90n 2:17 [ MT 2:16] 106n 7:8 359 8:3-4 372 8:10 106 8:11 76 12:2-9 126 12:2-12 133 12:3 133 12:4 133 12:5-8 133 12:12 133 12:15 231 14:8-14 77 17:2 106 18:31 151 23:15 223n 25:6-10 233 25:11 129 26:6 29 26:6-15 234 29-31 274, 275 30:23-26 360n 35:19 304n

Collected Essays, Volume 3: Ancient Israel's History and Historiography: The First Temple Period

Essays in ancient Greek philosophy, Volume 3

A History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 1: The Ancient Period

Journey to Self-Realization - Collected Talks and Essays. Volume 3

Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern

Collected Essays [essays-47]