Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant

Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant

Family and Household Religion in

Ancient Israel and the Levant

Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2012

© 2012 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

The support of the Deutsche Forschungs�gemeinschaft (DFG), which supplied funding to assist with the preparation of the illustrations, is gratefully acknowledged. The illustrations used on the cover of this book were supplied by the Semitic Museum, Harvard University, from an exhibit entitled The Houses of Ancient Israel: Domestic, Royal, Divine.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Albertz, Rainer, 1943– Family and household religion in ancient Israel and the Levant / Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt. â•…â•…â•…p.â•…cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-232-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.╇ Jewish families—Conduct of life—History—To 70 a.d.â•… 2.╇ Jews—Social life and customs—To 70 a.d.â•… 3.╇ Bible. O.T.—Antiquities.â•… 4.╇ Families—Biblical teaching.â•… 5.╇ Families—Religious aspects—Judaism—To 70 a.d.â•… 6.╇Families—Palestine— History—To 70 a.d.â•… 7.╇ Palestine—Social life and customs—To 70 a.d.â•… I.╇Schmitt, Rüdiger.â•… II.╇Title. BM723.A45â•…2012 269.09′013—dc23 2012008049

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. †Ê

Contents List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇xv Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvi Generalâ•…x Reference Worksâ•… xi 1.╇ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . â•…1 Rainer Albertz 1.1.╇ History of researchâ•… 2 1.2.╇ Interdisciplinary approach and temporal limitations of the subjectâ•… 17 1.3.╇ The structure of the present bookâ•… 19 2.╇ Methodological Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇21 Rainer Albertz 2.1.╇ Problems of modern and biblical terminologyâ•… 21 2.2.╇ The problem of living space in domestic buildingsâ•… 26 2.3.╇ Overcoming the discrepancy between the archaeological evidence and the biblical idealâ•… 34 2.4.╇ Relations between different types of family households and to additional kinâ•… 41 2.5.╇ Conclusions for reconstructing the Israelite family and household religionâ•…45 2.6.╇ Religious-historical concepts regarding family religionâ•… 46 2.7.╇ Family and household religion within the religion of Israelâ•… 55 3.╇ Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ╇57 Rüdiger Schmitt 3.1.╇Methodologyâ•… 57 3.2.╇ Diagnostic objects and cult patternsâ•… 60 3.3.╇ Domestic cultic assemblages in Iron Age Judah and Israelâ•… 74 3.4.╇ Patterns of domestic cult activities in Iron Age Israel and Judahâ•… 172 3.5.╇ Comparative data from sites outside Israel and Judahâ•… 176 v

vi

Contents

4.╇ Typology of Iron Age Cult Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Rüdiger Schmitt 4.1.╇ Domestic cult: The house as space for ritual activities (Type IA)â•… 224 4.2.╇ Domestic shrines (Type IB)â•… 227 4.3.╇ Patterns of cult places outside the domestic realmâ•… 228 4.4.╇Conclusionsâ•… 239 5.╇ Personal Names and Family Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Rainer Albertz 5.1.╇ Introductory questionsâ•… 245 5.2.╇ Religious beliefs expressed in Hebrew personal namesâ•… 262 5.3.╇ Family beliefs related to the conduct of everyday lifeâ•… 336 5.4.╇ The deities venerated in family religionâ•… 339 5.5.╇ Iconographic evidence for iconic stamp seals serving personal piety and family religion (R. Schmitt)â•… 367 6.╇ Rites of Family and Household Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Rüdiger Schmitt 6.1.╇Introductionâ•… 387 6.2.╇ Rites and rituals associated with the cycle of human lifeâ•… 388 6.3.╇ Rites, rituals, and observances set by the calendarâ•… 399 6.4.╇ Occasional ritualsâ•… 403 6.5.╇ Taboos and other observancesâ•… 420 6.6.╇ Family rites and rituals and their significance for the symbolic system of the familyâ•… 426 7.╇ Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family . . . . . . . 429 Rüdiger Schmitt 7.1.╇Introductionâ•… 429 7.2.╇ Status of the deadâ•… 431 7.3.╇ Mourning the deadâ•… 433 7.4.╇ Burying the deadâ•… 436 7.5.╇ Feeding the dead and other forms of post-mortem care for the deadâ•… 455 7.6.╇ Commemorating the deadâ•… 457 7.7.╇ Interrogating the deadâ•… 469 7.8.╇ Summary and conclusions: The functions of mortuary rites in the context of family and household religionâ•… 471 8.╇ Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt 8.1.╇ Research historyâ•… 474 8.2.╇Methodologyâ•… 475 8.3.╇ Archaeological evidence for domestic religious practicesâ•… 477 8.4.╇ Typology of cult places outside the domestic realmâ•… 480 8.5.╇ The symbolic world of family religion based on personal namesâ•… 482

Contents

vii

8.6.╇ Rites and rituals of family religion╅ 489 8.7.╇ Care for the dead in the context of household and family religion╅ 493

Additional Tables (Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt Appendix A.╇ Comparative Table of Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 Rüdiger Schmitt Appendix B.╇ Personal Names: A Comprehensive List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534 Rainer Albertz B1.╇ Names of Thanksgivingâ•… 534 1.1.╇ Divine attentionâ•… 534 1.2.╇ Divine salvationâ•… 541 1.3.╇ Divine assistanceâ•… 546 1.4.╇ Divine protectionâ•… 552 B2.╇ Names of Confessionâ•… 554 2.1.╇ Divine attentionâ•… 554 2.2.╇ Divine rescueâ•… 554 2.3.╇ Divine assistanceâ•… 556 2.4.╇ Divine protectionâ•… 559 2.5.╇ Trust in godâ•… 563 2.6.╇ Relationship of personal trust in godâ•… 565 B3.╇ Names of Praiseâ•… 571 B4.╇ Equating Namesâ•… 576 4.1.╇ Terms of kinshipâ•… 576 4.2.╇ Equating a personal/tutelary god with another godâ•… 579 4.3.╇ Equating Baal with another godâ•… 579 4.4.╇ Equating Yhwh or other major deities with another godâ•…580 4.5.╇ Old epithetsâ•… 581 B5.╇ Names of Birthâ•… 582 5.1.╇ The distress of infertilityâ•… 582 5.2.╇ Prayers and vowsâ•… 583 5.3.╇ Birth oraclesâ•… 585 5.4.╇ Conception and pregnancyâ•… 586 5.5.╇ Creation and birthâ•… 587 5.6.╇ Acceptance of the child, care, naming, and circumcisionâ•…593 5.7.╇ Misfortune in the vicinity of birthâ•… 598 5.8.╇ Infant mortality and substitute namesâ•… 599 B6.╇ Secular Namesâ•… 602 6.1.╇ Names related to the situation of birthâ•… 602 6.2.╇ Personality traitsâ•… 605 6.3.╇ Comparing the child with animals and plantsâ•… 607

viii

Contents

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 Index of Authorsâ•… 662 Index of Ancient Personal Namesâ•… 668 Index of Textual Sourcesâ•… 679 Index of Sites and Place-Namesâ•… 689 Index of Subjectsâ•… 692

List of Figures Fig. 2.1.╇ Variants of four-room houses . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . Fig. 2.2.╇ Ground plan of House 1727 at Tell Balatâh, Stratum VII, 8th century b.c.e . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . Fig. 2.3.╇ Reconstruction and ground plan of House B at Tell el-ʿUmeri, Iron Age I . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 2.4.╇ Reconstruction of a typical Israelite four-room house, Iron Age I, by L. E. Stager . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . Fig. 2.5.╇ Schematic reconstruction of a dwelling with unroofed central courtyard on the lower floor by E. Netzer . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . Fig. 2.6.╇ Schematic reconstruction of dwellings with unroofed central courtyards on upper floors by E. Netzer . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . Fig. 2.7.╇ Possible house compounds, compiled by L. E. Stager 1985 . . . . . . . . . Fig. 2.8.╇ Reconstruction of a possible family compound by L. E. Stager, illustrated by C. S. Alexander 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . Fig. 2.9.╇ Dwelling quarter in Hazor showing a back-to-back orientation, Area A, Stratum VII, 8th century b.c.e . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . Fig. 2.10.╇ Ground plan of the Iron II village Beit Aryeh and a huge storehouse (no. 510) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . Fig. 3.1.╇ Ai: Pottery and animal figurine (below) from Locus 65 . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.2.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Locus 12 . . . . . Fig. 3.3.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand and pottery from Locus 36 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . Fig. 3.4a.╇ Tel Batash: Contents of Loci 910a and 914 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . Fig. 3.4b.╇ Position of Altar (▲ 23 in building F 608). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.5.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Location of objects from Loci 844 and 859 . . . . Fig. 3.6.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and pottery from Locus 25 . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.7.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and jug from Locus 808 . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.8.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects from Loci 442 and 443 . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.9.╇ Beersheba: sphinx/cherub figurine from Locus 3622 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ Fig. 3.10.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 32-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.11.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 22-13; 4; 5 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . Fig. 3.12.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 31-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.13.╇ Beth-shean, Upper Level V: Figurines and stand from Locus 1564 . . . . Fig. 3.14.╇ Beth-shean, Level IV: Pottery and Objects from Loci 293 (nos. 1–7) and 298 (8–14) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . Fig 3.15.╇ ʿEin Gev, Stratum III: Pottery and objects from Locus 11 . . . . . . . . . Fig. 3.16.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb: Content of pit 241 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . ix

27 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 40 76 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 94 95

x

List of Figures

Fig. 3.17.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, Contents of House 440 . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Fig. 3.18.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb: Pottery shrine fragment from Room 437 . 97 Fig. 3.19.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIc: Pottery from Locus 429A . . . . . . . . . . 98 Fig. 3.20.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, House 161: Contents of Room 157 as mapped in excavation report . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Fig. 3.21.╇ Tel Halif: Plan of Field IV . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 100 Fig. 3.22.╇ Tel Halif: Reconstruction of Room G 8005 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 100 Fig. 3.23.╇ Tel Halif, Locus G 8005: Stand, altars, and JPF fragment . . . . . . . . .101 Fig. 3.24.╇ Hazor: Isometric reconstruction of temple 3283 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . .103 Fig. 3.25.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and objects from Loci 48 (left) and 47a (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Fig. 3.26.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and mask from Locus 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Fig. 3.27.╇ Hazor, Area A, Stratum IX–X: Pottery and Objects from Locus 239a . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . .107 Fig. 3.28.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIb with findspot of kernos . . . . . . . . . 109 Fig. 3.29.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIa with findspots of pottery assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 110 Fig. 3.30.╇ Jerusalem, Area G: Pottery and objects from Locus 967 (Stratum 10b “house of bullae”) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Fig. 3.31.╇ Kinneret, Area D, Stratum II: Building 683 with pottery from Locus 683 proper . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 113 Fig. 3.32.╇ Kinneret, Area B1, Stratum IB: Figurine and pottery from Locus 221 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Fig. 3.33.╇ Kinneret Area B1, Stratum IA: Rattle and pottery from Locus 328; figurine from Locus 322 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 115 Fig. 3.34.╇ Kinneret Area B 1, Stratum I B: Figurines and pottery from Locus 326 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fig. 3.35.╇ Kinneret courtyard dwelling and finds from Locus 3594 . . . . . . . . .116 Fig. 3.36.╇ Lachish Level III: Pair of peg figurines from Locus 2066 . . . . . . . . .117 Fig. 3.37.╇ Male figurine and fragment and pottery from Locus 4150 . . . . . . . .118 Fig. 3.38a.╇ Lachish, Area S, the Level III lower house . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 119 Fig. 3.38b.╇ Stand and pottery assemblage from Locus 3569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Fig. 3.39.╇ Lachish: Altar, figurine fragment, and pottery from the lower house, Locus 3573 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Fig. 3.40.╇ Lachish: Animal Figurine and pottery from the lower house, Locus 3533 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Fig. 3.41.╇ Lachish, Level III (?): JPF head and pottery from Locus G 14: 1008 . . . 121 Fig. 3.42.╇ Lachish, Level III: JPF head and pottery from Locus H 17: 1078 . . . . . 122 Fig. 3.43.╇ Lachish, Room 49, with objects in situ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Fig. 3.44.╇ Lachish, Stratum V: Cult Room 49: bamāh and maṣṣebah in situ . . . . 124 Fig. 3.45.╇ Tel Masos, Area G, Stratum II: Plan of House 314 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ .126 Fig. 3.46.╇ Tel Masos: Pottery assemblage from Room 343. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 127

List of Figures

xi

Fig. 3.47.╇ Tel Masos, House 314: Pottery assemblage and “collectibles“ from Room 307 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .128 Fig. 3.48.╇ Tel Masos, House 314. Pottery assemblage and ivory lion’s head from Room 331 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .129 Fig. 3.49.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine and pottery from Locus 609 . . . . . . . . .130 Fig. 3.50.╇ Tel Masos: Figurine base and pottery from Room 708 . . . . . . . . . . 131 Fig. 3.51.╇ Tel Masos: Model Chair and cup from Room 758 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ .132 Fig. 3.52.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Room 718 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .133 Fig. 3.53.╇ Tel Michal, Stratum XIV–XIII: Sanctuary with findspots of pottery . . . 134 Fig. 3.54.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Cult corner proper with objects in situ . . . . . .135 Fig. 3.55.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081 with adjacent structures . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . 136 Fig. 3.56.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Pottery assemblage as reconstructed by Zevit (2000: fig. 3.55) . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 137 Fig. 3.57.╇ Megiddo, Palace 338: General plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Fig. 3.58.╇ Megiddo, Locus 340 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . 139 Fig. 3.59.╇ Megiddo: Content of Room 340 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Fig. 3.60.╇ Distribution of ritual objects from Megiddo courtyard House 00/K/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Fig. 3.61.╇ Megiddo, Sratum VI, Area AA: Pottery shrine and selected pottery from eastern quadrant of Locus 2159 . . . . . . . . . .143 Fig. 3.62.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery from Locus 1727 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Fig. 3.63.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand associated with Locus 1729 and selected pottery from Locus 1729 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . .145 Fig. 3.64.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery from assemblage of Room 1732 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Fig. 3.65.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Zoomorphic spout and pottery from Locus 1737 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Fig. 3.66.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand with figurative appliques from Locus 1731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Fig. 3.67.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery from Locus 1735. Photograph of Locus 1735 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . .149 Fig. 3.68.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Selected pottery and photography from Locus 1736 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Fig. 3.69.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Top of stand with selected pottery and cymbals from Locus 1740 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ 151 Fig. 3.70.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery from Locus 1744 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Fig. 3.71.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Amulets, bone figurine fragment, and selected pottery from Locus 1741 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . .153 Fig. 3.72.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Cult stand and goblet from Locus 17 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . 154

xii

List of Figures

Fig. 3.73.╇ Stand, censer, and zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo, Level H 3, Unit 94/H/8, with sample of selected pottery . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . .156 Fig. 3.74.╇ Distribution patterns from Tell en-Naṣbeh . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .158 Fig. 3.75.╇ Tel Qashish: Pottery from pit Locus 253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Fig. 3.76.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII C: Pottery and objects from Loci 1065 and 674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Fig. 3.77.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII B: Pottery from Loci 690 and 1044 . . . 162 Fig. 3.78.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Fig. 3.79.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VII, House 64 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . .166 Fig. 3.80.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VI, House 37 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . .167 Fig. 3.81.╇ Shiloh: Pottery and Objects from Locus 623 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . .168 Fig. 3.82.╇ The so-called Cultic Structure SW 2-7 at Taanach and selected pottery from Loci 27 and 61 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . .171 Fig. 3.83.╇ Tell Abu al-Kharaz: Tripod incense burners and cooking pot from Area 7 house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Fig. 3.84.╇ Irbid, Area C: Ritual Vessels from Room 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .178 Fig. 3.85.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 102 with model shrine fragment from Room 110, proto-Aeolic capital and figurine head from Room 105 and stone figurine from Room 217 . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Fig. 3.86.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 300: Figurine base and miniature tools from bench Locus E54:24 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . 183 Fig. 3.87.╇ Tell Mazar, Mound A: Pottery assemblage from Room 101 . . . . . . . . 185 Fig. 3.88.╇ Tell Mazar, Building 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Fig. 3.89.╇ Pella: Pottery and stands from Plot IV E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Fig. 3.90.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri, Building A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Fig. 3.91.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri: Room A2 with supposed cultic stele . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ 192 Fig. 3.92.╇ Typology of Philistine terra-cotta figurines . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .194 Fig. 3.93.╇ Ashdod, Area H: Pottery and objects from Rooms 5032 and 5033 . . . . 196 Fig. 3.94.╇ Ashdod: Figurines and pottery from Loci 4133 and 4109 . . . . . . . . . 197 Fig. 3.95.╇ Ashdod, Locus 5361 with musician’s stand and shrine model fragment . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . 200 Fig. 3.96.╇ Stand and pottery from Ashdod, Area H, Locus 6212 . . . . . . . . . . .201 Fig. 3.97.╇ Distribution of finds from Ashdod, Building 5337 . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Fig. 3.98.╇ Ashdod: Potter’s quarter in Area D with figurine and pottery assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Fig. 3.99.╇ ʿAin Dara: Figurine plaque fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 24, Level 2, Phase XIV . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Fig. 3.100.╇ ʿAin Dara: Animal figurine from Sq. 4, Loc.15, Level 1, Phase VII . . . 214 Fig. 3.101.╇ ʿAin Dara: Horse-and-rider fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 12 (not specified), Level 2, Phase V . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . .215 Fig. 3.102.╇ Tell Afis, Area E1, Level 3: Limestone figurine and pottery from Loci 803 and 806 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 217 Fig. 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371

List of Figures Fig. 5.4. Fig. 5.5. Fig. 5.2. Fig. 5.3. Fig. 5.6. Fig. 5.7. Fig. 5.9. Fig. 5.11. Fig. 5.8. Fig. 5.12. Fig. 5.10. Fig. 5.13. Fig. 5.14. Fig. 5.15. Fig. 5.16. Fig. 5.17. Fig. 5.18. Fig. 5.19. Fig. 5.23. Fig. 5.20. Fig. 5.21. Fig. 5.24. Fig. 5.22. Fig. 5.25. Fig. 5.26. Fig. 5.27. Fig. 5.28. Fig. 5.29. Fig. 5.30. Fig. 5.31. Fig. 5.32. Fig. 5.33. Fig. 5.34. Fig. 5.35. Fig. 5.36. Fig. 5.37. Fig. 5.38. Fig. 5.39. Fig. 5.40. Fig. 5.41. Fig. 5.42. Fig. 5.43. Fig. 5.44.

xiii

. . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 371 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 372 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 373 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 373 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 373 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 374 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 374 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 374 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 375 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 376 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 376 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 376 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 377 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 377 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 377 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 380 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 380 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 380 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 381 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 381 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 381 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 382 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 382 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 382 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 383 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 383 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 383 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 384 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 384

xiv

List of Figures

Fig. 5.45. . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . 384 Fig. 7.1.╇ Gezer, Tomb 59 with sample of contents . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 441 Fig. 7.2.╇ Megiddo, Tomb 39 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 442 Fig. 7.3.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tomb 54 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . 443 Fig. 7.4.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tomb 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Fig. 7.5.╇ Samaria, Tomb 103 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . 446 Fig. 7.6.╇ Lachish, Tomb 4002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 Fig. 7.7.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .450 Fig. 7.8.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 7 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .451 Fig. 7.9.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 8 . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ . . . . .452 Fig. 7.10.╇ Lachish, Tomb 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 Fig. 7.11.╇ Jerusalem, Cave 1 with sample of ritual objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 Fig. 7.12.╇ Jerusalem, Cave Locus 6015 with sample of ritual objects . . . . . . . . 465 Fig. 7.13a (above).╇ Samaria, Locus E207: Plan and Sections . . . . . . . . . . . .å°“ .467 Fig. 7.13b (below).╇ Selection of ritual objects and pottery from Samaria, Locus E207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 Fig. 7.14.╇ Categories of social groups performing rites for the dead . . . . . . . . 473

Preface After being neglected for a long time, the topic of family and household religion in ancient Israel and its surroundings has during the last few decades moved more directly into the focus of religious-historical, gender-oriented, and archaeological research. In recent years, several international conferences, sessions, and workshops have taken place in which the subject has been discussed from a variety perspectives: in Providence, Rhode Island (U.S.A., 2005), in Piliscaba (Hungary, 2006), Vienna (Austria, 2007), and in Münster (Germany, 2009). The present volume collects as much material as possible from the archaeological, iconographic, epigraphic, and biblical sources in order to present a comprehensive picture of family and household religion in ancient Israel and in the neighboring cultures from the 11th through the 7th centuries b.c.e. In this book, we intend to demonstrate that this specific religious dimension actually existed in the region of the Levant and show how it functioned in discontinuity and continuity with other aspects of life—namely, local and state religion. Our goal is to provide a compendium for studying the ancient religion of Israel and of its Levantine environment from a specific analytical perspective. This monograph is the result of cooperation between the authors that began in 1998. Actual work on the book began when we started a research project on family religion funded by the German Research Fund (DFG—Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) in 2006 (Project no. AL 141/7-1). Both of us had been working on the topic earlier: Rainer Albertz published his Habilitation on “Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion” in 1978 and Rüdiger Schmitt his study on “Philistine Terracotta Figurines” in 1994, and the topic of family and household religion has been a part of our research for many years. Today, we are glad to present the fruit of many years’ work, and we are deeply thankful to all who have contributed to our research in one way or another. First, we thank the DFG for funding our research project and for financially asisting in its publication. Second, thanks go to many friends and colleagues who have discussed the topic with us at conferences and elsewhere; we mention here only Susan Ackermann, Beth Alpert Nakhai, William S. Dever, and Saul Olyan. Third, we owe many thanks to Mark Padgham, Bruce Wells, and Beverly McCoy for polishing our English and editing the manuscript; Ruth Ebach, Philipp Baumberger, and other student assistants constantly helped to supply us with books, articles, and photocopying. The readers have Ruth Ebach and Philipp Baumberger to thank for creating the indexes. Last, but not least, our special thanks go to the publishing firm of Eisenbrauns for accepting the book for publication. Rainer Albertz and Rüdiger Schmitt Altenberge and Bremen, February 2012

xv

Abbreviations General Arab. Arabic/ian Aram. Aramaic bib. bibliography cat. category cat. no(s). catalog number(s) DN divine name Dtr Deuteronomist(ic) DtrH Deuteronomistic History ed(s). editor(s), edition, or edited by Egyp. Egyptian fem. feminine fig(s). figure(s)/figurine(s) frag(s). fragment(s) H Holiness Code Idum. Idumean JPF Judean pillar-figurine K. tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum LB(A) Late Bronze (Age) LXX Septuagint masc. masculine MB(A) Middle Bronze (Age) Moab. Moabite MT Masoretic Text Myc Mycenaean n(n). note(s) no(s). number(s) P the Priestly writer/source Phoen. Phoenician pl. plural pl(s). plate(s) PN personal name p(p). page(s) rev. reverse sing. singular Str. stratum/a Tg. Targum

xvi

Abbreviations

xvii

transcrip. transcription zoom. zoomorphic

Reference Works AASOR AB ABD

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., et al., editors. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 ABL Harper, R. F., editor. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914 Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan ADAJ AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AJA American Journal of Archaeology AMM Hübner, U. Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur und Religion eines transjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992 Pritchard, J. B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Pictures Relating to the Old ANEP Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954 ANET Pritchard, J. B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen ARI Schwiderski, D. Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, vol. 2. Fontes et Subsidia ad Biblica pertinentes 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004 ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch BA Biblical Archaeologist BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBB Bonner Biblische Beiträge Benz Benz, F. L. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972 Bib Biblica BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament BN Biblische Notizen BPHB Deutsch, R. Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center, 2003 Deutsch, R., and A. Lemaire. Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo BPPS Mousaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center, 2000 BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD Oppenheim, A. L., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vols. A–Z. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 CAI Aufrecht, W. E. A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1989

xviii

Abbreviations

CIS Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East DDD Van der Toorn, K., B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, editors. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995. 2nd ed., 1999 Olmo Lete, G. del, and J. Sanmartín. Dictionario de lengua ugarítica. 2 vols. DLU Aula Orientalis Supplementa 7–8. Barcelona: Ausa, 1996–2000 DNWSI Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik 21/1–2. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. West Semitic Epigraphic News of the First EN Millennium bce. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center, 1999 Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972. 2nd ed., 23 vols. EncJud Detroit: Thompson Gale, 2007 ErIsr Eretz-Israel FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FHCB Deutsch, R. “A Hoard of Fifty Hebrew Clay Bullae from the Time of Hezekiah.” Pp. 45–98 in Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, ed. R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv– Jaffa: Archaeological Center, 2003 FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FSL Sader, H. Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 11. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra, 2005 Gesenius, W. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Ges18 Testament. 18th ed. 6 parts. Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010 Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. 4th ed. GGG Questiones Disputatae 134. Freiburg: Herder, 1998 Gibson Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions, Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982 GKC Kautzsch, E., editor. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 Renz, J., and W. Röllig. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. in 4. HAE Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995–2003 HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. and ed. under supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament Heltzer Heltzer, M. “The Recently Published West Semitic Inscribed Stamp Seals.” UF 31 (1999) 199–224 HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual Hug Hug, V. Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh. s.v. Chr. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 4. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1993 IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

Abbreviations IPN

xix

Noth, M. Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. BWANT 46. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1928 JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements KAI Donner, H., and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971–76 Köhler, L., and W. Baumgartner. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum KBL3 Alten Testament. 3rd ed. 2 vols. plus supplement. Leiden: Brill, 2004 Kition Yon, M., and M. M. Sznycer. “Une inscription phénicienne royale de Kition (Chypre).” Pp. 791–823 in Comptes rendus de séances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris: Boccard, 1991 Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. Die keilalphabetischen Texte KTU aus Ugarit. AOAT 24/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976 LAS Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars. 3 vols. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970–83 Lemaire Lemaire, A., and A. Yardeni. “New Hebrew Ostraca from the Shephela.” Pp. 197–223 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006 Maraqten Maraqten, M. Die Semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 5. Hildesheim: Olms, 1988 MVAG Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft MZM Timm, S. Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten. Ägypten und Altes Testament 17. Darmstadt: Harrassowitz, 1989 Naveh Naveh, J. “Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions.” Qedem 41 (2000) 1–14 NEAEHL Stern, E., editor. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993 Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical NEE Period. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center, 1995 Lemaire, A. Nouvelle tablettes araméennes. Haute études orientales 34. NTA Geneva: Droz, 2001 OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OBOSA Orbis biblicus et orientalis: Series Archaeologica Or Orientalia OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PIAP Zadok, R. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28. Leuven: Peeters, 1988 RB Revue Biblique RGG Religion in Geschichte Gegenwart. 3rd ed. 7 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1957–65

xx

Abbreviations

Röllig, W. “Aramaica Haburensia II.” AoF 24 (1997) 366–74 Eggler, J., and O. Keel. Corpus der Siegel-Amulette aus Jordanien: Vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit. OBOSA 25. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006 SBLDS Society of biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien THAT Jenni, E., editor, with the assistance of C. Westermann. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971–76 ThWAT Botterweck, G. J., and H. Ringgren, editors. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970– TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TSF Bachelot, L., and F. M. Fales, editors. Tell Shiuk Fawqani 1994–1998, vol. 2. History of the Ancient Near East: Monograph 4/2. Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2005 TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WM Haussig, H. W., editor. Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1/1. Stuttgart: Klett, 1965 WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen WO Die Welt des Orients WSS Avigad, N., and B. Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1997 Deutsch, R., and M. Heltzer. Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: WTP Archaeological Center, 1997 ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Röllig SAJ

Chapter 1

Introduction This book focuses on the religious beliefs and practices of ancient Israelite families and their households. This subject has been largely ignored throughout much of the extensive history of Old Testament research.â•›1 Bernhard Duhm first defined the people of Israel as the carrier (or, in German, the Subjekt) of Israelite religion in 1875, and denied that there was any direct relationship between the individual and the divine prior to the period of the great prophets (1875: 95). This thesis of so-called collectivism shaped the view of the Wellhausen school until the beginning of the 20th century. In his history of the people of Israel, Bernhard Stade (1887: 1.507) wrote that “Israel’s religion is a religion of a people. . . . [O]nly via his affiliation to the people of Israel as a cult community of Yhwh did the individual Israelite enter into a relationship with Yhwh.”â•›2 According to this view, a religion of the individual—and by extension, the religion of the members of a family—would have been impossible, at least in the earlier periods. This thesis of collectivism has been disputed a number of times. Ernst Sellin maintained in 1893 that a variety of social entities simultaneously promulgated—or carried forward—the cultural practices of many ancient religions, be they the religion of the state, the family, or the individual (1893: 445). With regard to ancient Israel, he suggested that, while the legal sections of the Hebrew Bible primarily focused on Israel as a collective entity, the Psalms, the wisdom literature, and the personal names all verified a variety of individual relationships with the divine. A similar position was adopted by Harold H. Rowley (1956). It was Johannes Hempel (1936) who first attempted to distinguish two circles of belief in the religion of ancient Israel: belief in the power of Yhwh throughout history and nature (in his chaps. 2–4), which was primarily held by the people and their sacral institutions; and belief that Yhwh’s primary area of concern was the lives of individuals and their families (in his chap. 5). Hempel hypothesized that the religious experiences of this second circle were focused on central dates in the lives of each individual, such as dates of birth, illness, or death. However, these concepts did not greatly influence the course of scholarship within this field. A new kind of collectivist thesis came to the fore following World War II—influenced particularly strongly in Germany by the experiences of the confessional church— that was focused on the collective beliefs of the people of Israel. This thesis presumed 1.╇ For more details, see Albertz 1978a: 4–13. 2.╇ Translations of German quotations in this volume are by the authors, except when a previously published English translation is available.

1

2

Chapter 1

these collective beliefs to have positively effected the overall form and nature of Israelite religion, while relegating the variety of individual beliefs to marginal, subsidiary, or even detractive positions. In his theology of the Old Testament, Walter Eichrodt (1964: 2.117) stressed that every “individual life was embedded in the large organism of overall life” and declared that “the individual could dare to trust in God’s power, wisdom and kindness in his life only as a member of the people to whom Yhwh had revealed himself and given his promises” (1964: 3.162). Gerhard von Rad (1962: 1.399) similarly spoke of a “nearly somatic affiliation of the individual with the community” during the earlier periods, while casting the process of individualization that occurred following the 7th and 6th centuries b.c.e. in a rather negative light, as having reflected a crisis of belief in Yhwh (1962: 1.403, 406). In his theology, he therefore dealt with the Psalms under the heading “Israel in front of Yhwh (The Answer of Israel)” (1962: 1.366) and regarded most of the individual prayers to have been rather late contributions that reflected a perceived isolation of individuals from their supporting community and that, in turn, confronted them with the possibility of radical desertion by God (1962: 1.410–11). This view carried a great deal of influence; almost none of the various Old Testament theologies written in the second part of the 20th century considered in any great detail the beliefs of individuals or of the members of individual families or the roles of such beliefs in their daily religious lives (see, for example, Westermann 1978b; Childs 1985;â•›3 Preuss 1991–92; Brueggemann 1997). The first person to write an Old Testament theology granting familial religion a place within a larger depiction of ancient Israelite religion and society was Erhard S.  Gerstenberger (2001), who reflected ongoing developments in attempting to understand the nature of ancient Israelite religion.

1.1.╇ History of research The history of inquiry during which family and household religion began to constitute a subject of Old Testament scholarship in its own right spanned a period of about 35 years. Its development was fed by what were initially three distinct approaches, each of which has gradually converged and hybridized with the others, while retaining traces of its former distinction. These approaches were the religious historical approach, the gender-oriented approach, and the archaeological approach, each of which is considered in turn below.

1.1.1.╇ The religious historical approach After Eissfeldt (1945–48) recognized that the trusting address of “my God” in the individual complaints of the Psalms expressed a particular kind of relationship with the divine, Vorländer (1975) traced the paths of ancient Near Eastern scholarshipâ•›4 and declared 3.╇ Childs (1985: 97–103) presumed that the individual functions as only a representative of either humanity or Israel. He suggested that a “rugged individualist,” “in the modern post-Enlightenment sense,” did not exist in ancient Israel and that “the individual is always viewed in relation to a larger society and a group” (1985: 97). He gave no consideration at all to the fact that the family necessarily constituted the closest social group for the individual in ancient Israel. 4.╇ See especially Jacobsen (1976: 146–64), who dealt with the “Gods as Parents: The Rise of Personal Religion.”

Introduction

3

the expression ilu + suffix to denote a specific type of deity: a personal, protective god. This god was considered “to stand in a close relationship to an individual and his family as their specific god” (1975: 3). Vorländer considered the main functions of this type of deity in Mesopotamia and Israel to have included the protection of its devotees from evil powers and the safeguarding of their well-being. A third function, intercession on behalf of a devotee to a higher god, seemed to have been absent from Israel. He believed that the personal gods were venerated at familial cult places (Judges 17) following private cult practices (Vorländer 1975: 171–75). These familial cult places existed until the Josianic reforms. Private cults were distinct from the general cult activities of the people as a whole. Although Vorländer did not clarify the kinds of sociological, form-critical, or material criteria that may have been used to distinguish between the private cult of a personal god and the public cult of Yhwh, he did emphasize a central feature of family religion and offered previously unacknowledged possibilities for further exploring the history, nature, and importance of family religion in the Near Eastern environment. In investigating the creation motifs in the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah, and Job, I noted (Albertz 1974) that the creation of human beings was originally affiliated with the individual complaints (and the corresponding oracles of salvation) and thus belonged to a private ritual, while the creation of the world was a very common motif of the hymns, which were used to praise Yhwh in the official cult. A subsequent broader investigation (Albertz 1978a) of the individual laments considered the personal names and the patriarchal narratives and the extent to which they may have given rise to material and structural differences from typical features of the Yhwh religion (1978a: 23–96). Religious statements in private letters from Babylonia along with expressions found in Kassite seal prayers were compared with old Babylonian royal inscriptions (1978a: 96–158). Considerable differences were noted in both cultures between personal piety as expressed within the family realm and within the official religions of the state institutions. Official traditions of Israel’s national history or of its political and sacral institutions are not mentioned in familial religious beliefs and practices—not in individual laments, personal names, or the Proverbs. Although Israel’s relationship with the divine was conceptualized according to the official Yhwh religion as having had an indisputable historical basis, constituted and proved by decision and conditioned by the obedience of the people, the personal piety of individuals was regarded as having its origin in their creation and was thus predetermined, unconditional, and essentially indissoluble. Thus piety in familial environments was analogous to the close, indissoluble social relationships in a family, while the official religion was shaped more by political analogies (1978a: 94). Therefore, the differences between the two religious levels were attributed to the sociological differences between two societal groups (family versus the collective people of the society). I labeled these manifest differences (with all respect to the former scholar of religious studies in Heidelberg, Lanczkowski 1981: 50–55) “internal religious pluralism” (Albertz 1978a: 2–3). In an article on syncretism and monotheism that was originally published 1990, M. Weippert (1997: 9) modified and expanded this model by distinguishing three levels of religious beliefs and practices in Israel: family religion, local religion, and state religion. He inferred from the patriarchal narratives that the familial god ensured the survival of the family group in situations of everyday life. He was the first to consider archaeological

4

Chapter 1

evidence for domestic cults (from Hazor, Tell Qiri, and Tell Mazar). The animal bones found at Tell Qiri even suggested to him the possibility of blood sacrifices (1997: 12). Although the family cult would have had a place in house shrines in the private dwellings, families would also have participated in the cult rites and rituals of local and regional sanctuaries (1997: 13). In his introduction to biblical monotheism, Stolz (1996: 114–34) developed a similar tripartite model. He distinguished between state, local, and domestic cults and regarded the latter to have been a part of family religion. But according to Stolz, there would have been a fluid transition between family cults and local cults, and he warned of the danger of ascribing rigid distinctions to these levels. Regarding familial conceptions of religion, he briefly considered the work of Vorländer and Albertz but considered rites of passage to have been of potentially greater significance, even though the only potential rite of passage that he considered was circumcision (1996: 124–25). He expressed reservations about the use of personal names for the reconstruction of popular religion, because of their potential for waxing and waning with fashion or given the momentary mood of a mother (1996: 125–26). Stolz also discussed cults of the dead and the Moloch cult in relation to family religion (1996: 128–32). He conceived of a domestic cult as having had physical sites represented by niches or altars in a house and functions that included ritual preparation of food, caring for ill members of the family, and the exorcism of demons (1996: 132–33). In my description of the history of Israelite religion, I attempted to reconstruct a history of Israelite familial piety from its beginning to the Hellenistic period (Albertz 1994; [German orig., 1992]). This study was based on the tripartite model of official religion, local cults, and familial piety. In contrast to the former study, of 1978, which attempted to elaborate the differences between family and official religions and to establish the former as having been a distinct phenomenon in its own right,â•›5 this later study focused to a much greater extent on the intersections and mutual influences between family, local, and official religious beliefs and practices. Aspects of this work relevant to the present study include the insight that the family religion of Israel was not greatly influenced by local or national cults prior to the late 7th century. One influence from local cults was probably the veneration of Asherah in family environments, while the inclusion of Yhwh among other family deities would have reflected the influence of the national cult. Familial religious beliefs and practices were only brought under tighter official control during the time of King Josiah (1994: 1.210–16), after they had been heavily influenced by Syrian and Babylonian religious practices during Assyrian dominion (1994: 1.186–95). Following these changes, the sacrificial meals that had been celebrated by families at local sanctuaries were only allowed at the central Temple in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12), private veneration of deities other than Yhwh was strictly forbidden (Deut 13:7–12), and the family offering of firstlings was combined with a commemoration of Israel’s official salvation history (Deut 26:1–11). Thus, the family religious beliefs and practices of Israelites from the late 7th century on was shaped to a much greater extent by specifically Israelite characteristics—to 5.╇ It was never my intention to isolate familial piety from other segments of the religion of Israel, as Conrad (1980: 486–88) suspected.

Introduction

5

such an extent that even the official religious document of early Judaism, the Torah, became a central element of personal piety in the Hellenistic period (1994: 2.556–63). My second work placed much greater emphasis on the ritual dimension of family religion and attempted to distinguish between the rituals performed by family members inside their houses and rituals that would have been celebrated at local, regional, or even national sanctuaries (1994: 1.99–103). In the context of the present book, however, I must acknowledge that my earlier work probably undervalued the significance of the cult of the dead (1994: 1.37–39). The first monograph explicitly devoted to the topic of family religion was that of van der Toorn, published in 1996 (b). He also adopted my original model of internal religious pluralism in relation to “distinct social groups” but rejected the terms “personal piety” and “official religion,” preferring instead to differentiate between “family religion” and “state religion” (1996b: 2). This division was preferred over a tripartite model because, according to his conception of a family as including the wider clan, any distinct category of a local cult became superfluous. In his words, “Once it is acknowledged that the category of personal religion should be abandoned in favor of the notion of family religion . . . the phenomenon of local religion merges with the latter” (1996b: 3). Difficulties arising from attempts to differentiate domestic, urban, and royal religions are not insurmountable in van der Toorn’s view, and in fact, “all these ‘religions’ are aspects of a single religious system; they are not separated entities, but hold together” (1996b: 2). Van der Toorn included in his study, as did Vorländer and Albertz in theirs, an extended investigation of the family religions of Mesopotamia (van der Toorn 1996b: 11– 147) and Syria or Ugarit (1996b: 151–77). He describes the development of Israelite family religion in middle and northern Palestinian hill country from the 11th century b.c.e. until the end of the Northern State (1996b: 181–332). The functionaries of the Northern State religion, the king, the priest, and the prophets, were alleged by him to have fiercely fought against family religion in order to weaken local identities and to strengthen national coherence. With the loss of local shrines and traditional burial places, the families who fled to the south following the destruction of the Northern Kingdom created a new kind of family religion within the Judean Diaspora, that of “personal devotion,” which in turn heavily influenced the emergence of the new national religion of Judah through its accord with—and consequent support by—the piety of each individual (1996b: 339–72). Among the rich insights offered by van der Toorn’s study is his critical contribution to the study of family religion by emphasizing the importance of the cult of the ancestors. He used Old Babylonian material to demonstrate the important role played by the cult of the dead in the family religion of Mesopotamia. In great detail and through very careful analysis, he distinguished daily wheat offerings and libations given for the ancestors during meals (kispu ginû) from monthly banquets hosted during the new moon period (kispu), when entire families were gathered, and both of these from a kind of annual “All Soul’s Day” for the underworld deities and spirits of the dead (1996b: 42–65). However, although van der Toorn’s assertion about the significance of the cult of the dead for Israelite family religion may have been accurate (1 Sam 20:6; Deut 26:14), the issue of whether the teraphim were regarded as statues of ancestors themselves or merely represented personal gods remains unresolved.

6

Chapter 1

One conceptual problem of van der Toorn’s study is reflected in his sometimes encompassing use of the term “family religion,” particularly through occasional references to a combined and implicitly undifferentiated “family or clan religion” (1996b: 246). He also occasionally identified “the patron god of the clans” with the local deities (1996b: 246). Even domestic and local cults merged in his description. He seems sometimes to have become so fixated with the notion of joint families or clans as the carriers of family religion that he denied any religious role for the nuclear family: “There is neither archaeological nor literary evidence for a domestic cult performed by single nuclear families” (1996b: 254). Much of the ensuing discussion of the present book implicitly focuses on the accuracy or inaccuracy of this statement. In his history of the religion of ancient Israel, Miller (2000) again followed the tripartite model of distinguishing the family religion, local cults, and official state religion (2000: xix). According to Miller, the family included two dimensions: “Family religion and cult has to do with what went on in domestic households and in the larger circle of clan” (2000: 62). The family cult was therefore enacted in two sacred areas, both “within the domestic center or household” (2000: 63) and at “the cultic center of the clan or extended family” (2000: 64). The latter hosted occasional sacrificial offerings for the family as well as the annual sacrificial feast of the clan (2000: 68–69), while the former was the site of birth rituals, naming feasts, blessings, and prayers (2000: 71–75). Thus, although Miller recognized the cult activities of the clan in the realms of family religion, he also placed much emphasis on the rituals that were affiliated with the nuclear family unit. After Gerstenberger had already provided fundamental insights into the familial setting of individual petition rituals in Mesopotamia and Israel (1980), he became the first to consider the role of family religion in a “Theology of Old Testament” (2001), as mentioned above. Reflecting on its significance in this context, he even labeled it a “theology of the family,” which he characterized “first and foremost as a theology of the necessities of life” (2001: 27).â•›6 According to him, domestic rituals could have been performed on roofs, before niches, at domestic shrines, or in front of open altars (2001: 37). Although women would likely have played prominent roles in the domestic cult (2001: 39), blood sacrifices would only have been offered at local or regional sanctuaries under male control and authority. Among the rituals emphasized by Gerstenberger were the exorcism of demons, Passover, healing ceremonies for ill family members, birth rituals, circumcision, blessings, and burial rites (2001: 39–44). Goddesses were invoked to ensure fertility, while Bes amulets were used to protect mother and child. He also emphasized the intimate placing of personal trust in the family god by family members; in contrast to Stolz, he regarded personal names as providing a credible source for the reconstruction of familial religious beliefs and practices (2001: 50–53). Perhaps reflecting the increasing adoption of the concept of “family religion” in recent scholarship, one of the more recent books on Religions of the Ancient World, edited by 6.╇ Because Israelite family religion had no great reach beyond its original domain prior to the exile, it is perhaps not appropriate to conceive of a “family theology” operating throughout the entire history of Israelite religion. The term instead seems to arise in direct response to the title of Gerstenberger’s book, “Theologies in the Old Testament.”

Introduction

7

Johnston (2004), included a chapter on “Religious Practices of the Individual and Family” (2004: 423–37). Following an introductory overview by van der Toorn, this essay presented a survey of the family religions in Mesopotamia, Syria–Canaan, Israel, Anatolia, Iran, Greece, Etruria, Rome,â•›7 and Christianity. Insights partially suggested in the prior works of Vorländer, Albertz, and van der Toorn with regard to Mesopotamia and Syria were brought into much wider context in this volume. Family religion in Israel and Judah was but one small part of a much wider religious phenomenon in the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean world. The issue of commonality and difference between these varieties of family religion was the central question of a recent international conference on “Household and Family Religion in Antiquity,” held at Brown University, Providence, during the winter of 2005. Proceedings from this conference were published by Bodel and Olyan in 2008 (b) and included not only descriptions of the household and family religions of Mesopotamia, Syria/Ugarit, Israel, Philistia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome but also a theoretical introduction by Stowers and an editors’ summary of the general issues. This volume continues to be a rich resource for ongoing deliberations, including a number of unique contributions that are of particular relevance to the present study. The editors of the volume considered the appropriateness of the combined term “family and household religion” (Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 276–78), as did several individual contributors (Ackerman 2008: 145; Olyan 2008: 114–15; Ritner 2008: 171–72). The first part of the term was conceded as referring to the social group that was responsible for the execution of ritual activities, while the second signifies the domestic locus in which this social group worked and lived. The ritual activities of the families were not limited to the domestic cult, as indicated by Olyan (2008: 114–15); Israelite families also celebrated sacrificial meals in local or regional sanctuaries and performed rites for the dead at family tombs. The combined term thus serves as a reminder both of the wider circle of family religion—expanded to encompass cult and ritual activities at various places beyond the dwelling and to include additional kin and neighbors—and of the position of the domestic cult in the very center of family religion. Following the observation of Daviau (2001: 202) that many religious activities in the private dwellings of Tell Jawa seem to have been performed on their upper stories or roofs, I argued that it would have been possible only for direct members of a nuclear family, and possibly a select few additional kin, to have participated in domestic cult activities, because of both the limited size of these upper levels and the narrowness of typical staircases (Albertz 2008: 96). Tell Jawa thus seems to show the kind of evidence that van der Toorn (1996b: 256) was unable to find; it serves largely to refute his thesis that family religion was supported exclusively by either joint families or clans. Bodel and Olyan’s volume also presents a variety of approaches to the “degree of disjunction between the religion of household and family on the one hand, and state, civic or public cult on the other” (2008a: 278). Some of the contributors emphasized the discontinuity (Albertz), some the continuity (Ritner), and others both (Olyan, Schmitt). It 7.╇ Although the book presented no section devoted to Egypt, there is certainly evidence for a household religion in ancient Egypt, as reflected in the work of Ritner (2008).

8

Chapter 1

remains unclear whether these distinctions have to do with real differences that existed and operated within the religious cultures of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean or whether they simply reflect the variety of approaches adopted by researchers in examining these different cultures. Moreover, disjunction also arises in interpreting cultural practices depending on whether one examines textual, epigraphic, iconographic, or ceramic material. An example of the dependence of interpretation on the nature of source material was the editors’ questioning (Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 281) whether personal names can be taken as credible sources for determining the conceptual range of family religion, stating that “they may simply focus on the personal rather than larger, national concerns” (see also Olyan 2008: 117, pace Albertz). Dangers always arise in placing undue weight on the interpretation of single sources. Nevertheless, it is not only Hebrew personal names that fail to reflect the concerns of official religion but also the individual lamentsâ•›8 and the Proverbs. At least in ancient Israel, a focus on personal concerns seems to have been a general characteristic of family religion. Finally, in their summary, Bodel and Olyan (2008a: 279) indicated the existence of a cross-cultural phenomenon in the realm of family religion—namely, “the avoidance of meat offerings in domestic cult,” effectively contradicting an earlier suggestion of M. Weippert (1997: 12). This cross-cultural evidence suggests that it was unlikely that the archaeological remains at Tell Qiri, where animal bones were found, could be attributed to the domestic cult.

1.1.2.╇ The gender-oriented approach In any consideration of the participation of women in Israelite cults, a gender-oriented approach contributes uniquely important insights to family and household religion. A pioneer of this sort of investigation was Phyllis Bird, who suggested in 1987 that, although women in ancient Israelite societies were very restricted in their participation in the official cult—with participation mostly limited to pilgrimages—and although the religious activities of women were either explicitly or implicitly denounced in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 7:17–18; 44:19; Ezek 8:14), there nevertheless must have been familial rituals performed in domestic environments in which women played prominent roles (Bird 1987: 409), even though few descriptions of such roles have been found. Not only did Bird mention Passover, she made cross-cultural comparisons in considering the roles of women in taking vows, rituals dedicated to expectant mothers, naming ceremonies, and circumcision. She also suggested a ritual role for midwives (1987: 410). In her 1991 essay, she demanded that, “for ancient Israel, we need to ask about the existence, form, and function of a family cult alongside the national or pan-tribal cult of Yahweh: How were family and national 8.╇ The few exceptions are Ps 22:4–6; 77:14–21; 143:5; the reference to the “trust” of Israel’s fathers in Ps 22:4–6, which constitutes a doublet to the confession of confidence in 22:10–11, was in fact a literary addition that belonged to a later edition of the psalm in the community of the poor (22:24–27 or 22:32). Psalm 77 is a special case of individual complaint about the crisis of Israel’s salvation history during the period of exile. Ps 143:5 seems to be a later gloss influenced by Ps 77:6, 12; see Albertz 1978a: 27–32.

Introduction

9

cult related? What role did women play in family or household cults?” (Bird 1991: 102). This was the first consideration of the interaction of broader religious history with the specific roles of women. In an exemplary social-anthropological study of family households and the roles of women in ancient Israel, Meyers (1988: 157–58) lamented the state of research at that time, in that “little attention has been directed to private religion and its cultic expression, that is, to the ceremonies and rituals that allowed ordinary people to meet their human need to connect with the supernatural and transcendent power or powers in which they believed.” She credited one reason for this oversight to an overly narrow and singular approach of archaeological research, in that “archaeologists have until recently been drawn to the urban and the monumental” (1988: 158); and another to the influence of orthodoxy on modern scholars, with the effect that “popular or family religion” as it deviated from more general religious norms has not been granted sufficient attention (1988: 158). Meyers pleaded for a realignment of research to address the oversight: “Although these archaeological and theological barriers to the recovery of popular religion are breaking down, the material evidence for a private or family religion at any period in Israelite has yet to be systematically collected and studied” (1988: 158). Meyers’s aim of revealing the roles and functions of family religion as thoroughly as possible was perhaps frustrated by having to rely on the few available sources that explicitly mentioned the roles of women. The only references in her 1988 work were to an alleged girl’s puberty rite (Judg 11:39–40), the harvest dances of young women (Judg 21:20–21), and consideration of female pillar figurines, which she regarded as having been votive objects that somehow reflected or represented the gendered exclusivity of motherhood (1988: 161–63). Because women were presumed to have been largely responsible for the preparation of food, they were also presumed to hold primary responsibilities for ritual offerings of food, as well as for the preparation and enactment of ritual meals (1988: 163). In her 1997 study on the family in early Israel, Meyers emphasized the roles of women in domestic religious practices. She relied, however, on the example of harvest feasts, although they are not typical of domestic rituals because they were celebrated at local sanctuaries. She also interpreted the familial Passover ritual as having been somehow related to the season during which flocks would give birth (1997: 39). Although Meyers distinguished between “cult corners” of households and village “shrines or locales for ritual events” rather than attempting to clarify the distinction between private and public cult activities of families, she did emphasize that, “in the early Israelite villages, family religion extended beyond the nuclear and compound families and included the local community—the kin group, or the mišpāḥāh” (1997: 39). Some specific rituals may have incorporated and been enacted by such an undifferentiated, larger social grouping, but the ascription of family religion in general to this sort of expanded definition undermines attempts to clarify and understand social distinctions that were likely of real significance in determining and reflecting the religious habits of ancient Israel. The roles of women in relation to household shrines formed the focus of Willett’s Ph.D. dissertation (1999). Synthesizing gendered and archaeological approaches, Willett investigated the installations and ritual objects found in the dwellings of Tel Masos, Tell elFarʿah (N), Beersheba, and Tel Halif. She interpreted this evidence to indicate dedicated

10

Chapter 1

domestic shrines (1999: 158–64),â•›9 where women revered familial deities, especially the goddess Asherah. In accordance with Dever, she also regarded the female figurines to have been representations of the goddess (1999: 77–100). Willett proposed the main function of this domestic cult to have been the protection of women and their children from mortal threats in their work and sleep (1999: 146). In this connection, Willett interpreted Asherah’s role as having been a mediator, in that women “invoked Yahweh’s protection through his intermediary goddess Asherah before they slept at night” (1999: 458). Thus, although not attempting a complete description of domestic cult practices, she nevertheless illuminated many aspects of family religion as enacted by and related to the nuclear family unit. In a substantial article of 2002 that was condensed in 2005 into a smaller monograph, Meyers defined the term Israelite religion as “an umbrella term for the religions of various groups with different albeit overlapping beliefs, activities, [and] liturgies” (2002: 281). She also focused in this article on “rituals surrounding pregnancy, labor, and birth, along with those securing fertility before pregnancy and those dealing with post-partum lactation, infant care, and circumcision,” which “constitute[d] the religious culture of women more than men” (2002: 283). Combining anthropological, archaeological, and ethno-historical insights, Meyers vividly depicted the important roles that would have been played by Judean pillar-figurines, Bes-head amulets, and udjat-images in rituals intended to ensure fertility, safety in childbirth, adequacy of lactation, and general protection from malevolent forces for mothers during and after childbirth, as well as for their newborn infants (2002: 286–88). She also referred briefly to other ritual items found in the assemblages of private dwellings (2002: 288–89) and elucidated the support given to mothers during childbirth by the social network of females within the larger kin groups (2002: 301). Ackerman attempted in 1992 to rehabilitate the so-called “heterodox” rituals of “popular religion” (namely, those described in Jeremiah 7, 44; Ezekiel 8; Isaiah 57, 65). Although this work did not specifically focus on gender roles, she subsequently used some of the same texts (Jeremiah 7, 44; as well as Judges 17; 1 Samuel 1) to expand consideration of the cult and ritual activities of women (2008). She supposed (2008: 136, 146, 148) that women not only were “involved in furnishing of their compound’s sanctuary space” (Judges 17) but also were responsible for delivering their family’s offerings to their regional sanctuary (1 Samuel 1) and for “performing [the] primary ritual acts of ancient Israelite household religion” (Jeremiah 7, 44). The cultic and ritual activities of women were directed at the very survival of the entire family itself (2008: 148). Ackerman attempted to clarify the distinction between the ritual activities enacted by families in their domestic cult (“household religion”) and those enacted at other places (“family religion”; 2008: 145). In considering both biblical and archaeological evidence, she was able to depict vividly the important roles played by women in family and household religion. In her conclusion, she indicated that women were not only practitioners of family rituals but also “theologians who [gave] voice to some of household and family religion’s most constitutive beliefs” (2008: 149). These gender-oriented approaches and others like them have clarified the significance of women, particularly in their roles as wives and mothers, for Israelite family and house9.╇ In contrast, the investigation of Schmitt in this book (pp. 224–225) suggests that these are more likely to have been cooking installations.

Introduction

11

hold religion, in stark contrast to their restricted roles in the official cult of Yhwh. In order to redress previous imbalances brought about by the exclusion of females from general consideration of the ancient Israelite religious traditions, many of these gender-oriented approaches have had to concern themselves primarily with the previously unacknowledged roles of women. The proper field of a gender-oriented approach must be consideration of the differences between the roles of women and men, and the social and religious origins and implications of these differences. Ancient Israelite families naturally depended on the ritual cooperation of both males and females, particularly in their roles as mothers and fathers, with both playing vital yet distinct roles in ensuring the biological, economic, and cultural survival of their families.

1.1.3.╇ The archaeological approach Meyers (1988: 158) has insisted that archaeology of the Southern Levant has for a long time failed to consider family religion as a social and cultural phenomenon in its own right, in spite of a wealth of suggestive evidence from, for example, the Tell Beit Mirsim excavations from 1926 to 1932. Stimulated by my thesis (Albertz 1978a),â•›10 Helga Weippert (1988: 409, 433–34, 447–48) was one of the first people clearly to posit domestic cult (Hauskult) origins for several installations found in private dwellings in, for example, Hazor, Tell Qiri, Tell Mazar, Megiddo Locus 2081, and Tell el-Farʿah, as well as associated small items such as cult stands, tripod cups, and figurines. Her voluminous German treatise of pre-Hellenistic Palestinian archaeology was not, however, particularly influential. A considerably more influential work was that of Holladay (1987, in a Festschrift for Cross), in which he attempted to distinguish several different levels within Israelite religion of the Iron II period based on a “purely archaeological” approach. Following a comparison of a variety of cult places, he posited a general distinction between “established worship” and “tolerated ‘nonconformist’ worship” (1987: 268–70), based primarily on the use of icons. While practices of established worship were generally aniconic, nonconformist worship could be determined by the presence of figurines. Moreover, established worship was, according to Holladay, practiced across two distinct levels, the first being “the town and national level,” as characterized by large public buildings (such as those at Arad and Dan); and the second being the “neighborhood level,” characterized by smaller buildings that nevertheless were designed for public access (such as Megiddo Locus 2081, Building 10). All domestic cult practices were subsumed under his “tolerated ‘nonconformist’ worship,” which he referred to from an archaeological perspective as “distributed cults” practiced or enacted in “domestic contexts” (Holladay 1987: 275). The distinctions of Holladay accord to a certain extent with those considered in my “internal religious pluralism” model (Albertz 1994) and M. Weippert’s (1997), particularly in the distinctions among national, local, and family levels, although Holladay introduced a normative category that he presumed to have been adopted from the “official–popular religion” to such an extent that familial domestic cults were suspected of being illegitimate. Holladay’s study perhaps serves well to demonstrate that the study of religion cannot be approached from a purely 10.╇ She and I were in close contact in Heidelberg at that time.

12

Chapter 1

archaeological basis (Holladay 1987: 250) but always depends—consciously or unconsciously—on religious-historical models. Holladay also presented a valuable overview of the small items of ritual connotations excavated before 1985 from the domestic quarters of Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Beersheba, and Hazor. He inferred that “about 45 percent of all houses in Level A at Tell Beit Mirsim exhibited signs of cultic activity” (1987: 276). He claimed that the religiously affected artifacts found at Hazor reached their greatest popularity and most widespread use in the second half of the 8th century (1987: 279). Whether one might speak of “sudden bursts of popular piety” (1987: 279) remains doubtful, however, and the generally poor documentation of the otherwise rich findings from Tell Beit Mirsim leaves many issues unable to be addressed. Holladay did not direct a final ascription of the “distributed” cult remains to the domestic quarters of family religion; rather, he proposed that they reflected “traditions of folk religion stretching back into the Bronze ages” (1987: 281). The pioneering work of Holladay seems to have effected a shifting away of emphasis from family religion, following which it took scholars some time to acknowledge the significance of archaeological remains for the reconstruction of family religion. Summarizing earlier archaeological results, Dever (2001: 173–74, 193–96; 2005: 176–249) provided a detailed description of Israelite family religion, which according to him “the Bible almost totally ignores” (2001: 173). He used the terms “family religion,” “private religion,” “folk religion,” and “popular religion” with almost no distinction regarding their various meanings and implications (2001: 173; 2005: 176), and he further defined family religion as a “women’s cult” (2001: 173), because “the ‘religion of hearth and home’ fell mainly to women in Israel, as it did everywhere in the ancient world” (2001: 193). As a part of “popular religion,” Dever (like Holladay) regarded family religion to have been “an alternate, nonorthodox, nonconformist mode of religious expression” (2001: 196). While considering the inscription of Ḥirbet el-Qôm that mentioned the goddess Asherah alongside Yhwh,â•›11 Dever asserted all plaques and figurines depicting nude women to have been representations of the goddess. He thus regarded the veneration of Asherah or the Queen of Heaven (Jer 44:15–23) to have assumed a central role in family religion (2005: 176–94), declaring, “The female figurines . . . would almost certainly have had to do with women’s prayers to conceive, to bear a child safely, and be able to nurse the baby through infancy” (2005: 241). In addition to birth rites, Dever considered archaeological finds to have verified or demonstrated the performance of several other ritual actions, such as making vows with votive objects, burning incense using incense cups and cult stands, and rites and rituals for burial and care for the dead involving gifts deposited in tombs (2005: 239–47). He strove for a comprehensive presentation of all pertinent archaeological material; presented an overview of excavated cult places (2001: 175–88); and detailed many artifacts of potential ritual significance (2001: 188–93). This attempt could not, of course, provide unambiguous distinction across the entire variety of cult locations, or between the various repertoires of cult items associated with each type, and Dever was thus unable to determine with any great degree of accuracy sets of ritual paraphernalia that may have been typical of domestic cults. 11.╇See Dever 1970b: 139–74; Renz and Röllig 1995: 1.199–211.

Introduction

13

In his monumental work on the religions of ancient Israel, Zevit (2001) attempted a subsequent classification of cult places. Aiming for a more accurate and precise description of cult locations, he employed and defined the diagnostically useful terms “cult room,” “cult corner,” “cult cave,” “cult complex,” “cult center,” “temple,” “temple complex,” and “shrine” (2001: 123–24). He also distinguished two primary classes of cult places: “those whose construction is well integrated into a much larger plan attributable to centralized planning and control” and “those whose construction does not demonstrate this feature” (2001: 654). To the first class, Zevit ascribed ʿAjrûd, Arad, Dan, Hazor, Jerusalem, Lachish Room 49, and Megiddo Room 340, among others, most of which were probably connected with the official cult. To the second class, he attributed Ai, Beit Lei, Bull Site, Ebal, the Jerusalem Cave I, Megiddo Locus 2081, and the cave from Tell ʿĒtūn, among others. According to him, these latter sites addressed the “particular concerns of the local population,” and “they do not constitute evidence for the domestic cult,” but instead, they “served a larger social group” (2001: 654). Zevit considered “evidence for a domestic cult” to have been restricted to only a very few cult rooms or corners,â•›12 two of which were in Beersheba (in Buildings 25 and 430) and one in Tell el-Farʿah (N) (in House 440) (Zevit 2001: 652; see also pp. 175–76, 241). Thus, Zevit actually constructed a tripartite typology formed from official, local or neighborhood, and domestic cult sites. The domestic cult was, however, excluded from consideration within the two overarching categories, and must be presumed to have represented a third general category. Zevit made only occasional references to possible functions of the domestic cult, suggesting that, “if the female figurines may be associated with fertility and/or lactation, and if the model couches may be associated with a birth stool or a birthing bed . . . then these artifacts may constitute a women’s collection intending to insure her fertility, her ability to give birth, and her continued ability to lactate” (2001: 175–76). In contrast to Holladay and Dever, Zevit appears to have regarded the domestic cult to have been a rather peripheral phenomenon. Thus, from an archaeological point of view, the significance and distribution of domestic cultic activities remain open questions. In the same year as this work of Zevit, Nakhai (2001: 161–200), a student of Dever, published a typology of Israelite sacred places of the Iron Age. For the period of the Divided Monarchy, she also proposed a distinct tripartite model, distinguishing between “officially sanctioned sites such as the Jerusalem Temple, Dan and Bethel, Arad, Beersheba, Vered Jericho, . . . less formal sites with some degree of public access such as Kedesh, Hazor, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, Samaria Locus E 207, and the Jerusalem, Tell en-Naṣbeh and Tell Beit Mirsim caves, . . . [and] private domestic locations” (2001: 191). The influence of Holladay’s terminology lingered, but Nakhai avoided any pejorative implications. For the Iron I period, she distinguished two categories (2001: 176): “pilgrimage sanctuaries,” such as Shiloh and the Bull Site; and “village sanctuaries,” such as Hazor, Dan, Tell Qiri, Tell Irbid, and Tall al-ʿUmeri, some of which “stood among the domestic structures” (in Megiddo Locus 2081, Tell el-Wawiyat, Ai, Ḥirbet Raddana, Tell Qiri, and Tell es-Saʿidiyeh). The domestic cult was absent from this schema. However, by forming one category of village sanctuaries as those that “stood among domestic structures,” she either potentially 12.╇ Zevit did not admit evidence from Tell Beit Mirsim, because it was so poorly documented.

14

Chapter 1

admitted larger domestic installations or implied the existence of a fourth type of cult place akin to the neighborhood chapels considered by Zevit. In explicitly referring to domestic cults, Nakhai drew on the work of Willett (1999: 101–65), who had isolated “domestic shrines in Israelite and Judean houses at Tel Masos, Tell el-Farʿah (N), Beersheba and Tel Halif ” (Nakhai 2001: 191) dating from the 10th to the early 6th centuries b.c.e. She suggested that “these prayer corners contained special assemblages of ritual implements and furnishings, including incense altars and female figurines” (Nakhai 2001: 191). The extent to which such evidence suggests “domestic shrines” or “prayer corners” is given further consideration in a section of the present work.â•›13 Some years earlier, Negbi (1993: 226) had considered whether some places where ritual assemblages had been found might be better interpreted as having been storeroomsâ•›14 from which ritual items could readily be accessed “when needed for special ceremonies.” In any case, Nakhai considered the archaeological evidence for the domestic cult to have been much more conclusive than had Zevit; Willett had demonstrated its existence in more than ten private houses from five different sites across the entire Iron II period. In the same year again, Daviau summarized cult items found within the domestic buildings excavated since 1992 in Tell Jawa in Transjordan near Amman. Hers was the first archaeological publication to use the term “family religion” in its title. She had used the work of van der Toorn to develop her own categorization of archaeological remains. Because the domestic buildings from Iron II were left to decay in situ rather than being razed or built anew, their walls were “well preserved, often reaching to the second storey level,” and moreover, “in each room, the collapsed debris yielded the evidence of activity areas on the upper storey or roof area of each building” (Daviau 1992: 202). Therefore, Daviau was able to discern that much of the ritual material had been used on the upper story or the roof. In each of nine excavated houses, Daviau discerned assemblages of cult objects variously composed of between 2 and 43 pieces, forming a cult collection of 159 items. The assemblages consisted of female, male, and zoomorphic figurines, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels, model shrines, decorated chalices, single-handled cups, perforated and unperforated tripod cups, lamps, gaming objects, libation tablets, basalt bowls, and a variety of small, miniature, and high-status vessels. Daviau suggested that stone baetyls symbolized the divine presence. She pointed out that ritual objects used in Ammonite domestic cults differed in some respects from ritual objects from ancient Israel. In particular, limestone altars and Judean pillar-figurines have not been found in Ammonite assemblages, and the altars seem typically to have contained a greater number of male figurines and tripod cups (Daviau 1992: 203). In many other regards, there seems to have been a broad homogeneity in terms of ritual artifacts across the broader Transâ•‚ and Cisjordanian regions.â•›15 Daviau interpreted evidence from the cult utensils found in domestic environments to reconstruct activities typical of domestic cults at Tell Jawa, suggesting that they would have comprised “the setting up of a figurine or symbolic stone in a particular area on the 13.╇ See below, pp. 224–225. 14.╇ She referred to Megiddo Locus 2081 and Building 10. 15.╇ See pp. 178–184.

Introduction

15

roof or upper storey, food and drink offerings, use of scenting materials, lighting of lamps, sprinkling the figurine, the baetyl, or the sacred area itself, offerings in small or miniature vessels, casting lots or divination, and libations” (1992: 221). She further maintained that “there is no evidence for animal offerings or extensive burning” (1992: 221–22). Thus Daviau reconstructed a comprehensive and insightful picture of the ritual activities of families in domestic environments. For the domestic cult, the inner center of family and household religion, Daviau had provided the conclusive archaeological proof. This evidence from the ancient Ammonite culture suggests in turn a greater likelihood than previously considered that domestic cults were of similar importance in neighboring Israel, even though the archaeological evidence there may be less conclusive. One might even conceive of every family as having actively partaken in ritual activities within their domestic environments. These assemblages found at Tell Jawa are of great aid in interpolating the somewhat scarcer evidence for the identity and use of domestic cult utensils found in Israelite and Judean sites.

1.1.4.╇ Some conclusions The foregoing overview of the last few decades of research into the family and household religion of ancient Israel has revealed notable progress and refinement, considered within three broad categories of biblical and archaeological research. The religious-historical approach aided the reconstruction of several aspects of Israelite family religion and provided a theoretical background that enabled family religion to be situated within the religion of Israel in general; the gender-oriented approach contributed many anthropological and cross-cultural insights that served to highlight the important religious functions and responsibilities of women in family and household religion; and the archaeological approach contributed such a wealth of material evidence for the domestic cult as executed by families that it left no doubt about the accuracy of interpretations of other religious, historical, and anthropological evidence for the existence of an Israelite family religion. These results are of broad, general significance. The thesis that family and household religion constituted a specific segment of ancient Israelite religion can now be considered to be firmly established. However, in spite of this accomplishment, there has yet to appear a single, comprehensive description of Israelite family and household religion in all of its aspects and dimensions and comparing it with the family religions of the broader SyroLevantine environment. This is the task of the present volume. When we consider the research conducted to date, however, a number of unresolved problems and controversies become apparent. Foremost among these is the identity of an appropriate model for reconstructing family and household religion within the religion of Israel. A model of “religious internal pluralism” has been suggested to be of particular utility (Albertz, Weippert, Stolz, van der Toorn, Miller), with an alternative provided in the form of the “popular religion” model (Holladay, Dever, Ackerman). The tripartite distinction between state, local, and family religion is readily accommodated by the first of these models (Weippert, Albertz) and is also reconcilable within similar archaeological classifications of cult places (Holladay, Zevit, Nakhai). The first of the above two models often distinguishes four or even more social levels of religion—for example, by adding neighborhood shrines as variants of local sanctuaries (Zevit, Nakhai). Thus resolution of

16

Chapter 1

the most appropriate model for reconstructing historical religious practices inextricably requires a comprehensive typology of cult places. Furthermore, the determination of the social group responsible for the cultural propagation of family religion—the carrier group—remains an issue of controversy. Such carrier groups have been considered to have encompassed anything from simple nuclear families (Albertz 1978a; Willett 1999), to joint families and even entire clans (van der Toorn 1996; Meyers 1997). Resolution of this issue requires clarification of the very nature and understanding of family in ancient Israelite society, as well as descriptions of cooperation among larger kinship groups and local populations. Appropriate appraisal of domestic cults also demands insight into relationships between sizes of families and the physical environments they inhabited, acknowledging at the same time the possibility for different dimensions or social circles that might have authorized and participated in familial religious beliefs and practices. Accurate understanding of family religion also requires it to be distinguished from local religious practices, particularly because local sanctuaries have yielded firm evidence of cult activities that were distinctly different from activities conducted in domestic environments—the offering of meat during cult activities being one clear example. Degrees of discontinuity or continuity between family and household religion, as well as among and with respect to state, temple, and elite religions are also issues of ongoing controversy. I have (Albertz 1978a; 1994; 2008) elucidated clear material and structural differences in the systems of belief across all these levels, while Olyan (2008) has noted the existence of overlaps and continuities with regard to ceramic material and iconography. There of course never have been entirely unambiguous distinctions between these different levels and sites of social and religious practices (Stolz 1996; van der Toorn 1996), and different kinds of sources will always provide evidence that may appear contrary or even irreconcilable. However, as noted by Olyan (2008: 121), “One need not posit a nearly complete disjunction between family religion and the official cult in order to speak of internal religious pluralism in Israelite religion, for family religion and official cult remain distinct phenomena, even when their shared characteristics are acknowledged.” Of course, this statement is true; but it is only true given the supposition that there remain appreciable material differences between family and state religion; otherwise, they would not “remain distinct phenomena,” and any internal religious pluralism would be obscured. Were there no appreciable differences between family religion and the official cult with regard to beliefs, rituals and cultic paraphernalia, Israel’s religion would represent a unity across all social levels, and a separate investigation of ancient Israelite family religion would be rendered superfluous at least. The exploration of family and household religion remains a meaningful enterprise only if it can be defined at least partially on the basis of its own unique characteristics that stand in contrast to the religion of Israel. The existence of this distinction is also essential for studying its intersections and connections with other segments or levels of Israelite religion.â•›16 Thus the degree of discontinuity or continuity must be considered at all times in any discussion of the subject. 16.╇ Jeremias and Hartenstein (1999: 79) and Leuenberger (2008: 50) emphasized the overlaps and intersections of the official and popular or private religion in ancient Israel. In their opinion, the

Introduction

17

1.2.╇ Interdisciplinary approach and temporal limitations of the subject Each of the three previously distinct approaches to studying the religious history of ancient Israel—the historical, the gender-oriented, and the archaeological—has contributed to the developing synthesis outlined above. This synthesis depends on the unique contributions of each of these three approaches and is enriched by them. Comprehensive examination of the history of the family and household religion of ancient Israel and its neighbors requires the consideration and integration of a variety of approaches, such as biblical studies, religious history, archaeology, epigraphy, iconography, cultural anthropology, and sociology. The greater the span of acknowledged realms required to study a certain topic, the greater becomes the need for cross-disciplinary cooperation and collaboration. The present book arises from the collaboration of two authors, both of whom are biblical scholars. However, while the research interests of one of us—Rainer Albertz— primarily concern religious history, sociology, and epigraphic interpretation, the other author—Rüdiger Schmitt—has devoted himself more to archaeology, cultural anthropology, and iconographic interpretation. The ways in which these potentially disparate fields of expertise were combined for the present study of family religion deserve some elaboration, particularly in regard to the combination of diachronic (that is, historical and archaeological) and synchronic (that is, sociological and anthropological) approaches. The classifications of Braudel (1980: 25, 54) remain helpful in distinguishing various modes of historical investigation. Braudel considered the defining processes of history to act and interplay across three levels. The first of these levels represents the actual events (the histoire événementielle), which occurred almost in direct response to the short-term political dynamic; the second represents the medium-term processes (the histoire conjonctures) that defined the social and cultural histories; and the third represents the degree of change that happened over longer climatic or geological periods of time (the histoire longue durée). The study of political history necessitates a diachronic perspective. The study of archaeology is inherently diachronic. In this respect, it is not possible to combine an archaeological investigation, which is inherently diachronic, with a synchronistic approach to biblical texts, although this is often done. Contrariwise, it is also not possible to combine a diachronic approach to text with isolated archaeological findings that neglect to account for the entire cultural and geographical development of a site. The historical dimension should be emphasized equally in both fields. Consideration of the contributions of historical processes playing out across the different levels becomes particularly important for medium-term processes. Prior investigations iconographic program of the Taanach cult stands were intended for use in transmitting the ideology of the official sanctuary to the domestic cult. In addition to this, Leuenberger referred among other things to the priestly benediction on a private amulet in Ketef Hinnom (2008: 99). Even if these scholars’ interpretation of these very exceptional artifacts was right, these intersections with the official sphere are only discernible under the precondition that family religion was normally a sphere of its own. The other examples of the intersection of the private and the official religious spheres (greetings formulas in the Arad letters and the inscriptions of Kuntillet ʿAjrûd) given by Leuenberger (2008: 113–37, 153–55) are less convincing, since blessings are very general religious statements that can be uttered in various spheres of life.

18

Chapter 1

into the history of Israelite family religion (Albertz 1994) have revealed a remarkable constancy in many aspects, particularly across the period spanning the 11th to the early 7th centuries. The history of family religion thus reflects a histoire conjonctures that contrasts with the historical processes that influenced and defined the official theologies of the state and its priests and prophets. These all changed much more quickly, in accordance with a typical histoire événementielle. Thus, for family religion it is relatively unimportant whether a personal name came from the 9th or the 7th century, or whether the common use of incense cups was replaced at some particular date by the use of incense boxes (pace Zwickel 1999b: 27). The religious and symbolic functions of such things remained relatively constant regardless of superficial changes, and, within the present context, full appreciation of the diachronic aspects of historical dynamic becomes relatively less important, and a single, synchronic dynamic may in many cases be presumed. In emphasizing synchronic developments, methods and models from sociology and cultural anthropology become important, including aspects of a social and cultural system that structured social relationships in relation to dwelling and working places and their physical structures and functions. Thus the present study uses data that have been amassed, classified, described, and interpreted from an enormous amount of epigraphical inscriptions, ritual assemblages, and items found in cultic places. Sociological typologies and methods of investigation gain primacy over any reconstructions of individual developments. Individual historical events (the histoire événementielle) are considered only to the extent with which they may have had an impact on the religious beliefs and practices of families, and thus biblical, epigraphic, and archaeological materials are all integrated here under a predominantly synchronic perspective. Sociological and anthropological considerations and analyses of function gain primacy. Within the historical times encompassed by the present study, the first event that seems to have had a strong impact on Israelite family and household religion was the Josianic reform of the late 7th century (Albertz 1994: 1.195–231). With the centralization of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem, the families lost the local basis of their sacrifices. Even the domestic cult came under the rigid control of state officials (Deut 13:7–12), and familial rituals were subsumed within the official cult of Jerusalem (16:1–8; 26:1–11). Moreover, the destruction of the Judean state and the Jerusalem Temple by the Babylonians (597, 587, 582 b.c.e.) deprived the Judean population and those who were deported to Babylonia of their official sacred institutions. In this new situation of exile, familial religion became much more effective in ensuring the survival of the entire Yhwh religion than in previous times. The entire religious and cultural symbolic system that cohered to ensure the maintenance and continuance of Judean identity in the Diaspora was based on the fundamental social unit of the family. Religiously symbolic rites included the circumcision of infants, observing the Sabbath feast, and dietary regulations (Albertz 1994: 2.399–411). This forced coherence in turn ensured a close integration between family religion and the emerging Jewish religion. Although these later developments have been extensively documented and analyzed (Albertz 1994: 2.507–22. 556–63), this is not true for the earlier period, prior to the late 7th century, for which the Hebrew Bible provides only sparse evidence. Thus the present

Introduction

19

volume explores the development and character of Israelite family and household religion across the period from the 11th to the 7th centuries b.c.e. During these times, there was little official control exerted over most aspects of family and household religious practices, and thus this period offers a unique time within which to distinguish and characterize the original shape of family religion in ancient Israel and enables comparison with the contemporary familial religious practices of neighboring lands.

1.3.╇ The structure of the present book Following this introductory chapter summarizing the history of relevant research, chap. 2 presents a few methodological reflections in order to clarify the terms family and household, as well as identifying the types of family that existed in ancient Israel, on the basis of both biblical and archaeological evidence. Apparent contradictions between typical dwelling sizes in Israelite urban and rural houses, and typical family sizes are also addressed, enabling the distinction of various circles of familial ritual and cult activities. A variety of religious-historical models useful for the classification of family religion within the religion of Israel are also discussed, providing the basis for the model preferred here, which is internal religious pluralism. Chapter 3 collates and discusses archaeological findings from Iron Age domestic areas, taken from all known published excavations in the areas of Israel and Judah that reveal or suggest any kind of ritual activities. Installations, assemblages, and individual objects are considered and compared, as is the extent to which they enable the characterization of domestic or familial cult activities in contrast to activities typical of industrial structures, neighborhood, or local shrines. Potential evidence for the existence of “cult niches” in private houses is critically examined, as is the potential existence of places that might have been used for the storage of ritual equipment. Moreover, comparative evidence from Iron Age Philistia, Transjordan, Syria, and Phoenicia is discussed. After summarizing the classifications of chap. 3, chap. 4 presents a typology of cult places, extending from domestic cults to state temples. Several previously irreconcilable aspects are here unified within a single typology that considers not only architectural features but also the characteristics of cult assemblages associated with the various locations, as well as possible social and ritual functions of typical items found within archaeological assemblages. Chapter 5 considers family religious beliefs as expressed in a sample of almost 3,000 individual Hebrew personal names that have so far been recorded in epigraphic material. This Hebrew sample is further compared with smaller samples of Ammonite, Moabite, Aramean, and Phoenician names, which amount to almost 1,400 names. The authenticity of these sources and their significance for family religion are critically discussed. The names are divided into six groups that reflect and inform the content and structure of systems of familial belief. An excursus on the beliefs expressed in the proverbs of the Hebrew Bible is also included, which expands the horizon from religious reflections of crisis experiences to the religious and spiritual necessities of daily life. Following this is a discussion of the theophoric elements of names, analyzed in terms of the relative distribution

20

Chapter 1

of elements expressing the names of gods and goddesses in Syria and the Levant. Finally, iconographic representations found on seals are investigated with regard to their possible significance for reconstructing and understanding family religion. Chapter 6 describes the variety of rites performed by families on different occasions and at various places, whether at home, at a neighborhood shrine, or at local, regional, or national sanctuaries. Burial rituals and the ritual care for the dead, whether at home, at burial places, or at local sanctuaries, are examined in chap. 7. Chapter 8 presents a summary of the primary arguments and conclusions of the entire work. Following the summary chapter is an archaeological appendix (A) which includes lists of the ritual assemblages surveyed in this study, and an onomastic appendix (B) which documents the entire sample of epigraphically attested names within their six categories (names of thanksgiving, names of confession, names of praise, equating names, names of birth, and secular names). These appendixes are intended to enable and enhance further studies on the functions and use of ritual paraphernalia found in southern Levantine archaeology and on onomastic material from the northern Levant. There are also a list of abbreviations used (in the front matter), a bibliography (after the appendixes and acknowledgments), and indexes of authors, ancient personal names, textual sources, sites and place-names, and subjects.

Chapter 2

Methodological Reflections When one deals with family and household religion, a number of terminological, methodological, and conceptual problems arise.

2.1.╇ Problems of modern and biblical terminology In order to identify the carriers and locations of family and household religion, we must clarify the terms family and household with regard to both modern sociological practice and biblical terminology.

2.1.1.╇ Clarifying the term family Any definition of the term family, according to the German family sociologist Rosemarie Nave-Herz (see, e.g., Nave-Herz 2007), requires a combination of macroâ•‚ and micro-sociological perspectives. In terms of micro-sociology, a family is “a social institution, which has to accomplish specific societal achievements, above all, the ‘reproduction of human characters’” (Max Horkheimer); from a micro-sociological perspective, a family is “a group, where a couple lives together with its direct descendants” (Nave-Herz 2002: 148). According to Nave-Herz (2002: 149), a family is determined by four distinct features: (1) its “dual biological and social nature” (René König) in undertaking the basic functions of reproduction and socialization, apart from other functions, which can differ among cultures and periods; (2) its distinction of generations; (3) its specific structuring of roles (father, mother, son, daughter, and so on), with expectations pertaining to these roles that differ, again, among cultures and periods; and (4) the specific cooperation and solidarity among its family members. Additionally with regard to the first feature mentioned above, preindustrial Israelite families generally undertook the economic functions of production and consumption and in most cases were economically self-sufficient. Concerning the fourth feature, NaveHerz points out that familial cooperation and solidarity, even though differing in form and content between different cultures and historical periods, “always constitutes a very specifically declared relationship, which is distinguished from any other relation of social interaction in a given society” (2002: 149).â•›1 Thus families are able to build up their own emotional and religious world that is more or less distinguished from society at large. This 1.╇ The entire statement, in German: “Wenn es auch historische und soziokulturelle Unterschiede in der Form und auch in den Inhalten des familialen Kooperationsâ•‚ und Solidaritätsverhältnisses

21

22

Chapter 2

structural sociological difference is a primary driver of the existence of religion as a family phenomenon. Although the term family denotes a specific social unit that exists in distinction from the larger society, it nevertheless remains ambiguous. As the American sociologist Kertzer states: “It refers to close kin, but the exact reference of the term tends to vary contextually” (1991: 156). The structure and size of families can differ widely according to their cultural, legal, economic, and political conditions. A question of lingering importance, not only for sociologists, but also for biblical scholars and archaeologists concerns the relative prevalence of extended versus nuclear families in preindustrial Europe in general and in Mediterranean areas in particular. A conspicuous phenomenon arises in these deliberations: while most biblical scholars tend to define an extended or joint family as the smallest social unit in ancient Israelite and Judean society,â•›2 most archaeologists conceive of the nuclear family as the basic domestic group.â•›3 Before considering this issue further, we will find it instructive to reflect on the terminology of kinship itself. Although biblical and archaeological scholars mostly distinguish between two categories of family—the nuclear and extended or joint families—modern sociologists and anthropologists offer additional distinctions. An important example was provided by the familial typology of the British sociologist P. Laslett (1974: 28–32), who distinguished three categories: the “simple or nuclear family household”; the “extended family household”; and the “multiple or joint family household.” He further suggested that the number of conjugal family units (CFUs; married couples including their children) is decisive for the determination of family types. For him, the term “extended family” is defined by one conjugal unit “with the addition of one or more relatives other than offspring” (Laslett 1974: 29), such as a widowed mother (upwards extension), an unmarried sister (sideways extension) or a grandchild absent intermediate parents (downwards extension). In contrast, the “multiple or joint family” is defined by the co-residence of more than one conjugal unit, such as parents along with married sons and their children. Multiple or joint families can be further distinguished between two subtypes: families in which the parents are still alive, forming a “parental joint family”; and families in which the parents are deceased, and several brothers live together with their respective families, forming a “fraternal joint family” (the so-called frérèche; see Deut 25:5). Laslett naturally acknowledged the dynamics of family structure, which may move through several categories: from nuclear to extended and joint families and back again, with the extension depending on the life cycles of family members (Laslett 1974: 32–34). In further developing Laslett’s categories, D. I. Kertzer (1991: 158–59) distinguished between the two main categories of “nuclear family household” and “complex family household,” where “the nuclear family household consists in its full form of a married couple and their children. This is contrasted with the complex family household, which gibt, so handelt es sich aber immer um ein ganz spezifisch erklärtes und von anderen Interaktionsbeziehungen in den jeweiligen Gesellschaften abgehobenes Verhältnis.” 2.╇See Porter 1967: 6–9; Gottwald 1981: 285–92; Scharbert 1982: 235; Bendor 1996: 31–46; van der Toorn 1996: 197; Perdue 1997: 175–76; cf. King and Stager 2001: 36–39; and others. 3.╇See Shiloh 1980: 29; Holladay 1992: 310; 1995: 387, 393; Faust 1999a: 234; 2000: 19, 23; Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 26; cf. Stager 1985: 18; and others.

Methodological Reflections

23

includes kin beyond the nuclear family.” Subdividing the “complex family household” into four subtypes, he differentiated among (1) the “extended family household,” which “consists of . . . kin beyond the nuclear family” but where there “is only one nuclear family unit in the household”; (2) the “stem family household,” where “one child, and one child only, brings his or her spouse into the parental household”; (3) the “joint family household,” where “more than one child (generally all the sons) are supposed to bring their spouses into the parental household”; and (4) the “multiple family household,” which “consists of two or more coresiding nuclear family units.” The “multiple family household” corresponds to Laslett’s “fraternal joint family.” In both models, “family households” may also include people other than kin, such as servants or slaves. Both Laslett and Kertzer enrich understandings of the variety of familial structures through their use of precise terminology that avoids the simple dichotomy of “nuclear” versus “extended.” An example of the utility of their typologies can be seen by applying it to the “stem family household,” which existed in several parts of Europe but appears mostly to have been overlooked by biblical scholars. This type permits the continued existence of a parental joint family household over a longer period only if the inheritance remains largely undivided. Within stem family households, only one son, generally the oldest, will ultimately inherit the paternal household and its estate; all other brothers are required to leave when they marry or can stay in their paternal household as unmarried workers. Deut 21:15–17 declares that in ancient Israel the firstborn should inherit twothirds of the inheritance or at least a double portion compared with his brothers. Ambiguity surrounding the accurate determination of ancient Israelite familial types arises partly through ignorance about how far this Deuteronomic rule was extended to apply to the inheritance of fields, vineyards, and orchards (see the suggestions of Bendor 1996: 128–64). Because of its usefulness, we adopt the terminology of Laslett and Kertzer, albeit in a somewhat simplified form. We distinguish between “nuclear” and “joint family households.” “Nuclear” can be generic “parental” households or, in a sense perhaps better reflecting the patriarchal structure of Israelite society, “paternal,” “stem,” or “fraternal” households. We additionally use the term “extended family household” to denote a nuclear family consisting of single relatives beyond the one conjugal family unit (the couple and its children).

2.1.2.╇ Clarifying the term household In contrast to the term family, the term household is much easier to define. According to Kertzer (1991: 156), it “refers to the group of coresidents, people who live under the same roof and typically share in common consumption.” The co-residential unit can also aggregate and share its income. Denoting not only co-residents themselves but also their producing and consumption activities, a household extends beyond the residential area to include “outbuildings, granaries, wells, tools, and equipment, livestock, fields, and orchards” (Meyers 1988: 130). Members of a household may not necessarily be related; likewise, a single family may live under the same roof or may be dispersed among separate households. Thus, from a sociological point of view, it is notable that “physical location, shared activities, and kinship need not be empirically or logically overlapping” (Netting, Wilk, and Arnould 1984: xiii–xxviii).

24

Chapter 2

Because of the ambiguity of the term “family,” particularly in the English language, Meyers (1988: 127–28) prefers the term “household” for denoting the smallest social unit of ancient Israelite society. But as useful as this term is to indicate a shared location and common economic activity within a group, it permits no insight into the inner structure or relationship of its members. Thus, a supplementary determination is needed, regardless. To a much greater extent than in modern industrial societies, most of the co-residential domestic groups in traditional societies such as ancient Israel consisted of families. Sociologists such as Laslett and Kertzer often conflate the terms “household” and “family,” and speak of “family households” as determining co-residential families. This combined term offers several advantages. First, it allows people beyond kin, such as servants and slaves into the family household. Second, it acknowledges the fact that preÂ�industrial families were in most cases units of production and consumption. And third, it alludes to the place where family members conducted most of their daily lives. We thus concur with Meyers (2005: 23–24) who, in adopting the term “family household,” emphasizes that: This term is more appropriate than “family” (a term focusing on people) or “domestic unit” (which indicates a domicile), neither of which is inclusive of the other or of the activities and material culture, other than the dwelling, that are part of households. Thus household is a more comprehensive and accurate term. It signifies a built environment consisting of persons, their hardware—that is, their material culture, including the dwelling and all its associated installations and artifacts—and also their activities. (restated from 2002: 284; but see also 1997: 13–14).

We emphasize in addition that people of a given household are related in a very particular, familial way. Finally, the term family household also alludes to the variety of religious rites performed by family members that probably took place inside their house. This complex of religious rites specific to both family and household are referred to here by the term house cult.

2.1.3.╇ Clarifying the biblical terminology Biblical terminology presents a fluid complexity of meanings. Among the kinship terms of the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫ בית אב‬beit ʾāb ‘house of the father’, which occurs 83 times there, corresponds well to our use of the term “family” (KBL3 120, §5; Ges18 144, §8).â•›4 Interestingly, the Hebrew expression for ‘family’ connects a kinship term (‫ אב‬ʾāb ‘father’) with a locational term (‫ בית‬beit ‘house’), demonstrating a common conception of the term family household in both modern sociology and ancient Hebrew society (Meyers 1988: 128). However, the term beit ʾāb cannot be set apart from the much more frequent term beit, which can determine not only someone’s ‘house’ as a building but also someone’s ‘household’ or ‘family’.â•›5 Furthermore, it can also denote bigger units such as a ‘clan’ (nor4.╇ In passages such as Gen 31:14, 30; 41:51; 50:22; Lev 22:13; Num 30:4; Judg 11:2, 7, etc., this meaning is obvious. 5.╇ See ‘my house’: Gen 30:30; 34:30; Josh 24:15; 1 Sam 20:15; ‘your house’: Gen 7:1; 45:11; Num 18:11, 13; Deut 14:26; 15:16, 20; 26:11; Judg 18:25; Ruth 4:12, et al.; ‘his house’: Gen 12:17; 17:27; 36:6; 39:4–5; Exod 1:1; Lev 16:6, 11; Judg 8:27; 1 Sam 1:21, et al.; ‘house of PN’: Gen 17:23; 28:2; 46:27; 50:8; Judg 8:35; 1 Sam 3:14; 27:3, et al.

Methodological Reflections

25

mally called ‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh),â•›6 a ‘tribe’ (normally called ‫ ׁשבט‬šēbeṭ or ‫ מטה‬maṭṭeh),â•›7 or even the entire Israelite and Judean unit, ‫‘ ׁשני בתי יׁשראל‬both houses of Israel’; Isa 8:14). Although this fluidity of meanings in no way precludes the assumption that in ancient Israelite society the family household constituted a distinguished social unit, the metaphorical use of kinship terms that emerged from the tribal origin of the ancient Israelite society has ensured that the biblical writers “have imposed a pseudo-kinship structure .€.€. on their understanding of the people of Israel” (Meyers 1988: 128), regardless of their awareness or otherwise of the finer distinctions among different levels of society (see, e.g., 2 Sam 19:1–9). Use of the term beit ʾāb or beit is simply dependent on the familial referrent (Bendor 1996: 54). The “house of the father” for a son (Gen 46:23) is his father’s own house (45:11). When beit is used next to beit ʾāb, it denotes a smaller conjugal family unit of sons within a father’s family (Gen 50:8; 2 Sam 2:30–32). The biblical term beit ʾāb is often equated with the multigenerational joint family, most often understood to describe three (e.g., Meyers 1988: 133–34; 1997: 16–17; Schloen 2001: 125), four (Bendor 1996: 31; Perdue 1997: 175), or even five (Gottwald 1981: 285–91) generations living together under the leadership of a single patriarch. There is plenty of evidence that the term beit ʾābâ•›8 and the term beitâ•›9 often denote a paternal joint family. And we are certain that large joint families such as those of the patriarch Jacob or King David are considered ideals in the biblical tradition (J. D. Schloen 2001: 148–50). However, N. P. Lemche (1985: 251–53; followed by van der Toorn 1996: 195) has pointed out that the term beit ʾāb can also sometimes denote a nuclear family (Gen 34:19, 26).â•›10 Moreover, there are several cases where the term beit constructed with a suffix or with a personal name in construct state denotes a nuclear unit within a paternal joint family, as in the case of the house of Joseph (50:7–8) or the houses of his brothers (42:19, 33; 45:18) within the house of Jacob. Even Bendor (1996: 121–64, 201–3), who emphasizes the importance of the joint family in ancient Israel, concedes that “nuclear cells” existed within the beit ʾāb. Sometimes an individual was legally referred to as “name” (e.g., Saul in “you will not wipe out my name from my father’s house,” 1 Sam 24:22; 2 Sam 14:7) and had rights of their own, separate consumption, and lived in complex relations of solidarity and conflict with the remaining joint family. Thus, biblical terminology suggests that nuclear units within the joint family enjoyed a certain degree of independence and privacy. There are several indications that both joint and nuclear families constituted important social units. The term beit can often denote a nuclear family as a unit of its own.â•›11 In Josh 7:14, 18, the text most often cited for Israel’s ideal tribal structure, both the nuclear 6.╇ See Judg 4:17; Ruth 4:12; 2 Sam 16:5, et€al.; also the term ‫ בית אב‬can denote a clan or a lineage: Gen 12:1; 24:40; Judg 9:1; cf. Lemche 1985: 252–53. 7.╇ See Exod 2:1; Num 17:23; Josh 17:17; 18:5; Judg 1:22, 35; 10:9; 2 Sam 3:19; 1 Kgs 11:28, et al. 8.╇ See Gen 46:31; 47:12; 50:8; Josh 2:18; 1 Sam 22:1, 22; 2 Sam 19:31; Isa 22:24, et al. 9.╇ See Gen 7:1; 28:2; 45:11; 46:27; 2 Sam 6:21; 9:9; Mic 7:6, et al. 10.╇ Probably also Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13; Num 30:4; Judg 6:15; van der Toorn (1996: 195) refers to Judg 14:19. 11.╇ Gen 30:30; Deut 14:26; 15:20; cf. 16:11, 14; 25:9; 26:11; 1 Sam 1:21; 20:15; 27:3; 2 Sam 2:3; 2 Kgs 8:2, et al.

26

Chapter 2

family below the levels of the clan (mišpāḥāh) and the joint family (beit)â•›12 are represented by the term ‫ גבר‬gēber: Achan, who is discovered by lot, is not an isolated ‘man’ but is, according to v.€24, the head of a nuclear family. Moreover, the custom of the so-called Levirate marriage designed to ensure the survival of the ‘brother’s house’ (Deut 25:9) does so through his nuclear family unit. We thus concur with Williamson’s (2003: 474) judgment, “that the nuclear/extended [or joint] family debate may have been too polarized, or in other words, that there was an awareness of both concepts in ancient Israel and that both reflected a social reality.”â•›13 Biblical terminology thus supports a distinction among four different types of family household that coexisted in ancient Israel: paternal joint families consisting of two (stem family) or more nuclear subunits; fraternal joint family households (Deut 25:5); nuclear family households; and extended family households (e.g., Lev 22:12). Although the paternal joint family household was considered ideal, it did not necessarily dictate reality. Biblical terminology also highlights the significance of nuclear units within paternal joint family households as well as the existence of nuclear families. Of course, biblical texts alone cannot provide an answer to the question how common each type of family household was in ancient Israelite and Judean society. Archaeological evidence must also be taken into account.

2.2.╇ The problem of living space in domestic buildings The significance of family households in turn places great importance on the archaeological remains of dwelling houses. Domestic architecture in Israelite and Judean settleÂ�ments of the Iron age is dominated by one type of house, which was labeled the “four-room house,” a variant of which is the “three-room house” and occasionally even a two-room house (fig. 2.1).â•›14 J. S. Holladay (1992: 308–9) describes a typical four-room house as follows: 12.╇ In Josh 7:17, the MT reads ‫‘ גברים‬men’ instead of ‫‘ ביתם‬houses’ or ‘families’, which one would expect in accordance with v.€14, but this variant is transmitted by only a few Hebrew manuscripts and the Syrian Bible. Most likely, ‫ גברים‬in v.€17€must be understood as the representatives of the joint families, one of which, Zabdi, was found by lot. The fact that v.€18 names Achan’s father Karmi and not Zabdi shows the difficulty of aligning an ideal picture of society with actual genealogy. 13.╇ Williamson (2003: 474) questioned whether the catalog of types of forbidden sexual intercourse in Lev 18:6–16 can be used to define the joint family in Israel, as was done by Porter (1967: 9–21) and others (e.g., Schloen 2001: 148–49). On the one hand, the catalog is too wide and includes people who do not belong to the joint family under normal conditions (e.g., the sister of the mother in v.€13); on the other hand, the addressee’s own daughters are absent, whose protection would be the most important of all. Thus, Rattray (1987: 542) may be right to infer that the daughters are already included in v.€6 with the term ‫‘ כל־ׁשאר בׁשרו‬any blood relative’ and to assert that this verse has to be seen as a veiled reference to the nuclear family unit. In light of this, the catalog is best understood as a list of all female persons of sufficiently close kin to potentially join the nuclear family under specific conditions, be it in an extended or a joint family household, but who are not included in the endogamy of the clan. 14.╇ Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 23. This stereotypical ground plan of Palestinian houses of the Iron Age was already discovered by Braemer (1982: 155–57), although he distinguished several subtypes and still did not use the terminology that has now become common.

Methodological Reflections

27

Fig.€2.1.╇ Variants of four-room houses.

Chapter 2

28

By Iron II times, the entry was usually in the center of the front wall, leading into a large central space, generally floored with beaten earth. . . . To either side of this larger area are side aisles delimited by pillars, generally associated with a stub wall. These aisles often have stone paving: cobbles or flagstones. Farther back, the columns generally give way to stone walls and doorways leading into small rooms, generally with dirt floors; in fact, one side may lack columns altogether, having only walled rooms. Across the back stretches the “fourth” room, usually entered from the central space, and usually having a dirt floor. Not infrequently it is subdivided.

In the three-room house, one of the aisles is lacking. By the year 1987, no less than 155 examples of fourâ•‚ and three-room houses had been excavated (Holladay 1992: 308). Archaeologists have occupied themselves for a long time with the question of whether this type of house was an ethnic indicator for Israelite culture (e.g., Shiloh 1970: 180). Furthermore, four-room houses were the typical dwelling in the southern Levant of the Iron Age and were found to a particularly concentrated degree in the highlands of Cisâ•‚ and Transjordan (Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 23). Stager first considered the functional and sociological interpretation of the four-room house in 1985, with further developments by Holladay (1992; 1995; 1997), who introduced comparative ethnographic material from dwellings of Iranian settlements in the Zagros Mts. This work has made clear that the side aisles delimited with pillars served as stables and occasionally had mangers, and the walled rooms in both aisles served a variety of functions, such as storing food, equipment, cooking utensils, or other equipment (Stager 1985: 11–15). The central space was used for all work-related activities of the family during the daytime and may have served as a fold during the night (Holladay 1997: 339). Although the “fourth” room at the rear has often been interpreted as a living and sleeping quarter for the household (Shiloh 1970: 186), Holladay (1992: 310) was able to demonstrate that in most cases these back rooms were too narrow to serve this purpose. The recent excavation in Tall al-ʿUmeri has demonstrated once more that the back room of House B was stocked with storage jars (Herr and Clark 2001: 45). This accords with Holladay’s calculation that a family of five would require no less than about 23 m2 for storing the amount of food they would need during a year (1995: 387). Thus arises an important question: if, apart from the central space used for all working activities, the remainder of the four-room house was needed for stabling animals and storing all food and equipment, where did family members dwell and sleep? A convincing suggestion seems to be that, in many cases, four-room houses were provided with a second floor, where the dwelling and sleeping rooms were located (Holladay 1992: 316). Stairways found in dwellings of Tell Beit Mirsim, Beersheba, and Hazor were used to support suggestions of this sort by Albright (1943: 51), Yadin (1972: 182–84), Stager (1985: 15–16), and others; but these stairs could also facilitate an “intensive use of the roof ” (in line with a cautious suggestion in Holladay 1992: 309). There is certainly clear evidence for upper stories of four-room houses from Tell Balatâh/Shechem and Tall al-ʿUmeri. In Shechem, debris surrounding House 1727 (fig. 2.2),â•›15 belonging to Stratum VII from the late 8th century b.c.e., corresponds to the destruction layer of between onehalf and one meter found fallen on the ground floor; even the burned half-round beams that supported the ceiling are discernible (Campbell 2002: 284–88). At Tall al-ʿUmeri, 15.╇ Campbell 2002: 277, fig. 251.

Methodological Reflections

29

Fig.€2.2.╇ Ground plan of House 1727 at Tell Balatâh, Stratum VII, 8th century b.c.e.

House B (fig. 2.3)â•›16 from the late 13th to 12th century b.c.e., which was destroyed by an earthquake, shows “a massive destruction over two meters deep in places and made up of the layers of collapse: first came the roofing material (dirt and wooden beams) followed by masses of mudbricks from the upper, second story walls, and then stones mixed with bricks from the upper courses of the first story” (Herr 2000b: 10). In the destruction layer were tens of thousands of barley seeds, several types of pottery vessels, and over 20 crates of collared pithoi; thus even this second floor served to store food in addition to being used for living and sleeping. In House A, which is not yet fully excavated, some possible cultic items had fallen from the second story: “three chalices, a cup and saucer and a rare pair of cymbals” (Herr and Clark 2001: 44). It thus appears that all four-room houses with a sufficiently strong foundation were probably provided with a second story. Even if one accepts this admittedly sparse evidence, the problem remains whether or not or to what degree the central spaces of the ground floors were roofed. While Stager 16.╇ Herr and Clark 2001: 40–41.

30

Chapter 2

Fig.€2.3.╇ Reconstruction and ground plan of House B at Tall al-ʿUmeri, Iron Age I.

Methodological Reflections

31

Fig.€2.4.╇ Reconstruction of a typical Israelite four-room house, Iron Age I, by L. E. Stager.

conflates ceilings with roofs, either one of which covered the entirety of four-room houses (see fig. 2.4),â•›17 Braemer (1982: 151–53) more cautiously conceives of entire roofs as being restricted to specific subtypes of houses,â•›18 and Netzer (1992: 196–99) generally conceptualizes an unroofed central space, either on the lower or the upper floor (figs. 2.5–6).â•›19 According to the excavators, it seems that in Shechem the entire four-room-core of House 17.╇ King and Stager 2001: 29, fig. 3.15. 18.╇ See his still-cautious judgment: “Pour nous donc, la maison palestinienne serait plutôt un édifice long, entièrement couvert et éventuellement surmonté d’un étage” (Braemer 1982: 153). 19.╇ Netzer 1992: 196–97, figs. 6–7. Borowski (2003: 18) prefers a roofed first floor and open second floor.

32

Chapter 2

1727 had a second story (Campbell 2002: 287). Nevertheless, lingering uncertainty concerning roof areas led Schloen (2001: 165–83) to calculate living spaces for three potential plans of four-room houses: houses with 100%, 50%, or 0% roofing over the second story.â•›20 Thus, uncertainty remains regarding the actual living spaces of fourâ•‚ or three-room houses. Stager’s suggestion is convincing for architectural and practical reasons, although concerns remain about how the central space of the lower floor was provided with sufficient light, ventilation, and means for smoke to escape. Even assuming a second floor for the living space of a family, the main problem concerning dwellings remains unresolved. Even if we presume the maximum amount for a second story, most Israelite houses remain rather small. According to Faust (2000: 19), the average house size found in urban Fig.€2.5.╇ Schematic reconstruction of a dwelling Iron II sites such as Tell Beersheba, with unroofed central courtyard on the lower floor Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tell by E. Netzer. el-Farʿah North, Tell es-Saʿidiyeh, and Hazor is between 30–70 m2.â•›21 In more detail, Schloen (2001: 165–83) concludes that houses covering more than 70 m2 numbered only 9 out of 32, or 28%, of dwelling houses excavated at Tell Beit Mirsim. Only in the 13 excavated dwellings of Tell Farʿah North was the proportion considerably higher (8 houses, or 61%). Regardless, in accordance with the general ethnographic quota of Naroll (1962: 588), of 10 m2 of roofed living space per person, or the more specific Iranian quota of LeÂ�Blanc (1971: 211), of 21–24 m2 of total roofed area inclusive of stabling, storage, and activity spaces,â•›22 about 70% of the dwelling units of urban sites would have accommodated less than 8 people. 20.╇ Dever (2005: 22–23) pictures a 50% solution: a second story above only the fourth room at the rear, and a roofed ground floor for the rest of the building. 21.╇ Faust presents a more detailed overview in an earlier article (1999a: 236–39). In a later article, he increases the average size of dwelling houses a little: 40–80 m2 (Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 25). 22.╇ Schloen (2001: 168) criticized Holladay (1992: 312) for this ratio, which he took from LeBlanc; it seems to him much too high. But he overlooked the fact that not only the living space but also the stables and storage space are included. He himself would prefer an area of 7.3 m2 per

Methodological Reflections

33

Fig.€2.6.╇ Schematic reconstruction of dwellings with unroofed central courtyards on upper floors by E. Netzer.

Thus, the majority of excavated houses in Israelite and Judean sites would not have accommodated the ideal biblical type of family—the paternal joint family, or beit ʾāb. Jacob’s family, which consisted of 70 persons (Gen 46:26–27; Exod 1:5)—a datum that probably provided the inspiration for Gottwald [1981: 285] to define the joint family as a group of 50–100 members—would not fit in any dwelling house ever excavated in Israel. Even with lower estimations of the size of a joint family, such as the 20 people of de Geus (1976: 135), the 15–20 of Dever (2005: 22), the 10–30 of Stager (1985: 20), the 12–14 of Holladay (1992: 315), or estimates of joint family size as being mostly below 15 people (Meyers 1997: 19), the given space of the majority of fourâ•‚ and three-room houses could not have sufficed to accommodate all. Most archaeologists consequently conclude that these houses were generally occupied by nuclear families (Shiloh 1980: 29; Holladay 1992: 310; 1995: 387, 393; Faust 2000: 19, 23; Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 26; Dever 2005: 22). The estimated size of the nuclear family, being 8 people according to Shiloh (1980: 29), 4.1–4.3 people according to Stager (1985: 18),â•›23 4.5–5 people according to Holladay (1992: 315), 4–6 people according to Blenkinsopp (1997: 51), 5–6 people according to Dever (2005: person. But LeBlanc’s (1971: 611) more specific ethnographic estimates fundamentally confirm Naroll’s ratio. 23.╇ Stager based his figures on the calculations of Burch (1974: 96); Schloen (2001: 122–23) has clarified that Stager (1985: 21) presented diverging higher numbers in table 4, because here

34

Chapter 2

22), or a maximum of 7 people according to Meyers (1997: 19), would be nearly perfectly suited to the majority of these fourâ•‚ or three-room houses. According to most calculations, there would even be enough space for housing an extended family household, which incorporated one or two more relatives, or a servant. The conclusion whether or not the archaeological evidence suggests that nuclear or small extended family households constituted the vast majority of households in Israelite society remains uncertain, at least for the monarchic period.

2.3.╇ Overcoming the discrepancy between the archaeological evidence and the biblical ideal The discrepancy between the archaeological evidence for the prevalence of nuclear or small extended family households and the biblical evidence for large paternal joint family households as the ideal family type in Israelite society is addressed via three strategies. These are called the archaeological, demographic, and geographical strategies.

2.3.1.╇ The archaeological strategy One resolution to the discrepancy between archaeological and biblical evidence was proposed long ago by Stager. In his influential 1985 article, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” he admitted on the one hand that “the interior space of a farm house in the hills was rather small, usually less than 50 m2; for the steppe it was larger, but less than 75 m2. In neither case [was] it plausible to suggest a coresident group larger than the nuclear family” (1985: 17–18), while on the other hand pointing out that “more significant than the individual, spatially distinct farmhouse and its putative nuclear family [were] clusters of dwellings, or compounds, which characterized the organization of Raddana, Ai, and Meshash” (1985: 18). He continued, “A working hypothesis would relate these clusters of dwellings to family organization at the extended or multiple family household level” (1985: 18). He called them “multiple family compounds,” in which he thought that a nuclear and joint family household could exist together. What Stager himself introduced as a “working hypothesis” has been presumed to be a conclusion by many scholars (e.g., Meyers 1988: 132–33; 1997: 16–19; van der Toorn 1996: 196–97; Dever 2005: 21), although the archaeological evidence to support it is rather sparse. The best comes from Ḥirbet Raddana (fig. 2.7),â•›24 where two houses stood close together and seemed to share a common courtyard (as indicated by the ovens). Likewise, the narrow courtyard between them, in the rear of which stood an open working place and a storage facility, seems to indicate some degree of cooperation between the two nuclear families. Nevertheless, there does not seem to be any evidence for a wall around the courtyard and the two houses that could have fenced off the compound, as was illustrated by Stager (fig. 2.8).â•›25 Stager presents only one example from Tell Beit Mirsim, where a cluster he added 2 to Burch’s figures to allow for the parents; but this correction is not necessary, because Burch had already estimated the total family size. 24.╇ Stager 1985: 19, fig. 9. 25.╇ King and Stager 2001: 18, fig. 3.10.

Fig.€2.7.╇ Possible house compounds, compiled by L. E. Stager 1985 (A: Tel Masos, Area A, Stratum IIb, Iron I; B: Ḥirbet Raddana, Site€S, Iron I; C: Ai, Area 2, Iron 1; D: Tell el-Fār↜渀屮ʿah North, Stratum III, Iron II; E: Tell el-Farʿah North, Stratum II, Iron II; F: Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, Iron II; G: Tell en-Naṣbeh, early phase of Stratum I, Iron II).

Methodological Reflections 35

36

Chapter 2

Fig.€2.8.╇ Reconstruction of a possible family compound by L. E. Stager, illustrated by C. S. Alexander 2001.

of houses shared a common forecourt, and one other example from Tell el-Farʿah North (1985: 19). All of Stager’s other examples (Stager 1985: 19), from Ḥirbet Meshash, Ai, and Tell en-Naṣbeh, where clusters of houses share one wall and have entrances either opening in different directions or all opening onto the street fail to support an argument of communality.â•›26 One strikingly conspicuous fact that appears to have been overlooked thus far is the absence of doorways directly connecting adjacent houses, as would be expected if these structures actually formed a single joint family household. Why should the members of these households have taken such a circuitous route between them? Investigating the private houses in Hazor of the 8th century b.c.e., Geva (1989: 87) came to the opposite conclusion, that “thus private dwellings, while forming dense clusters, were built as individual units with no consideration to their immediate connection with their neighbors.” In contrast, she observed that the entrances of clusters of houses tend to open in different 26.╇ Not by chance, Holladay (1992: 311) reduced the seven examples given by Stager to four.

Methodological Reflections

37

Fig.€2.9.╇ Dwelling quarter in Hazor showing a back-toback orientation, Area€A, Stratum VII, 8th century b.c.e.

directions (fig. 2.9),â•›27 and thus she speaks of a “back-to-back attitude” (1989: 94) and concludes that “the people of Hazor jealously guarded the privacy of their homes” (1989: 111). Stager’s “working hypothesis” appears to have been the subject of little critical disÂ� cussionâ•›28 and has never been explicitly examined through subsequent archaeological investigations. Thus, the conditions under which a number of neighboring houses could constitute a single joint family household—or even whether or not this actually occurred— remain unresolved. Moreover, the biblical evidence often cited in support of this possibility (Judg 18:22, as first introduced by Gottwald [1981: 291–92] and subsequently cited by Stager [1985: 22], Meyers [1997: 17], and others) is ambiguous.â•›29 27.╇ Geva 1989: appendix: fig. 2 in chap. 6. 28.╇ Some doubts were, however, uttered by Holladay 1992: 310. 29.╇ Gottwald’s (1981: 291) rendering of the phrase, ‫‘ והאנׁשים אׁשר בבתים אׁשר עם־מיכה נזעקה‬the men who were in the houses comprising .€.€. the household of Micah were called out’, is plausible if one takes the preposition ‫ עם‬ʿim in its sense of ‘with’. Nevertheless, it is a little bit strange that the

38

Chapter 2

2.3.2.╇ The demographic strategy One strategy that avoids the archaeological problem of whether or not “multiple family compounds” are demonstrable was pursued by Schloen in his book The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol (2001). Schloen explicitly reflected on the discrepancy mentioned above (2001: 135–36) and incorporated much cross-cultural ethnographic and demographic material to calculate better the sizes of family types (2001: 101–33). Acknowledging the high mortality rates in ancient societies, he argued much lower numbers of family members than previous calculations: “Even if we assume a high fertility rate, nuclear family sizes in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant were relatively small, on the order of 3.5 persons on average, while the patrilineally extended joint families had only 7 members on average” (2001: 122). These low numbers were confirmed in the demographic investigation of Roman Egypt by R. Saller (Schloen 2001: 124–25), although, as Bagnall and Frier indicated, nuclear or extended conjugal families were vastly more prevalent in Egypt than multiple or joint conjugal families (2001: 126). By adding other co-residential people such as kin or servants to these numbers, Schloen concluded sizes of 5 people for nuclear or extended households and 10 people for joint family households (2001: 126, 136). With his convincing evidence for this reduced size of joint family households, Schloen seems to offer a compelling way to address the discrepancy between archaeological and biblical evidence. If one presumes the maximal roof size of the second floor, then 28% of all dwelling houses in Tell Beit Mirsim and 25% in Tell en-Naṣbeh would have had living spaces of between 70 and 120 m2. For the less excavated dwelling houses of Tell elFarʿah North, this proportion was even higher. Thus about 30% of all dwelling houses in Schloen’s sample could easily have been occupied by expanded joint families. Schloen addresses the smaller sizes of most houses by acknowledging the domestic life cycle stressed by Laslett (1974: 32–34): “The smaller houses would have been occupied by families in the nuclear phase of the household life cycle, or in some cases by landless families which could not maintain patrilocal coresidence and attached themselves to wealthier households as clients or servants” (Schloen 2001: 181). This argument seems to offer a surprisingly easy solution. On the one hand, nuclear families need some time to grow until they can become joint families covering three or more generations; on the other hand, after the death of the older generation, joint families once again collapse to a nuclear form—because all brothers except the oldest leave the household—until the children once again marry and expand the family anew. Schloen highlights the role of “constant rearrangement of living space,” which can be supported archaeologically as reflecting this life cycle (2001: 181). There were limits, however, on this “rearrangement of living space,” especially in urban sites, where it mostly consisted of only an inner division of a house and not an enlargeterm ‫בית‬, which appears here twice in a narrow context, should be used with different meanings (building and household). Since the preposition ʿim is often used in a locative sense of ‘next to’ (Gen 35:4; 2 Sam 13:32; et€al.), the traditional rendering of the phrase, ‘the men who were in the houses that were near the house of Micah’, seems even more plausible. The existence of these houses is already mentioned generally in v.€14. The possibility that they belonged to a family compound and that their inhabitants constituted one paternal joint family is not excluded even through it is not explicitly expressed in the text.

Methodological Reflections

39

ment of actual floor space.â•›30 In Schloen’s model, families would have been forced to change their home constantly, according to the phase of their household life cycle: falling back to the nuclear phase of families, their members would have had to move to small houses; growing up to the joint phase of families, their members would have had to occupy large houses. But is such a constant moving about conceivable? How would the former inhabitants of the needed houses be persuaded to move as well? Thus it is uncertain whether in Israel the beit ʾāb was a “deeply rooted patrilocal ideal” as well as “the basic social and economic unit of Israelite society” during the entire Iron II period (Schloen 2001: 183).

2.3.3.╇ The geographical strategy While Schloen interpreted extant archaeological data in a novel and creative way, Faust (1999a; 2000; Faust and Bunimowitz 2003) introduced new archaeological evidence into the debate. He pointed out that the dwelling houses in rural villages, which until then had often been neglected in the archaeology of the southern Levant, were considerably larger than the houses of urban sites (fig. 2.10).â•›31 The rural dwellings of five villages, which were partly or totally excavated (Ḥirbet Jamaʿin, Beit Aryeh [Ḥirbet Hudash], Ḥirbet Malta, Ḥirbet Jarish, and Deir el-Mir), show ground floors of 120 to 130 m2 on average; the smallest was 100, the largest 170 m2 (see the tables in 1999a: 242; 2003: 20). Six separate farmhouses excavated thus far are even bigger (120–170 m2, and even one of 300 m2). Accepting this still-limited evidence as sufficient leads to the conclusion that rural dwellings were on average about two times larger than most urban houses. From this, Faust concludes, The difference in size between urban and rural four-room houses seems to be a result neither of function (e.g., agricultural needs of the rural populations) nor of circumstance (e.g., more free ground for building in villages than cities). Rather, it is a faithful reflection of the different social units comprising the urban vs. rural sectors of Israelite society during the Iron Age. On the one hand, the comparatively small size of the urban four-room houses support the common view that they housed nuclear families. . . . On the other hand, the large size of the rural houses indicates that they housed extended [better: joint] families of at least three generations. (Faust 2003: 26)

This conclusion is supported by the observation that rural houses consisted of more rooms than urban houses; internally subdivided, their number on the ground floor was commonly 5–8 rooms.â•›32 Faust explains, “The larger number of rooms in rural houses should be attributed to the fact that they housed an extended family. The large number of inhabitants would have required more options for separation, segregation, and privacy, especially between the different nuclear families” (2000: 20). This view would accord with both the sociological insight that a joint family consists of several conjugal family units and with biblical terminology as well, in speaking of different bātîm within a given beit ʾāb. 30.╇ This was supported by the rearrangement of dwelling houses in Hazor described by Geva (1989: 42–61), where it seems that only in rural sites was extensive enlargement of houses possible; see, for example, Houses 890 and 900 in Beit Aryeh (Riklin 1997: 8), where the floor space of a fourroom house was doubled by building a second four-room house in front of it. 31.╇ Riklin 1997: 8–9, fig. 2. 32.╇ Faust (1999a: 246) points out that the internal division of the houses varies greatly, most likely due to the life cycle of the joint family.

40

Chapter 2

Fig.€2.10.╇ Ground plan of the Iron II village Beit Aryeh (map reference 15845.16090) showing several large dwellings, including a double four-room house (no. 900) and a huge storehouse (no.€510).

While there are only a few indications of interrelations within towns between different houses, there is strong evidence for active cooperation between several joint family households in rural settlements. In several villages, excavators found big storehouses (see House 510 fig. 2.10), cisterns, wine cellars, oil presses, and oil storage installations, all of which seem to have been used by several or even all families of a village for communally storing the surplus of their agricultural production (2000: 26). Moreover, the building of protective walls (2000: 27) and terrace walls around rural settlements naturally required the cooperation of several joint families. Thus, Faust suggests that, at least as far as the rural sector of Israelite society was concerned, “in addition to the households, the lineages could also be regarded as corporate units, and these sometimes comprised the entire community” (2000: 26). It is thus necessary to distinguish between the rural and the urban sectors of Israelite society. Whereas in the rural sector the joint family (beit ʾāb) and even the “lineage”— which means the part of the clan (mišpāḥāh) who resided together (who were “co-

Methodological Reflections

41

residential”)â•›33—constituted a predominant corporate unit close to the biblical ideal, in the urban sector the nuclear family became the predominant household unit, and relations to other kin were pushed more to the background. Faust’s judgment (2000: 30) that in a rural context the lineage was even more important than the joint family household nevertheless remains open to further discussion. Faust and Bunimovitz both offered explanations for the larger four-room houses that existed in towns. Because they were often better built and usually avoided the use of shared walls, both authors concluded that they “belonged to large (extended) and wealthy families comprising the urban elite” (2003: 27).â•›34 Thus, according to them, both urbanization and increasing socioeconomic stratification generated different residential patterns in the towns and villages. Faust and Bunimovitz both offer compelling solutions to the discrepancy mentioned above. Both nuclear and joint family households existed side by side in ancient Israelite and Judean society, but predominantly in different sectors thereof.â•›35 However, evidence from rural areas is still scant, and would benefit from further excavations. Further insight may be gained through re-evaluating the dwelling houses from Iron I settlements, which represent a period before processes of urbanization took place.

2.4.╇ Relations between different types of family households and to additional kin Taken together, the biblical and archaeological evidence support the following conclusions. In preexilic Israelite and Judean society, there were often different types of family households side by side. There were the paternal joint families consisting of three to four generations under the leadership of a patriarch; under conditions of limited property, these would often have been restricted to stem family types, in which only the oldest son with his wife and children would have remained in the household of the father. There were also fraternal joint family households in which, following the death of the patriarch, two or more brothers and their families would have stayed in the house together. These joint family types appear to have prevailed in rural settlements, where a considerable number of family members (roughly 10–20) would have been needed to farm the land. In urban settlements, these types of joint family households were restricted to wealthy families who owned large estates. 33.╇ Faust’s distinction (2000: 29–30) between the larger clan as a subtribal unit that contained several lineages potentially dispersed over several places, and the smaller group of related paternal joint families who actually lived and cooperated together is especially useful. The latter can be referred as a “lineage”; however, the biblical term ‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh denotes both groups. 34.╇ See also the detailed study of Faust (1999b: 187), where he distinguished—taking the private houses of 8th–century Hazor as a test case—the dwellings of “the wealthy and the senior functionaries on the one hand, and the poor on the other, and possibly also . . . of a middle class.” 35.╇ Schloen’s (2001: 141) argument against Faust does not really meet his thesis; Schloen is right to warn of positing a “sharp urban-rural dichotomy”; but Faust seems largely to avoid this. He in no way denies the possibility of joint family households’ existing in urban settlements but asserts that they constituted only a minority. Thus Faust describes a remarkable difference but not a dichotomy.

42

Chapter 2

Through processes of urbanization in the 10th and 9th century b.c.e., nuclear family households consisting of one couple and their children became increasingly important. In many cases during this time, single family members beyond the primary conjugal unit, for example, a widowed sister driven out of her husband’s family, would have joined a nuclear family; thus extended families were probably frequent variants of nuclear families. Nuclear and extended families constituted the vast majority in urban settlements (up to 70%).â•›36 Many of them probably still worked as small farmers, with others earning additional income as craftsmen, traders, hired workers, clients of wealthier landowners, or state officials. Nuclear families played a much more prominent role in ancient Israelite society than seems to have been presumed by many biblical scholars (Gottwald, van der Toorn, Schloen, et al.). Nuclear family units played dual roles, often constituting their own households as well as enjoying a certain degree of independence within larger joint family households. According to Faust (2000: 20), they probably occupied their own rooms under the roof of their father’s house; according to Bendor (1996: 203), they could even have had their own possessions, such as flocks and vineyards. Thus the conjugal family unit constituted the heart of the familial group in all five types of family household.â•›37 The differences among these four family types are not as large as may initially appear, as revealed in the typology of families by Yorburg (1975: 6). In ideal-typical terms, the joint familyâ•›38 “is characterized by total economic and psychological interdependence between nuclear units, a single authoritarian head, and daily contact. Nuclear family units do not have independent economic resources” (1975: 8). But since in ancient Israel the nuclear units seem to have enjoyed some degree of independent access to resources, they came closer to the type that Yorburg has described as the modified form of joint family characterized “by nuclear family autonomy, but strong kin network influence” (1975: 8). However, the nuclear families of ancient Israel cannot be placed within this “pure” type, which Yorburg characterized as being completely “self-sufficient, economically and psychologically, with respect to the wider kin network” (1975: 7), as we know it from modern societies. Instead, they belonged to a “modified nuclear” type, which is defined only as “largely self-sufficient economically” yet still dependent on some support from the kin network and thus influenced by it (1975: 6–7), particularly because it is reasonable to conjecture that Israelite nuclear families did not normally live isolated from their kin and that in most cases related families lived in the same towns or even in the same quarters, as it is still the case in modern Oriental cities (Schloen 2001: 101–16). Thus, the degree of dependence on or independence from the kinship network spanned a continuum between joint and nuclear family households. The possible intermediate phases between the two become even more apparent by considering “multiple family compounds,” following Stager (1985: 18–20). Even though the evidence that they constituted the “usual” form of joint family households is rather 36.╇ In the late 7th century b.c.e., the nuclear family seems to have become so predominant that, in the book of Deuteronomy, the term ‫ בית אב‬is nearly lacking; it only appears in Deut 22:21, where it probably is referring to a paternal house as a building. 37.╇ This clarifies a much shorter statement on the subject in Albertz 2008: 92, 96. 38.╇ Yorburg still uses the term “extended family.”

Methodological Reflections

43

sparse,â•›39 it is possible that they existed in Iron I villages and perhaps occasionally in urban settlements. It is suggested in these cases that the members of joint families were split among several houses, mostly according to their nuclear units (similar to the scenario drawn by King and Stager 2001: 12–19). And of course, those nuclear family units would have gained more independence than if they had remained under the roof of a paternal house. Although economically interdependent, they psychologically enjoyed much more privacy, because they could shut their own door behind them. Thus, bearing in mind that a “household” is defined by people living under one roof and sharing in common consumption (cf. Kertzer 1991: 155), it may be asked whether a social unit of this sort is rightly defined as a joint family household or whether it is better to speak of a cluster of nuclear family households characterized by a higher degree of cooperation than normal. Such familial cooperation can even exceed the borders of joint family households by the inclusion of additional kin. Faust in particular has presented (2000: 23–30) archaeological evidence from rural settlements suggesting cooperation among larger corporate groups, such as groups who served large wine and oil presses or storage facilities. He identified these groups with lineages—that is, with the co-residental parts of a clan (mišpāḥāh). In the Hebrew Bible, there is ample evidence that villages were sometimes occupied by only one clan (Judg 8:32; Faust 2000: 31). The number of “industrial installations” found in some of these villages was commonly between one and four, supporting the conclusion that there was an equal number of lineages. Faust thinks that, “from the archaeological evidence it is not clear if the lineage was the production . . . unit . . . . , or if it only managed and facilitated the production, while the production itself (the processing of the agricultural products) was carried out by the extended [joint] family” (Faust 2000: 23). In any case, there was seasonal superfamilial cooperation in rural settlements. Within urban sectors of society, the significance of these lineages seems to have been less important. The possible cooperation of a joint family with its patrilineal lineage, as attested primarily in the rural sector of Israelite society, should not, however, lead to the opinion that there was no clear demarcation between these social units, even through the term beit ʾāb can sometimes denote a lineage (Gen 12:1; 24:40; Judg 9:1). Even if, as often seems to have been the case in Israelite villages, everyone was related by blood to the others, the close, strong emotional ties between immediate family members nevertheless constituted a distinguished kind of relationship.â•›40 In the past, the importance of the clan or lineage has been emphasized above that of the family, as though the clan was necessary to the family’s survival (e.g., Gottwald 1981: 254–84;â•›41 van der Toorn 1996b: 200–203). This led Gottwald to believe that only the clan, and not the family, had religious functions (1981: 282–84).â•›42 He in turn persuaded van der Toorn to characterize the family religion of early Israel as largely a clan religion (van der Toorn 1996b: 250–55). Van der Toorn states, “Religion 39.╇ See above, pp. 34–36. 40.╇ See (above, pp. 21–22) the statement of Nave-Herz 2001: 149. 41.╇See Gottwald’s famous definitions of the mišpāḥāh: “protective association of families” and “community of shared interests” (1981: 257). 42.╇ He mentions 1 Sam 20:6, 28–29 and also interprets 1 Sam 3:1 in this direction, although here only Elkanah’s family is mentioned.

44

Chapter 2

in the early Iron Age was primarily a matter of joint family or clan” (1996b: 250). Dealing with Micah’s sanctuary in Judges 17–18, he maintained that, “Even if the sanctuary belonged to a family, it was not a domestic chapel, but a local cult centre” (1996b: 254). And concerning sanctuaries like Ophrah and the “Bull Site,” he claimed that “the towns, inhabited by different branches of a family or clan, were the main cultic communities. There is neither archaeological nor literary evidence for a domestic cult performed by single nuclear families. Related families constituted one cultic body, the pater familias of the foremost family acting as its head” (1996b: 254).â•›43 These extensive conclusions can be used to emphasize the importance of determining the different levels of kinship groups. If the borderline between the family and the lineage or clan becomes blurred, family religion will dissolve into a clan or local religion, regardless—or it might even become invisible. As will be described in chap. 3, hundreds of ritual objects have been found in private urban dwelling houses, providing a wealth of evidence for domestic rituals that were performed by single nuclear families. In order to define clear boundaries between the types of families and their wider kinships, it is necessary to reiterate the main features of both the family and the household.â•›44 The former is characterized by four functions: reproduction, socialization, production, and consumption; the latter by two features: living under the same roof and sharing in common consumption. Between family and clan, a clear borderline can first be drawn by the use of the term household to denote a group of co-residents living under one roof. This criterion can never be fulfilled by a lineage or a clan but only by a family, be it nuclear or joint. This distinction can then be reinforced by the basic feature of the family, which is its fundamental function of reproduction. This can only be fulfilled by a conjugal couple—the definitive nuclear constituent of all family types—never by a lineage or a clan as a whole. Finally, the distinction can be established by the criterion of shared common consumption, which is equally important in determining households and families. Daily common meals are very normal in nuclear or extended families and can also be consumed within joint families if there is enough living space available,â•›45 but common meals within lineages or clans are restricted to feasts and special events, such as commemorative meals for the dead. Socialization was primarily the function of a nuclear family unit, but other members of the extended family or even of the lineage could supplement or be a substitute for family members for the purposes of socializing. It was only the function of production that could be equally well performed by either the families alone or by all possible levels of cooperation within the greater co-residental kinship. Since in Israel the patrilineal clan had some control of the landholdings of the families belonging to it (Num 27:1–11),â•›46 it 43.╇ Van der Toorn (2003: 409) now uses the term “local religion,” which according to him “covers both domestic and village religion.” 44.╇ See above, pp. 22–24. 45.╇ In the scenario envisioned by King and Stager (2000: 19), the common meal of the joint family should take place in the upper story of the house of the paterfamilias, although no consideration is given to whether the total of 17 people supposed by them could actually be accommodated there. 46.╇ See also the institution of ‫ גאלה‬gĕʾullāh, meaning the duty of the closest kin from the clan to redeem a family’s landholding if it was sold because of debt (Jer 32:7–9; Lev 25:25–28; Ruth 4:4).

Methodological Reflections

45

is no wonder that it enjoyed privileged access to the proceeds from agricultural products. But this close coÂ�operation between the family and its co-residental lineage was possible for only one of the four basic familial functions. While the borderline between family and lineage or clan is sharply marked, the boundary between the different types of family households is considerably more ambiguous. Considering the types of most apparent difference—the nuclear family on the one hand and the joint family on the other—we can maintain that in the former, all familial functions were accomplished by the same conjugal family unit, while in the latter, the units that achieved these functions could vary. The function of reproduction was achieved by one of the nuclear subunits; the function of socialization was done with the cooperation of the parents with other members of the joint family; and food processing and consumption could be related to both. Only the function of production was accomplished by all nuclear subunits of a joint family household together; where this was done by a nuclear family household alone, it occurred perhaps with the support of kin outside the household. Thus it is primarily the organization of production that distinguishes the nuclear from the joint family household. These considerations highlight pronounced differences across the range of the familial functions. The fundamental function of reproduction is focused on the innermost group of the nuclear family—whether we are dealing with a nuclear family household or a nuclear unit within a joint family. Similarly, the function of common consumption is often related to a nuclear family household but can also include an entire joint family. The important function of the socialization of children has a wider range of loci. Responsibility primarily belonged to the parents but was supplemented by kin both inside and outside the family. The widest range of focus describes the function of production; it occurs through cooperation with close kin both inside and outside the family household and can even include the wider co-residental lineage.

2.5.╇ Conclusions for reconstructing the Israelite family and household religion Having clarified that the family household in ancient Israel in all its variants constituted a clearly distinguishable social unit of its own, we may now reconstruct a specific family and household religion, as practiced by this unit. The above clarifications suggested the importance of the compound term family household. The reconstruction of family and household religion should likewise be related both to the family as a kinship group with all its variants and to the household of the family as encompassing its dwelling, its daily activity, and its economy. At the same time, the main familial functions elucidated thus far—reproduction, socialization, consumption, and production—provide us with a useful grid of orientation. The above considerations also reveal that ancient Israelite families rarely lived as isolated units but were (to a greater extent than usual in modern societies) closely related to kin outside their own households and to their entire local community. Consequently, we distinguish three different circles of family and household religion.â•›47 47.╇ Distinguishing these three circles, we are able (in response to Olyan 2008: 114–15) to give justice to all dimensions of family religion.

46

Chapter 2

First, to the inner circle can be assigned all the rituals that were performed at the dwelling house, which we refer to as components of a “domestic cult.” Because the houses were occupied by nuclear families, they are identifiable as the carriers of the domestic cult. In the cases where joint families lived in a dwelling, the entire group or one of their nuclear subunits would have performed the domestic cult. Several rituals of the domestic cult would have related directly to the needs of the nuclear family, especially all rituals that had to do with the fundamental familial function of reproduction; for example, prayers and vows for conception, birth, lactation, the survival of the infants, and others. In cases of illness or other needs of family members, prayer rituals would have been performed inside the houses, possibly at the beds of the afflicted. Furthermore, the daily care of the dead that accompanied the processing and common consumption of food probably took place inside the house next to cooking facilities. Apotropaic rites and incantations to shelter the house and its inhabitants from evil powers also belonged to this inner circle. In joint family households, other family members would have commonly supported the conjugal couple in performing rituals; the pater familias would likely have performed the rites that were important to the entire household. Second, we distinguish a medium circle, which comprised all rites that were performed outside the house but still somewhere in the neighborhood of a family’s house, such visiting a neighborhood chapel to reinforce the making of a vow. Rites of this medium circle would often have been supported by members of the larger kinship. This would have been the case in mourning rites following the death of a family member or commemorative meals held regularly for the dead and performed at family grave sites. Third, to an outer circle we assign all the rites that would have been performed by a family within the sphere of their public cult, in local, regional, or state sanctuaries. Not only family members but also other kin, friends, and neighbors would usually have participated in these celebrations. Examples may have included a sacrificial meal in the sanctuary to celebrate the healing of a family member, so he could be reintegrated into the local community, or a sacrificial meal intended to pay the promissory vows of family members. Also the rites having to do with family production, such as the offering of agricultural firstlings and the firstborn of domestic animals, would have belonged to this outer circle. Here, family religion came into contact with the sphere of regional or state religion.

2.6.╇ Religious-historical concepts regarding family religion To distinguish a family religion within a given religion requires the recognition of a kind of religious pluralism. Among Old Testament scholars, there is still a high degree of uncertainty about how to deal properly with the obvious pluralism in the Israelite religion. Five main concepts are used and sometimes conflated: the concept of syncretism, the concept of approaches to life, the concept of popular religion, the concept of primary and secondary religions, and the concept of internal religious pluralism. We first explore these concepts in some detail in order to clarify the theoretical framework within which family and household religion can be accurately described (see Albertz 1995: 194–200; 2008: 89–93).

Methodological Reflections

47

2.6.1.╇ The concept of syncretism In earlier research (e.g., Smend 1899: 45–52; von Rad 1962: 1.28–30), differences in the beliefs and rites of preexilic Israelite religion were often explained by assuming that a Mosaic Yhwh-religion was heavily influenced and partly modified by Canaanite religion. In his history of Israelite religion, Ringgren (1988: 57–58) identified several diverging tendencies that existed in Israelite religion by their degree of syncretism; he wrote, The pre-exilic religion was by no means a homogeneous entity that the present scriptures of the Old Testament make it out to be. The conflict and compromise between Canaanite and Israelite traditions was still far from over. The struggle between the religion of Yahweh and the religion of Baal continued with unabated vigor. As a result, there existed in pre-exilic Israel several divergent tendencies that cannot be understood simply as manifestations of a single homogeneous faith. There existed side by side, for example, the so-to-speak official religion of the Temple and monarchy (in the Southern Kingdom), a popular syncretistic religion, the religion of the great literary prophets, and the religion of the Deuteronomistic circle.

It can be generally acknowledged that influences or borrowings from outside can cause differences within a religion; and many anti-Canaanite polemics in biblical passages seem to suggest the presence of these sorts of influence. The case of Israel, however, presents particular difficulties in this regard. First, we do not know whether there ever existed a specific Canaanite religion, let alone the form it might have had if it did exist. Often when the prophet Hosea or the Deuteronomic theologians claimed a Canaanite origin for a particular practice, they only inveighed against a ritual or belief that they did not want to tolerate any longer, even though it may by then have been part of the Israelite religion for a long time.â•›48 Moreover, the beliefs and rites of ordinary people are not necessarily shaped to any greater degree by either syncretism or official state cults. The temple and kingship theology of Jerusalem was nothing other than a syncretistic construction (Albertz 1994: 1.114–38). And finally, we must remember that syncretism is a process, not a state. When it is successful, foreign elements are accepted as part of the borrowing religion and no longer seen as alien; otherwise, they are rejected.â•›49 Therefore, the argument that a certain religious or cultic element was of syncretistic origin one hundred or five hundred years earlier often does not explain its significance in the present religion.â•›50 Thus distinctions must be made between actual syncretistic processes such as enriched the Yhwh-religion in many cases and the reproach of syncretism as a device of internal theological dispute (Albertz 1994: 1.209; 2.289–92).â•›51 48.╇ See several examples that are denoted in Albertz 1994: 1.172–73, 210–11. 49.╇ If one also uses the term syncretism for the (successful) result of the syncretistic process, the term becomes useless because one is only saying that all religions are syncretistic; see Rudolph (1992: 209). 50.╇ For example, it would be a fault to infer from the present use of Easter eggs or Christmas trees in Germany that Christian faith was unable to overcome the Teutonic religion; although they originally were fertility symbols, they were successfully integrated into the Christian symbol system. 51.╇ In this connection, we should remember that the modern term syncretism was stamped by the inner-Christian confessional dispute in Europe during the 17th century; see Rudolph 1992: 194–95.

48

Chapter 2

One problematic aspect of this concept was made obvious in a recent example. The archaeologist Gitin, who excavated the Philistine town of Ekron, observed that, of the 17 small stone altars found there, only 6 were found in the auxiliary building of the city temple; 9 were found in the industrial zone and 2 in the domestic area. Twelve of the altars he classified as portable (2000: 289–91). Gitin concluded from these data that there was a “decentralized worship system” that was distinct from the centralized worship of the city temple, but he explained that, “no doubt, this dual worship system was a result of Ekron’s exposure to multiple ethnic cultic traditions when it became an international olive-oil production centre in 7th century b.c.e.” (Gitin 2000: 289). Even if this is true, Gitin overlooked an easier, functional explanation. The 9 altars found in the domestic and industrial areas clearly attest a more private form of worship separate from the central temple and constitute good evidence for the existence of a domestic cult or a workplace cult in 7thcentury Ekron. Thus, the concept of syncretism is not particularly useful for describing family religious practices and beliefs in Israel; the case described above reveals that it can even hinder interpretation that otherwise would support a domestic cult.

2.6.2.╇ The concept of approaches to life In his history of Israelite religion, Fohrer (1973: 153–64; German: 1969: 145–58) tried to distinguish the different religious movements (Glaubensströmungen) that were noticeable during the monarchic period based on six different approaches to life (DaseinsÂ� haltungen). First, he distinguished the restorative approach, which adhered to the old Mosaic or nomadic Yhwh-religion, as supported, for example, by the Nazirites and Rechabites; second, the magical approach, which Fohrer considered to be strongly stamped by the Canaanite fertility cult; third, the cultic approach, which aimed at a cultic safeguarding of the blessing of fields and cattle by following a middle course between Yhwhâ•‚ and Canaanite religion (largely influenced by, among others, the priests); fourth, the nationalist approach, which considered the emergence of Israel as a people and state to be permanent proof of its divine election (as in the Jahwist and Elohist traditions); fifth, the wisdom approach, which was concerned with the education of men and the regulations for their behavior (for example, as officials); and finally and most important, the approach to life of the great prophets (Fohrer 1973: 267–91; German: 1969: 269–96). Fohrer’s model has the advantage that it can incorporate and provide structure for many different concepts of faith and is able to combine religious influences from without with religious pluralism from within. Moreover, Fohrer tried to name support for each of these different approaches to life. The coexistence of the different approaches and their function in Israelite society remain unclarified, however. Were they distinct options from which people were free to choose? Were there roles that individuals had to play in different social contexts? Or did the various approaches stem from group interests? Aside from these open questions and in spite of all the religious pluralism that Fohrer was able to describe, he overlooked the potential existence of family and household religion. The concept of approaches to life doesn’t seem to be suitable for determining the place of family and household religion within Israelite religion.

Methodological Reflections

49

2.6.3.╇ The concept of popular religion The concept of popular religion seems to be much more promising for taking family and household religion into consideration and determining its place. Several biblical scholars (including Vorländer 1975; Greenberg 1983; Ackerman 1992; Blenkinsopp 1997; and Zwickel 1999b) and archaeologists (including Holladay 1987; and Dever 1991; 1995; 2001; and 2005) have dealt with biblical texts, inscriptions, and artifacts that can be ascribed to family religion by using this concept. The basis idea is that ‘popular religion’ or ‘folk religion’ (in German, Volksreligion or Volksfrömmigkeit) constitutes a religious sub-stratum that can be distinguished from any “official religion” developed by priests or other educated scribes as supported by primary cultic and state institutions. Accordingly, within the Israelite context, popular religion was a deviate or even heterodox sort of Yhwh-religion, supported by the common or uneducated people. As popular as the concept of popular religion seems to be among biblical scholars and archaeologists, it nevertheless is difficult to apply it to the study of family and household religion. First, there has been no consensus regarding a definition of the term popular religion. While Vorländer (1986: 281) simply maintained its uneducated character by noting that “the term ‘popular religion’ refers to popular ideas entertained by the Israelites concerning God’s action in the life of the individual, the community, and in nature,” Dever (2001: 196) stressed its heterodox character, in that “popular religion is an alternate, nonorthodox, nonconformist mode of religious expression. It is largely noncentralized, noninstitutional, lying outside state priests or state sponsorship . . . it appeals especially to minorities and disenfranchised (in the case of ancient Israel, most women).” Ackerman (1992: 1) accords with Dever in locating it away from any kind of “official religion,” in that “it is not the religion usually presented to us as normative in the Bible. More specifically, it is not the religion of the Deuteronomistic school, the priests, or the prophets, the three groups from whom the majority of our biblical texts come.” But in contrast to Dever, Ackerman thinks that popular religion should not be considered to be heterodox (1992: 1) and does not belong to minorities, but it “was in all likelihood the majority view” (1992: 216). Unlike Ackerman and Dever, Miller (1985: 216–18), Olyan (1988: 33–37), and again Leuenberger (2008: 153–55) tried to escape the normative implications of the concept and thought of a more private form of piety in contrast to the public state cult (which Miller has designated “personal religion”; Olyan “popular piety”; and Leuenberger “private Religion”). According to Greenberg (1983: 37), popular religion denotes the “form and practice of everyday, nonprofessional, extemporized verbal worship in ancient Israel” in a neutral or even positive sense. Second, because of our uncertainty about defining popular religion, very different beliefs and rites may potentially be incorporated into the concept in ancient Israel. In looking for the rites and beliefs that were condemned by the prophets or the legislators, one could name very disparate subjects. To Segal (1976), for example, popular religion connotes ideas about women, magic, and magical practitioners, even though magic belonged also to official priestly rituals (see Leviticus 16; Numbers 5, 19). A much more convincing suggestion is provided by Ackerman (1992: 5–35), who considers the familial veneration of the Queen of Heaven denounced by Jeremiah in 7:18 and 44:15–23 to be a typical example

50

Chapter 2

of popular religion. For Rose (1975: 213–51), the term “popular religion” denotes the religious views of the opponents of the Deuteronomic theologians or the prophet Jeremiah. It could even have been the Zion theology that Jeremiah attacked in his temple sermon (Jer 7:4), which clearly belonged to the official state religion of Judah. So the term used in this way is more confusing than clarifying. Since the prophets and legislators not only struggled against popular customs but also against the misuse of official cultic rites and theological concepts, their polemics do not open a secure access to a nonofficial segment of Israelite religion.â•›52 Third, even though Ackerman tried to prevent it (1992: 1–2), the term “popular religion” has a pejorative connotation. From the official perspective, it is considered to be a more primitive kind of belief that does not satisfy the theological and ethical norms or the intellectual standards of official theology. By classifying all nonofficial sanctuaries as “nonconformist” cults taken from the popular religion model, Holladay (1987: 270–80) also takes a dim view of domestic cults. It is thus not particularly helpful to characterize all family religion as “nonconformist.” Fourth, the dichotomous concept of official versus popular religion was not derived from ancient Near Eastern antiquity but, as noted by Vrijhof (1979: 674), from the “institutionalized and codified Christian religion in the western world.” Summarizing this view, Zevit (2003: 226–27) states that “the origin of the distinction lies in the relationship of the Western Church to the indigenous religions of Europe during and after the Middle Ages. Initially, the two were in competition; but when the Church grew in power and authority through its connections with the leading social groups of the emerging nation-states, indigenous religions were denigrated and held to be primitive superstitions.” Later, the division between official and popular religion or Volksfrömmigkeit was taken up by the Volkskunde of the 19th century c.e. and was developed to analyze customs of people in the Christian—mainly Catholic—societies of Europe (Vrijhof 1979: 1–6, 668–704; Ebertz and Schultheis 1986: 11–52). In this context, the term “popular religion” denotes a phenomenon in which laymen took elements of orthodox Catholic beliefs, rites, and symbols and redefined and reused them for their own religious purposes. For example, they erected crosses with the Corpus Christi in fields as apotropaic or fertility symbols. Thus, popular religion in this original sense is a degenerate subtype of official Christian religion. It presupposes the establishment of orthodoxy, a clear stratification between a priestly elite and an unprofessional laity, and a supposed priestly monopoly over all benefits of salvation.â•›53 This origin of the concept raises questions such as: did similar conditions actually obtain in the ancient world? or when might comparable structures have emerged? In Israel, 52.╇ Berlinerblau (1993: 12–15, 18) stressed the additional problem that the biblical polemics show the biased view of the literati, which could have invented popular religious groups without any clue in the historical reality. This problem must be admitted, but, in my view, can be overcome by scrutinizing the degree of concretion shown in the polemical argument. 53.╇ Ebertz and Schultheis define Volksfrömmigkeit as follows: “Unter ‘populärer Religiosität’ sind spezifische Konfigurationen religiöser Vorstellungen und Praktiken zu verstehen, die sich infolge einer Monopolisierung der Definition von und der Verfügbarkeit über die ‘Heilsgüter’ bzw. über das ‘religiöse Kapital’ bei den von der Definition von und der Verfügbarkeit über diese Heilsgüter Ausgeschlossenen herausbilden.”

Methodological Reflections

51

the first attempts at establishing some kind of orthodoxy were not made before the late 7th century, and even then the leading priests and scribes of emerging Judaism were neither able nor ready to establish hierarchical institutions of power equivalent to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. Thus, the concept of popular religion cannot readily be applied to the study of ancient Israelite religion, especially not family and household religion in the monarchic period.â•›54 Due to these difficulties, the concept of popular religion has attracted increasing criticism (Albertz 1978a: 14–18; Berlinerblau 1993; 1995; Zevit 2001: 662–63; 2003). The supporters and functions of popular religion have long remained blurred in this model. Berlinerblau demonstrated the ambiguity of the entire concept and pleaded for a more sociologically precise methodology in order to “delineate religiosity among particular Israelite groups” (1993: 18).â•›55 However, by defining the term popular religion “as a sort of conceptual umbrella under which the investigation of women, heterodox elements, the non-privileged classes . . . would serve as the primary objects of scholarly scrutiny” (1993: 19), Berlinerblau demonstrated his attachment to the pejorative sense of the concept. More radical was the criticism of Zevit (2001: 230–32), who defended impartiality in describing the beliefs and cultic practices of the basic social groups identifiable in ancient Israelite society, whether a father’s house, a clan, a tribe, or the people as a whole. He suggested “that it is productive to describe both the (i.e., cultic) sites and Israelite religion as expressions of known ancient social realities. This is preferable to describing them in dichotomous terms, lacking social referents in ancient culture” (2001: 233). With this statement, Zevit came close to the concept of internal religious pluralism that will be considered below.

2.6.4.╇ The concept of primary and secondary religion The concept of primary and secondary religion, which has become more prominent in recent years, is not drawn from ancient Near Eastern cultures either. Sundermeier (1980; 1999) developed it for describing and evaluating the process and the result of Christian mission, especially in the southern parts of Africa. According to him, the term primary religion denotes the religions of the autochthonous tribal societies that are characterized by (among other things) a stabilizing life within and the coherence of societies of a certain small scale. Primary religion is presented here without reference to any alternative. In contrast, the term secondary religion denotes the world religions, such as Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, which are related to complex societies and characterized by individualism, a decision made between alternatives, elaborated doctrine, and claims of universal validity, among other things. Often secondary religions were initiated by seers, prophets, or reformers. With his concept, Sundermeier aimed toward a more positive valuation of the surviving elements of autochthonous religions in the beliefs and rituals of African and Asian churches. 54.╇ That the concept can become more fruitful if one divests it from its normative and pejorative Christian elements was perhaps illustrated by a conference on “Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East,” held in 1992 in Tokyo with a Japanese cultural perspective; see Matsushima 1993. 55.╇ Berlinerblau (1993: 16) refers more to economically defined groups than to natural groups such as the family, in contrast to Wach (1944: 58–79), to whom Berlinerblau refers on p. 15 n. 36.

52

Chapter 2

After Assmann (1990) adapted Sundermeier’s model for describing characteristics and changes in ancient Egyptian religion, the concept of primary and secondary religions was studied further by biblical scholars (Niehr 1999; Wagner 2006; Leuenberger 2008). For Niehr (1999: 64–66), the religions of Israel and Judah during the monarchic period belonged to the category of primary religion; they were focused on conveying the structures of cosmic order and were not religions of confession. According to him, Israelite religion first showed signs of being a secondary religion under the prophets but did not become a religion of confession focused on the relationship between god and men before the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Leuenberger (2008: 77–108) uses the categories primary and secondary religion to describe the process of theologizing, which the concept of blessing in Israel underwent. It is obvious that several criteria have arisen for determining primary and secondary religions and have further been used to distinguish between official and popular religions. Moreoever, the concept of primary and secondary religion has the advantage that it avoids all normative and pejorative implications of the concept of official and popular religion. However, as the primary-secondary concept has been developed to this point, it offers no space to accommodate family religion. Sundermeier himself distinguished only smallscale and large-scale societies but was not interested in subdivisions of tribal societies.â•›56 Leuenberger (2008: 81) even relinquishes any sociological linkage, although he concedes that family religion might almost belong to the category of “primary religion.” The concept is restricted for him to a description of religious experiences in terms of content. Thus, the concept of primary and secondary religion is not suited to describing family and household religion as a segment of Israelite religion (see Schmitt 2006). The simple dichotomy leaves lingering doubts about whether the entire concept is suitable for describing the inherently complex developments of any religion at all.â•›57

2.6.5.╇ The concept of internal religious pluralism The last explanation for religious and ritual diversity is sociological. Since all higher societies may be subdivided into different types of groups, the religious symbols and practices that are closely related to the needs of these groups also differ to a greater or lesser extent. In traditional societies at least, three levels of societal groups can readily be distinguished: the family, the local community, and the whole people, whether the whole people is organized into a tribe or a state (which in premodern times constituted more separate spheres of life than today, however interrelated they were).â•›58 Since ancient Israel 56.╇ Sundermeier (1995: 204) simply replaced the term family with a term that denotes a smallscale or tribal society, although his reference to tribes as Kleingruppe (‘small groups’; Sundermeier 1999: 40) alters the meaning of a term conventionally reserved to denote families or groups of a very limited scale (for example, of less than 20 members). 57.╇ In 2005, Wagner organized a symposium in Heidelberg aiming to evaluate the concept according to many scholars of ancient Near Eastern and ancient Mediterranean religions. The majority of the participants were variously opposed to it (Wagner 2006); see, for example, the negative judgment of Grünschloß (2006: 253–58) from the perspective of Religionswissenschaft. 58.╇ A similar, group-oriented approach has been developed by the German-American Religionswissenschaftler and sociologist Wach (1944: 54–109). In his Sociology of Religions, under the

Methodological Reflections

53

was such a traditional society, at least two or three levels of Israelite religion can be clearly distinguished (Albertz 1978a: 2–3, 11–13; 1994: 1.18–21; 1995: 197–200): a personal piety related to the family; an official religion related to the whole people; and in between—and not as clearly able to to be described as the other two—a local religion related to a village or town.â•›59 The two or three levels of religion differ from one another with respect to their supporters, their target groups, their degree of institutionalization, and their religious beliefs, practices, and functions. Following Lanczkowski (1981: 50–55), who described similar phenomena in the Greek, Chinese, and Mayan religions, this concept has been labeled internal religious pluralism (Albertz 1978a) and defined as a structural pluralism that is related to the substructures of society. The concept has been variously adopted by several others (M. Weippert 1997: 9–19; van  der Toorn 1996: 2–4; Stolz 1996: 111, 124–35; Miller 2000: 62–105; Gerstenberger 2001: 26–152).â•›60 For example, Weippert distinguishes between family religion, local religion, and state religion. Miller provides a little more detail by taking social and historical developments into account; he differentiates between family religion, local and regional cults, the cultus of the Israelite confederation, the state religions of Judah and Israel, and community religion. And van der Toorn thinks the clan to be more the supporter of family religion in distinction to the local level, because a clan often constitutes an entire settlement.â•›61 Some who have subscribed to the “popular religion” model have done so in ways that have made apparent the ambiguity of distinction between it and the concept of “internal religious pluralism.”â•›62 With regard to family religion, the more feminist approaches of Bird (1987: 387–410; 1991: 102–4) and Meyers (1997: 39–40; 2002: 283–301) also largely accord with this model. The concept internal religious pluralism also has the advantage of permitting a valuefree description of family religion as well as a self-contained unit standing in relation to the local and state levels of Israelite society. Doubts have been expressed about whether heading “Religion and Natural Groups,” he distinguished family cults, kinship cults, local cults, racial cults, national cults, and cult associations based on sex and age, which accord in many respects to our conceptual distinctions in this book. Although his book was translated into German immediately after World War II (Wach 1951: 60–132), unfortunately Wach’s approach, because of his emigration and early death, did not become influential in Germany. 59.╇ This third level has been borrowed from Lang 1983: 271–301, although not developed in detail. 60.╇ A second important study that also influenced this branch of research was the book of Vorländer (1975), who investigated the concept of personal god in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia. 61.╇ For the interrelation between nuclear family, joint family, and clan, see above, pp. 41–45. In accordance with Joshua 7, Zevit distinguished five societal levels in Israel: the individual, the father’s house, the clan, the tribe, and the people. However, in ancient Israel, the individual and family levels constituted one unit, the clan or clans could be equated with the local level, and the tribe or the confederation of tribes belonged to a level similar to the state as far as the pre-state society was concerned. 62.╇ For example, biblical texts that have previously been used as typical examples of popular religion (Jer 7:16; 44:15–23) have also lent themselves to insightful analysis from the perspective of “family and household religion” (Ackerman 2008: 127–58). Dever, in his more recent studies, occasionally uses the terms “folk” or “popular religion” and “family religion” synonymously (2001: 173; 2005: 176, 240).

54

Chapter 2

there is any great difference between family religions and religions found at local or official levels (Jeremias and Hartenstein 1999: 79–86; Leuenberger 2008: 16, 99, 153, 173; Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 278–79),â•›63 but the degree of continuity or disjunction between these levels is entirely unconstrained by the concept internal religious pluralism.â•›64 It will be shown that the distinctiveness of family religion is rooted in “a very specifically declared relationship” between the family members, “which is distinguished from any other relation of social interaction in a given society” (Nave-Herz 2002: 149).â•›65 These fundamental structural distinctions must be understood as separate from the distinctions of social stratification, professions, or economic conditions. Differences between families can lead to subdivisions of family religion, providing them with slightly different external forms, as exemplified by the “personal theology of the rich” and the “piety of the poor,” as happened within Judean society in the Persian period,â•›66 but these differences do not alter the inner kernel of family religion.â•›67 A few terminological problems remain to be clarified. Instead of personal piety, we prefer the term family and household religion, in which we include the personal faith of family members. By using this combined term, we intend to ensure that the whole range of this segment of Israelite religion is included. This whole range covers the local center of family religion, or the domestic cult, and all other ritual and cultic activities wherever they are performed by the family group—whether, for example, a commemorative meal at the tombs of ancestors or a sacrificial meal in a local or even state sanctuary.â•›68 We also avoid using the term women’s cult to connote a wider family cult. Its use by Dever (2005: 236–40) was probably influenced by the idea that “popular religion” is a religion of a suppressed people (Dever 1991: 64–65). The roles of women were of indisputable importance in family cults, but it must be stressed that women enacted these cults not only for themselves but also for their families; furthermore, in many cases, men as well as women participated in family rituals, as conceded by Dever (2001: 195–96; 2005: 237, 240). We use the term official religion to denote more than just the practices that were otherwise ascribable to the religion of state institutions. This term is preferable to state 63.╇ Jeremias and Hartenstein still use the inexact terminology of Volksreligion; they interpreted the cult stand from Taanach, for example, as symbolizing the temple theology, which was transferred to the house cult. Bodel and Olyan pointed to the so-called “temple models” used in the domestic cult. Regardless, they concede that the lack of meat offerings in the domestic cult marks a clear difference between it and the local and state cults. 64.╇ See in this respect the different assessments made for different ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures at the conference held in Providence, 2005 (Bodel and Olyan 2008b). 65.╇ See above, pp. 21–22. 66.╇See Albertz 1994: 2.511–23. 67.╇ In a critical evaluation of an early study on this subject (Albertz 1978a), Berlinerblau (1993: 17) contends that economic situation, gender, or special religious devotion may have been more important for an individual than his affiliation to his family. Although this may be the case in modern times, these factors seem to have played only a minor role in the shaping of family religion as shared by individuals in ancient times. 68.╇ Similar to Ackerman (2008: 128), Olyan (2008: 115) prefers family religion as “a useful descriptive and analytical term for the study of the first-millennium Israelite cult.” The term household religion seems to him less attractive, “since it does not communicate the larger, clan dimension of first-millennium Israelite family religion.”

Methodological Reflections

55

religion in particular because the form of political organization changed several times in the history of ancient Israel, from a tribal league to a state and a substate community. But the term official must not be presumed to denote a religion that was valid for the entire society; rather, it refers only to the religion that claimed to be valid for the entire society. Therefore, not only the state religion of kings and priests but also the opposing preaching of the prophets belonged to the official religion in this paradigm, because they both related to the same target group, which was the whole people and its fate. Although the term folk religion would constitute the logical opposite of family religion, its use is eschewed here because of its alternative meaning in the context of Volkskunde. The official religion of ancient Israel in the monarchic period and later was never a monolith; it comprised competing theologies, all of which fought to be a major influence on society. Compared with the changing theological concepts and ongoing disputes over the levels of official religion, family religion was the permanent and conformist basis of Israelite religion for most of the monarchic period.â•›69

2.7.╇ Family and household religion within the religion of Israel Following the model of internal religious pluralism, one can distinguish at least three different levels of Israelite religion—family, local, and state levels—in the monarchic period, which primarily reflect the different needs of their target groups. Among these, the family and household religion is provided with its own spheres and characteristics and can therefore be investigated as a separate segment of Israelite religion. But this heuristical separation does not mean that family and household religion constituted an isolated unit within the religion of Israel. We have already seen that the religious activities of families, because of their integration within wider clans and local communities, were not restricted to domiciles but also included rites in larger neighborhoods and sacrificial meals at local, regional, and even state sanctuaries.â•›70 We thus must reckon with the mutual influences of family religion and local or state religion. It is highly likely that families adapted themselves to the religious symbols of their environment and integrated those symbols into their own symbolic systems. One example of this sort of state influence on family religion is the process through which the national god Yhwh became the most prominent family god in Israel and Judah after the 8th century b.c.e. Further possible influences from local cult places, where cultic stones and trees seem to have symbolized the presence of gods and goddesses, may have led to the goddess Asherah (and later, Ishtar) gaining an important position in family religion.â•›71 However, family religion also influenced state religion. When the Deuteronomic reformers created the first comprehensive Judean official theology in the late 7th century b.c.e., they adopted, for 69.╇ In contrast to Holladay (1987: 270–75), who ascribed the domestic cult installations to “nonconformist sanctuaries and shrines.” 70.╇ See above, pp.  45–46. Note that the three circles mentioned there cannot be identified with the three levels conceptualized in the model of internal religious pluralism. 71.╇ However, it must have been limited in some way, because Asherah never was used in theophoric names.

56

Chapter 2

example, a familial blessing spell (Deut 28:3–6, 16–19) in order to provide their covenant concept with divine rewards and punishments. Mutual influences also obtained, of course, simply because every Israelite or Judean was a member of all of these groups at different societal levels and therefore shared overlapping group identities. A man could be the father of a family, an elder of a clan or a local community, and an official at court. A woman could be not only the mother of a family but also an important person in the local social network and a member of the people of Israel. Thus everyone played different roles related to the different foci of his or her identity. Mol (1976: 142–201) recognized the need for a distinction between (1) the religious process of creating and safeguarding identity through sacralization and (2) these different levels of identity, which can come into tension with one another. This provides a solid reason to conceive of internal religious pluralism from the individual point of view (see Albertz 1994: 1.18–21). But, of course, playing his/her different roles, the individual had to find compromises between the different levels of his/her identity; thus, some degree of mutual influence between the religious, symbolic worlds pertaining to the individuals was natural. Generally speaking, the degree of mutual interchange between these levels of identity was higher the more a person was entrusted with public functions, whether the functions were judicial, political, prophetic, or priestly. For example, the religion of the family of a leading priest or a high official would have been influenced more by the state or temple religion than the religion of a simple farmer without any public function. In spite of this, even the family religions of officials and priests in the capital remained distinguishable from official court and temple theology, because the general needs of their families were different from the needs of the state for which they worked. Thus one can see the benefits of investigating family and household religion as a segment of its own, while always taking care not to overlook its possible interrelations with other segments of Israelite religion.â•›72After having clarified the proper theoretical framework, we are now well equipped to study the family and household religion of ancient Israel and Judah during the preexilic period. 72.╇ For more details regarding the course of Israelite history, see Albertz 1994: 1.23–39, 94– 103, 186–95; 2.399–411, 507–22, 556–63.

Chapter 3

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel 3.1.╇Methodology Interest in the topic of family religion in Israel and its ancient Near Eastern environment has increased, particularly during the last decade.â•›1 Much of this work, however, has focused more on literary evidence than on archaeological material, though more-recent studies have shown the importance of archaeological finds for the reconstruction of family religion in ancient Israel and Palestine (Daviau 2001; Albertz 2008: 94; Schmitt 2008: 159). A short survey of archaeological evidence for sacred places in Iron Age Israel and Judah is given by B. Alpert Nakhai (2001: 161–93).â•›2 Without typological differentiation of cultic patterns, however, the archaeological features of family religion remain largely undetermined (Zwickel 1990: 38 n. 137). Our aim in this book is to distinguish archaeological features related to religious activities in households or larger neighborhoods and to refine the typology of cult places and cultic activities in Iron Age living quarters. Patterns of assemblages of objects and pottery have only occasionally been noted by excavators. Furthermore, the assemblages have rarely been related to characteristic activities in domestic units. Excavation reports past and present tend to present material in diachronic or typological groups rather than in locus groups (Meyers 2002: 429), effectively preventing reconstruction of the relationships of objects to one another and to the larger assemblages. This is especially true in older excavation reports with comparatively poorly systematized records. Yet even in more recent reports, little attention has been given to locus grouping. Furthermore, although S.  Geva in her study on the domestic quarters and the house furnishings of 8th-century Hazor (Geva 1989) noted the significance of assemblages for domestic activities in general, she nevertheless did not interpret this evidence in relation to domestic cult activities. This oversight enabled her to conclude that 1.╇ Ackerman 1992; 2008; Albertz 1978a; 1995; 1996–97: 45–68, 143–57, 291–304, 327–37; 2004: 429–30; 2008; Nakhai 2001; Blenkinsopp 1997: 48–103; Gerstenberger 2001: 26–77; Lang 2002: 137–72; Meyers 2002; van der Toorn 1994; 1996b; Winter 1983: 127–34; Zwickel 1990: 38, 277–303; for a recent overview, see the contributions in Bodel and Olyan 2008b. 2.╇ Following the results of an unpublished dissertation by Nakhai’s student E.  A.  R. Willett (1999), which analyzed domestic structures from Tel Masos, Tell el-Farʿah, Beersheba, and Tel Halif.

57

58

Chapter 3

the inhabitants of Hazor were not religiously inclined and that religion did not feature prominently in their lives (Geva 1989: 110).â•›3 In his report on the Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh excavations, J. B. Pritchard (1985: 72) classified the findings of the Stratum V living quarters into 7 groups based on function, thereby enabling a general description of activities typical of domestic areas. The 7 groups were: • vessels and containers (including bowls, jugs, juglets, cooking pots, and small vessels made of faience and alabaster), • lamps, • tools and weapons (including bone tools, sickles, plow points, and spindle whorls), • articles of personal adornment (including beads, fibulae, rings, and shells), • equipment for the preparation of food (including mortars, stone bowls, and tripod bowls), • nonutilitarian objects (including anthropoid and zoomorphic figurines, tripodcups, and seals), and • miscellaneous objects (including alabaster bowls, and clay and metal disks). J. S. Holladay (1987) highlighted the importance of assemblages for the identification of cultic activities and for the classification of their different levels. He differentiated between national or town sanctuaries (such as Dan), neighborhood shrines, and domestic areas of religious activity.â•›4 Besides the forms of “establishment cultus,” Holladay distinguished “nonconformist” places of worship, which were characterized by extramural locations (as with, for example, Samaria E207 and Jerusalem Cave 1) and contained “foreign” material, such as human and animal figurines, model birds and furniture, or vessels serving food or drink offerings. Furthermore, domestic cult assemblages that occurred in small clusters in domestic quarters typically contained elements of “distributed” or “nonconformist” cults, such as anthropoâ•‚ or zoomorphic figurines or vessels, model furniture, model lamps, cup and saucer vessels, or small cuboidal limestone altars. In addition to the concept of “nonconformist” cults, Holladay distinguished between several levels of cult and their associated cultic apparati. Moreover, O. Negbi (1993: 227) described cultic elements in secular contexts, thus positing this phenomenon as a goal for future studies, in that “the function of several distinctive types of cult objects found in both secular and sacred contexts of the 10th century is of utmost importance for the study of Israelite religious practice.” Recent studies, especially the monograph by P. M. M. Daviau (1993) on house furnishings in Middle and Late Bronze houses in Palestine and excavations such as the joint Canadian/American mission at Tell Jawa, Jordan, have shown the great insight to be gained by analyzing assemblages, especially those from domestic contexts. The Tell Jawa excavations, directed by Daviau, uncovered domestic assemblages consisting of terra-cotta figurines, various types of small or miniature vessels, luxury vessels, and libation and nonÂ�utilitarian vessels, partly from the upper story (Daviau 2001). Assemblages 3.╇ As the analysis of the domestic cult remains from Hazor will reveal (see pp. 102–106), this assertion appears to be quite unlikely. 4.╇ For discussion of which, see chap. 4 below.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

59

of these sorts reveal the diversity of patterns that must be considered when scholars reexamine older reports. In particular, the items suggestive of cultic functions, including nonÂ� utilitarian vessels such as censer (tripod)-cups, kernos rings, miniature altars, decorated stands with religious symbolism, and human and animal figurines can be attributed to a first category (A) of diagnostic objects. To this group can also be added the fenestrated and decorated stands that often occur in clear cultic contexts.â•›5 A second category (B) of diagnostic items includes other types of stands (that are not necessarily of cultic use, such as simple pot stands), luxury and miniature vessels, objects of personal adornment, game pieces, and “collectibles” (such as shells and worked or unworked stones) that may also have served cultic functions, especially in conjunction with objects in the first category. However, there are several problems with pursuing this research. First, although the presence of figurines may play a primary role in identifying cultic assemblages, most of the finds are fragments, with regard to which one must keep in mind that “the fragments indicate disposal patterns after use, rather than actual use-patterns” (Kletter 1996: 57). These concerns also apply to mass loci such as pits, pools, cisterns, streets, and other places. Second, the relationships between the objects found beyond singularly defined loci must remain vague, because they could have been used independently or over various periods of time (see Kletter 2004: 2079). Thus, objects from one room may not necessarily bear any relation to one another, if they were not found together in a clear locus. Moreover, an excavated distribution pattern need not in any case relate to actual patterns of use, because an assemblage may be disturbed by the destruction of a structure (Daviau 1993: 52). This is especially true for objects that formerly belonged to a second story, which subsequently fell down onto the first floor, an adjacent structure, or into the street. Third, small objects such as seals, amulets, or fragments of figurines are easily able to “travel” between loci and strata, and thus their presence may be inconclusive. On the other hand, if fragments of one type of object are repeatedly found in similar contexts (which is especially the case for figurine fragments, for example), the significance of them as a pattern must be considered. Fourth, burials have their own specific problems, because they often have been used over long periods of time, and objects found together may have belonged to different burials. Nevertheless, the presence of cultic objects in otherwise noncultic structures should not be dismissed as meaningless. Fifth, the presence of nonutilitarian pottery must be interpreted carefully. The designation of a locus as cultic generally requires the presence of more than one object.â•›6 Moreover, imposing a cultic interpretation onto objects of otherwise unclear use must be done carefully. This is particularly the case with standing stones or worked pieces of stone, sometimes interpreted as altars or maṣṣebôt (see Bloch-Smith 2005), as well as with stands that may also have served utilitarian purposes. Thus, the relationships of utilitarian to nonutilitarian objects are of utmost importance. Sixth, the identification of an assemblage requires consideration of its character as a whole (for example, its use for food and/or drink storage, preparation, or consumption). Seventh, the relation of an assemblage to the room or locus in which it was found and to installations within the room (such as benches or ovens) must also be considered. 5.╇ See below, pp. 68–69. 6.╇ This seems especially to be a problem in Daviau’s interpretations; see below, pp. 178–182.

60

Chapter 3

Eighth, the nature of the architecture is of utmost importance (whether it is, for example, domestic, industrial, or public), as is the general character of a room (whether it is a storage room, a kitchen used for the preparation and/or consumption of food and drink, or a living or sleeping room). Although necessarily a speculative enterprise, the examination of older excavation reports to reconstruct possible assemblages or to list objects of possible ritual use in domestic cults appears promising.

3.2.╇ Diagnostic objects and cult patterns In this section, we discuss the functions and uses of the main groups of diagnostic objects in categories A and B in order to determine the basic patterns of possible ritual actions for which they were used. All other objects of clearly utilitarian purposes are included in category C.

3.2.1.╇ Diagnostic objects of category A 3.2.1.1.╇ Terra-cotta figurines as elements of domestic cult Archaeologists working in Israel during the last one hundred years have uncovered a vast corpus of terra-cotta figurines in contexts from the Late Bronze Age to the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Most of the objects found thus far are clearly female, with a much smaller number being male. These objects are of primary importance in determining domestic cult activities. The prevalence of these figurines among the small finds from the biblical period has prompted the question whether they can be identified with divine representations and certain goddesses mentioned in the Old Testament. 3.2.1.1.1.╇ Biblical references to anthropomorphic cult objects The narrative and prophetic texts of the Old Testament (although notably not the legal texts) deal several times with ‫ תרפים‬tĕrāpîm, which can be interpreted as divine representations or representations of ancestors. The term tĕrāpîm, which can be used in the singular as well as the plural, seems to be a Hebrew loanword from the Hittite or Luwian tarpiš, meaning ‘demon’ or ‘protective spirit’, similar to the Akkadian šēdu.â•›7 The Septuagint translates tĕrāpîm as εἴδωλον (‘divine representation’ or ‘idol’) or γλυπτός (‘carved image’), while the targums use slm/slmnʿ (‘image’) or dmʾn (‘figurines’). The term tĕrāpîm itself appears 15 times in the OT.â•›8 Gen 31:19, 34, and 35 speak clearly of tĕrāpîm as smallscale cultic objects: Rachel steals and hides her father’s tĕrāpîm in her saddlebag or under the saddle-cloth. In Judg 17:4–5, Micah makes two ritual objects for the newly founded sanctuary. The first is the ‫ אפוד‬ʾepōd, the second the tĕrāpîm. Both belong together with 7.╇ Other etymologies such as deriving from ‫ תרף‬trp ‘rotten’ (Fohrer 1966: 1952) or ‫ רפא‬rpʾ ‘to heal’ or ‫ רפאים‬rĕpaʾîm ‘healer’ / ‘spirit of the dead’ (Tropper 1989: 334) are both etymologically and semantically problematic. Today most scholars prefer an etymology from tarpiš (Seybold 1978: 1057; van der Toorn and Lewis 1999: 766; Lewis 2000: 845). 8.╇ In Gen 31:19, 34–35; Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17, 18, 20; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13, 16; 2 Kgs 23:24; Ezek 21:26; Hos 3:4; and Zech 10:2.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

61

the ‫ פסל ומסכה‬pesel ūmassekāh as objects necessary for the sanctuary (see also Judg 18:14, 17, 18, and 20). 1€Sam 15:23 is a Deuteronomistic polemic against certain forms of religious practice. The tĕrāpîm are here mentioned in the context of qōsēm ‘divination’. 1€Sam 19:8–24 describes David’s escape from Saul’s men. To help her husband to escape, Michal, in 1 Sam 19:13, 16, puts a cloth-covered tĕrāpîm in the bed, along with a wig of goat’s hair, saying her husband is lying sick in bed. 2 Kgs 23:24 deals with tĕrāpîm in the context of the Josianic reform, mentioning them together with the ‫ אבות‬ʾobôt (‘oracle pit’), the ‫ ידענים‬yiddĕʿonîm (‘wizards’, that is, mantic specialists), and the ‫ גללים‬gillulîm (from ‫גל‬ gl ‘excrement’; therefore: ‘gods of shit’)â•›9 as being among the “abominations” abolished by Josiah. Ezek 21:26€mentions the tĕrāpîm in the context of certain mantic practices, such as the throwing of arrows, and liver oracles made by the king of Babylon during the siege of Jerusalem. In Hos 3:4, tĕrāpîm appear together with the ‫ אפוד‬ʾepōd, ‫ מצבות‬maṣṣebôt, and sacrifices as being absent from the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom for a long time. Zech 10:2 is a polemic against false oracles, mentioning the tĕrāpîm together with the ‫ קוסמים‬qōsemîm ‘diviners’ (see Schmitt 2004: 342 n. 30). As Seybold (1978) has rightly observed, tĕrāpîm in the OT are interpreted as a variety of cultic objects. In Genesis 31, the tĕrāpîm (or, as they were called in vv. 30 and 32, ‫ אלהים‬ʾĕlōhîm) are obviously a miniature representation of a divine being, most likely the god of the house or the family, or figurines of Laban’s ancestors, which he considered priceless. The interpretation of tĕrāpîm as ancestor figurines is supported by the additional observations that, in 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19, the term ʾĕlōhîm should be understood to refer to the spirit of a deceased person. Because the word tĕrāpîm is often used in contexts of necromantic practices, particularly the interrogation of them in Ezek 21:26 and their utterances in Zech 10:2, they can also be interpreted as ancestor figurines. In the same sense, 2 Kgs 23:24 and Deut 18:11—the “program” for the cult reform—use ‫ מתים‬metîm (‘the dead’) instead of tĕrāpîm. Less clear is the meaning of tĕrāpîm in Judg 17:4–5; 18:14, 17, 18, and 20, where the term is clearly differentiated from the carved and cast images but is used together with ʾepōd, which was most likely a cultic object made of cloth. The tĕrāpîm in Micah’s sanctuary and the object used by Michal in 1 Samuel 19 have been considered a kind of cultic mask, particularly because the 1 Samuel description necessitates its being bigger than a figurine (Elliger 1962: 691; Seybold 1978: 1058; Fohrer 1966: 1952). In short, the term tĕrāpîm can refer to different cult objects of anthropomorphic appearance. However, because most references in the OT suggest connections with ancestor cults, tĕrāpîm are perhaps best understood as figurines of (male) ancestors used in the context of domestic and familial religion, especially for interrogating ancestor spirits (Lewis 1989; Loretz 1992; van der Toorn 2002). Furthermore, the ‫ צלמי מסכות‬ṣalmê massēkōt in Num 33:52 and the ‫ צלמי זכר‬ṣalmê zākār in Ezek 16:17 could include objects of plastic art as well as the above-mentioned gillulîm. Therefore, the OT provides evidence for the existence and use of small cultic objects in general but no direct evidence regarding female terra-cotta figurines and their use. These require recourse to archaeology.

9.╇ For discussion, see Schmitt 2004: 186.

62

Chapter 3

3.2.1.1.2.╇ The function and meaning of female terra-cotta figurinesâ•›10 Soon after the completion of two decades of archaeological field work, Pilz presented the first analysis of the female figures in “Die weiblichen Gottheiten Kanaans” (1924). He differentiated four types of figurines: nude women with their hands clutched in front of their breasts (denoted Type A); nude women holding flowers with their arms at their sides (Type B); nude women with their arms at their sides (Type C); and pillar figurines and their subtypes (Type D). Pilz declared the figurines to be representations of sex and fertility goddesses. However, he denied their identification with any of the goddesses known from the OT or ancient Near Eastern texts. Although the figurines seem somewhat akin to the Babylonian Ishtar and the Phoenician Ashtarte, Pilz was not able to identify them positively on the basis of the archaeological material (1924: 167). May (1935: 28), the excavator of Megiddo, agreed with Pilz in general but considered the figurines from graves to represent consorts of the dying and resurrection god and, therefore, to be protectors of the dead. Like Pilz and May, Galling (1937: 233) refuted simple identification with any of the known goddesses, although he did go one step further in that he considered the goddesses represented by the figurines to be consorts of Yhwh and thus to represent the powers of the vis naturae within the private sphere of the Israelite house. Pritchard’s 1943 study summarized the findings achieved thus far by declaring that “from the foregoing we are forced to conclude that there is no direct evidence connecting the nude female figure . . . with any of the prominent goddesses” (Pritchard 1943: 86). The function of the figurines thus could only be interpreted as “symbolic of womankind in general” because of the “reproductive feature of the female figure” (1943: 87). In distinction to the highly differentiated views of Pilz, Galling, and Pritchard, Albright identified all nude female figurines with Ashtarte.â•›11 Although he did not provide detailed reasons for this identification, it was subsequently widely adopted, including in Holland’s typological study (Holland 1977). Remarkably, more-thorough studies of the archaeological material were not undertaken until more than three decades after Pritchard’s study. The first attempt was Holland’s (1977) work on the figurines from Cave 1 in Jerusalem, although he focused primarily on the typology of the objects. Engle presented his study in 1979, followed by Ahlström, Hestrin, and many others, most of whom identified the Judean pillar-figurines (JPF) with Asherah, mostly by reasoning that their pillar-like forms resemble the Asherah-cult symbol that appear in Iron Age iconography (Engle 1979: 52; Ahlström 1984: 136; Hestrin 1987: 221; van der Toorn 2002). A singularly important study is the monumental book by Winter, Frau und Göttin, which was first published in 1983. Winter denied the one-sided interpretations and identifications in accord with Albright’s multifunctional interpretation of the figurines based on iconographic and archaeological criteria. He thus considered the figurines to serve different purposes:

10.╇ Because the history of this research has been treated extensively by Kletter (1996: 10–27), only the important steps and arguments will be discussed here. 11.╇ Albright 1939: 118–20; idem 1953: 114–15. See also among others: Petrie 1928: 17; Cook 1930: 122–28. Just in case of the Iron Age IIC plaque-types with both hands lying on the belly Albright was more careful: “In no case we can label them with the name of a goddess” (1953: 115).

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

63

• utilitarian use: figurines with hands on bellies served to secure the process of birth, • pillar-figurines: used as a sort of household icon, serving the “eroticization” of the household, • figurine function: ex voto for pleas, and • burial offerings: figurines secured “female magic” for the deceased after death. (Winter 1987: 129–31) Winter (1987: 127; and also Schroer 1987: 334 n.189) concluded that the figurines— though not to be identified with any of the goddesses known from literature—served more generally as protectors and mediators and also as representations of the sex appeal of the goddess. The various aspects of goddesses were thus encapsulated more in a phenomenological way using the term “Syrian Goddess,” which was thus presumed to be the ideal representation of womankind (Winter 1987: 93, following Helck 1971). Despite the important contribution of Winter’s iconographic studies, several aspects of his work are problematic. In particular, the concept of a general “Syrian Goddess” and all aspects associated with and attributed to her is little more than an archetypal Jungian cliché.â•›12 Similarly, Wenning (1991a) interpreted the female figurines used as burial offerings as representing a deity of personal protection identified with Asherah—a syncretistic form of the astralized Ishtar—who provided the deceased with the blessings and benefits of the eternal powers of womankind (des Ewigweiblichen), while the male horse-and-rider figurines were interpreted as Baal Šamim or Yhwh as paredros of the goddess. Like Winter, Hübner (1989: 53) emphasized both the multifunctional use of the objects and the view of the figurines as representations of one of the great goddesses. He argued that the figurines represent goddesses because most of them were found broken and had been destroyed during iconoclastic actions of fanatic devotees of Yhwh. A different argument was proposed by Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §195): the Judean pillar-figurines were likely to be identified with Asherah but, rather than representing a cult symbol for the tree as proposed by Engle (1979), they represented the goddess herself. The anthropomorphic representation of Asherah fits the more general trend found in glyptic representations of the moon-god as well as biblical hints of the female form of Asherah in the Temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:7). In their functional interpretation of the figurines, Keel and Uehlinger accord with Winter’s thesis. A more general conclusion from both archaeological and textual evidence points to a strong relationship between family religion and the cult of Asherah. Keel and Uehlinger were more cautious in identifying the older Late Bronze and early Iron Age plaque types because of the highly variable iconography, even though relation with the goddesses Ashtarte, Anat, and Asherah seems highly plausible (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §58; a similar conclusion was found by Cornelius 2004: 102). An identification of the JPFs with Ishtar was proposed by ʾAmr (1988: 55), who asserted that, in general, female figurines could be interpreted as “symbols of the numerous qualities of the goddess Ishtar.” Primarily on the basis of textual evidence from Mesopotamia, he inter12.╇ For further critique, see: Lipiński 1986: 90; H. Weippert 1990: 106; Albertz 1992: 133 n. 114; Schmitt 1994: 146.

64

Chapter 3

preted the gesture of holding the breasts to signify the giving of milk, thus also invoking Tammuz as the giver of milk.â•›13 The most recent and most extensive monograph on Israelite figurines was published by Kletter in 1996. Though the main purpose of Kletter’s study was to posit a typology of the JPFs, he also discussed the contexts and functions of the figurines. This study confirmed the previously established hypothesis that, although the figurines came from different contexts, they were mainly from domestic areas (1996: 62). In identifying the figurines, Kletter (1996: 81) makes little reference to the actual iconography and favors identification with Asherah on the basis of the biblical and extrabiblical sources: The JPFs are not evidence of “popular religion”, if by this we mean the opposite to an “official Yahwistic religion”. The Asherah was part of the Yahwistic religion, though she was probably not as important as he was. The function of the Asherah figurines was possibly as a protecting figure which bestowed “plenty”, especially in the domain of female lives (but not necessarily used by women only).

A different position was presented by Meyers, Bloch-Smith, Moorey, and me (Meyers 1988: 161–63; Bloch-Smith 1992b: 99–100; Schmitt 1999: 51; 2004: 187–89; Moorey 2003: 58–67). Because the Judean pillar-figurines lack any divine iconographic symbol, such as a crown, headdress, or other item, they are probably not representations of goddesses. This is further supported by the so called Egyptian “concubine” figurines, which are typologically related to Iron Age plaque-types, they also lack divine symbolism, and they were found in different contexts (both domestic and in temples), where they were used as votive objects. Their function has been interpreted as evoking fertility in a more general sense (see Ritner 2008: 181). According to Egyptian magical texts, female clay figurines were also used as magical media in rituals supporting pregnancy and birth (see Borghouts 1971: no. 20; 1978: no. 48). It is therefore most likely that the Iron Age figurines from Israel and Judah were used in accordance with the different contexts in which they were found, for votive, symbolic, and magical purposes. Albertz (1994: 87) also considered a magical function in the context of birth and fertility rituals, at the same time permitting identification with a goddess. Moorey (2003: 63) summarizes the interpretations of the Iron Age figurines thus: “These images from Israel and Judah, on present evidence, might well be set within the wider Near Eastern repertoires of terracotta items in the mature Iron Age, where such images are taken to represent members of the local communities as supplicants or votaries rather than deities.” This is confirmed by the fact that, in the contemporary coroplastic art of neighboring regions (namely Philistia, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Phoenicia, and Syria), distinct figurines of deities with divine symbols, such as Atef-crowns, were used alongside human representations. Distinction is particularly clear within the Edomite coroplastic repertoire between representations of deities with divine symbolism (see Beit-Arieh 1995: fig. 3.56: head of deity with horned crown; figs. 3.70–72: goddess standing on animal), and human representations (such as supplicants, dancers, or musicians; see Beit-Arieh 1995: figs. 3.76–79). 13.╇ The problem of transferring evidence from Mesopotamia to Iron Age Israel was not considered by ʾAmr, however; for critique, see Schmitt 1999: 46 n. 15.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

65

In summary, these interpretations and identifications reveal that the roles of the female figurines were as multipurposed ritual objects, predominantly in domestic and funeral contexts. The multiple functions and purposes of the figurines may therefore be summarized by referring to them as “votive objects” because, in all of these different contexts, they shared a common function as media for petitions and thanksgiving. However, the relationship of the figurines to the general furnishings of a household, particularly to other concrete objects such as pottery, is undetermined. Another aim of this book, therefore, is to investigate the relationship of these figurines to assemblages of possible domestic cult remains. 3.2.1.1.3.╇ The function and meaning of male figurines, including horse-and-rider figurines The function and meaning of male figurines have largely been ignored in scholarly discussions, primarily because of their small number compared with number of female figurines. Just as is true for the JPFs, the meaning and function of the male figurines remains unclear. The few naked male figurines with exaggerated genitals may best be interpreted in a context of magical assurance of male reproductive powers (Schmitt 2004: 153–54, 189). It is more difficult to interpret the male figurines with fewer clear iconographic features. For example, the relatively larger number of male heads found in domestic and work related contexts in Ashdod (and, in smaller numbers, at Israelite and Judean sites) evidence no divine symbolism (Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 69–86). It is therefore possible that they represent ancestorsâ•›14 or male votaries (Schmitt 1999: 635; Moorey 2003: 61–63). A great deal more discussion has been devoted to the horse-and-rider figurines that have been found at all major excavation sites throughout the region.â•›15 A relationship has been posited (by Schroer 1987: 297; M. S. Smith 1990: 116; and Wenning 1991a, among others) between the horse and the sun-god, in reference to 2 Kgs 23:11, where horses dedicated to Shamash are mentioned. The decoration of some of the horses with crosses or disks between their ears seems to confirm this interpretation. However, a closer look shows that the disk is part of the horse’s trappings (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §199). Because the horse-and-rider figurines lack divine symbolism, they are perhaps best understood as merely representing human beings mounted on a horse.â•›16 Wenning’s proposal that the JPFs form a divine pair together with the horse-and-rider figurines seems unlikely, because the two types rarely appear together in clearly defined contexts (Kletter 1996: 65). In general, Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §§199–200) interpreted the figurines as media for prayer and petitions, representations of the “hosts of heaven,” and a type of guardian angel. The latter proposal, however, lacks iconographic evidence, because protective spirits are generally depicted as winged human or mixed beings. The wider con14.╇ A similar proposal was made by van der Toorn (2002: 54–56) concerning the so-called schematic statues without recognizing that Iron Age male figurines have also been found in domestic contexts. 15.╇ Holland (1977: fig. 1) lists 328 objects of his group D. 16.╇ Regarding the Transjordanian horses and riders, Dornemann (1983: 137–38) states, “It would be difficult, in this light, to see in our figurines anything other than the representation of local people as cavalrymen.”

66

Chapter 3

text of horse-and-rider figurines elsewhere in the Levant, in particular in contemporary Cypro-Geometric III (Karageorghis 1993: pl. 39.1–3) and Cypro-Archaic figurines (found in great quantity in a favissa at Ajia Irini; see Gjerstad 1935), have been widely interpreted to represent the dedicant (and thus to be a votive or medium for pleas) or as more-general symbols connoting strength or power, particularly because horses are associated with these traits in the Israelite and Judean glyptic art of Iron Age II.â•›17 3.2.1.1.4.╇ The function and meaning of animal figurines The animal figurines group comprises a variety of types, including horses, birds, bovines, and other animals with or without horns that are difficult to identify. Though not very common, dog figurines have also been found in Iron Age deposits (Schmitt 2004: 190–91). In his study, Holland (1977: fig. 1) has listed more than 700 objects representing all of these preceding types. Animal figurines of similar types, especially bovines and birds, are also well represented in contemporary Cyprus (Cypro-Geometric I–III and Cypro-Archaic) and mainland Greece (Gjerstad 1935: pls. 225.3, 226.7; 1937: pl. 224.3; Karageorghis 1993: pls. 29.7–9, 30.1–5—bulls; pl. 43.6–9—birds). It is widely acknowledged that animal figurines have religious symbolism (see Schroer 1987: 70–71; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §119; 189), though they have also been considered toys (Albright 1943: §143). Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §189) associate hand-formed bird (or dove) figurines with the mother-goddess, interpreting them as symbolic animals. A definite relationship between the JPFs and the bird figurines seems unlikely, because only two clear cases are known of domestic contexts where they were found together (see Kletter 1996: 65–66). Horses were mostly associated with solar symbolism, but they may also be interpreted as general symbols of power, especially the king’s power and military power, because they also appear (without solar symbolism) on official seals (Schmitt 2001: 127–28; Cornelius 2007: 31–32). Male bovine figurines were associated with the weather-god and with Yhwh (Schroer 1987: 29–30; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §88; 142), while female cows (which cannot, on the basis of iconography, be associated with a goddess in Iron Age Palestine) likely evoked fertility and plenty. Sheep and goat figurines may have been iconographically associated with a goddess, thus symbolizing her reproductive features (see Keel 1980; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §§77, 87, 88, 91–95, 116). Because many animal figurines have been found broken or in pits, Hachlili (1971: 134) proposed that they were intended to symbolize animal sacrifice. This seems unlikely, however, because a large proportion of animal figurines do not represent typical sacrificial animals, such as horses. In summary, animal figurines are best interpreted as votives connected to fertility and plentitude but also with vital powers in general. Their use as personal votives is confirmed by an animal figurine bearing the name of the dedicant on its neck (Samaria E207; S. A. Birnbaum in Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1957: 16–17; Renz and Röllig 1995: Sam[8]:5).

17.╇ This was also assumed by Moorey 2003: 63 and Cornelius 2007: 31–32. Both linked the horse-and-rider figurines with the growing importance of cavalry in the late monarchic and (especially) Persian periods. For the horse as symbol of power, see Schmitt 2001: 127–28.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

67

3.2.1.2.╇ The function and meaning of zoomorphic vessels Zoomorphic vessels, mostly with a zoomorphic spout and body, are well represented in different contexts in Palestine throughout the Iron Age.â•›18 Close analogues are found again in contemporary Cyprus,â•›19 as well as in many other sites throughout the ancient Near East. Some of the zoomorphic spouts may also have belonged to kernos bowls or kernos rings (see A. Mazar 1980: 111–12). The zoomorphic vessels mostly resemble bovines and caprids and therefore share the same symbolic features of fertility and abundance with the related animal figurines. They were clearly a luxury item evidencing social prestige, because they were complicated to make and frequently decorated. Being mostly rather small, they would not have been well suited to the storage of liquids and would more likely have been intended for specialized use. Their inherent religious symbolism suggests cultic purposes, such as in libation offerings, or as containers for drinks on special occasions. It is important to note, however, that zoomorphic vessels are not represented in definite cultic contexts from Israel and Judah (such as Megiddo Loci 2081 and 340, Hazor building 3283, and Lachish Room 49) but were a common part of many domestic assemblages (see tables 3.6–9, pp. 496–504). In Philistia, they occur in cultic as well as domestic and industrial contexts (Ben-Shlomo 2008: 32) 3.2.1.3.╇ The function and meaning of anthropomorphic vessels Anthropomorphic vessels were quite rare in Palestine during the Iron Age. Most items that have been found can be attributed to Philistine ceramic production (Schmitt 1994: 12–15, figs. 3–5; see also A. Mazar 1980: 78–82). One Edomite specialty was anthropomorphic vessel-stands, known from Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: figs. 3.17–23) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: pl. 11; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: 2–3). The few specimens found thus far have mostly been jugs and gravid flasks with some female features; in one case from Tell Qasile, the breasts form the spout of the vessel (A. Mazar 1980: fig. 18). The latter was most likely a libation vessel symbolizing plenty and fertility. Anthropomorphic jugs with female features may be interpreted in the same way, although they may also have served utilitarian purposes. 3.2.1.4.╇ The function and meaning of miniature shrines Miniature Shrines in the form of simplified temples occur in both cultic and domestic contexts. They do not appear in funeral contexts in Israel and Judah.â•›20 They had already become rare by Iron I–IIA times in Israel and Judah and appear to have almost completely vanished in Judah by the Iron IIC period. They also appear to be a rare feature in Ammon and Moab (Dornemann 1983: 143) but are more common in the Edomite repertoire, as the finds from Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: cat. nos. 203–10) indicate. They are also more common in the Phoenician repertoire (Pritchard 1988: figs. 37.21–26; Moscati 1988: cat. nos. 33–35). As representations of a temple, miniature shrines provide a clear indica18.╇ Holland (1977: fig. 1) lists 293 objects. Sixty specimens alone came from Ashdod, 50 from Samaria, 47 from Megiddo, and 30 from Tell en-Naṣbeh. See also Ben-Shlomo 2008: 32–33. 19.╇See Karageorghis 1993: pls. 23.5b; 24.1; 25.1. 20.╇ Only one specimen from Amman is known. See Bloch-Smith 1992: 102.

68

Chapter 3

tion of cultic activities. It has been assumed that model shrines (without applied figurines) were used as containers for terra-cotta figurines (Bretschneider 1991: 169), but because no figurines have been found directly associated with them, we may presume that they served as receptacles for small offerings. A special form is represented by the Tell Qasile naos from Temple 131, where a temple facade is combined with terra-cotta plaque figurines (A. Mazar 1980: fig. 20, pl. 30; Schmitt 1999: 633; cat. no. 112 ). Similar objects are known from the Gaza region (Bretschneider 1991: cat. nos. 80, 81, 85 ). A unique group is formed by the 120 exceptional miniature shrines and related objects from a Philistine favissa found in Yavneh (Kletter and Ziffer 2007), with one typological parallel from Ashdod (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: fig. 3.75).

3.2.1.5.╇ The function and meaning of model furniture Model chairs and model beds are often found in domestic and burial contexts but also in purported cultic assemblages, such as Jerusalem Cave 1 and Samaria Locus E207. Though less numerous than JPFs, model furniture constitutes a distinct component within the corpus of Judean figurines of the Iron Age II period (Gilbert-Peretz 1996: 38). Members of this group are distinct from the chair-like Philistine Ashdoda figurines (see Schmitt 1999: 608–12; Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009: 49–54), which are most likely divine representations. In several cases from Beersheba and Tell en-Naṣbeh (see table 3.9, pp. 502–504), model furniture was found together with JPFs in domestic contexts, but these did not generally comprise pairs. Model furniture from the Late Bronze and Iron Ages was also found in the Levant (see Schmitt 1994: 613–15; for Iron Age parallels from Cyprus, see Karageorghis 1993: pls. 25.2a; 32.1). Bed models from 3rd- and 2nd-millennium Mesopotamia found in domestic units, temples, and palaces were used as votives in the contexts of general fertility and associated rituals (Cholidis 1992: 173–83, 194), while throne models may plausibly be interpreted to represent deities (Cholidis 1992: 120–22, 193–94). Although these items from Iron Age Judah are obviously nonutilitarian objects, their function and meaning remain uncertain. Some were considered to have been birth-stools (Beck 1993; more cautious, Zevit 2001: 346 n. 168); others to have been offering tables (Dothan and Freedman 1967: 137; Hachlili 1971: 129), while Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §195) proposed that they were intended to symbolize peace and calmness in funerary contexts, and Wenning (2005: 128) proposed that model furniture served as an invitation for the deity to stay. Another possible interpretation is that they symbolized thrones for invisible deities, as is suspected to have been the case in Mesopotamia. Moorey (2003: 64–65) presumed that the furniture epitomized the occupations of common people, because furniture represents a particular class of valuable goods, both desirable for a family to own and prestigious to have. In spite of the lack of any clear function for model furniture, its context nevertheless carries some religious connotations, perhaps best understood (in line with Moorey) as votives evoking prosperity, just as with animal figurines.

3.2.1.6.╇ The function and meaning of stands Stands were often found in unambiguously cultic contexts and were generally ceramic objects of hollow, conical, or cylindrical shape, often fenestrated and decorated and some-

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

69

times having bowls attached to the top.â•›21 This group of objects has therefore generally been interpreted to indicate ritual activities. This is particularly true for stands bearing elaborate decorations and obvious religious motifs, such as the Taanach stands, although they are extremely rare. However, the kind of ritual actions performed with the stands remains a matter of conjecture. The stands have often been addressed as “incense burners” (Amiran 1971: 262–63; for discussion, see A. Mazar 1980: 95–96; Zwickel 1994: 147–54; Schmitt 1994: 17 n. 82). Because only a very few of them have revealed traces of burning, however (see May 1935: pl. 20, P6056; Briend and Humbert 1980: pl. 51.6; A. Mazar 1980: 99, fig. 32; for discussion, see A. Mazar 1980: 95–96; Zwickel 1994: 147–54), a wholesale interpretation of this group of objects as incense burners seems untenable. Iconographic sources from Egypt and the ancient Near East indicate the stands to have been multipurpose ritual objects, such as libations and meal offerings, burning of incense and other aromatic material, and containers for sacred plants (with evidence for the latter only applying to official or large-scale cults).â•›22 Simple, undecorated, flat stands may also have served cultic purposes, but in most cases they were probably used as support for other items of domestic pottery. One indisputable incense altar is the high candelabrium altar from a small Iron Age II temple (B149) at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, Jordan.â•›23

3.2.1.7.╇ The function and meaning of Kernoi Kernoi are vessels formed as either a tubular rim atop a bowl (kernos bowls), or tubular rings abutting small cups or bowls, sometimes with zoomorphic spouts attached to them (kernos rings; see Amiran 1971: 366; A. Mazar 1980: 108–11; Ben-Shlomo 2008: 36– 39). Kernos rings have been found in Ashdod and both Tell Qasile and Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit on the coastal plain, as well as from Gezer, Megiddo, Beth-shean, and Beth-shemesh (see A. Mazar 1980: table 16, for a list of kernoi known to that date). From the western Levant, ring kernoi are also known from Cyprus, as well as from the Greek mainland and from Troy (A. Mazar 1980: 109). Dothan (1982: 222–24) proposed a LBA Cypriot origin for the ring kernoi, because they were frequently found there. As A. Mazar (1980: 109–10) and Brug (1985: 184–85) have shown, ring kernoi belong to a broader Levantine ceramic tradition centered around Cyprus and extending back to the Early or Middle Bronze Age.â•›24 They appear to have become rare by Iron Age II, except in Ashdod, where the type was still flourishing throughout the Iron IIB period (Ben-Shlomo 2008: 39). Kernos bowls, mostly with zoomorphic spouts, are also evident in contexts dating to the Iron IIB period, 21.╇ For example, Lachish Room 49; Megiddo Locus 2081; Tell Qasile temples (A. Mazar 1980: pl. 32.1–5 from Temple 131; pl. 33.1–2 from shrine 300), Arad fortress temple (Herzog et al. 1984: fig. 15), Dan Sanctuary (Biran 1994: figs. 133–34) and the Edomite shrines at Ḥorvat Qitmit (BeitArieh 1995: figs. 3.1–14) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: pls. 11–12; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: figs. 2–3). 22.╇See Keel 1984: figs. 322, 440 (incense burning), 242, 375, 441, 442, 443 (libation), 91 (lamp stand), 180 (flower pot), 288 (presentation of flowers), 459 (presentation of various offerings), 414 (stand for jugs), 487 (ritual cleansing). See also Collon 1988: 295, 811, 813, 833 (incense burner); 418, 822 (presentation of bread); 567, 826, 853 (flower pot with sacred tree in front of deity). 23.╇See Dion and Daviau 2000; Daviau 2007: 135 with fig. 7; see also below, p. 71. 24.╇ A nice example of an MBA (Middle Cypriot) kernos is shown by Gjerstad 1934: 137 and pl. 34.

70

Chapter 3

including in finds from Megiddo Stratum III, Samaria, and Tell en-Naṣbeh (see A. Mazar 1980: 107–8). Kernoi are, however, particularly uncommon vessels. Both ring kernoi and kernos bowls are clearly “nonutilitarian” vessels that are unlikely to serve any practical purposes; rather, they seem designed for the pouring in and out of liquids for libation offerings. As highly complex and rare vessels, kernoi may also be interpreted as markers of status when associated with domestic assemblages.

3.2.1.8.╇ The function and meaning of composite libation vessels So-called composite libation vessels comprise a small group of nonutilitarian objects, consisting of several individual vessels attached together, predominantly cups, but also pomegranates. They have no clear utilitarian value and have therefore been interpreted as specialized libation vessels. Like kernoi, composite libation vessels are a rather rare group within the Iron Age ceramic repertoire. A vessel with attached pomegranates is known from Tell Qasile Temple 131, Stratum × (A. Mazar 1980: fig. 37); a double goblet came from the shrine at Tell Qiri (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: plan 29 and fig. 15.3); and a double cup came from Gezer (Macalister 1912: pl. 176.5). Composite (double and triple) flasks were also among the finds from Tell Qasile Temple 131 (A. Mazar 1985: figs. 42, 10, 11) but seem to have no parallels elsewhere in Palestine. Later examples of composite vessels (in the form of chalices and bowls with attached pomegranates) have been found in the Edomite ceramic repertoire (Beit-Arieh 1995: cat. nos. 186–90). Composite vessels are highly specialized objects always found in association with temples and shrines, and their presence may therefore serve to identify permanent ritual structures. 3.2.1.9.╇ The function and meaning of perforated tripod censer cups Tripod-cups with perforated bodies are a variant of the unperforated tripod-cups, which were common vessels in Iron Age Palestine and in Transjordan from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIC.  They were most prevalent during the 8th century b.c.e., being slowly replaced by cube-shaped incense altars after the 7th century (Zwickel 1990: 31–32). Although they have occasionally been confused with strainer cups, the latter can be distinguished by their perforated bases. Perforated cups were most likely used for the burning of incense or other aromatic materials, because traces of burning have been observed on the insides of several items (see Zwickel 1990: 3–7 and cat. notes 54–61). It seems likely that the miqṭēret named in Ezek 8:11 can be identified with these readily portable, perforated tripod-cups (see Zwickel 1990: 239–44). In the Edomite sanctuaries at Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: figs. 4.41, 4.26) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: figs. 124b, c; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: fig.  2), tripod incense burners were clearly associated with broader ritual assemblages. 3.2.1.10.╇ The function and meaning of altars Altars are a clear indicator of ritual activities. Small and miniature altars (see Gitin 1989; 2002; Zwickel 1990: 110–37; Zevit 2001: 306–14) closely resemble bigger altars like the one from Beersheba—usually rectangular blocks, often having horns protruding from the platform. Notably, altars from temples and shrines such as at Dan, Arad, and Lachish

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

71

Room 49, and potential domestic cult sites such as Megiddo Locus 2081 do not differ greatly in scale,â•›25 while domestic altars are generally smaller, such as the 24-cm-high example from Beersheba Str. VII (Herzog 1984: fig.€25.18). Typical miniature altars have been found at Tell Beit Mirsim, 11 cm in height, and at Gezer, 9 cm in height (Zwickel 1990: 115). Altars used in domestic contexts as well as in work-related contexts such as is the case in Tel Miqne were generally portable and evidently did not comprise any parts of permanent installations. The small altars were evidently not suited for animal offerings and may have been used for burning incense or small dry offerings, such as bread or fruits, as well as for libations. A remarkable object in this context is the 0.96-m-high candelabrum altar found in the small temple 149 at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (Dion and Daviau 2000; 2007: 135, fig.€7) and inscribed ‫ ליסף בת אות‬/ ‫ מקטר אׁש‬mqṭr ʾš ʿlšm / lysp bt ʾwt ‘the incense altar that Elishama made for YSP, the daughter of ʾWT’. Cube-shaped incense altars or incense boxes, which were often decorated, were prominent in Judah between the Iron IIC and Persian periods but have also been found along the coast and in Transjordan (Stern 1982: 182–86; Zwickel 1990: 74–109, distribution table on p. 75; Daviau 2007). This class of objects has been widely interpreted as having served domestic cult functions (see Zwickel 1990: 89). At the Edomite shrines from Ḥorvat Qitmit and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Beit-Arieh 1995: fig. 6.5; Cohen and Yisrael 1996: fig. 122a, b; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: 84, fig. 2), as well as from Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (Daviau 2007: 128–29), cube-shaped incense altars and other small types of stone alters have also been found in association with other public cultic structures. At Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, larger shaft altars and smaller incense boxes have also been found in domestic and industrial structures (Daviau 2007: 128–29).

3.2.1.11.╇ The function and meaning of amulets and seals Amulets and seals were objects of personal value and adornment, and their religious significance arose from their form or decoration. Amulets in a broader sense are small objects of artistic worth, such as object amulets (see Herrmann 1994; 2002), inscribed metal strips, or seals that were carried by the owner near or on the body. Thus, their usual setting is not in a house but on the body or the garments of their owner. Amulets have appeared in a few rare cases in association with domestic cult assemblages, such as at Beersheba Locus 844. Textual evidence from Egypt also suggests that amulets were used in magic rituals (see Borghouts 1971: nos. 30, 31; 1978: 37). Because small objects such as seals and amulets fall or are moved between strata easily, their association with any particular assemblage that is not otherwise obviously closely related must be interpreted with caution. The function of the amulets was almost certainly associated with primary apotropaic magic, while the decorated seals served multiple functions as amulets, documents of personal belief and loyalty, or personal seals (see Keel 1995: §§702–28). 3.2.1.12.╇ The patterns of use of category A objects The usage patterns of category A objects are summarized here: 25.╇ The two Arad altars are 51 and 30 cm high, the Lachish altar is 45 cm, and the Megiddo Locus 2081 altars are 46 and 30 cm high.

Chapter 3

72 female figurines male figurines horse-and-rider animal figurine zoomorphic vessel anthropomorphic vessel miniature shrines model furniture stands kernoi composite vessels perforated tripod-cups miniature altars amulets and seals

votive ancestor worship, votive votive votive, apotropaic magic libation libation worship, offerings worship, offerings dry offerings, libation offerings, burning of incense libation libation incense burning incense burning worship, votive, apotropaic magic

3.2.2.╇ Diagnostic objects in category B The group of diagnostic items here denoted category B comprises objects that bear no religious significance in themselves yet have often been found in contexts of (or can plausibly be associated with) ritual activities.

3.2.2.1.╇“Collectibles” Under the term collectibles are subsumed all kinds of nonutilitarian or unusual objects, worked or unworked, such as semiprecious stones of different shapes or otherwise rendered attractive, shells, and so on. These objects obviously had some personal value, and in some cases probably also served as markers of social status—for example, ostrich eggs or worked tridacna shells. Single beads and pendants may also be categorized in this group. Category B objects may be presumed to have served ritual purposes in cases where they have been found in a distinct assemblage that included category A objects (see also Daviau 2001: 219–20). Collectibles including unusual stones, slag, shells, corals, fossils, and unusually dressed stones were found in a clear cultic context at the Late Bronze/early Iron Age sanctuary at Timnah in the Wadi Arabah, where they were presumed to have been used as votives (Rothenberg 1973: 184–85, T.99, 100, 105–8). 3.2.2.2.╇ Luxury and imported pottery Locally made and imported luxury pottery wares (for example, Philistine bichrome ware and painted Cypro-Phoenician ware, respectively) may have been favored for specialized activities or ritual actions (see Daviau 2001: 204). Such vessels are well represented from defined cultic contexts, such as the Tell Qasile temples (Philistine bichrome) and Megiddo Locus 340 (Cypro-Phoenician ware).

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

73

3.2.2.3.╇ Chalices and goblets Chalices and goblets form a part of many pottery assemblages clearly attributable to cultic contexts, including those of the Tell Qasile temples, Lachish Room 49, Megiddo Locus 2081, Building 300 from Tell Michal, Tell Qiri sanctuary (see Tables 3.6–9), the Yavneh Favissa, and the Edomite sanctuaries at Ḥorvat Qitmit (Beit-Arieh 1995: cat. nos. 183–85, 191) and ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: fig. 127a; Cohen and Yisrael 1997: fig. 2). Because chalices and goblets are also a common domestic pottery item, however, they are not listed with the category A objects. Chalices and goblets were often decorated (see Amiran 1971: pl. 68); they may therefore have been seen as luxury items and markers of status. Aside from their use as drinking vessels, chalices may also have been used as offering stands, their shape resembling as it does a type of stand with an attached bowl. Chalices are known to have been used as incense burners from the finds from the Yavneh favissa (Kletter and Ziffer 2007: 4; fig.  20), as well as from iconographic sources (Keel 1984: fig. 199). 3.2.2.4.╇ Small and miniature vessels Small or miniature vessels, as miniaturizations of common domestic types, are not likely to have had specialized uses in themselves, although they may have served as children’s dishes or toys. Because some have been found in definite cultic contexts, such as the miniature vessels in the LB orthostate temple at Hazor (Yadin 1961: pl. 259.1–21), from the early Iron Age at Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: figs. 11.15–18, 19.4–36), from Iron Age IIC in Jerusalem Caves 1 and 2 (Eshel and Prag 1995: 10.2–4, 11.1–6, 16–20), and at the Edomite sanctuary at ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1996: 114, pl. 11), they are also likely to have been used for ritual purposes (Daviau 2001: 211–13). Extremely miniaturized items, which must have lost all utilitarian value, may have served as votive objects (Albright [1943: §143] called them toys). 3.2.2.5.╇Lamps Lamps of different types, including the cup-and-saucer type, are common household items. Because they have also been present in assemblages from caves (Bloch-Smith 1992b: 73) and temples (Lachish Room 49, Megiddo Room 340), they may also be presumed to have had some symbolic meaning by virtue of their light or specialized ritual uses aside from their utilitarian purpose (also Daviau 2001: 211). 3.2.2.6.╇Rattles Rattles in the form of a pottery cylinder or spindle filled with pottery pellets or small stones have frequently been found in burials (Tufnell 1953: 376; Bloch-Smith 1992: 102– 3) but rarely in domestic assemblages.â•›26 Rattles must therefore have had some kind of ritual function in the context of funerary rites. However, because they were also found in Jerusalem Cave 1, rattles may have had other ritual purposes as well. 26.╇ Rattles as part of domestic assemblages were found in Kinneret and Tell en-Naṣbeh. See table 3.9 (pp. 502–504).

Chapter 3

74

3.2.2.7.╇ Cosmetic items Cosmetic palettes, items such as ivory spoons of different shapes, and containers for cosmetic products, including small alabastrons—known to have been status markers— may also have served ritual purposes, particularly because cosmetic products are commonly used as offering and votive objects in many cultures. 3.2.2.8.╇ The so-called incense bowls or ladles Small bowls made of stone with bases occasionally in the form of a hand, lion, or plant and with a fitting for a handle on one side are often referred to as incense bowls or ladles, because they resemble Egyptian incense arms. These objects, which were also present in Syria and Mesopotamia, are similar to cosmetic spoons and most likely served as vessels for anointing and other cosmetic purposes (Reichert 1977: 192–93; Zwickel 1990: 145– 46). Ritual use can only be supposed, but they may have been used for ritual anointing or libations (Zwickel [1990: 146 n. 10] compares the bowls with Hittite libation arms). The delicately made bowls are also likely to have been high-status objects. However, similar shovel-like objects with handles made from terra-cotta, which were found at the Edomite sanctuary at ʿEn Ḥazeva, were considered by the excavators to have been incense shovels (Cohn and Yisrael 1996: fig. 124.d). 3.2.2.9.╇ Game pieces and astragali Game pieces and astragali were objects used for personal recreation. In several cases, game pieces may have been used for ritual purposes, such as the casting of lots (Daviau 1994: 76 n. 7). The 30 or more astragali found in a bowl at Megiddo Locus 2081 were most likely used for purposes of divination or as part of a ritual game.â•›27 3.2.2.10.╇ Usage patterns of category B objects Any of the objects in category B may have served in either profane and religious contexts or both, and any type of vessel may have had some kind of ritual purpose. However, objects must be interpreted carefully. When an object was not elsewhere found with a category A object, its categorization as profane in function is more plausible. Profane and possible ritual usage patterns of category B objects are summarized in the table on the top of p. 75).

3.3.╇ Domestic cultic assemblages in Iron Age Judah and Israel 3.3.1.╇ Ai (et-Tell), map reference 1747.1472 The Rothschild excavations led by Judith Marquet-Krause between 1933 and 1935 uncovered parts of an early Iron Age village situated on a mound (Marquet-Krause 1949). This was a short-lived settlement, in existence only between the years 1220 and 1050 b.c.e. The size and general plan of the town along with the presence of pillared houses indicate that the settlement most likely was an early (or proto-) Israelite village (see Callaway 1993a: 44–45). 27.╇ See below, pp. 134–137.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel artifacts collectibles luxury pottery

small/miniature vessels

profane function personal value dishes status marker drinking status marker dishes

lamps, cup and saucer

lighting of rooms

rattles cosmetic items

toys, music personal adornment

“inscense” ladles game pieces

cosmetic anointing personal recreation gaming

chalices and goblets

75

possible ritual function votive dishes for specialized ritual use ritual drinking libation votive presentation of offerings dishes for specialized ritual use illumination for ritual actions religious symbolism of light ritual music votive presentation of offerings ritual anointing, libation casting lots for mantic purposes

A long bench was found in the southern part of a partially excavated room (Locus 69) of approximately 8 × 3 m, which also had a platform in the western corner (Locus 65). The bench was associated with an assemblage that included one horse figurine, one bovine figurine, a fenestrated stand, a chalice-like stand (category A), a bowl with a row of knobs, a lamp (category B), a jug and fragments of storage jars, as well as two beads and a number of clay balls.â•›28 Several more pots were found in Locus 69, but unfortunately, their types were not specified, nor was their relationship with the assemblage of the bench.â•›29 According to Amiran, the fenestrated stand was located on the platform proper, along with the chalice stand, jug, and bowl that stood in front of it, as shown in Zevit’s reconstruction.â•›30 This reconstruction of several rows of objects is naturally tentative. My own reconstruction is shown in fig. 3.1 (p. 76).â•›31 The character of the assemblage, in closely resembling Megiddo Room 2081 and Lachish Room 49,â•›32 as well as the benches and a kind of channel leading from the platform to the east led Zevit (2001: 154–55) to consider it a cultic place, with an entrance from road 41 on the west and the channel as a run-off for sacrificial liquids. The room was only partly excavated, however, and this conclusion thus remains uncertain. If it is correct, then Rooms 65/69 could well have comprised a neighborhood shrine integrated within the domestic area. If, however, the assemblage was 28.╇ Marquet-Krause 1949: pl. 74.1052 (stand), 1054 (chalice), 1055 (bowl), 1072 (jug), 1071 (lamp and storage jar, no drawings published), 1058, 1068, 1082, 1083 (unspecified pottery); pl. 40.2: no. 1051 (horse?), 1051 (beads), 1072 II (balls). See also the reconstruction of Zevit 2001: 153. 29.╇ Marquet-Krause 1949: 1048, 1063. 30.╇ Zevit 2001: fig. 3.16 (based on personal communication with Ruth Amiran, who participated in the excavation). 31.╇ Drawn after Marquet-Krause 1949: pls. 97.799, 40.2. 32.╇ See below, pp. 134–137.

Chapter 3

76

Fig. 3.1.╇ Ai: Pottery and animal figurine (below) from Locus€65.

a purely domestic cult assemblage, then Loci 65/69 may be the back room of a four-room house. In this case, the assemblage would be comparable with the Megiddo Stratum VI domestic cult assemblages. However, considering both the character of the assemblage and its association with its surrounding architecture and installations, the objects and installations were quite likely associated with permanent ritual actions involving libations. The entire structure was thus most likely a neighborhood shrine, rather than a domestic cult installation.

3.3.2.╇ Tel ʿAmal, map reference 193.213 Tel ʿAmal is situated 5 km west of Beth-shean, near the site of modern Kibbutz Nir David, and was excavated in the mid-1960s by S. Levy and G. Edelstein (Levy and Edelstein 1972). Two buildings from Iron IIA Strata III and IV yielded category A objects together with other vessels. In Str. III, Locus 12 (which was a part of a bigger structure with a paved courtyard that was later destroyed and sealed by fire), an elaborated tripod cult stand was found inside a mud-brick oven. Locus 12 also contained the spout of a zoomorphic vessel (category A), a lamp (B), as well as one large bowl, 6 other bowls, and 4 juglets (fig. 3.2).â•›33 The assemblage suggests the practice of domestic cult activities that included libations. 33.╇ Compiled after Levy and Edelstein 1972: pl. 19; figs. 13.10, 16, 19; 14.1, 5; 15.1–6; 16.12.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

77

Fig. 3.2.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Locus 12.

The second assemblage comes from the partially excavated Room 36 in north-western squares M/L 5/6. This room contained a stand with a separate bowl, a juglet, and a krater (fig. 3.3).â•›34 The adjacent Room 34 contained an oven and a bench with a depression that was covered with a basalt plate. The pottery consisted mostly of storage vessels. The entire structure was interpreted by the excavators as a facility for the production, processing, and dying of textiles. The ritual objects were most likely connected with these industrial activities.

3.3.3.╇ Tel Batash (Tell el-Baṭāšī/Timnah), map reference 141.132 Tel Batash is situated in the northern Shephelah, between Azekah and Gezer, and can probably be identified with biblical Timnah (Mazar and Kelm 1993: 152). The Tel Batash 34.╇ Compiled after Levy and Edelstein 1972: pl. 19, figs., 13.3; 14.11; 16.7.

78

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.3.╇ Tel ʿAmal: Stand and pottery from Locus 36.

excavations are of great importance, because the Str. II domestic units were buried under debris (most likely following destruction by the Babylonians in approximately 600), and the well-preserved pottery assemblages from domestic and other units were published together and partly mapped. Cultic significance was supposed in Stratum II (7th century) Area E, Unit 914 (Loci, 933, 914, 931, 910a), because Locus 910a, which yielded two chalices (category B), could be interpreted as a cultic platform within a niche (fig. 3.4).â•›35 The adjacent Locus 914 yielded a fragment from a zoomorphic spout and a fragment from an anthropomorphic vessel (category A), as well as a limestone vat.â•›36 The category A and B objects point to libation offerings. Building 607 had a limestone object that was interpreted as an altar (Locus 919),â•›37 although there was no pottery directly associated with it.â•›38 The rich assemblage in adjacent Locus 607 had several miniature vessels, although they were not obviously associated with one another.â•›39 Directly to the west of Building 607, Building 608 had four chalicesâ•›40 but no other objects suggestive of cultic activities. Some objects of possible cultic significance were scattered in Room 778, among which were one simple stand, miniature juglets, miniature goblets, beads and pendants (all category B), and several juglets.â•›41 The cultic character of this assemblage remains uncertain, because no category A objects were found. On and beneath a pebble floor (Loci E624 and E705, respectively) of a Stratum III (8th century) room, three molds for plaque figurines of the Phoenician type were found.â•›42 This interesting find suggests possible industrial 35.╇A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 4–5, pl. 56.1–2; A. Mazar 1997: Plan of Areas D and E, Str. II. 36.╇ A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 56.4, 5, 9. 37.╇ The unusual shape of the object (see A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 75.11), however, makes this interpretation questionable. 38.╇ See Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: fig. 13. 39.╇ Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 75.11, 15–17. 40.╇ Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pl. 65.1–4. 41.╇ See Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: pls. 38.1, 8, 17, 18; 39.7–9. 42.╇ Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: 203–8; pl. 30.1–3.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.4a.╇ Tel Batash: Contents of Loci 910a and 914.

79

80

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.4b.╇ Position of Altar (▲ 23 in building F 608).

production of figurines in what would otherwise seem to have been a domestic context. Surprisingly, however, no figurines were found that could have been cast in these molds.

3.3.4.╇ Tell Beersheba (Bīr es-sebaʿ), map reference 129.071 At Beersheba, 43 JPFs and 11 horse-and-rider figurines were excavated, mostly from clearly domestic contexts (Kletter 1996: 163 and fig.  38). Interestingly, Tell Beersheba yielded a unique Iron IIC assemblage of objects that had most likely been used as part of a domestic cult installation. Locus 844 in Stratum III was part of the peripheral street that encircled the city. The assemblage indicates that it belonged to one of the adjacent houses and most likely originated from the second story of a building that collapsed onto the peripheral street. The hoard consists of several category A bronze objects, including a figurine of a standing Egyptian goddess; a bull figurine; a handle with an animal’s head, most likely a Seth-animal; a double crown amulet;â•›43 faience objects, including two beads and a 43.╇Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 22.1–2; 23.4–5.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.5.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Location of objects from Loci 844 and 859.

81

82

Chapter 3

bowl;â•›44 glass objects, including a Phoenician-style head;â•›45 stone objects, including a NeoAssyrian cylinder seal and an uncarved cylinder seal;â•›46 and two ostrich eggs (category B “collectibles”).â•›47 Another assemblage yielded Stratum II Room 859, about 5 m northeast of the hoard of Locus 844. The material consists of a pedestal, upon which sat a faience animal or Sphinx figurine; a bone amulet (category A); a fragment of a decorated spout of bone (category B); and a jug (category C).â•›48 The content of the hoards and their locations are shown in fig. 3.5.â•›49 The two hoards of category A and B objects seem to have been part of a collection of votive objects once belonging together that were stored or arranged on the second floor of the adjacent house. Although these hoards provide interesting evidence, they are comparably unique and atypical for cultic ensembles of Iron Age IIC. Although assemblages of vessels and models of furniture (see below) are quite common, assemblages of exotic and foreign objects and objects of bronze are rather uncommon and likely belonged to a family of some wealth. In addition to their religious significance, the roles of these objects as markers of status must also be considered. Furthermore, attribution of this hoard to an upper story is an assumption that contrasts with most other material from Beersheba, which is known to have originated on ground floors. The most complete assemblage of objects including pottery comes from a house consisting of Loci numbered 48, 46, 25, and 22. The assemblage from Locus 25 (the pillared room on the right wing off the entrance) consists of one JPF, a model of a chair (category A), and a miniature lamp on a stand (category B). The pottery consists of four cooking pots, two bowls, two juglets, and a jar (fig. 3.6).â•›50 Another fragment of a figurine was found in Locus 48.â•›51 The assemblage suggests cultic activities associated with the production and consumption of food. The published plans suggest no particular relationship with a bench situated in an adjacent courtyard (contra Willett 1999: 147–48). In a pillared building on the peripheral street (Locus 808), a zoomorphic vessel was found together with a model of a couch (category A) and a juglet (fig. 3.7).â•›52 Northwest of the house, a small incense altar was unearthed.â•›53 Another house, containing Loci numbered 430, 443, and 442, though not a consistent assemblage, yielded a JPF and another model of a chair from the room adjacent to the street (443); two limestone altars from the pillared room (442); and a spouted bowl from the court or central hall (430) (fig. 3.8).â•›54 Although the presence of the small altars by themselves does not necessarily indicate that the locus served as a household shrine, it certainly served ritual purposes. Subsequent excavations unearthed a unique Iron IIC figurine, which comes from an Iron IIC context (Locus 3622), most likely from an open courtyard adjoining a house 44.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 24.6–5; 25.3. 45.╇ Aharoni 1973: pl. 24.4. 46.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 26.1–3; 24.2. 47.╇ Aharoni 1973: pl. 25.1–2. 48.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 23.3; 24.1, 5; 44.8 . 49.╇ Compiled after Aharoni 1973: pls. 22–26, 84. 50.╇Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 71.1–6; 70.16–21; Plan: pl. 94. See also Holladay 1987: 276. 51.╇ Aharoni 1973: description of pl. 73; no image available. 52.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 28.2, 6; 45.4; Plan: pl. 84. 53.╇ Aharoni 1973: pl. 52.6. 54.╇ Aharoni 1973: pls. 52.1–2; 27.6; 28.5; 75.5; Plan: pl. 83. See also Holladay 1987: 276.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.6.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and pottery from Locus 25.

83

84

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.7.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects and jug from Locus 808.

(Kletter and Herzog 2003). The figurine shows features typical of an animal figurine, although the head is of the same type as common Iron IIC pillar-figurines (fig. 3.9).â•›55 The figurine has some parallels in Cypro-Geometric specimens but perhaps may also be associated with sphinx or cherub-like beings found on contemporary seals.â•›56 The object is therefore perhaps best interpreted as an apotropaic or guardian figurine. The early Iron Age strata did not yield particularly rich finds, although they did suggest cultic activities in domestic areas. A fragment of a zoomorphic figurine was found in a courtyard behind Stratum VI House 2072,â•›57 although this was not associated with the assemblage of pottery and objects found in Room 2072 proper. Both the kernos-ring fragment from a room (2310) in the right wing of Building 2523â•›58 and the torso of a female figurineâ•›59 found in a building outside the enclosed settlement (Locus 1327) were unassociated with any of the pottery or other artifacts.

3.3.5.╇ Bethel (Bētīn), map reference 172.148 The finds from the Iron Age II levels at Bethel were rather poor. The single noteworthy exception was Locus 315, in which were reportedly found three fragments of zoo55.╇ Compiled after Kletter and Herzog 2003: fig. on pp. 40–41. 56.╇ See below, p. 382. 57.╇ Herzog 1984: fig. 31.6. 58.╇ Herzog 1984: fig. 25.2. 59.╇ Herzog 1984: fig. 25.1.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

85

morphic figurines (category A); a chalice and two bone pendants (category B); three bowls and a store jar, as well as several metal objects (category C).â•›60 Unfortunately, the ambiguities in the publication details prevent accurate location of the material.

3.3.6.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, map reference 141.096 Tell Beit Mirsim, excavated by Albright between 1926 and 1932 (Albright 1932; 1933; 1938; 1943), yielded abundant figurines of various types. Most of the Iron IIC fragments of pillar-figurines came from clear domestic contexts.â•›61 Two almost complete figurines were taken from pits,â•›62 as well as two libation vessels (one animal and one gravid flask). Although the vessels are suggestive of cultic activities, they were found incomplete and were in secondary contexts (a pit and a silo).â•›63 Two Fig. 3.8.╇ Beersheba, Stratum III: Objects from Loci 442 and 443. pairs of JPF fragments were also found in secondary contexts (a silo and a cistern).â•›64 Similar to efforts to reconstruct most older excavations, the methods used to record and systematize these finds make it difficult to accurately reconstruct the assemblages within which these figurines and other objects were found. Though Albright gave lists of homogenous pottery assemblages from the same loci, he largely ignored a variety of even smaller assemblages that suggest possible cultic functions. The reconstruction of assemblages at Tell Beit Mirsim is only possible by associating objects found in individual rooms, leaving uncertainty about whether groups of these objects formed an 60.╇ Compare with Albright and Kelso 1968: nos. 1004, 1008, 10014 (no drawings published), 1025, 1026, 1034, 1037, 1038, 1085, and 1151. 61.╇See Albright 1943: 162–205; Kletter 1996: 166. 62.╇ Albright 1943: SN 1803 and 1468 from SE 13A/A2 together with three additional fragments (1804, 1805, 1808). 63.╇ Albright 1943: pls. 23.17 (SN 500); 15.14, §51 (SN 2574). 64.╇ Albright 1943: pl. 31.11 +SN 1329 in Silo SE 13–32; SN 2450+2295 in cistern NW 32–10. See also Kletter 1996: 63.

Chapter 3

86

Fig. 3.9.╇ Beersheba: sphinx/cherub figurine from Locus 3622.

assemblage that might otherwise be identified as a locus according to current-day practice. Of particular interest are the finds from olive press NW 32–12. Among various pottery vessels associated with the production of olive oil were found a complete JPF and two additional fragments (both being almost complete torsos), as well as three fragments of animal figurines and another fragment in a cistern (fig. 3.10).â•›65 The presence of these figurines may suggest religious practices associated with the production of olive oil, particularly to safeguard the process of pressing. Casemate room NW 31–11 also yielded interesting contents, and the broad back room of NW 31–10: 31–11 yielded the head of a JPF, the head of an animal figure, the hollow pottery head of an ape (category A), a bone 65.╇ Albright 1943: §38; pl. 6; SN 2031, 2032 (no drawing in report), 2396, 2404, 2574, 2848.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

87

Fig. 3.10.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 32-12.

ear pendant, a lamp (category B), some fragments of domestic pottery, and a javelin head (fig. 3.11).â•›66 Another house (NW 22-13, 22-14, 22-15) contained the head and base of a pillar-figurine, a zoomorphic vessel (category A), a miniature lamp with stand, a cosmetic palette (category B), and a rubbing stone. The utilitarian pottery that was reported consisted of a cooking pot, a jug, and a juglet (fig. 3.12).â•›67 Though this was a locus of mixed content, the presence of several anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic pottery objects suggests their possible use in the back room of the house, even though associations between objects cannot be established with any confidence. Several additional loci containing utilitarian pottery also yielded category A objects, but their association with the larger finds remains unclear.â•›68 Taken as a whole, Tell Beit Mirsim reveals clear evidence for the domestic use of pillarâ•‚ and animal figurines and, in one case, possible cultic finds in the industrial complex.

3.3.7.╇ Beth-shean (Tell el-Ḥiṣn), map reference 1977.2123 The Iron Age evidence from Beth-shean, which was not published by the excavators in the 1930–40 volumes (Rowe 1930; 1940), was reexamined and published by James in 1966. Due to the excavator’s incomplete records, only tentative evidence for domestic cult assemblages can be reconstructed. 66.╇ Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 2313, 2316, 2319, 2408, 2539, 2699. The pottery consists of bowls (2332, 2495, 2497) and a small pot (2608); there are no drawings of the animal figurine and the ape head in the report. 67.╇ Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 1552–1555; 1817; 1524; 1563; 1570. 68.╇ Albright 1943: SE 24B (SN 1229 bull figurine, 1230 carved bone object with female face); SE 13 A11 (947 pottery rattle, 948 animal figurine).

88

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.11.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 22-13; 4; 5

Lower Level VI (Iron Age IA, the last phase of Egyptian dominance) Locus 1342 can be assigned to buildings west of the temple. Several ovens indicate that the area was of a domestic character (James 1966: 16–17). Many jars were recorded, which suggests that the room also served storage purposes. Six saucer bowls were found in the locus, along with three deep bowls, two strainer jugs, one jug, two alabaster pyxides, and a clay object with internal tubes that was most likely a casting mold for metal.â•›69 In addition to the utilitarian pottery, two fragmentary kernoi, a fragment of a limestone figurine, faience objects, and scarabs with the names of Thutmoses III and Ramses II (category A) were found.â•›70 This assemblage of category A objects, mixed in with category C objects (storage and consumption of food and liquid), along with the mold are suggestive of work-related cultic activities involving libations and—presuming the scarabs to be more than just a chance find—also votive practices. Partial evidence for domestic cultic activities comes from the Israelite stratum Upper Level V, traditionally dated to Iron Age IIA (Finkelstein 1996a proposed an Omridic date), but lingering uncertainties over many aspects of the function and layout of the rooms prevent firm conclusions. Upper Level V (Iron IIA) Locus 1564 was a room of indefinite boundaries containing installations of unknown—although potentially industrial—purpose. The room included a bull’s head and torso, the head of a female figurine, a bird figurine (category A), and an 11-cm-long ivory object (category B) that was most likely a whirring instrument. â•›71 The pottery of the ground level, which was mixed in with earlier and later material, contained fragments of two red burnished stands (category A), 69.╇ James 1966: figs. 77;  57.1–2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17;  58.2, 4, 13, 14. 70.╇ James 1966: 17. 71.╇ James 1966: fig. 114.2—here classified as a boomerang.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.12.╇ Tell Beit Mirsim, Stratum A, NW 31-11.

89

90

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.13.╇ Beth-shean, Upper Level V: Figurines and stand from Locus 1564.

a lentoid flask, and a false spout of an oil jar (category C). Other pottery was reported to be from this room, although whether it came from Locus 1564 proper is unclear. The published material is shown in fig. 3.13.â•›72 Considered together, the assemblage suggests the performance of libation and votive activities and some sort of practice involving the whirring instrument. Upper Level V (Iron IIA) Locus 1557 forms, along with Loci 62 and 63, an Iron Age storehouse near the gate. The reported pottery (category C) consists of a single storage jar from Locus 1557 proper and two juglets from Rooms 62 and 63. Two heads of female 72.╇ James 1966: figs. 112.1–2 (the bird figurine is only mentioned in the text on p. 93.), 31.28 (second stand not illustrated), 41.32.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

91

Fig. 3.14.╇ Beth-shean, Level IV: Pottery and Objects from Loci 293 (nos. 1–7) and 298€(8–14).

figurines were also found there, along with the head of a horse figurine (category A).â•›73 From the indefinite area of Locus 1549 (Upper Level V, Iron IIA) a female figurine (category A), a cup and saucer, a saucer lamp (category B), and a spinning bowl (category C) were recorded.â•›74 The architectural remains of the Iron IIB Level IV were in relatively poor condition. Nevertheless, some evidence was reported that is suggestive of domestic cult assemblages. Locus 293, a room above the level of the Stratum V temple, yielded a tripod incense burner (category A), two cooking pots, and a jar.â•›75 The adjacent Locus 298, though still unclear in terms of its stratigraphic relation to Locus 293, yielded a stand with an associated bowl, an object that appeared to be the leg of a zoomorphic figurine or vessel (category A), four bowls, one jar, and one jug.â•›76 Both assemblages are shown in fig. 3.14. From Level IV Locus 1506, which was not possible to characterize but was perhaps a passage,â•›77 a tripod censer cup and a bottle were recorded.â•›78 The often insufficient reports in the original publications of the material from Beth-shean notwithstanding, the evidence accords with general observations about cultic assemblages. Libation vessels tend to predominate in ensembles from Iron Age IB–IIA, whereas ensembles from Iron IIB, relatively speaking, contain more incense burners. Both the earlier and the Iron IIB assemblages suggest that votive practices with figurines were involved. 73.╇ James 1966: figs. 112.3–4. 74.╇ James 1966: 93. Figurine: fig. 112.6; pottery not drawn. 75.╇ James 1966: figs. 34.1–4. 76.╇ James 1966: figs. 34.8–14 (the latter was presumed to be a figurine base). 77.╇ James 1966: 73. 78.╇ James 1966: Plan p. 74; fig. 25.16 and 2.

92

Chapter 3

3.3.8.╇ Beth-shemesh (Ḥirbet er-Rumēle), map reference 1477.1286 Beth-shemesh is situated 20 km west of Jerusalem and was first excavated by D. MacÂ� kenzie between 1911 and 1912 (Mackenzie 1911; 1912–13). Large-scale excavations were conducted by E. Grant from 1928 to 1933 (Grant 1929; 1931–32; 1934; Grant and Wright 1938; 1939), followed by renewed work during the 1990s (Bunimovitz and Ledermann 1993: 249; 2009). The excavations revealed a rich corpus of diagnostic objects, especially figurines. About 30 JPFs were discovered at Beth-shemesh,â•›79 as well as about 20 animal figurines or zoomorphic vessels from the Iron Age Strata.â•›80 Although potential diagnostic objects (including a decorated model of a seat) were found, many of them came from mass loci (Street 317) and thus are not useful for the present purposes. Due to the inadequate recording system of the early reports, the present investigation focuses instead on the material from the 1934 and subsequent final reports (Grant 1934; Grant and Wright 1938; 1939). Because most of the finds were either inadequately illustrated or not at all, we are unable to provide images in this section. Level II Locus 387 was part of the so-called scarab house (Rooms 397, 380, 388, 387, 395, 396) and was most likely an open courtyard. It contained two animal figurines, a zoomorphic spout along with a fragment from another zoomorphic figurine (category A), two cooking pots, one juglet, one red juglet, and two dipper juglets.â•›81 Level II Locus 382 was part of a house that was only partially excavated. It contained a zoomorphic spout, a model of a seat (category A), a dipper juglet, a “heavy pot,” and fragments of decanters. The presence of a pottery oven indicates that the room was used for the preparation of food.â•›82 Level II Room 377 was part of a building consisting of Rooms 377, 381, and 390. It contained a mold for figurine heads, a horse figurine, two juglets, fragments of a lmlk-jar (stamped Hebron), a fragment of a “heavy pot,” fragments of two bowls, a “crude thick pot,” a scaraboid seal, and a bronze spatula.â•›83 Level II Locus 376 was some sort of room, possibly a courtyard, in a house that was only partially excavated. Two zoomorphic figurines were found, along with a horse figurine (category A), two shells, fragments of a lamp (category B), three juglets, bowls, decanter, and a stamped jar handle. Two mortars suggest activities associated with the preparation of food.â•›84 Level II Locus 375 was a room with a cement floor and a basalt tank and mortar, and was probably an industrial place. It contained a figurine of what appears to have been a rat or a mouse (category A), a chalice, a lamp (category B), a cooking pot, and a disk base.â•›85 Level II Locus 373 was a room with a rectangular fireplace that may have been related to the above industrial installation. It contained two JPF heads, one animal figurine, three fragments of animal figurines (category A), one lamp (category B), one juglet, one hole79.╇ Kletter 1996: figs. 15, 34. 80.╇ Grant and Wright 1939: pl. 51. 81.╇ Grant 1934: 65. 82.╇ Grant 1934: 65–66. 83.╇ Grant 1934: 67–68. 84.╇ Grant 1934: 68. 85.╇ Grant 1934: 375, map 1 and fig. 4.417.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

93

mouth jar, two stone pounders, and a pick.â•›86 A third JPF head was found in the adjacent Locus 374.â•›87 Level II Locus 343 was a room with a pottery oven, containing the upper torso of a JPF, including a head, along with a lotus amulet (category A), chalice (category B), juglet, storage jar, “pot,” two jars, and a small flask from the west of the locus.â•›88 Level II Locus 321 was identified by the excavators as a room with a winepress installation. Several vessels were observed, including zoomorphic ones, although not specified. A vessel in the shape of a pig was described, although it is unclear whether it was associated with the winepress.â•›89 Level II Locus 305 contained two circular stone vats and loom weights, suggesting a room used for the production and dyeing of textiles. A JPF was found here together with four juglets, a basalt mortar and pestle, fragments of cooking pots, a jar, and a hole-mouth jar.â•›90 Remaining uncertainties in the original publications notwithstanding, the evidence from Beth-shemesh shows that JPFs, zoomorphic vessels, and figurines were used both in the food preparation areas and in workshops or industrial installations. The observed patterns, predominantly of votive objects, are typical of Iron IIC domestic cult remains found at other places such as Beersheba, Tell Beit Mirsim, and Tell en-Naṣbeh. These finds highlight the important observation that JPFs were also produced in domestic contexts. One remarkable find from the renewed excavations came from a Level II pillared house in Area E (“Fred’s House”); it is a bowl incised with qdš ‘holy’ that was discovered in the context of utilitarian pottery, household utensils, and loom weights (Manor 2009). The excavators interpreted this find as evidence of a priest’s house, but the incised bowl may have been used for offerings in the context of domestic cult practices maintained by the family.

3.3.9.╇ ʿEin Gev (Ḥirbet el-ʿĀšīq), map reference 2102.2435 ʿEin Gev is situated on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee between Wadi Nuqeib in the north and Nahal Susitha in the south. The trial excavations of 1961 revealed part of a plastered room in a conjectured domestic building along with an assemblage of pottery and objects suggesting domestic cult activities (B. Mazar et  al. 1961; see also B.  Mazar 1993: 409–11; H. Weippert 1988: 628). Locus 11, which was part of a paved room in a Stratum III (Iron Age IIB) dwelling, contained an assemblage of one tripod incense cup (category A); a small decorated “incense spoon,” which is more likely to have been a cosmetic bowl; a nephrite object in the shape of an axe; a square bone pendant; a worked gazelle bone of unclear use (category B); four jugs (including one bichrome), one beer jug, one jar, one store jar, one hole-mouth jar, one mortar and pestle, one scraper, three small bone spatulas; and a small object made from a bronze sheet, which was most likely 86.╇ Grant 1934: 68–69. 87.╇ Grant 1934: 68; Grant and Wright 1939: 1. 88.╇ Grant 1934: 72. 89.╇ Grant 1934: 75. 90.╇ Grant 1934: 82.

94

Chapter 3

Fig 3.15.╇ ʿEin Gev, Stratum III: Pottery and objects from Locus 11.

a funnel (fig. 3.15).â•›91 The adjacent Locus 23, which belonged to the same room, yielded two jugs, two store jars, and a hole-mouth jar. The excavators proposed that the room was used for cultic purposes.â•›92 However, the character of the pottery assemblage is more suggestive of storing liquids and foods. It seems plausible, therefore, that the room was used for storage and that ritual objects were stored elsewhere, along with other storage vessels.â•›93 The category A and B objects (that is, the incense burner and other “collectibles,” including a model of an axe, a square bone pendant, and a worked bone) suggest the offering of incense and votive rituals.

3.3.10.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah (North), map reference 1823.1822 Tell el-Fārʿah is located 11 km northeast of Shechem and was excavated between 1946 and 1960 by École Biblique under the direction of R. de Vaux (Chambon 1984). Tell elFārʿah is plausibly identified with biblical Tirzah (de Vaux 1993: 433). The site revealed 91.╇ Mazar et al. 1961: figs. 5.11; 6.3–4; 7.1, 4, 8; 8.2, 7, 9; pl. 11. 92.╇ Mazar et al. 1961: 12. In his NEAEHL article (Mazar 1993: 411), proposes “that the room served the cultic needs of the family, similar to the cultic room 2081 at Megiddo. . . .” For discussion, also see Zevit 2001: 201–2. 93.╇ This was also proposed by Zwickel 1994: 245.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

95

Fig. 3.16.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb: Content of pit 241.

several interesting Iron IIA domestic cult remains, among which were four miniature shrines or fragments of them. Unfortunately, only two of them had clear contextual associations. An almost complete model shrine was found together with a jug, two pyxides, and two metal objects in a pit (Locus 241) belonging to Stratum VIIb (10th century b.c.e.), in Building 149a, which indicates that it was used in the same house (fig. 3.16).â•›94 Stratum VIIb House 440 yielded exceptionally rich finds, including a fragmentary model shrine in the pillared Room 439 east of the entrance, which was found together with a millstone.â•›95 Courtyard 440 of the house yielded the torso of a pregnant woman, a figurine of a horse (category A), a gaming piece (category B), an arrow head, a blade, an alabaster pendant, five beads, one jug, one juglet, two bowls, and one small bowl.â•›96 A second female figurine was found north of the courtyard in Room 460.â•›97 A sample of the finds is shown in fig. 3.17.â•›98 The presence of an oven indicates that the material from Locus 440 may have been directly associated with the preparation and consumption of food. The domestic character of these finds therefore provides a strong argument against the interpretation of House 440 as a shrine (Dever 2005: 115–16). 94.╇ Chambon 1984: 118; Plan 2; pls. 66.2; 58.24; 60.12, 19. 95.╇ Chambon 1984: 136; pls. 66.2; 78.4. 96.╇ Chambon 1984: 137; pls. 63.4; 65.3; 67.16; 68.5; 69.11; 73.9; 74.7; 48.10; 51.15; 56.15; 57.37; 58.3. 97.╇ Chambon 1984: pl. 63.2. 98.╇ Compiled after Chambon 1984: pl. 11 and notes above.

96

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.17.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, Contents of House 440.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

97

Fig. 3.18.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb: Pottery shrine fragment from Room 437.

Room 437, the pillared room in the right wing of House 436 (Stratum VIIb), yielded an appliqué that was most likely part of another pottery shrine (fig. 3.18), although no pottery or other objects were associated with it.â•›99 Locus 429A (Stratum VIIc, early 9th century b.c.e.) was most likely a broad room at the back of a four-room house that was only partially excavated and contained a censercup of category A together with a small cooking pot and a bowl (fig. 3.19).â•›100 House 176 (also Stratum VIIb) yielded a zoomorphic spout (category A), a game piece, and a miniature juglet (category B) from the pillared Room 174 in the right wing.â•›101 The assemblage suggests libation practices. House 161 (Stratum VIIb) suffered a violent destruction that even reduced the skeletons to debris.â•›102 Of particular interest are the contents and installations of Room 157. This was one of the rear rooms, which was accessible both from Room 156 and from the courtyard. It contained two benches, one to the right and one in the left corner. The pottery consisted of a storage jar, three jugs, two small jugs, three juglets, two cooking pots, and a lamp.â•›103 Several other objects were found in association with the pottery, including a game piece, three metal tools, a bead, and four pieces of mills and millstones (fig. 3.20).â•›104 The reconstruction of the places where these objects were found indicates that not all were situated on the benches. Chambon interpreted Room 157 as an artisan’s studio.â•›105 99.╇ Chambon 1984: pls. 12; 64.6. 100.╇ Compiled after Chambon 1984: 134; pls. 18; 54.12; 53.9; 57.32 (sic). 101.╇ Chambon 1984: 113; pls. 15; 64.2; 67.14; 51.24. 102.╇ Chambon 1984: 110. 103.╇ Chambon 1984: 110; pls. 45.11; 48.3, 12, 13; 51.16, 44; 50.8, 10, 18; 52.7; 53.11; 59.3. 104.╇ Chambon 1984: 110; pls. 67.11; 70.1–3; 74.30; 77.910, 16, 19 (last 4 objects not illustrated). 105.╇ Chambon 1984: 110.

98

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.19.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIc: Pottery from Locus 429A.

Although benches sometimes served cultic purposes, there were no category A objects associated with the assemblage, making a cultic interpretation unlikely. The room was most likely used for the storage and preparation—but not consumption—of food. Conditions can be described similarly with regard to the alcove-like installations interpreted by Willett (1999: 133) as cultic niches. These were more likely to have served domestic purposes, since no category A objects were directly associated with the structures. Tell el-Fārʿah yielded several features typical of Iron IIA (or perhaps B) structures, such as model shrines, which were uncommon in later, Iron IIB and IIC contexts. One feature was atypical for Iron IIA assemblages, which is the relatively large number of human figurines, but this may have been because they were a local speciality.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

99

Fig. 3.20.╇ Tell el-Fārʿah, Stratum VIIb, House 161: Contents of Room 157 as mapped in excavation report: 1611: game piece; 1656: jug; 1610: jug; 1743: jug; 1609: juglet; 1608: juglet; 1607: juglet; 1604: how; 1605: pickax.

3.3.11.╇ Gezer (Tell Ğazarī), map reference 1425.1407 Large-scale excavations conducted by Macalister between 1902 and 1909 (Macalister 1912) yielded rich finds. Unfortunately, the system of recording and mapping these finds rendered them of little use for the present purposes. The Hebrew Union College excavations led by Dever (Dever et al. 1970; 1974; 1986) provided only minor evidence for cultic activities in the Iron Age strata because of the limited excavation area. The material from Locus 3192 (dated to the 10th/9th century b.c.e.) consisted of a small chalk altar with incised decorations from occupational debris, a zoomorphic vessel came from Locus 1098P (occupational debris of the 11th or 10th century b.c.e.), and an Ashdoda-figurine fragment came from Locus 1014.1 (Iron I).â•›106 All of this material either came from ambiguous contexts or was not directly associated with defined architectural features.

3.3.12.╇ Tel Halif (Tell Ḥuwēlifa/Lahav), map reference 1373.0879 Tel Halif is located on the southwestern flank of the Judean Hills, about 10 km south of Tell Beit Mirsim. The ancient mound can probably be identified with biblical Rimmon 106.╇ Dever 1974: pl. 41.2; Dever and Lance and Wright 1970: pl. 37.9 (zoomorphic vessel); 36.3 (Ashdoda, here classified as a model couch; for the Ashdoda-figurines, see Schmitt 1999: 608–19).

100

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.21.╇ Tel Halif: Plan of Field IV.

Fig. 3.22.╇ Tel Halif: Reconstruction of Room G 8005.

(Seger 1983: 19–20; 1993: 554). Ten JPFs, a horse-and-rider figurine, and a zoomorphic figurine were uncovered there. Some of these came from mass-loci pits, although several came from distinct domestic units of the Iron Age II (Stratum VIB) layer that was associated with the destruction by Sennacharib in 701.â•›107 The material was published in several preliminary reports and an internet database of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology (Mis107.╇ Seger 1993: 557–58.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

101

Fig. 3.23.╇ Tel Halif, Locus G 8005: Stand, altars, and JPF fragment.

sissippi State University) and is suitable for the reconstruction of several assemblages associated with the figurines and other ritual objects.â•›108 Field IV, Area G8, Locus G8005 is part of a four-room pillared house (known as the “northern house”), the floors of which were covered with the debris of a burned building, effectively protecting the finds. The so-called shrine room was originally part of a broad room in the pillared house, which was subsequently divided into two chambers, moving the entrance to the southeastern end, thus creating a long chamber measuring 2.25 × 7 m.â•›109 The assemblage included the head of a JPF,â•›110 a fenestrated stand, two carved and polished limestone blocks lying north and south of the stand, a pomegranate jug, a black jug, and a juglet (figs. 3.21–23).â•›111 The assemblage led the excavators to posit the existence of some sort of house shrine in Locus 8005, with the two limestone blocks functioning as maṣṣebôt.â•›112 The predominance of utilitarian pottery such as storage jars suggests a store room that also contained material for occasional cultic use, although not a permanent shrine-like installation. The assemblage of distinctly cultic objects intermixed with common household and storage pottery suggests the occasional consumption of cultic meals (Jacobs 2001: iv). However, the idea that the two limestone blocks functioned as maṣṣebôt is questionable, since portable maṣṣebôt have not been found in domestic units elsewhere. The limestone blocks were most likely simple altars for the presentation of offerings or the placement of vessels containing offerings. Field IV, Area F8, Locus F8007 is the adjacent room to the north of the purported cultic structure. This locus also represents a destruction layer that may have contained objects from the second floor or the rooftop.â•›113 Among common domestic pottery materials 108.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dig/lahav (DigMaster Database). Additional information about the pottery was provided by Paul Jacobs in private communication. See also the preliminary reports (Seger 1972; 1977; 1979; 1980; 1983; Seger and Borowski 1977). 109.╇ Jacobs 2001: ii. 110.╇ Object no. 2114. 111.╇ Courtesy of Paul Jacobs, Mississippi State University. 112.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/G8.shtml; Jacobs 2001: iii. 113.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/F8.shtml.

102

Chapter 3

(including an amphoriskos, two jugs, and five bowls),â•›114 the torso of a JPF was found. Field IV, Area F7, Locus 7002 belongs to the debris of the northern building of Field IV. The debris again consisted of material supposedly from the second floor. Besides pottery vessels, this material consisted of JPF fragment 2732 (category A), a scarab, a scaraboid, a hematite mace-head, and a bone disc.â•›115 The pottery predominantly consisted of utilitarian items such as jars, pithoi, bowls, kraters, cooking pots, lamps, jugs, and juglets, as well as stone tools such as grinders for the processing of food.â•›116 Field IV, Area L8, Locus 8005 was the “southern house” that contained JPF torso 1894 that was discovered in the destruction debris of a domestic unit containing ash and fragments of the charred beams of the roof. The pottery consisted of a large number of bowls, a platter bowl, a small bowl, two juglets, two lamps, and a jar.â•›117 It has been supposed that the figurine and the pottery originated from the second floor of the building.â•›118 Field IV, Area K8, Locus 8002 belongs to same house as L8 above, in which four figurine fragments (JPF Torso 2726, the horse-and-rider fragment 1912, the JPF pinched head 2162, and the JPF neck fragment 2726) were found that may have originated from the second floor. The pottery consisted of a variety of typical household items, including storage jars, pithoi, lamps, jugs, juglets, bowls, cooking pots, decanters, kraters, pitchers, and a large-mouth dipper.â•›119 The pottery assemblage together with household tools such as grinding stones indicate that a variety of domestic activities were conducted on the second floor.â•›120 The evidence from Loci L8005, K8002, F7002, and F8007 reveals an association between the figurines and the typical household items. Moreover, although the second floor was used for domestic activities including the preparation and storage of food, the fragments found there suggest that cultic activities may also have occurred. Additional evidence comes from Field II (Stratum VII), where two fenestrated stands were discovered in a domestic unit along with large grinding installations (Seger 1983: 10), again revealing an association between ritual and domestic activities. Other noteworthy finds among the early Iron Age (Iron Age I) remains include the torso of a (legless) female figurine with modeled breasts, an incised decoration on her back, and a punctuated pattern on the body that indicated the vaginal area (Dessel 1988). This unique figurine was found in a stone-lined and -plastered bin that had been filled with ash and bones. Whether the object had been used in a ritual or simply thrown away was not discernible. The figurine is one of very few Iron I examples found in Judah to date.

3.3.13.╇ Hazor (Tell el Qedaḥ), map reference 203.269 A room that was uncovered in the pre-citadel Stratum IX (Iron Age IB; Locus 3283) and measured 3.2 × 5.2 m (with its northern edge buried under later casemates) has been interpreted as a cultic structure. The southern part of the building consisted of a paved 114.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs. 115.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/F7.shtml. 116.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs. 117.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs. 118.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/L8.shtml. 119.╇ Personal communication with Paul Jacobs. 120.╇www.cobb.msstate.edu/dif/lahav/areas/K8.shtml.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

103

Fig. 3.24.╇ Hazor: Isometric reconstruction of temple 3283 (after Zevit 2001: fig. 3.42).

platform with benches running along the western, eastern, and southern walls. An unusual banana-shaped stone stood in a socket in the southwestern corner of the southern platform.â•›121 Beneath the pavement, a hoard of bronze objects was excavated inside a jug, among which was the figurine of a seated deity.â•›122 This locus also yielded an assemblage that included a stand, a chalice-like stand, a cooking pot, a storage jar, a lamp, an ivory handle, four basalt bowls, and pestles.â•›123 Locus 3275, which was a room or courtyard south of Locus 3283, contained a stand in the form of a big chalice with a fenestrated body, a bowl, a tripod bowl, a cooking pot, a krater, and a storage jar.â•›124 Within the same area but 121.╇ Ben-Tor 1996; see also Ben-Ami 2006: 125–27. This evidence was not published in the final report (Ben-Tor 1989). See Zevit 2001: 202–3, with n. 129. 122.╇ Yadin 1961: pl. 205; Ben-Tor 1989: 80–81. See Zevit 2001: 202–5. 123.╇ Yadin 1961: pls. 203.4, 10, 16, 21; 204.4, 12; 206.5–6, 9–13, 15–16. 124.╇ Yadin 1961: pls. 204.1, 2; 203.2, 6, 9, 17, 22.

104

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.25.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and objects from Loci 48 (left) and 47a (right).

west of the cult room itself (Locus 3307), a fenestrated stand, a stand with handles, a bowl, and a store jar were found.â•›125 A reconstruction of the structure with its associated finds is shown in fig. 3.24.â•›126 The structure has been interpreted as a cultic building because of its architectural features and the associated finds, particularly the bronze hoard, which was considered a foundation deposit (Ben-Tor 1989: 80–81; Yadin 1993: 601–2; Zevit 2001: 202–5). This cultic interpretation was challenged by Zwickel (1994: 251–53), who argued that the pottery in Room 3283 was predominantly domestic and that the building should therefore be considered a domestic building. Accordingly, the other structures of this alleged cultic area should also be considered domestic in nature. However, the standing stone—details of which had not been published prior to Zwickel’s work—the bench, and the category A objects from Loci 3275, 3283, and 3307 (including at least five stands) support the theory that the building and its adjacent structures were a shrine with a maṣṣebāh, rather than a domestic building. Because the building seems not to have been integrated within a domestic quarter, and because it had a courtyard, it is likely to have been a village shrine. A second small sanctuary from the Iron I period that was of a different type was uncovered during the recent excavation at Hazor (Ben-Ami 2006). The installation in Locus 125.╇ Yadin 1961: pls. 202.5, 23; 204.3, 5. 126.╇ Zevit 2001: fig. 3.42.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

105

Fig. 3.26.╇ Hazor, Area A: Pottery and mask from Locus 44.

80019, which was most likely an open cult place, consisted of a roughly rectangular basalt standing stone of 0.7 × 0.5 m, with three additional stone slabs east and south of it that may have served as offering tables. On the right side of the standing stone, a circular installation comprising ten stones of approximately 0.4 m in diameter was excavated, although no evidence of burning or traces of ash were found inside. Remnants of a wall and a pavement were also discovered north of the maṣṣebāh (Locus 8018). In pits about 2 m east of the paved area, a fragmentary zoomorphic vessel (a spout) and an assemblage of three (miniature) bowls, five cooking pots, a pithos, a jug, two flasks, and a pyxis were found. The assemblage from these pits is identical in composition to contemporary domestic assemblages. Assuming the pottery to have been associated with the structure, we may posit that ritual practices conducted here consisted primarily of libations, for which perhaps the circular structure was used as a libation tray. Little evidence for domestic cult activities was found in the Iron IIB residential quarters. Room 48 at the back of a Stratum VI pillared house also consisting of Rooms 63, 47a, and 35a yielded the spout of a zoomorphic vessel (category A), three jugs (one of which was a decorated Cypro-Phoenician jug), one cooking pot, one bowl, and a spindle whorl.â•›127 Locus 47a contained a carved ivory handle depicting a four-winged protective deity as well as an assemblage of typical domestic pottery, including two bowls, two cooking pots, a krater, and two juglets (fig. 3.25).â•›128 Within a domestic building consisting of 127.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. LXV, 13–20; Plan: pl. CLXXIII. 128.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. LXV, 6–12; pl. CLI.

106

Chapter 3

four rooms of irregular layout (Area A, Stratum V, Loci 13–16, 44), a decorated fenestrated stand was found, together with the fragment of a mask (category A), a jug, and a store jar in back room (Geva 1989: 46: closed courtyard) 44 (fig. 3.26).â•›129 Pottery remains in the other rooms were in poor condition or were (mostly) missing. Because Stratum V was destroyed by the Assyrians in 732, the stand and the mask fragment suggest an assemblage that may once have been somewhat larger (see also Geva 1989: 46). The mask could have been used in divination or necromantic practices of some sort. Another fragment of a mask was found situated among storage vessels in a room (3102a) that had a built-on silo in a citadel.â•›130 An assemblage was excavated from one of the towers (239a) within the six-chambered gate of Stratum IX–X. It included a fragment of a zoomorphic vessel (a spout), 12 bowls, 2 Cypro-Phoenician juglets, 2 jugs, 2 lamps, 2 cups with saucers, and a basalt bowl (fig. 3.27).â•›131 This assemblage consisted mostly of vessels for the storage and consumption of food and drink, which were probably associated with the presumably official character of the gate complex. It can safely be concluded that the assemblage was used by the guards of the gate for meals and, on other occasions, for drinking or libations. The evidence for religious domestic activities in the residential quarter in Hazor is admittedly small. Nevertheless, the presence of ritual objects and figurative material counters Geva’s thesis that the inhabitants were not religiously inclined and did not observe religious practices (1989: 110). On the contrary, the material from Hazor fits quite well with the general evidence for Iron IIB domestic cult activities, which consists of libation vessels that were used along with common household items for ritual practices in the context of consuming food and drink. Although quite a number of category A and B objects were found in the citadel, including several figurines, anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic vessels,â•›132 and a delicate “incense ladle” (a cosmetic item),â•›133 no distinctive assemblage could be discerned. From the period following the destruction of the citadel (Area B, Locus 3046 of Stratum IV), a rough floor that was built on the foundations of the devastated Israelite fortress yielded a kernos ring and the spout of a zoomorphic vessel along with five bowls and a jug.â•›134 Because the architectural structures were unclear, no additional contextual information could be obtained. Nevertheless, the assemblage does suggest the performance of ritual activities involving libations.

3.3.14.╇ Tell el-Ḥammah, map reference 1973.1977 Tell el-Ḥammah is situated 16 km south of Beth-shean at the entrance of the Bethshean Valley and was excavated by a Canadian team in the second half of the 1980s (Cahill and Tarler 1993: 561–62). Two mud-brick buildings of the late 10th century were uncovered here, which were separated by an open courtyard. Inside the western unit, a room of 129.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. LVII, 22, 6; LX, 10; LVI, 9; Yadin 1960: pl. CCII. 130.╇ Yadin 1960: pl. 103.6. 131.╇ Yadin 1961: pl. 177. 132.╇ Yadin 1960: pl. 103.1–12. 133.╇ Yadin 1960: pl. 108. 134.╇ Yadin 1958: pl. 71.3, 11, 16, 18, 26, 27.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

107

Fig. 3.27.╇ Hazor, Area A, Stratum IX–X: Pottery and Objects from Locus 239a.

3.95 × 2.28 m was unearthed that yielded a complete ring kernos, a multihandled krater with appliqués of horned animals, a zoomorphic libation vessel, a fragment of a female plaque figurine, a cat amulet (category A), a large number of astragali, and several gypsum pyxides and Cypro-Phoenician juglets. Several storage jars and the remains of items

108

Chapter 3

used for spinning and weaving indicate some sort of industrial location that was used for the production of textiles and the storage of agricultural products. The industrial activities may have been associated with religious activities, which may have included libations using the zoomorphic vessel and the kernos as well as gaming and perhaps the casting of lots.

3.3.15.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit (Ḥirbet Raʾs ez-Zētūn), map reference 1718.2538 Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is an Iron IIA fortress of about 24 × 24 m, situated 15 km southeast of Akko, with two subphases, Stratum IIa and b, that were dated to the second half of the 10th and the first quarter of the 9th centuries b.c.e., respectively (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 200).â•›135 Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is located in the border region between Israel and Phoenicia, and it remains unclear whether the fort was Israelite or not, even though most of the ceramic repertoire is typical of northern Israel (2000: 199).â•›136 The presence of agricultural tools and a high proportion of storage jars suggest that the fort did not primarily serve a military purpose but, more likely, was used for the production, processing, and storage of agricultural goods (2000: 198). The fortress of Stratum IIa had several pottery assemblages of interest to the present study. In the northwest tower (Locus 47) of the fortress, in the ashes and debris of destruction, a large amount of Cypro-Phoenician pottery was found. A kernos ring found among these items may be evidence of a cultic function for this locus.â•›137 Locus 16, to the west side of the central hall, yielded storage jars and common household pottery, among which were a zoomorphic vessel, bowls and juglets of luxury black-on-red ware and Cypriot white-painted ware.â•›138 Another zoomorphic vessel came from the northeast room of the same stratum. Except for the bichrome jug and chalice, all items of pottery were of common domestic types (such as cooking pots).â•›139 The material from Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is illustrated in figs. 3.28–29.â•›140 The presence of libation vessels in combination with luxury pottery suggests that cultic activities were conducted in these rooms, which were otherwise used for the processing and storage of everyday materials.

3.3.16.╇ Jerusalem, map reference 172.131 It is difficult to reconstruct the domestic assemblages from the Iron Age domestic units of Jerusalem because of the few excavations that have been conducted and because of the limitations that obtain due to the often unclear reports of previous publications. One particularly interesting unit is Area G, Locus 967 of Stratum 10B (the last Iron IIC layer before the destruction of 587), known as the “house of the bullae” (Shiloh 1984: 135.╇ For the excavators, Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit is a key site for arguing against Finkelstein’s proposal of a low chronology (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 152). 136.╇ The authors identify Rosh Zayit with biblical Cabul, which was given to Hiram of Tyre by Solomon according to 1 Kgs 9:10–14, and conjecture that the fort was established by the Phoenicians but inhabited by Israelites. 137.╇ Gal and Alexandre 2000: 14, figs. 3.70–71. 138.╇ Gal and Alexandre 2000: figs. 3.79–81. 139.╇ Gal and Alexandre 2000: figs. 3.90:19–27; 91:1–14; 92:1. 140.╇ Compiled after Gal and Alexandre 2000: pl. 4, fig. 3.70; pl. 5, figs. 3.81, 90–92.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.28.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIb with findspot of kernos.

109

110

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.29.╇ Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit, Stratum IIa with findspots of pottery assemblages.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

111

Fig. 3.30.╇ Jerusalem, Area G: Pottery and objects from Locus 967 (Stratum 10b “house of bullae”).

18–20; 1986: 16–25). Unfortunately, only a rather small section of the building was excavated (of 1 × 8 m), leaving the larger layout of the building unknown. The finds, which all came from pavement near Wall 753, were surprisingly abundant (a sample and plan are shown in fig. 3.30).â•›141 These included such category A objects as the leg of an animal figurine, the torso of a horse-and-rider figurine, and four limestone altars. Category B objects included three pot stands and two unusually shaped deep kraters that resembled a big goblet. Category C objects included three pot stands, two storage jars, two hole-mouth 141.╇After Shiloh 1986: figs. 5–7; fig. 20: pl. 22.2; Ariel and de Groot 1996: 339. Unfortunately, the publication did not include drawings of the figurative material.

112

Chapter 3

jars, five decanters, three cooking pots, a juglet, four bowls, and several grinding stones, as well as three arrowheads, one blade, one earring, one ring, and a weight. The famous 51 bullae are supposed to have belonged to a public archive, a sort of “bureau close to the administrative centre in the city of David” (Shiloh 1984: 20). However, because the character of Area G as a whole seems to have been domestic, it also may be conjectured that the “house of the bullae” was a dwelling with a private archive. Moreover, the domestic pottery and grinding stones are typical of a domestic unit. It is possible that the room was used for general storage purposes, because it seems unlikely that the four altars, the vessels, and the figurines were used in a public archive or bureau (despite the fragmentary character of the figurines). The entire assemblage of category A and B objects therefore suggests the occasional burning of incense and quite likely the performance of libations in a domestic context, while the ritual vessels were probably merely stored there.

3.3.17.╇ Tel Kedesh (Tell Qedes), map reference 199.279 Tel Kedesh is located in the Jezreel Valley between Megiddo and Taanach and may be identified with the biblical city of Kedesh. The site was excavated during one season in 1968 by E. Stern (Stern and Beit-Arieh 1979; Stern 1993). In a large structure dated to the Iron IIB period, a four-horned altar was found within a long chamber that also contained the indented bases of jars. The structure has therefore been interpreted as a cult place. However, because the jars most likely served industrial or storage purposes, the interpretation as a cult place seems implausible. The finds at Tel Kedesh should therefore be interpreted as part of a work-related cult, comparable with the finds from the industrial olive-oil center in Ekron.

3.3.18.╇ Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOrēme), map reference 200.252 Kinneret is located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and was excavated by a German expedition led by V. Fritz between 1982 and 1985 (Fritz 1990a, b), and between 1995 and 1999 (Fritz 1999; Fritz and Vieweger 1996; 1999; Fritz and Münger 2002; Pakkala, Münger, and Zangenberg 2004; Nissinen and Münger 2009). A German, Swiss, and Finnish team is continuing excavation even now. The tripartite pillared Building 683 (Stratum II) in the gate area, which was 9 × 15.10 m, yielded a rich assemblage of pottery. The middle Room 683 had walls covered with plaster. Inside the room, the torso of a female figurine (category A), a bowl, a krater, a juglet, and a storage jar were found (fig. 3.31).â•›142 The adjacent two Rooms 684 and 663 yielded similar assemblages of domestic pottery, including bowls, kraters, cooking pots, storage jars, and lamps.â•›143 The assemblage prompts the question what an assemblage for the storage, preparation, and consumption of food was doing in a building that is otherwise considered to have been used for either public or general storage purposes. The domestic pottery possibly supports the use of the building as a military barracks, as supposed by Fritz (1990a: 153; 1990b: 77; for discussion of which, see Schmitt 2001: 145). Given this, it may be sup142.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 16; pls. 102.2; 89.23; 90.9; 91.9–10; 92.8; 93.13. 143.╇See Fritz 1990b: pls. 89–93.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

113

Fig. 3.31.╇ Kinneret, Area D, Stratum II: Building 683 with pottery from Locus 683 proper.

posed that cultic activities were associated with more-general activities in the daily lives of the troops, particularly activities associated with the consumption of food. In Area B1, an area of domestic structures, excavators found several small assemblages of diagnostic objects and pottery. An animal figurine was unearthed, together with two cooking pots and two bowls in Area B1, Room 221, Stratum IB (fig. 3.32).â•›144 Locus 221 144.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 10, pls. 102.9; 69.19; 71.1; 73.7; 73.8.

114

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.32.╇ Kinneret, Area B1, Stratum IB: Figurine and pottery from Locus 221.

is one of four rooms adjoined to the same wall and was accessible through Room 202. Locus 221 contained a stone installation that consisted of a stone slab in the center of the room surrounded by a semicircle of stones and most likely were the remnants of a hearth. The adjacent room yielded a similar assemblage of three bowls, two cooking pots, and a storage jar. The installation and pottery suggest the functions of storing and preparing food. Room 328 (Stratum IA) yielded a rattle, a goblet (category B), two jugs, two juglets, and two storage jars (fig. 3.33).â•›145 Outside these rooms, another animal figurine fragment was found in Room 328 (Locus 322, a street).â•›146 Locus 326 (which was not specified on the published plans) yielded two well-crafted fragments of horse figurines, as well as two bowls (fig. 3.34).â•›147 The evidence from this area reveals that objects for cultic use were 145.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 11, pls. 74.1–4; 75.7; 76.2, 8, 22–23; 79.12. 146.╇ Fritz 1990a: pl. 102.7. 147.╇ Fritz 1990a: Plan 10, pls. 102.4–5; 69.2; 70.19.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

115

Fig. 3.33.╇ Kinneret Area B1, Stratum IA: Rattle and pottery from Locus 328; figurine from Locus 322.

associated with installations used for the preparation and consumption of food as well as with vessels for the storage and consumption of liquids. The latest find of importance from Kinneret was an assemblage consisting of a model shrine, a bowl with zoomorphic appliqués (both category A), and a small flask from an Iron IB pillared building (Room 3578), all of which together are evidence that ritual activities were performed in this dwelling (fig. 3.35).â•›148 148.╇ Nissinen and Münger 2009: figs. 3 and 4.

116

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.34.╇ Kinneret Area B 1, Stratum I B: Figurines and pottery from Locus 326.

Fig. 3.35.╇ Kinneret courtyard dwelling and finds from Locus 3594.

3.3.19.╇ Lachish (Tell ed-Duwēr), map reference 135.108 3.3.19.1.╇ Domestic assemblages from Lachish A total of 144 figures were uncovered by the British excavation, the excavation undertaken by Y. Aharoni, and the renewed excavations of Ussishkin, with the vast majority coming from Iron Age II. Seventy-two of them came from the renewed excavations (Kletter 2004: 2076 with table 28.61). However, most figurines were found either on the surface, in unclear contexts, or in mass loci (Kletter 2004: 2078). One male head was found in a storage unit (Area GE, Level II, Locus 4150).â•›149 The pottery recorded from the locus consisted of utilitarian ware (three bowls, one cooking pot, two storage jars, and a pottery basin) and thus are not clearly suggestive of cultic activities.â•›150 Some figurines were found in pairs or larger groups, although any broader contexts were indiscernible.â•›151 A pair of “peg-figurines,” both of which were most likely male, were found in a domestic unit (Locus 2066), but no pottery was associated with them (fig. 3.36).â•›152 Another male figurine came from a small room in the Level II house 149.╇ Kletter 2004: 2058, fig. 28.36,2. 150.╇ Zimhoni 2004: 1879. 151.╇ Kletter 2004: 2079. 152.╇ Kletter 2004: fig. 28.36, 3–4.; Ussishkin 2004: 664.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

117

Fig. 3.36.╇ Lachish Level III: Pair of peg figurines from Locus 2066.

(Locus 4150) near the gate (fig. 3.37), together with three bowls, one cooking pot, and two store jars.â•›153 The excavators considered the building to have been used primarily for the storage and distribution of wine, mainly because of an installation with a channel. One fragment of a male figure was distinctly different from and much more elaborate than common heads of horse-and-rider figurines. As discussed below, these figurines and the male head may have served ritual functions in the worship of ancestors. Some of the most interesting finds were unearthed in Area S, Level III, the so-called lower house, which consisted of 2 wings and 10 rooms or courtyards (fig. 3.38a).â•›154 Room 3569 yielded a fenestrated stand (category A), 19 worked sheep astragali (category B), 3 bowls, 1 krater, 4 cooking pots, 1 juglet, 1 amphoriskos, 1 flask, and 2 storage jars (fig. 3.38b).â•›155 Room 3573 in the northeast yielded a small altar, a fragment of a zoomorphic figurine (category A), 29 astragali (category B)—which appeared to the excavators to have been kept in a bowl—2 bowls, 2 cooking pots, 1 black juglet, 1 jug, 1 lamp, 4 storage jars, 1 hole-mouth jar, a basalt bowl, and several millstones (fig. 3.39).â•›156 The assemblage 153.╇ Kletter 2004: 2058, fig. 28.36:2; Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.52:9–15. 154.╇ Ussishkin 2004: fig. 9.32. 155.╇ Zimhoni 2004: Pottery, 1860–63, figs. 26.37:9–12, 26.38. 156.╇ Zimhoni 2004: fig.  26.39:6–17; Ussishkin 2004: 478–79; Kletter 2004: fig.  28.40:4; Sass 2004: 2033, fig. 28.21:1.

118

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.37.╇ Male figurine and fragment and pottery from Locus 4150.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

119

Fig. 3.38a (above).╇ Lachish, Area S, the Level III lower house. Fig. 3.38b (left and below). Stand and pottery assemblage from Locus 3569.

120

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.39.╇ Lachish: Altar, figurine fragment, and pottery from the lower house, Locus 3573.

Fig. 3.40.╇ Lachish: Animal Figurine and pottery from the lower house, Locus 3533.

of Room 3582 consisted of 2 fragments of zoomorphic figurines, 1 bowl, 1 krater, 4 cooking pots, 1 black juglet, 1 hole-mouth jar, 7 storage jars, 1 basalt bowl, millstones, and other working stones.â•›157 Several more astragali were found in Room 3529, together with an assemblage of material related to the preparation and consumption of food, and some metal tools.â•›158 The small Locus 3533 in the south of the house contained a tabun and formed the kitchen facilities together with another small room that contained another tabun (Room 3609). The body of a zoomorphic figurine was found here, together with 1 bowl, 1 krater, 1 cooking pot, and 1 jug (fig. 3.40).â•›159 Rooms 3543 and 3561 both yielded a wheel from a model chariot together with assemblages and tools related to the preparation and consumption of food.â•›160 The assemblages from the “lower house” rooms (3569, 3573, 3582 and 3533), in containing category A and B objects together with common domestic 157.╇See Ussishkin 2004: 481–82. The report does not provide illustrations of the figurine fragments and the complete pottery assemblage. 158.╇See Ussishkin 2004: 470. 159.╇ Ussishkin 2004: 471; Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.35: 1–4; Kletter 2004: fig. 28.39:3. 160.╇ Ussishkin 2004: 471–72, 474–75; Sass 2004: fig. 28.21: 4–5.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

121

Fig. 3.41.╇ Lachish, Level III (?): JPF head and pottery from Locus G 14: 1008.

pottery, reveal again an association between ritual practices and the preparation and consumption of food. The ritual practices suggested in these cases are the offering of dry food or libations, along with the burning of incense, and the astragali indicate the possibility of gaming or the casting of lots.

122

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.42.╇ Lachish, Level III: JPF head and pottery from Locus H 17: 1078.

Scant evidence was extracted from the domestic units adjoining the street that led to the gate and the rooms south of the palace. Artifacts described by Tufnell from Locus K14/15:1033, east of the citadel, included the severely damaged head of a male figurineâ•›161 but gave no clear suggestion of the function or purpose of this location. Locus G14: 1008 (Level III), a part of a building south of the palace that consisted of rooms numbered 1001, 1005, 1006, and 1008, yielded a JPF head (category A), an imitation cowry shell of faience (category B), and an assemblage of utilitarian pottery (ten bowls, three jugs, one cooking pot, one pilgrim flask, two jars, and three storage jars (fig. 3.41).â•›162 The presence of an oven and the character of the pottery assemblage confirm that the room must have been used as kitchen. Another JPF head was found in Room H17: 1078 (Level III), which belonged to one of the domestic buildings north of the road (1087) that proceeds out from the gate. The pottery consisted of a lamp, a pot stand, a juglet, a small jug, a cooking pot, a bowl, and four storage jars (fig. 3.42).â•›163 161.╇ Tufnell 1953: 112–13; pl. 31.16. 162.╇Cf. Tufnell 1953: 109; pl. 31.10; fig. 3.40 compiled by Schmitt after Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.6; 79–104; 114. 163.╇See Tufnell 1953: 122; fig. 3.41 compiled by Schmitt after Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.10; 79–104; 115.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

123

Fig. 3.43.╇ Lachish, Room 49, with objects in situ.

The evidence from these Iron IIC (Level III) buildings at Lachish affirms that cultic objects were used in areas otherwise devoted to the processing and consumption of food.

3.3.19.2.╇ Room 49: A village shrine The supposed cultic place in Room 49, Stratum V, which was dated to the second half of the 10th century b.c.e. (Y. Aharoni 1975: 14), was most likely a village shrine. This structure was a broad room that measured 2.3 × 3.3 m with a bench that encircled the inner walls. The western corner of the bench was raised to a small platform, which has been interpreted as a bamāh (Y. Aharoni 1975: 26). The assemblage consisted of a horned limestone altar, 4 stands (2 of which were fenestrated), 2 pointed bowls (category A) that were set on the stands, 8 chalices, 3 lamps (category B), 8 jugs, 2 storage jars, 2 juglets, 14 bowls, 3 cooking pots, 2 fragmentary clay basins, a fragmentary clay oven,â•›164 and a dressed basalt slab that was interpreted as a maṣṣebāh.â•›165 However, the slab was most likely a stone of some architectural function, since there was no installation in the room that could have accommodated a maṣṣebāh. The distribution of the objects (as shown in fig. 3.43) clearly reveals a cultic focus oriented toward the western corner.â•›166 The integration of Room 49 in relation to the plan of the greater area remains uncertain because of erosion and the limited excavation area. Nevertheless, within the vicinity of Room 49, Locus 111 revealed a raised terrace that has been interpreted as bamāh. A large limestone was found in Locus 81 together with remnants of a burned tree trunk.â•›167 Two favissae (Pits 136 and 135) contained at least four stones likely to have been maṣṣebôt, a stone slab with a cup-like depression (in Pit 136), and pottery and other objects that may have served cultic purposes (including the head of a figurine, two fragments of animal figurines, five game pieces, a carnelian bead, and a red-burnished jug from Pit 135).â•›168 The purportedly sacred area 164.╇Y. Aharoni 1975: 107–8; pls. 41–43. 165.╇ Aharoni 1975: 26. 166.╇ Aharoni 1975: fig. 6. 167.╇ Aharoni 1975: 26–30; pl. 3. 168.╇Y. Aharoni 1975: pls. 33.3 and 9; 15.8, 9, 11–13; 16.15.

124

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.44.╇ Lachish, Stratum V: Cult Room 49: bamāh and maṣṣebah in situ.

where the maṣṣebāh was found is shown in fig. 3.44.â•›169 The entire complex has therefore been interpreted as a cultic place that consisted of a shrine and bamāh, maṣṣebôt, and an ašerāh-pile,â•›170 even though the relation of the shrine to the maṣṣebôt remains unclear. The spatial arrangement of the pottery and other objects in Room 49 appears to be quite significant. The four stands were placed in a rectangular arrangement, with the altar in a central position in front of the lower part of the bench. Three of the chalices were positioned on this lower bench, while two of the juglets were placed on the raised platform in the west corner. Two jugs, three bowls, and three chalices were placed on the west bench. Cultic activities must therefore have been focused on the depression in the hillside and on the objects that were placed there.â•›171 The entire assemblage of Locus 49 may have served a variety of ritual purposes. The limestone altar and the bowls on stands that show traces of 169.╇ Compiled after Aharoni 1975: pls. 3.1 and 60. 170.╇ Aharoni 1975: 26–32. 171.╇See Zevit 2001: 216–17. Although Zevit’s reading of meaning into the arrangement of objects is insightful, there seems to be little evidence for his suggestion that the partitioning of the assemblage into three distinct groups reflects a cult of three deities.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

125

burning were probably used for burnt offerings or the burning of incense, while the large majority of the vessels were most likely used for the consumption of food and drinks. The last ritual action that took place in the shrine of Room 49 must have focused on either the consumption of a drink or the ritual offering thereof, as indicated by the chalices in the depression and the juglets that were found on the platform. The presence of an oven, cooking pots, and storage jars also indicates that meals were prepared in the cult room proper. As Zevit rightly notes (2001: 215–16), the small size and crowded character of the facility indicate that ritual actions could not have been conducted with any large number of people present. His estimate of two or three people, however, is probably a bit low, because the objects were concentrated in the west, which left enough space in the eastern part of the structure for up to ten people to sit close together on the benches. Thus, the cult place may certainly have been a small village shrine, which may also have served for the occasional offering of burnt material or libations associated with ritual meals. The entire assemblage reflects many aspects of Megiddo Locus 2081, in terms of both content and arrangement; a cultic focus is also indicated by the large altar flanked by the smaller altar, censer-jug, and stand. As at Lachish, the last ritual action there involved juglets and a chalice.â•›172

3.3.20.╇ Tel Masos (Ḥirbet el-Mušāš), map reference 146.069 Tel Masos is located on a hillside of the Beersheba valley, about 12 km east of Beersheba. The site was excavated by a joint Israeli/German team led by Y. Aharoni, Fritz, and Kempinski from 1972 to 1975 (Fritz and Kempinski 1983). The most important feature of Tel Masos is the early Iron Age settlement found in Stratum III–II. While the finds from most of the Iron Age I houses were scant, House 314 of Stratum II yielded some interesting and unusually rich assemblages of pottery and objects of categories A and B. House 314 measured about 17 × 10.8 m, with rooms (numbered 305, 311, 307, 304, 306, 302, 331, and 343) positioned around the central Courtyard 314. A pillared building consisting of three rooms (numbered 352, 350, and 360) directly abutted its eastern wall (fig. 3.45).â•›173 A rich assemblage of items relating to the preparation and consumption of food was found in Room 343 and consisted of a pot stand fragment, nine bowls, seven kraters, three chalices, ten cooking jugs, two cooking pots, eight jugs, one strainer jug, six juglets, nine storage jars, four hole-mouth jars, one amphoriskos, five pyxides, three lamps, one pilgrim flask, and a fragment of an Egyptian “flower pot,” as well as several loom weights and working stones (fig. 3.46).â•›174 The room was partly paved in the north and also contained two ovens. Room 307 contained a brick platform in the southeast corner measuring 0.4 × 0.2 m, and an open fireplace. The pottery consisted of a decorated bowl, three other bowls, three cooking pots, three jugs, four juglets, two pyxides, a lamp, a krater, a pithos, and a storage jar.â•›175 The most striking find was a group of worked and unworked stones of unusual shape (category B), among which was a small stone triangle, a stone resembling 172.╇ See below, pp. 134–137. 173.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 14. 174.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41–42; pl. 38A; 150–52. 175.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 142–43.

126

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.45.╇ Tel Masos, Area G, Stratum II: Plan of House 314.

a crouching animal (category A; similar to a larger lion from Tell Beit Mirsim),â•›176 and four unworked stones that resembled human or animal forms.â•›177 The entire assemblage is shown in fig. 3.47. Adjacent Room 311 yielded an assemblage of 6 bowls, 2 cooking pots, 6 jugs (3 of which were of imported Phoenician bichrome ware), 2 flasks (1 of which was bichrome), and fragments of about 14 storage jars.â•›178 Courtyard Room 314 yielded 2 bowls, 5 kraters, 5 jugs, a juglet, and 4 storage jars.â•›179 Important objects were also found in the northern Room 331, including a hollow lion’s head made of ivory, which was most likely the spout of a vessel of composite material, a simple stand, double-tipped standing or libation bowls 176.╇See Albright 1938: pl. 23. 177.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 106 A–D; 171.7–8. 178.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41, pls. 144–46. 179.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 147–48.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

127

Fig. 3.46.╇ Tel Masos: Pottery assemblage from Room 343.

(category A), 3 lamps, a jug, a pithos, a jar, a fragment of a bichrome vessel, and some pieces of copper (fig. 3.48).â•›180 Room 304 was predominantly a storage room and contained fragments of more than 30 storage jars. Among other finds in this room were an unusually shaped bowl, a bowl, and 3 jugs.â•›181 Room 306 in the northern corner yielded a juglet, an amphoriskos, and a storage jar.â•›182 180.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 149; 170.1. 181.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41, pls. 141.1–5. 182.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41, pls. 141.6, 7, 9.

128

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.47.╇ Tel Masos, House 314: Pottery assemblage and “collectibles“ from Room 307.

The presence of pottery and other usual and unusual objects of probable cultic use led Kempinski to suggest that House 314 must have served some cultic purposes (1993: 987; see also Willett 1999: 109). Room 307 in particular was interpreted as having been some kind of cult room, even though Fritz (Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 40–41) interpreted the stones and associated structures from Room 307 to reflect, more likely, use as a workshop. However, the pottery assemblage of this room consisted predominantly of items associated with the preparation and consumption of food, with some of the vessels being imported and therefore of a luxury character. Moreover, no items were found in this room that could have been produced there. The stone objects considered as a single group reveal no clear utilitarian purpose, and it is unlikely that these objects were used as objects of worship or other fetishistic purposes. They were more likely used as votive or ritual objects. However, the open hearth and the platform both admit the possibility that the room was used for food preparation as well as cultic activities. Although the unusual stone collection considered together with the installations and the pottery assemblage support the conjecture of some kind of cultic cell, the question whether the room served primarily in the preparation and consumption of food or whether it served cultic purposes must remain unresolved. The mixed assemblage of storage vessels from Room 331, including the lion-spout, the stand, and incense burners (or stand bowls), raises the possibility that these were cultic objects that were stored there when not in actual use. The overall size and the rich contents of House 314 are exceptional for an early or proto-Israelite settlement, and it may be assumed that this structure with the attached Building 350 served a joint family of some social importance and wealth. Thus we theorize that House 314 was the residence of a local chief, who used a small room as a shrine for a variety of cultic purposes for his family. Room 343 contained an oven and an assemblage of items related to the preparation and consumption of food and drink and could have been used to prepare ritual meals that

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

129

Fig. 3.48.╇ Tel Masos, House 314. Pottery assemblage and ivory lion’s head from Room 331.

were served in the house of the chief. House 314 is thus one of the most important finds in the present quest. Iron Age II structures were discovered on a small mound about 200  m east of the Iron I settlement (Area G). The Iron II structures had four subphases (1–4), all of which have been dated to the end of the 7th century. The Area G buildings most likely suffered destruction at times from Edomite raids near the end of the Judean Kingdom (Kempinski 1993: 989). A uniform row of chambers was unearthed in this location, which ran along a paved street. The doors of the dwellings were supposed to have been in the northern corner of each chamber. Because only a small section was excavated to ascertain the history of the settlement, the larger layout and the other characteristics of the structures remain unclear. Several ovens and items of domestic pottery were found, indicating that the rooms were used as dwellings. Kempinski (1993: 989) considered the rooms to have been part of a fortress, while Rösel (in Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 127) suspected that they served some kind of semi-public function. The chambers could also be another example of military accommodation. Despite this and the limited area excavated, the chambers yielded firm evidence of domestic cult activities. Room 609 (Phase 2) is located in the northwest of Street 726 and was only partly excavated. It contained the torso of an animal figurine (category A), a bowl, a krater, a juglet, a

130

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.49.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine and pottery from Locus 609.

jug, and a store jar (fig. 3.49).â•›183 Room 708 (Phase 2) contained a pottery assemblage consisting of a bowl, four cooking pots, two juglets, a storage jar, and two lamps, as well as a JPF base (fig. 3.50).â•›184 Room 758 (Phase 2) is located on the street to the west, only a small portion of which was excavated. It contained a model chair and a cup (fig. 3.51).â•›185 Room 718 (Phase 3) was part of a structure consisting of at least two rooms and contained a zoÂ� omorphic spout, the torso of an animal figurine, two bowls, and a flask (fig. 3.52).â•›186 Some additional material, including animal and JPF fragments, was found on Streets 768 and 778 and likely came from objects that were used in the adjacent dwellings. The evidence from these Iron Age IIC dwellings, whether they served civil or military purposes, reveals once more that cultic activities in Iron Age IIC were associated with common items of domestic pottery and installations for the preparation and consumption of food. In ac183.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 22, pls. 111.3; 163.3; 164.2; 165.22; 166.1; 166.14. 184.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 22, pls. 111.5; 163.14; 165.6–9, 20–21; 166.1, 3, 15, 16. 185.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 22; pls. 172.13; 164.11. 186.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: Plan 23; pls. 111.2 and 4; 163.12; 166.3.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.50.╇ Tel Masos: Figurine base and pottery from Room 708.

131

132

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.51.╇ Tel Masos: Model Chair and cup from Room 758.

cordance with other Iron IIC sites, the ritual actions in the dwellings seem to have been predominantly votive practices associated with figurines and model furniture.

3.3.21.╇ Tell Michal (Tell Makmiš), map reference 131.174 Tell Michal, located on the shores of the Mediterranean 12.5 km north of Jaffa, was a small site in Iron Age IIA, with an economy based on trading and viniculture (Herzog

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

133

Fig. 3.52.╇ Tel Masos: Animal figurine, zoomorphic spout, and pottery from Room 718.

et  al. 1988: 8; Herzog 1994: 1041). A small building (Locus 300) was excavated on the small northeastern hill of the site that featured buttressed walls and a broad entrance measuring 1.5 m across. These unusual architectural features along with the presence in the building of a flat platform between 1.6 and 1.7 m wide and a ceramic assemblage of three goblets led the excavators to the conclusion that the building served as a small sanctuary (fig. 3.53).â•›187 Goblets of possible cultic use have also been found in Megiddo, Beth-shean, and Tell Qasile (Mazar 1985: 51), among other places. Several pits at Tell Michal, which were possibly used as favissae for a sanctuary, yielded chalices, bowls, jugs, juglets, and other material.â•›188 Because this Iron Age settlement participated in wine production, it seems highly plausible that the sanctuary served the vinicultural community. A 10thcentury structure was found 400  m northeast of Tell Michal. It measured 10  m across, contained a simple stone platform that was covered with ash, bones, and potsherds, and was interpreted as having been an open-air cultic place (Avigad 1993: 932–33; Zwickel 1994: 265–66). The connection between these seemingly contemporary cultic places remains unclear, however. Zwickel (1994: 266) assumed that the installation on the small northeastern hill served for cooking the zebaḥ at some distance from the sanctuary itself, although this interpretation remains tentative. 187.╇ Herzog et al. 1988: 69–70, figs. 5.5; 7.5, 15–17. 188.╇ Herzog et al. 1988: 69, 86 with fig. 7.5.

134

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.53.╇ Tell Michal, Stratum XIV–XIII: Sanctuary with findspots of pottery.

3.3.22.╇ Megiddo and Tell el-Mutesellim, map reference 167.221 Although the assemblages at Megiddo in Stratum VA–IVB, Locus 2081—the so-called shrine Room 340 of Building 338 and the Stratum VA Building 10—have been the subject of much discussion, the early excavations leave many stratigraphic problems unresolved, and these structures and assemblages are not discussed further here.â•›189

3.3.22.1.╇ The cult corner of Locus 2081 The so-called cult corner of Locus 2081 (Stratum VA–IVB) was excavated in 1936 by the Oriental Institute Excavations (see Loud 1948: 45–46). It formed a small chamber of 1.25 × 2.5 m that had indirect access from the northwestern corner of Locus 2081, which itself was a rectangular structure of approximately 5 × 9 m (figs. 3.54–55).â•›190 Besides the well-documented stratigraphic problems, the layout of the building is also unclear. The cult corner was most likely part of a larger domestic unit, as depicted in Loud’s reconstruction in fig. 3.55. Although the two stones that stood at the entrance to the central room have been interpreted as maṣṣebôt (Loud 1948: 45 with fig. 103; Ussishkin 1989: 167), they more likely served architectural purposes as pillars (Negbi 1993: 222; Bloch-Smith 2005: 34–35). The assemblage of Room 2081 consisted of 2 limestone altars, 3 stands (category A), 2 chalices, 1 lamp (category B), 25 bowls, 28 jugs (some of which were Cypro-Phoenician), 7 jars, 2 basalt vessels, and several other small finds that can be assigned to diagnostic cate189.╇See Finkelstein et  al. 2000a: 595–602. For discussion, also see Finkelstein 1996; 2000b; 2005. A summary of the discussion is given by Schmitt 2004. 190.╇ Loud 1948: figs. 100–101.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

135

Fig. 3.54.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Cult corner proper with objects in situ.

gory B (astragali in a bowl, 6 game pieces, 6 stamp seals, 2 amulets, several beads, pendants, and metal objects).â•›191 The actual cult corner of this room yielded 2 horned altars, 3 stands (2 of which were solid and 1 fenestrated), a perforated large round jar that was probably a large censer (Zwickel 1990: 37; 1994: 2809), a jar that blocked the mouth of the latter, 2 juglets, 2 chalices, a bowl, a limestone slab, a mortar, a rubbing stone, and an axhead, as well as astragali found in a bowl. In front of the larger altar was a mound of burned grain. The 2 juglets were found lying on top of the larger altar near the southern wall, and one of the stands was lying on a platform adjacent to the northern wall. The spatial relationships of these finds are shown in fig. 3.54.â•›192 One part of the pottery assemblage had blocked the entrance to the cult corner, as depicted in Zevit’s reconstruction in fig. 3.56.â•›193 Aside from the offering of grain on the altar, the character of the assemblage suggests the consumption of food and drink, as well as gaming or the casting of lots for mantic purposes. A cultic focus is indicated by the large altar flanked by the smaller altar, along with the censer-jug and stand oriented toward the south wall. As in Lachish Room 49, the last ritual action seems to have involved juglets and a chalice,â•›194 along with a burnt offering. The character of this building has been the subject of much dispute. Loud (1948: 45– 46) himself admitted some cultic significance, and many others (such as Ussishkin 1989: 172; Shiloh 1993: 1023) share the opinion that Locus 2081 must have been some kind of temple or palace shrine. Kempinski (1989: 186) concludes by comparisons with domestic 191.╇ Loud 1948: 161–62. 192.╇After Loud 1948: fig. 101. 193.╇ Zevit 2001: fig. 3.55. 194.╇ See below, pp. 123–125.

136

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.55.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081 with adjacent structures.

architecture that the building was a variant of the four-room house and was therefore most likely the residence of an official. He further states that the assemblage points to the nomadic origin of the Israelites, in that, “originally coming from small family or clangroups, their cult installations were usually connected to the household of some well-todo persons in the clan of the family.” H. Weippert (1988: 433) similarly considered Locus 2081 to have been a place of domestic cult activities. Holladay (1997: 253) interpreted the structure as a shrine that was contained in a “semipublic space probably involved with the residence of an important government official.” Zwickel (1994: 280; and following him, Herr 2000a: 8) presumed the corner to have been nothing more than a storeroom for items associated with cultic activities that were themselves conducted in the courtyard. In fact, as Zevit (2001: 225–26; and see also Lamon and Shipton 1939: 24) notes, a possible fragment of a large, horned altar was discovered not far from the actual building of Locus 2081, suggesting that sacrifices were possibly performed in the area, although the

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

137

Fig. 3.56.╇ Megiddo, Locus 2081: Pottery assemblage as reconstructed by Zevit (2000: fig.€3.55).

association may be coincidental, and the find is of unclear date. Herzog (1997: 212) considered the storeroom more likely to have served a sanctuary near the gate outside the city. Whether Room 2081 served largely private or public purposes, there can be little doubt about the cultic significance of the assemblage. Considering, however, that the building was located in a northern section west of the gate (Area AA), with most other buildings in the vicinity forming a domestic area, there is no reason to assume a public function (Negbi 1993: 222). The building was most likely the dwelling of a wealthy person or family (Kempinski 1989: 187), where occasional ritual meals, drinking, gaming, and offerings of grain occurred. The presence of the horned altars may simply reflect the wealthy status of the owner rather than the performance of cultic activities as a part of official religious practices, as posited by Holladay (1987: 252–53).

3.3.22.2.╇ The “Palace Shrine” of Locus 340 Cult Room 340 in Building 338 (Stratum IVA) originally, which was first excavated by Schumacher and later by an American team, presents even greater problems than Locus 2081 in terms of its stratigraphy and contents. The structure was thoroughly reevaluated by Ussishkin (Ussishkin 1989: 149–58; 1993), who incorporated data from both the German and the American excavations. Room 340 was part of a structure resembling a type of bit-hilani palace; it measured 9.15 × 4 m and was oriented approximately toward the north

138

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.57.╇ Megiddo, Palace 338: General plan.

(fig. 3.57).â•›195 This room contained a number of permanent installations, all aligned in a row in the center of the room. These installations comprised two large monolithic stelae, between which were a bench with two pillars and an offering table, and two additional pillars in the southernmost and northernmost positions. Underneath the offering table were two stone slabs (one with a round depression) surrounded by ashes (fig. 3.58).â•›196 Cultic activities were focused toward the east. Objects found here are illustrated in fig. 3.59 and included a schematic anthropomorphic object (an “idol”) that was found on top of the southern pillar; several juglets, including two black ones, found on the bench between the stelae; one strainer jug found in the debris; a cooking pot; a bowl; a cup and saucer; a tripod basalt bowl; and parts of a terra-cotta model shrine (interpreted by Schumacher 1908: T 39 as a pottery basin).â•›197 Adjacent Room 332 to the north yielded a round limestone stand or altar, two pottery stands, a fragmented model shrine, one or two basalt mortars, a bowl, a spouted jug, a flask, and several small juglets. In what has been assumed to have been the forecourt were found two bowls, one large bowl, and a strainer jug.â•›198 Two stands were found in Room 331.â•›199 The assemblage of pottery and ritual artifacts 195.╇ Ussishkin 1989: fig. 4. 196.╇ Ussishkin 1989: fig. 5. See Schumacher 1908: T. 36. 197.╇ Compiled after Schumacher 1908: 121–22; T. 37–39. 198.╇ Ussishkin 1989: 163–66 with fig. 7. 199.╇ May 1935: pp. xix, 2802, 2803.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

139

Fig. 3.58.╇ Megiddo, Locus 340.

thus closely resembles the assemblage of Locus 2081, and the entire structure has therefore been interpreted as a fortress-temple or a shrine inside a palace or official building (Schumacher 1908: 110–14; May 1935: 8; Kempinski 1989: 187; Ussishkin 1989; 1993; Zevit 2001: 227–31.) One problem in discerning the function of this building, however, is the interpretation of the stelae as maṣṣebôt.â•›200 At an early stage, Watzinger (1929: 72–73) questioned the cultic nature of the building, presuming it to have been a dwelling, with the stelae serving as pillars, the stone with depression as a mortar, and Room 340 thus to have been a 200.╇ Schumacher 1908: 111; May 1935: 4–56; Ussishkin 1989; 1993 passim.

140

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.59.╇ Megiddo: Content of Room 340.

kitchen. Following him, Stern (1990: 102–7), Zwickel (1994: 255–56), Bloch-Smith (2005: 36), and others challenged Ussishkin’s interpretation with similar arguments. However, even if the stelae were merely supporting pillars for the roof, the permanent installations and particularly the altar-like structure of Room 340 and the presence in other rooms of diagnostic objects of categories A and B (such as altars, the stand, and the pottery shrine) support the theory of regular, ongoing cultic use of at least Room 340, with ritual objects for occasional use stored in the other rooms. The traditional interpretation of this room as a palace shrine therefore remains highly plausible.

3.3.22.3.╇ Buildings 10 and A1 Building 10, Stratum V, was located about 20 m south of the later Building 338. The structure seems to have been some kind of storage building. Adjacent building 1A appears to have been a smaller form of the tripartite, pillared buildings that are widely interpreted as having been storerooms (H. Weippert 1988: 542–43; Herzog 1992: 225–26), although it was not a domestic unit. In contrast, however, Negbi (1993: 225) considered the building to have been a residential unit. Three small altars were found in its vicinity (in squares R12 and Q13) as well as a pottery shrine.â•›201 From inside the building were taken two plaquefigurines, a fragment of a solid figurine, a zoomorphic vessel, and a vessel with an animallike body and spout. However, these objects lacked distinct stratigraphic contexts. There is no evidence that any of these objects originally belonged with Shrine 340 or with any 201.╇ May 1935: pls. 12–15; Lamon and Shipton 1939: 55, 57–58.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

141

other sanctuary in the vicinity;â•›202 nor did it belong to domestic unit A1, as was proposed by Negbi (1993: 225). Furthermore, Building 10 could not have formed a “sacred area” together with Building 338, because these building were not contemporary.â•›203

3.3.22.4.╇ Domestic cult assemblages 3.3.22.4.1.╇ The early Iron Age domestic quarters Some early Iron Age (IB) data that were presented with little detail by Loud (1948) have subsequently been reevaluated by Harrison (2004). Harrison’s edition aids the reconstruction of several assemblages from the domestic areas of Stratum VI (Iron I), particularly those from Area CC, which contained rich finds of pottery and other objects. The renewed excavations led by Finkelstein and Ussishkin (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006) have uncovered additional important evidence from Stratum VI. Courtyard House 00/K/10, Level K (VIA) was undoubtedly the most important find from this period (see Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: 87–103, 191–298, 583– 600). The building was completely excavated during the renewed excavations, revealing large amounts of pottery and objects found in situ, aiding in the discernment of areas in the house that corresponded to different activities. The spatial distribution of the ritual objects is shown in fig. 3.60.â•›204 The most important finds for the present purposes were a fenestrated cult stand, two chalices, and fragments of figurines in categories A and B found together with large numbers of storage vessels in Storeroom 98/K/77. The objects were not actually in use at the time; they were in storage when the house was destroyed by fire. Five more zoomorphic figurines and zoomorphic vessel fragments were found in Room 008/87—a kitchen with a hearth and tabun—that also included other food-processing utensils; in Rooms 98/46, which were used for grinding and the consumption of food; in Room 00/45, which was used for consuming food, spinning, grinding, and for storage; and in Room 00/05. Several flat stones of up to 22 cm high were considered by the excavators possibly to have been stelae (see Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Halpern 2006: 410), but they were more likely to have been tools or working stones some kind, because stelae are not associated with domestic cult patterns of Iron Age I and have never been observed in other contemporary houses at Megiddo. According to the excavators, “There was no single location dedicated to home-cult. Rather, cult was integrated spatially and probably also spiritually with other daily activities.”â•›205 Area AA, Locus 2159 was a Stratum VIB structure that was the predecessor of the VIA palatial Building 2072. Although difficult to reconstruct from the excavated remains, the Stratum VIA building seems to have been a courtyard house, with Room 2159 being adjacent to the courtyard (Harrison 2004: 15–16). The structure was clearly of a domestic character, containing installations for the storage and preparation of food. It contained a 202.╇Against Holladay (1987: 253), who proposes a sanctuary in the vicinity that may have been destroyed by Schumacher’s excavation; and Ussishkin (1989: 167), who assumes that the altars were removed from Building 338. 203.╇See May 1935: 4 and pl. 1; Negbi 1993: 225. 204.╇ Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: fig. 33.5. 205.╇Gadot and Yasur-Landau in Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: 591; see also pp. 246–47.

142

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.60.╇ Distribution of ritual objects from Megiddo courtyard House 00/K/10.

terra-cotta shrine (category A),â•›206 a chalice (category B), a pyxis, nine bowls, a jug, a jar, two ovoid jars, a pilgrim flask, three lentoid flasks, a cup-mouthed lentoid flask, a cylindrical bottle, a spouted amphoriskos, and a double pyxis. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.61.â•›207 The model shrine suggests the domestic veneration of a deity. A domestic quarter in the north of area CC included Loci 1727, 1729, 1732, 1770, 1737, and 1743, and produced some rich assemblages as follows: Area CC, Locus 1727 contained the head of a female figurine (category A), 3 chalices, 1 lamp (category B), 2 pilgrim flasks, 2 flasks, a pyxis, 2 bowls, 2 cooking pots, 13 jugs, and 12 jars. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.62.â•›208 Area CC, Locus 1729 contained a stand (category A), a goblet, two lamps (category B), a basalt bowl, a pyxis, four pilgrim-flasks, three jugs, a juglet, a bowl, two lamps, two strainer cups, a baking tray, and ten jars. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.63.â•›209 206.╇ May 1935: pl. 15; Harrison 2004: pl. 21.4. 207.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 166. All illustrations in this section appear courtesy of The Oriental Institute, Chicago. 208.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 149. 209.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 149.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.61.╇ Megiddo, Sratum VI, Area AA: Pottery shrine and selected pottery from eastern quadrant of Locus 2159.

143

144

Chapter 3 Fig. 3.62.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery from Locus 1727.

Both of these loci probably belonged to a domestic unit, with ovens, a pit, and a rectangular basin or bathtub being typical installations in Iron I households in Megiddo. Locus 1727 may have been a kitchen, and Locus 1729 a storeroom accessible from the kitchen. Area CC, Locus 1732 was a small, square room that was most likely used for storage purposes. Along with Locus 1770, it belonged to a building that adjoined the domestic structure formed by Loci 1727 and 1729. It contained a zoomorphic vessel, a kernos fragment, a small bronze calf (most likely an amulet of category A), 3 chalices, a goblet (category B), an amphoriskos, 3 jugs, 2 juglets, 4 lamps, a flask, 2 cooking pots, a bowl, 14 jars, and a basalt vessel. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.64.â•›210 Area CC, Locus 1737 appears to have been an unbuilt area or courtyard associated with the structure formed by Loci 1727, 1729, 1732, and 1743. A charred tree was found in this locusâ•›211 along with the spout of a zoomorphic vessel, a strainer jar, a juglet, and three 210.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See Loud 1948: 149. 211.╇ Harrison 2004: fig. 72.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

145

Fig. 3.63.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand associated with Locus 1729 and selected pottery from Locus 1729.

jugs. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.65.â•›212 Area CC, Locus 1731 enclosed a courtyard, along with Loci 1735, 1736, 1740, 1744, and 1780, which together formed a substantial courtyard house (see Harrison 2004: 18). A small section of wall separated this locus from an oven. It is therefore likely that Locus 1731 was part of a kitchen or its storeroom. It contained a stand (category A), a bowl, a

212.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; figure compiled after 2004: appendix D. See Loud 1948: 150.

146

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.64.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Objects and selected pottery from assemblage of Room 1732.

flask, two jars, and a jug that was found in the east corner of the locus. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.66.â•›213 Area CC, Locus 1735 was a small room that either included or was situated near an oven. It contained a stand (category A), two chalices (category B), a basalt bowl, a spouted amphoriskos, a painted jug, two jugs, four pilgrim flasks, a juglet, and five jars. A sample 213.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 149.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

147

Fig. 3.65.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Zoomorphic spout and pottery from Locus 1737.

of these is shown in fig. 3.67.â•›214 Area CC, Locus 1736 contained the fragment of a Kernos ring (category A),â•›215 a painted pyxis, 3 painted jugs, 3 lentoid flasks, 3 jugs, 5 kraters, 2 bowls, a spouted amphoriskos, a strainer jug, a lamp, a baking tray, and 11 jars. A sample if these is shown in fig. 3.68.â•›216 Area CC, Locus 1740 contained a fish-shaped bowl that was probably the top section of a stand (category A),â•›217 a pair of cymbals, three goblets (category B), a Phoeni214.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 150. 215.╇ Harrison 2004: 160: P6217. No drawing available. 216.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 150. 217.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 22.6.

148

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.66.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand with figurative appliques from Locus 1731.

cian strainer jug, a strainer cup, four jugs, four bowls, six flasks, and two cooking pots. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.69.â•›218 Area CC, Locus 1744 was a small room containing the base of a stand (category A),â•›219 a chalice (category B), a painted jug, a strainer jug, a pilgrim flask, a funnel or strainer, four cooking pots, a bowl, and five jars. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.70.â•›220 Area CC, Locus 1780 contained the fragment of a female figurine,â•›221 a cup-mouthed lentoid flask, a krater, a cooking pot, a jug, and six jars.â•›222 Area CC, Locus 1741 was a part of a stone pavement that may have belonged to a courtyard house to the northeast of the unit formed by Loci 1731, 1735, 1740, 1744, and 1780. It contained the foot of an animal figurine carved from bone, three Egyptian faience amulets (two of which were ptah-sokar, and the other undetermined), a goblet, a basalt bowl, a painted jug, a strainer jug, two jugs, two cup-mouthed lentoid flasks, a pyxis, a lamp, three bowls, and two jugs. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.71.â•›223 Area CC, Locus 1752 was a room that may have belonged to the same building as Locus 1741. It contained a stand,â•›224 a goblet, four cooking pots, a jug, a lentoid flask, two 218.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 150–51. 219.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 22.3. 220.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C; fig. compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 151. 221.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 26.9. 222.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. 223.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. Compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 150. 224.╇ Harrison 2004: pl. 14.4 = 22.4.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

149

Fig. 3.67.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery from Locus 1735. Photograph of Locus 1735.

150

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.68.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Selected pottery and photography from Locus 1736.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

151

Fig. 3.69.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Top of stand with selected pottery and cymbals from Locus 1740.

lamps, two jars, a cup and saucer, and two scaraboid seals. A sample of these is shown in fig. 3.72.â•›225 The goblet, one of the jugs, and the cup and saucer were found in the eastern area (E=1752). 225.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. Compiled after 2004: appendix D. See also Loud 1948: 152.

152

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.70.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Stand and selected pottery from Locus 1744.

Area CC, Locus 1750 was a largely undefined area with trees and loom weights. It contained a kernos ring, a jar, a faience amulet, and an ivory animal foot.â•›226 The material from this locus was most likely rubbish that was disposed of deliberately. Area CC, Locus 1760 was a stone floor that belonged to another courtyard house in the southwest of Area CC. The presence of two ovens indicates that the assemblage belonged to a kitchen. Its contents included the torso of female figurine (category A),â•›227 a chalice, two Phoenician bichrome flasks, a bowl, three jars, two spouted amphoriskoi, and two 226.╇ Loud 1948: 151; pl. 243.20. See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C, pp. 62–96. 227.╇ Harrison 2004: fig. 25.6.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

153

Fig. 3.71.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Amulets, bone figurine fragment, and selected pottery from Locus 1741.

jugs.â•›228 The figurine fragment and one flask were found in the southern section of the locus. Area CC, Locus 1804 contained a cup-like fragment of a kernos ring.â•›229 The overall architecture, the pottery, and the substantial bronze hoardâ•›230 suggest that Area CC was probably part of an extremely wealthy residential area. The contents of all of the Megiddo Stratum VI assemblages were quite similar and always included several high-quality or luxury items, similar to items from contemporary tombs.â•›231 The similarity of these assemblages, and the abundance of diagnostic objects of categories A and B could suggest either that the entire assemblage was dedicated to cultic purposes, or that only those items 228.╇See Harrison 2004: appendixes B–C. See also Loud 1948: 152. 229.╇See Harrison 2004: pl. 23.5. Not mentioned in Loud 1948. 230.╇ Found in Locus 1739. See Harrison 2004: pls. 31–35. 231.╇ See chap. 6, pp. 178–428.

154

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.72.╇ Megiddo, Stratum VI, Area CC: Cult stand and goblet from Locus 17.

of unambiguously cultic purpose were so used, with the remaining items merely serving quotidian, domestic purposes. A number of the assemblages from Megiddo Stratum VI can be clearly associated with areas dedicated to the production and storage of food, especially those that obviously indicate kitchens (the renewed excavation Loci 98/k77; 98K70; and the University of Chicago excavations Loci 1727, 1729, 1731, 1735, and 1760). This does not, however, contradict an interpretation of cultic activities, because of the presence of clearly nonutilitarian pottery and group A diagnostic objects such as the kernos fragments, zoomorphic vessels, pottery shrines, figurines associated with stands, and luxury wares such as the pilgrim flasks for intended holding liquids, the chalices and goblets used

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

155

for consumption thereof. Ritual activities were clearly associated with the kitchen, with the predominance of stands and vessels for liquids suggesting rituals of libation. These activities would almost certainly have been conducted by, and quite possibly on behalf of, the personnel of the kitchen, that is, the women dedicated to the preparation and storage of food. There was notable continuity between the contents of Strata VI and VA–IVB, even extending to the 8th-century (H3/IVA) assemblages, even though the material culture of Megiddo VI seems to have been fundamentally pre-Israelite.â•›232 There thus appears to have been very little difference between the characteristics of the pre-Israelite domestic cult of the LB/early Iron transitional phase and the evidence found in Iron IIA–B Israelite Megiddo. 3.3.22.4.2.╇ Iron II domestic cult remains from the renewed excavations During the renewed excavations at Megiddo led by I.  Finkelstein and D.  Ussishkin (Finkelstein et al. 2000), a burned room with an accumulation of collapsed mud brick and roof materials was discovered in Square T-U/42 of Level H3 (University of Chicago Stratum IVA), from Iron Age II, which was the latest level occupied by Israelites (Finkelstein et al. 2000a: 145). While the function and purpose of the unit as a whole remain unknown, it was clearly domestic in character (Finkelstein et al. 2000a: 160) and possibly comprised two stories (Finkelstein et al. 2000a: 310). Locus 94 H8 yielded a rich assemblage of pottery and objects buried in the debris of the collapse, some of which may have been of significance for domestic cult activities. Along with 2 basin-like vessels, 24 storage jars, 24 bowls, 5 kraters, 12 cooking pots, a “beer jug,” 15 jugs, 6 juglets, 2 jars, an Assyrian bottle (category C), and 2 lamps (category B), there were also found an incense cup, a cult stand, and a zoomorphic vessel (category A), as well as a range of utensils for the preparation of food, such as millstones, a limestone bowl, and a pestle (fig. 3.73).â•›233 The entire assemblage was certainly of a domestic nature and was related to the storage, preparation, and consumption of food and liquids. The presence of the incense cup, stand, and zoomorphic vessel suggests the performance of ritual activities associated with the food vessels. Similar to the Tel Halif “shrine room,” the cultic vessels were stored alongside the utilitarian pottery items. A second assemblage from Area H (Locus 98/H/62), Level H-5 (University of Chicago Stratum VA–IVB) was also destruction debris that contained a cult stand, a bowl, a krater, three cooking pots, two juglets, two storage jars, and a lamp, together with various stone 232.╇ Harrison (2004: 108) therefore concludes: Megiddo appears to have provided a neutral place for these disparate communities to bring their products to market. . . . The result was a remarkably heterogenous community comprised of individuals from widely varying social and cultural backgrounds who found themselves drawn together by the powerful forces at work, and the opportunities they afforded, in the rapidly changing world of the late 11th century b.c.

A similar picture is found in the Early Iron Age strata at Kinneret (Pakkala, Münger, and Zangenberg 2004: 19–21). 233.╇ Finkelstein et al. 2000a: figs. 11.43–51; 2000b: fig. 12.38:5, with a sample of pottery and objects compiled by the author.

156

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.73.╇ Stand, censer, and zoomorphic vessel from Megiddo, Level H 3, Unit 94/H/8, with sample of selected pottery.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

157

and metal tools. No architectural remains related to the assemblage could be observed (Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: 145, 443; fig. 15.5:1–7).

3.3.23.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, map reference 170.143 Tell en-Naṣbeh, situated 12 km northwest of Jerusalem and excavated under the direction of W. F. Badè between 1926 and 1935 (McCown 1947; Wampler 1947), has proven to be the second-richest site for terra-cotta figurines, yielding a total of 143 pillar-figurines (Kletter 1996: fig. 19). Moreover, Tell en-Naṣbeh produced large amounts of other diagnostic objects of categories A and B. The distribution of the figurines, altars, stands, seals, amulets, and other objects of personal adornment was roughly mapped in the original report (shown in fig. 3.74),â•›234 with this map providing some evidence for the domestic use of these items. However, the occasionally incomplete contents of only a few tombs and cisterns were published, while only samples of pottery and other objects were reported from the actual rooms, making it impossible to reconstruct entire assemblages.â•›235 Nevertheless, some of the finds were significant. Room 616 (Iron IIC) was the central room or court of a three-room house and yielded a fenestrated stand together with two JPF heads. The pottery consisted of cooking pots, bowls, and storage jars. The room also seems to have held a hearth. Room 622 on the west yielded one human and one zoomorphic figurine.â•›236 Room 616 seems to have been a site for the performance of ritual actions associated with the production of food that included libations or dry offerings and votive cult. Several category A groups were reported in a number of the domestic units. From Room 23, the center room of a four-room building, came a JPF torso and the fragment of an animal figurine.â•›237 Room 393, which was the long southern room of a three-room house,â•›238 yielded a male head and a model couch, while Room 398, which was a small chamber belonging to Building 124.01, yielded a JPF head and another model couch.â•›239 Another male head was found in Room 239, which was most likely the back room of a three-room house.â•›240 In a cave dwelling (Cave 193) that was occupied from Iron IIA to the Persian Period, a model bed was found, with an additional JPF fragment found outside the cave.â•›241 For the additional diagnostic objects that were excavated from Tell en-Naṣbeh (by room number) and recorded in the report, see table 3.1.â•›242 The distributional maps presented in the original report and our table 3.1 reveal that anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic figurines were widely used in domestic contexts. Paired anthropomorphic figurines and model furniture such as those found in Rooms 393 and 398 were also found at Beersheba

234.╇ McCown 1947: fig. 50. See also Kletter 1996: figs. 36–37. 235.╇ For further consideration of this issue, see Zorn 1993: 5–13. 236.╇ Wampler 1947: pl. 77:1774; Zorn 1993: 63. 237.╇ McCown 1947: figs. 86.16; 88.8. 238.╇ See Zorn 1993: 621–22. 239.╇ McCown 1947: fig.  86.2; p.  244 n. 39 (Room 393); pls. 85.12; 84.28 (Room 398). Zorn 1993: 559. 240.╇ McCown 1947: fig. 86.1; Zorn 1993: 409–10. 241.╇ McCown 1947: 230, pl. 84, 85a; 85.26. 242.╇See McCown 1947: pls. 84–90; 77–79.

158

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.74.╇ Distribution patterns from Tell en-Naṣbeh.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

159

Table 3.1.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell en-Naṣbeh: Table of diagnostic objects according to room number

Room nos.

JPF/male figurines 23 161 221 239 273 361 369 393 398 435 438 566 586 616 633 639 665 670

Animal figurines 23 55 83 237 291 298 392 512 522 523 551 556 661

Stands 73 616

Altars 360

Incense burners 288 353 356?

Model furniture 393 398

Loci 25 and 808. The assemblage from Rooms 616 and 622 seems quite analogous to the assemblage taken from the lower house at Lachish.

3.3.24.╇ Tel Qashish (Tell el-Qassīs), map reference 160.132 The only important finds from Tel Qashish came from an Iron IIA pit that was not associated with any building in its vicinity. This pit contained the fragment of a kernos bowl (category A), a whole jug decorated in black and red (category B), a bowl, a handmade bowl, two jars, and a krater (fig. 3.75).â•›243 Note that most of the vessels were found intact. We may therefore suppose that the contents of the pit were intentionally deposited and included objects used by people of high status for unknown ritual purposes and may have formed a foundation deposit.

3.3.25.╇ Tell Qiri, map reference 1610.2274 Tell Qiri, situated about 30 km northwest of Megiddo, is representative of a small Iron Age village. Among other domestic structures, a building of possibly cultic character was excavated in Area D (Stratum VIIIC) and dated to Iron Age I. The exterior formed a 243.╇ Ben-Tor, Portugali and Avissar 1981: figs. 9–10.

160

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.75.╇ Tel Qashish: Pottery from pit Locus 253.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

161

Fig. 3.76.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII C: Pottery and objects from Loci 1065 and 674.

square 6.7 × 7 m, with the interior divided into one larger (Loci 685a and 675) and two smaller chambers (Loci 1065 and 1074). The larger chamber 685a had an entrance and a bench spanning the entire west wall and a small portion of the south wall. The small rear Room 1065 included Loci 692 and 1146 and seems to have been the main cult room. It yielded a diverse assemblage of utilitarian and nonutilitarian vessels. These included a stand with a separate stand bowl, a miniature bowl, a chalice, and a krater, as well as an Egyptian amulet of the Ptah-Sokar type.â•›244 The orientation of the cult focus cannot be discerned with certainty. It may have faced north, as in Stratum VIIIB. Locus 674 was the area directly in front of the entrance and yielded a bowl, a chalice, and a cooking jar.â•›245 The building and its finds are shown in fig. 3.76.â•›246 In Stratum VIIIB, the layout of the building was altered: the entrance was moved from the north to Locus 690 in the south, and Locus 1044 (comprising Loci 670, 1064, and 1074) now served as 244.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15.2, 4, 8; 16.2; photo 65. 245.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15.1, 5; 17.2. 246.╇ Compiled after Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15–17.

162

Chapter 3 Fig. 3.77.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII B: Pottery from Loci 690 and 1044.

a back room. A stone basin on a platform and a standing stone protruding from the wall were erected in the front room, Locus 690, indicating a cult focus oriented toward the north. The room yielded an assemblage of two chalices, a lamp, four cooking pots, two pithoi, a strainer jug, and a jug. The rear room yielded a double libation vessel and a krater (fig. 3.77).â•›247 Loci 1065, 1044, 1074, and 1146 of Strata VIIIB–C additionally yielded more than 200 bones of sheep and goats, mostly right forelimbs.â•›248 During the last phase, VIIIA, the building consisted of two broad rooms (Loci 670 and 690); each was entered north 247.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Plan 29 and figs. 15.3 and 6; 16.3, 5–7, 9; 17.3–5; 18.4–6 (Locus 690); figs. 17.8; 18.3 (Locus 1044). 248.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: table 24.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

163

Fig. 3.78.╇ Tell Qiri, Area D, Stratum VIII A.

of the courtyard in Locus 675 (fig. 3.78).â•›249 It seems that the installations were still in use in Stratum VIIIA, even though only a single cooking jar was found that dated to this last 249.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Plan 27.

164

Chapter 3

phase. The material evidence, especially the large number of sheep and goat bones, along with the standing stone that was interpreted as a maṣṣebāh led the excavators to conclude that the structure functioned as a cultic building “of some sort” (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 82, 86). This identification as a cultic building was questioned by H. Weippert (1988: 409) and Zwickel (1994: 209–10) because of the absence of any installations that could have been associated with a temple. Zwickel therefore theorized that the building was the dwelling of a priest in which the cultic assemblage was stored. Weippert believed the evidence to be consistent with domestic cult activities. The unusual layout, the character of the assemblage that contained large numbers of category A and B objects and bones, and the permanent installations suggested regular and ongoing cultic use of the building. The permanent installations included a platform with a basin and a bench, paralleling those in Lachish Room 49 and Megiddo Locus 2081. The building may have served for libations as well as the consumption and offering of animal parts and, because it was integrated into other domestic structures, it seems likely that it was a neighborhood shrine. Some evidence of cult activities in the Iron II period (Stratum VII) was discovered at Tell Qiri. One room or courtyard (Locus 1027) belonging to an agricultural-industrial complex of silos associated with the production of olive oilâ•›250 contained a tripod censercup, a bowl, a cooking jar, and a cooking pot,â•›251 suggesting ritual activities associated with the production and consumption of food in the working area. Two pairs of chalicesâ•›252 were found in the same area, although their context was unclear.

3.3.26.╇ Ḥirbet Raddana, map reference 1695.1468 A salvage excavation between 1969 and 1974 (Callaway and Cooley 1971; Callaway 1983; 1993b) at Ḥirbet Raddana, about 6 km west of Ai, revealed a small, unfortified village from Iron Age I that was abandoned sometime before 1050 b.c.e. Unfortunately, only cursory excavation results were published, and these did not include detailed plans. Therefore, no figures can be provided in this section. The site consisted of several clusters of pillared, three-room buildings, in which the excavators found evidence of domestic cult activities. Paved stone platforms were found in several parts of the three-room houses: in a narrow room beside the main hall, in the main hall itself, and on an outer wall. The houses also featured benches both inside and outside the rooms. The presence of ovens and other evidence clearly indicate that the three-room buildings served domestic purposes. Cluster S also revealed the remains of a metal workshop. Category A objects that were reported included two objects presumed to be stands and a unique multihandled krater with figurative appliqués, although exact locations were not published. The multihandled krater was found somewhere in Building S, the same building in which an inscribed jar handle with the name ʾḥl[d] was found and interpreted as a ritual vessel. The entire vessel would originally have had about 20 handles and a channel beneath the rim, with at least two zoomorphic spouts attached to the inside. 250.╇See Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 67, 71. 251.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: Plan 25; figs. 14.1 (in the report, classified as the body of a strainer); 13.2; 10.5. 252.╇See Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 10.9–12.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

165

Because this vessel was of no clear utilitarian use, the excavators proposed a ritual use for it (Callaway and Cooley 1971: 18–19, fig. 7). Even though the scant documentation associated with these reports means that great care must be taken when interpreting the material from Ḥirbet Raddana as evidence for domestic cult activities, the material reported does fit well into the general picture of domestic cult patterns from Iron I deposits.

3.3.27.╇ Tel Reḥov (Tell eṣ-Ṣarem), map reference 197.207 Tel Reḥov is a large site located in the Beth-shean Valley, 5 km south of Beth-shean. Excavations were commenced there by A. Mazar in 1997 (Mazar 1999). An open courtyard was excavated in Area E—which is the highest point of the eastern side of the lower mound—which yielded a square mud-brick platform of 3 × 3.55 m lying 0.4 m above the surface (Mazar 1999: fig. 12). On the southern side, three standing stones were discovered, with a flat limestone slab of 0.7 × 0.5 m, along with several smaller stones in front of them. Five ovens were found in the immediate vicinity of the platform along with six circular clay installations that might have been storage bins. An adjacent building contained a room measuring 2.4 × 2.4 m, within which were clay compartments that may have been used to store food. Debris lying next to the platform yielded a square pottery stand and the fragment of a category A female figurine (Mazar 1999: figs. 15–16), along with several chalices (category B), bowls, cooking pots, jugs, juglets, and storage jars. Bones of sheep, goats, and cattle were also found in front of the podium. The entire installation and associated finds, dated sometime between Iron Age IIA and the beginning of Iron Age IIB, suggest a maṣṣebāh structure associated with the sacrifice and consumption of animals (Mazar 1999: 28). It remains unclear, however, whether the adjacent buildings belonged to the presumed cultic structure or to the domestic units.

3.3.28.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, map reference 2045.1861 Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, situated on the south bank of Wadi Kufrinjeh, was excavated by J. B. Pritchard in the years 1964–65 (Pritchard 1985). Renewed excavations commenced in 1985 by J.  N. Tubb on behalf of the British Museum (Pritchard and Tubb 1993: 1295). House 64 of Stratum VII, which was dated by Pritchard to the Iron IIB period between 825 and 790 b.c.e., yielded a unique assemblage of objects suggestive of cultic activities. A perforated tripod-cup had been placed in a basin on a plastered mud-brick platform, which was covered with charcoal and ashes (fig. 3.79).â•›253 Two other perforated tripod-cups were found on the floor in the vicinity of the platform. The room also contained nine shells, two beads, four lamps, and common items of domestic pottery.â•›254 The burned rims of some of the tripod-cups show that they were used as censers for incense or other aromatic compounds.â•›255 This installation was not in the back room but faced the side that includes the entrance. As noted by Pritchard (1985: 9), the objects arranged on the platform were not utilitarian, even though there is no evidence that the building served as a sanctuary, as was 253.╇ Compiled by the author after Pritchard 1985: figs. 5 and 177. 254.╇ Pritchard 1985: 8–9, figs. 36–37, tripod-cups: figs. 5.11, 12, 13. 255.╇ Pritchard 1985: 9 and tripod-cup on the same page. See also Zwickel 1990: 11.

166

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.79.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VII, House 64.

proposed by Nakhai (2001: 189). Both the character of the architecture and the associated finds clearly suggest that activities associated with a domestic cult occurred. Inside House 37–39 (Stratum VI, about 790–750 b.c.e.), a pottery assemblage was almost entirely preserved beneath the debris of the collapsed building. Among a wealth

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

167

Fig. 3.80.╇ Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh, Stratum VI, House 37.

of utilitarian materials, several diagnostic objects of category B were found, including a fine cosmetic cup with a lid and juglet found alongside the southern wall of House 37 and a chalice, jug, and decanter found alongside the northern wall of the same room (fig. 3.80).â•›256 However, the absence of category A objects makes any cultic use of the assemblage less likely. Of particular interest is a rather unique residential quarter in Stratum V, dated between 750–730 b.c.e. This residential block (between two streets) consisted of 12 houses, each of which measured approximately 4.8 × 8.3 m and shared the same plan as the others.â•›257 In House 6, the floors of which were covered with destruction debris, the most extensive domestic pottery assemblage was found preserved.â•›258 The rich assemblage of common items of domestic pottery included bowls, kraters, cooking pots, and storage jars; along with category A objects that included the head of an animal figurine and a vessel that was purported to be the cup of a kernos ring.â•›259 It remains unclear from the 256.╇ Pritchard 1985: figs. 50–51. Figure compiled by Schmitt after Pritchard 1985: figs. 7.8, 178. 257.╇ Pritchard and Tubb 1994: 1296. 258.╇ Pritchard 1985: 17–18. 259.╇ Pritchard 1985: fig. 10.30, cup (S228/P98) without drawing.

168

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.81.╇ Shiloh: Pottery and Objects from Locus 623.

report, however, whether the objects were found together in the same place in the locus. Additional evidence for cultic activities was found in the residential quarter in the form of the fragment of a human plaque-figurine from House 16â•›260 as well as two tripod-cups taken from either House 9 or 11.â•›261 260.╇ Pritchard 1985: fig. 10.31. 261.╇ Pritchard 1985: figs. 10.28–29.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

169

Although aspects of the Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh finds remain ambiguous, the finds nevertheless provide insight for the interpretation of diagnostic objects and their associations with one another. Pritchard (1985: 32) concluded that “among the remaining items there seems to be no substantial evidence for either specialized industrial or a ceremonial use for the buildings. We can only conclude that this area of the city was a residential section in which the normal household activities were carried on at the time of its destruction.” However, the presence of clearly nonutilitarian or cultic objects of category A, such as the figurines and tripod-cups, demonstrates that these “normal household activities” nevertheless included those of a cultic nature, involving the burning of incense as well as libations conducted with the aid of other nonutilitarian pottery objects such as the kernos and luxury miniature vessels represented by the faience cup and alabaster flask.

3.3.29.╇ Shiloh (Ḥirbet Sēlūn), map reference 1775.1626 Shiloh was first excavated by a Danish Expedition that began in the 1920s (Buhl and Holm-Nielsen 1969), and then in the early 1980s by a team led by I. Finkelstein (1993; 1994). It was revealed to have been an important early Iron Age settlement. Overlying the fallen brick debris of the Iron I pillared Building 335 in Area C was a contemporary dump (Locus 623) in which were uncovered large amounts of pottery and bones. â•›262 Along with different types of domestic pottery that included three bowls, three kraters, six cooking pots, one pilgrim flask, a jug, six pithoi, and a storage jar, several fragments of category A artifacts were unearthed. The most important find was the fragment of a stand that was decorated with a relief depicting a prey animal (presumably some sort of large cat) attacking a deer. A figurative appliqué depicting a horse was also uncovered, along with another zoomorphic appliqué of an animal, most likely belonging to a couple of stands. Other finds included the relief head of a lion or lioness on the rim of a cooking pot, and a modelled ram’s head beneath the handle of a vessel, which had most probably been a krater (fig. 3.81).â•›263 Although little can be presumed regarding the original context of the debris, it seems likely that it originated from structures that had been built on the MB Age fortification. The domestic pottery found in the debris indicates that these structures must have been domestic in character. The decorated cult stand and the other figurative material seem to be ritual essentials from an early Iron Age domestic cult assemblage.

3.3.30.╇ Taanach (Tell Taʿanek), map reference 171.214 Tell Taʿanek, or biblical Taanach, is situated in the Jezreel Valley about 8 km southeast of Megiddo. Initial excavations were conducted by E. Sellin between 1902 and 1904, followed by those of P. W. Lapp between 1963 and 1968 (see Glock 1993: 1432). An Austrian expedition under the leadership of Sellin uncovered a structure in the southern trench that was supposed by Sellin (1904: 75–79) to have been domestic in nature. He found the fragments of the famous Taanach cult stand no. 1 scattered across an area of 2 m. Intermixed with the material of the stand were about 20 loom weights that 262.╇ Finkelstein 1993: 27, figs. 6.52–54. 263.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Finkelstein 1993.

170

Chapter 3

the excavators thought were sling stones. Near where the stand was found, Sellin reported what appeared to be the base of a figurine, a bovine head, and a scarab. Reports on continuing excavations at the same spot, dated one year later, noted a large amount of pottery, including apparently Iron Age jugs and juglets and two zoomorphic vessels. This report was preliminary, however, and contained many details that were unable to be verified. Immediately west of where Sellin’s stand was found, a second campaign at Taanach uncovered a room (SW 2–7) of approximately 5.1 m–7.3 m that yielded a rich ceramic assemblage that had been sealed by debris. This assemblage consisted of utilitarian items, including 26 storage jars, 2 amphorae, 10 jugs, 11 juglets, 3 pyxides, 1 krater, 63 bowls, and 3 cooking pots;â•›264 nonutilitarian types included a stand and a perforated tripod-cup of category A,â•›265 as well as 140 astragali of category B and 9 iron knife blades.â•›266 A basin in the structure contained a stone stela that was interpreted by the excavators as a maṣṣebāh. Two more stones were interpreted by Lapp (1964: 28) as cultic stelae. In a crushed cistern (L69, SW 2–8) that lay a scant few meters from structure SW 2–7, a large amount of pottery was discovered that was broadly similar in character to the pottery of SW 2–7.â•›267 Among predominantly utilitarian items, the famous second decorated cult stand, an offering stand (category A), and two chalices (category B) were found.â•›268 Fig. 3.82 shows the location of some of these distinctive finds.â•›269 Dating these finds to the 10th century (around the years 960–918 b.c.e.) has been widely accepted (Rast 1978: i; Glock 1993: 1432; A. Mazar 1990: 372, 387), contemporary with the pottery from Megiddo. Similarities were also evident between the Taanach assemblage and Megiddo Locus 2081. The most striking parallel, in terms of both the date and the type of stand, comes from Pella, where 2 rectangular stands were discovered in a domestic structure.â•›270 A similar stand was also found at Tel Reḥov (Mazar 1999: fig. 15), where excavators thought that the room that held the stand was a cultic structure. The finds of Sellin and Lapp evidently belonged to the same structure, even through they came from different loci. However, utilitarian pottery was dominant throughout Room SW 2–7, and the basin also seems likely to have been part of an installation for the processing of food. Sellin (1904: 76) interpreted the part of the structure that he excavated to have been an olive-oil press, while M. D. Fowler (1984: 33) was more convinced that it was part of a kitchen; Zwickel (1994: 244; as well Herr 2000a: 8) considered it a store room; and Zevit (2001: 237) presumed some kind of domestic or industrial building. Because the identification of a stela or maṣṣebāh depends a great deal on its context (see Bloch-Smith 2005: 36), stones that were excavated by Lapp cannot be presumed to have had any particular cultic function, particularly the stone that was found lying in the basin. The predominance of domestic pottery suggests this was not a cultic structure; it was more likely to have been a domestic room that was used occasionally either for cultic 264.╇ Rast 1978: figs. 30–50. 265.╇ Rast 1978: figs. 51.3–4. 266.╇ Glock 1993: 1432. 267.╇ Rast 1978: 23. 268.╇ Lapp 1969: 44; Rast 1978: figs. 53.5–6; 54. 269.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Rast 1978: figs. 30–69; 97a. 270.╇See Potts, Colledge, and Edwards 1985: 203–4; fig.  11; pls. 41–42; and pp.  188–189 below.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

171

Fig. 3.82.╇ The so-called Cultic Structure SW 2-7 at Taanach and selected pottery from Loci 27 and€61.

172

Chapter 3

purposes or for storing ritual utensils. The large number of cooking pots and containers for food and drink suggest a kitchen, in accordance with Fowler, although the censer and stand suggest the possibility of ritual meals and, of course, games or the casting of lots for mantic purposes.

3.3.31.╇ Turʿan, map reference 1809.2429 Turʿan in Lower Galilee is situated in the foothills of the mountain by the same name, approximately 15 km west of Nazareth. Excavations at the site commenced following two soundings (Shalem and Gal 2000). Although the area of excavation was very limited, structural remains were exposed, most likely the remains of a four-room house. Locus 12 contained a flat, rounded stone suggestive of a domestic workplace and was destroyed by a fire that produced debris that effectively sealed its contents. The locus yielded a perforated incense burner (category A), two lamps (category B), three bowls, a krater, two cooking pots, and three storage jars (category C). Based on the pottery, the structure was dated to between the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 9th centuries (Iron Age IIB). Most of the items related to the preparation and consumption of food, along with tripod-cups, fit well with inventories typical of Iron Age IIB domestic cults.

3.3.32.╇ Tel Wawit (Tell el-Wawiyat), map reference 178.244 Two building complexes were excavated at Tell el-Wawiyat in Lower Galilee that date to Iron Age IA (Nakhai, Dessel, and Wisthoff 1993; Nakhai 2001: 173). The northeastern room of Building K–L yielded a circular limestone basin and a tabun as well as the low base of a column. Partially articulated bones from a single butchered cow were discovered on the floor of Room 24. Concluding a cultic use for the room (Nakhai 2001: 173; Dever 2005: 113) seems inaccurate, however, because no objects from category A or B were found in the room, and the columnar base seems to have had a solely architectural function. A fragmentary pottery figurine, a basalt bowl, and a stone jewelry mold were discovered in the debris of the southern room. A large bin was also constructed in this room. The entire structure, including its installations and associated finds, is indicative of domestic activities that included butchering and other food processing, as well as the manufacture of jewelry. There are no indications of cultic use, although the female plaquefigurine found in the southern room is typical of domestic votive practices.

3.4.╇ Patterns of domestic cult activities in Iron Age Israel and Judah 3.4.1.╇ Iron Age I Among the 29 Iron Age I assemblages that contained category A and B artifacts surveyed in this study (see table 3.6, pp. 496–498), 53% yielded stands or fragments thereof, and 46% had chalices or goblets that could be associated with them. Thirty-one percent of the assemblages contained zoomorphic terra-cotta figurines or vessels, although only a few (around 14%) were anthropomorphic terra-cottas or kernoi (some of the zoomorphic

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

173

fragments may, however, have belonged to kernos rings). Miniature shrines seem to have been quite rare, appearing in only two places (Megiddo and Kinneret). The predominant ritual actions performed with the vessels seem to have been libations (using zoomorphic libation vessels and stands) and possibly dry offerings, such as bread, grain, or fruit offerings, which probably would have been presented in the stand bowls. One-third of the assemblages clearly evidence kitchen installations. Moreover, 76% of all domestic assemblages that contained category A or B objects also contained vessels for the production or consumption of food. It thus seems that ritual actions were related to the production and consumption of food as well as the consumption of drinks, as indicated by the presence of items such as chalices and jugs.â•›271 Considered together, these assemblages seem typical for sites such as Megiddo and Beth-shean, which represent a direct continuation of the urban material culture of the LBA. Early Israelite settlements contained scant finds suggestive of domestic ritual activities. Typical early Israelite houses yielded assemblages containing a limited range of utilitarian pottery (see Zwingenberger 2001: 372) and did not usually contain specialized objects from category A. The finds from Tel Masos House 314 and the similar finds from Tell Mazar Room 101 support the conclusion that ritual activities were typically conducted either in the houses of wealthy members or leaders of the community or in small public shrines (see below). Some early Israelite settlements had shrines with permanent installations (such as Hazor Locus 3283, the Tell Qiri Shrine, and possibly also Ai Locus 69) or else intramural cultic places such as at Hazor Locus 80019 with its maṣṣebāh. Both the integrated neighborhood shrines of Tell Qiri and Ai and the dedicated village shrine of Hazor had benches and platforms, as well as a number of stands and, in the case of Tell Qiri, an assemblage for the production and consumption of food. The material found at these sites suggests that ritual actions that were likely to have been conducted in the shrines would have differed from domestic rituals in scale only. Domestic assemblages (very generally speaking) contain fewer specialized objects, such as stands and libation vessels, than small shrines. The assemblage from Hazor Locus 80019 that was associated with a cultic structure was purely domestic and yielded no specialized vessels other than a zoomorphic spout. It does not seem, therefore, that domestic assemblages can be interpreted to represent subsets of “official” cult structures, as was proposed by Holladay. Rather, the reverse is more likely to have been the case, in that shrines typically contained a slightly enlarged and more specialized inventory typical of domestic assemblages. It thus seems almost certain that the social groups that participated in the rites and rituals of domestic cults and the people who were associated with local shrines were in many respects one and the same group of people.

3.4.2.╇ Iron Age IIA Of the 19 Iron IIA assemblages surveyed (table 3.7, pp. 499–500), approximately 36% contained stands and another 26% contained chalices or goblets. Just over 33% of all the assemblages contained zoomorphic figurines or vessels (including kernoi or fragments of kernoi), while female figurines were present in 21%. Model shrines appeared 271.╇ Willett (1999: 157–65) drew similar conclusions in her unpublished thesis.

174

Chapter 3

in about 10%. Similar to the Iron Age I assemblages discussed above, around 33% of all assemblages contained category A and B artifacts that could be attributed to kitchen installations. A considerable proportion of the assemblages that contained category A and B artifacts (31%) appear to have been work related because of their association with storage and/or processing facilities (Tel ʿAmal Locus 34; Beth-shean Loci 1557, 62, 63; Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit Locus 47; Tell el-Ḥammah; Taanach “cultic structure”). These work-related areas contained assemblages of ritual objects that were broadly similar to the assemblages of purely domestic areas. Only at Megiddo Locus 2081 did benches or platform-like installations occur in domestic structures. In all other places, their appearance is typically indicative of village shrines (as in Lachish Room 49, and Tell Michal Building 300) or of open-air cultic structures (in Tel Reḥov Area E). Moreover, maṣṣebôt have only been found in structures that predominantly served cultic purposes (in Tel Reḥov Area E). Horned altars were only found in domestic assemblages in Megiddo Locus 2081; other than this find, they are typical of village shrines (as in Lachish Room 49.). As a large-scale domestic cult installation, Megiddo Locus 2081 is rather atypical of other Iron IIA domestic cult assemblages in terms of both content and number of artifacts and is perhaps more directly comparable with a shrine such as Lachish 49. Nevertheless, in representing a wealthy domestic cult assemblage, Megiddo Locus 2081 accords with traditions represented by the finds of Tel Masos House 314 and Tell Mazar Room 101. The exceptionally large number of vessels for the consumption of food almost certainly indicates that ritual meals were held here.

3.4.3.╇ Iron Age IIB In the 20 surveyed Iron IIB assemblages that contained category A and B artifacts (table 3.8, pp. 500–501), stands appear less frequently than they do in Iron Age IIA assemblages. In these Iron IIB contexts, they appeared in only 15% of the assemblages, although 33% of the domestic ritual assemblages contained tripod censer-cups (35%), and around 20% contained either zoomorphic vessels or kernos fragments. Chalices and goblets also appear less frequently during these times (10%). An assemblage from Megiddo Locus 94 H8 seems typical of the time: it contained an incense cup, a stand, a zoomorphic libation vessel, and other vessels associated with the preparation and consumption of food. An assemblage of this sort probably reflects the religious traditions of this city that were carried over from Iron Age I, although it is quite similar to the assemblage of Locus 298/293 in Beth-shean, which also contained a stand, a tripod censer-cup, and the fragment of a possibly zoomorphic libation vessel. Other figurative objects such as female figurines also occur in typical domestic assemblages of this time, although not as frequently as they did later in the Iron Age IIC. Although votive practices seem to have been a part of these societies, they were apparently not as important as they became in later, Iron IIC times. Typical assemblages seem to suggest ritual practices dominated by libations, dry offerings such as grain and bread, and the burning of aromatic compounds. Most ritual assemblages (around 80%) were directly associated with pottery designed to serve the preparation and consumption of food, and in some cases they appeared in identifiable kitchen installations or other domestic storage rooms. In cases such as Tell Qiri Locus 1027, Tel Kedesh, and Kinneret Building 683, ritual objects seem to have been used in work-related cult

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

175

practices, mostly associated with the public storage of goods. Work-related or semi�public functions may also be posited for the assemblage from tower Room 239a from Hazor.

3.4.4.╇ Iron Age IIC Domestic cult activities of Iron Age IIC commonly feature JPFs. Of the 42 Iron IIC assemblages surveyed in this study (see table 3.9, pp.  502–504), approximately 53% contained JPFs or fragments of other anthropomorphic figures; about 48% included zoÂ� omorphic figurines or fragments of zoomorphic vessels. Twenty percent contained both anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic figurines, and 9% had JPFs together with model furniture. Around 10% of the assemblages yielded horse-and-rider figurines, although it is possible that additional male anthropoid and zoomorphic fragments were originally part of full figurines of this type. About 9% of assemblages contained stands, and around 9% contained altars. More limestone altars have been found than stands, and the altars and stands have often appeared together as part of larger finds (2 were found together in Beersheba Locus 442, 2 in Tel Halif G8005 and F6, and 4 in Jerusalem Locus 967). Tripod incense burners were found in only one of the assemblages, in Beth-shean Loci 298/293, where it was found together with a stand. Twenty-five percent of all assemblages contained lamps; 10% of the assemblages were associated with fireplaces; and over 40% contained pottery for the production of food, such as cooking pots, or other associated vessels and tools. These Iron IIC assemblages thus seem also to have been strongly linked to the preparation and consumption of food. There also appears to have been strong continuity in domestic ritual actions with earlier times, as shown by the presence of larger stands and altars for libations and offerings and perhaps also for the burning of incense, as well as zoomorphic libation vessels. The most striking change between ritual assemblages of Iron IIC and assemblages in earlier times is the dominance of votive objects. In Iron IIC, zoomorphic figurines, model furniture, and anthropomorphic figurines such as JPFs and horse-andriders seem to have become cheap and abundant and were predominant features of domestic cults. At least one figurative object was found in 86% of all assemblages, while just over 33% yielded a variety of votive figures, even if no clear patterns emerged from this variety. It may be concluded that this period of an increased number of political crises that affected the ongoing existence of many households increased the perceived need for ritual objects that symbolized characteristics such as power, fertility, and plenty. This sort of need may also have motivated the hoarding of amulets, faience, and bronze objects that were found in Beersheba Locus 844. This assemblage is evidence of votive practices that were typical of a house with abundant financial means. Similar to assemblages in previous periods, a number of Iron IIC assemblages were clearly related to work, such as the olive-oil press at Tell Beit Mirsim NW 31–11, the winepress at Beth-shemesh Locus 321, the workshop at Beth-shemesh Loci 373/375, and the textile production and processing workshop at Beth-shemesh Locus 305. All of these work-related structures held assemblages of category A and B objects similar to those from domestic units, including JPFs, zoomorphic figurines and vessels, chalices, and lamps, although in one case the assemblage of items related to the production and storage of food was much larger. These work-related cult remains are clearly subsets of typical household cultic assemblages.

176

Chapter 3

3.5.╇ Comparative data from sites outside Israel and Judah 3.5.1.╇ Houses and their furnishings in Iron Age Moab and Ammon Material cultures in ancient Jordan, Moab, and Ammon seem to have been broadly similar to those in Israel and Judah. Iron Age houses were mostly pillared with four rooms or were slight variants of this type. Pillared buildings differed considerably in size, ranging from 71.5 m² to 238.8 m² (Routledge 2004: 101). At Tell Jawa, typical buildings varied in size from 134 m² (Building 120) to 227 m² (Building 800). As in contemporary Judah, houses often had a second story, as indicated by both debris and the occasional presence of steps or staircases. Whether or not ritual actions were regularly conducted in these second stories remains unknown (Daviau 2001: 201–2). The coroplastic repertoire of ancient Jordan seems to have been broadly similar to the repertoires of Israel and Judah (see Dornemann 1983: 129–42; Mansour 2005). In Jordan, a pillar-figurine with a molded head was found (see Mansour 2005: no. 11), as well as a female figurine holding a drum (see Mansour 2005: nos. 28–28, 43), which was the dominant type in Transjordan. Horse-and-rider figurines did differ here in some details, although not in general composition. Animal figurines seem to have been broadly similar. Distinct differences from Iron Age Judah were the persistence of the plaque-type in Iron Age IIC Jordan and the presence of male terra-cotta figures that had divine features, such as a high conical hat or a white atef crown, such as the crowns found at Tell Mazar (Yassine 1988: pl. 13.3) and Tell Jawa (Daviau and Dion 2002: fig. 2.33:1). Perforated tripod-cups or incense burners seem to have been as popular in Transjordanian sites as they were in Israel, although in Transjordan they have been found more frequently associated with burials (see Zwickel 1994: 5, 39). Whether these figurines and other ritual objects were used in ways similar to Iron Age Israel remains, however, is unknown.

3.5.1.1.╇ Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Tell Abūâ•‚Ḥaraz), map reference 2061.2007 Tell Abu al-Kharaz is located in the Jordan Valley, 4 km east of the Jordan River and about 15 km southeast of Beth-shean. Excavations were commenced by a Swedish team in 1989 (Fischer 1991; 1993; 1994; 1995; 1997; 1998). The most important finds came from an atrium-type Iron IIC building in Area 7, which had two wings of rooms and a partially roofed courtyard, indicated by the presence of roof debris. The building has been dated to the beginning of Iron Age IIC; it was destroyed by a fire, during which the debris sealed its furnishings. A perforated tripod-cup (category A) was discovered in the courtyard near the entrance to Room 4, together with a jar that contained 10 astragali (category B), 3 cooking pots, a 7-spouted lamp with a missing base, a decanter, and several arrowheads, stone tools, and spindle whorls. A second incense burner was discovered near this assemblage in the entrance area of Room 4, located near a stone table, together with a bowl, 3 jugs, a lamp, a basalt bowl, and 15 iron arrowheads with shafts (fig. 3.83).â•›272 The courtyard and Room 4 thus seem to have been used for a variety of domestic activities, including cooking and weaving, as well as for ritual activities 272.╇ Compiled after Fischer 1995: figs. 5 and 7.1–4.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

177

Fig. 3.83.╇ Tell Abu al-Kharaz: Tripod incense burners and cooking pot from Area 7 house.

such as the offering of incense. The presence of the astragali further indicates that games were played here, and lots may have been cast. There were several more finds of domestic cult remains. Although these were only summarily reported, they included a fragment of an anthropomorphic vessel representing a bearded man, taken from Trench VIIC (Fischer 1994: fig. 6.1), and the torso of a female figurine, together with a tambourine, and a bull figurine—all of which were taken from Area 9 (Fischer 1996: 103, fig. 2.1). The well-preserved remains of a four-room house were excavated in Trench XXXIXA–D. In this house, a zoomorphic vessel in the shape of a donkey with two attached vessels (Fischer 1998: 220–21, fig. 10), an incense cup (presumed to have been a strainer; category A), typical household vessels such as bowls, cooking pots, jugs, juglets, kraters, and storage jars, and stone tools and loom weights (category C) were found. The excavators concluded that the building was religious in character, but the predominantly utilitarian, household pottery more likely suggests domestic ritual activities that were performed with the category A objects.

3.5.1.2.╇ Irbid (Arbēla), map reference 2298.2182 During a salvage excavation in the center of the modern city of Irbid, in 1985, a room adjoining the city wall was excavated (Area C, Room 1) that yielded an assemblage of ritual and utilitarian pottery dated to the early Iron Age (around 1200 b.c.e.; fig. 3.84).â•›273 The assemblage consisted of 1 cylindrical and 1 basalt stand (category A), 2 goblets, a cup and saucer, and a lamp (category B), as well as 2 bowls and a number of storage jars (category C). The surrounding area yielded 11 vessels ranging from storage jars to pitchers. Because 273.╇ Lenzen, Gordon, and McQuitty 1985: 154–55; fig. 2; pl. 22.2.

178

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.84.╇ Irbid, Area C: Ritual Vessels from Room 1.

of the presence of the category A objects, the structure was interpreted by the excavators to have been a cult room with an adjacent storage room. However, the predominance of utilitarian wares and the fact that the room adjoined the city wall (and was most likely the back room of a threeâ•‚ or four-room house) suggest instead an assemblage associated with domestic rituals. The assemblage is comparable with other Iron I assemblages found in Megiddo and Tel ʿAmal and is typical of domestic ritual assemblages of the early Iron Age.

3.5.1.3.╇ Tell Jawa (Tell Ğāwa), map reference 2382.1408 Tell Jawa is a small mound located about 11 km south of the Jordanian capital of Amman and was excavated by a Canadian team (Daviau et al. 2003). It was a fortified city beginning in Iron Age IIA–B, Stratum IX. Stratum VIIIB–A (Iron Age IIB extending to the second half of the 8th century) was the period when the Ammonite culture was flourishing on the tell, whereas Stratum VIIB–A is characterized more by its Assyrian influence. Thus far, there is no evidence that the location was occupied during the Neo-Babylonian period. The Tell Jawa excavations are of great importance in revealing detailed evidence for the typology of Iron Age domestic cult assemblages. These excavations have revealed benches, terra-cotta figurines, various types of small or miniature vessels, luxury vessels, and libation and nonutilitarian vessels. It has been possible in several cases to demonstrate

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

179

Fig. 3.85.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 102 with model shrine fragment from Room 110, proto-Aeolic capital and figurine head from Room 105 and stone figurine from Room 217.

that material originated in the upper stories (Daviau 2001: 199). The evidence found in the assemblages as summarized by Daviau (2001: 222–23) is reproduced in table 3.2. Room 110 in Building 102 (Stratum VIII) yielded a collection of pottery and other artifacts that are suggestive of cultic activities. Among the otherwise indistinct pottery and household items, three fragments of a miniature shrine were found; a few other fragments very likely came from a shrine in the form of a proto-Aeolic capital; and the crown of a figurine, the torso of a stone figurine, and the head of a male deity wearing an atef-crown were found in the adjacent Rooms 105, 217, and 204.â•›274 The distribution of these objects is shown in fig. 3.85.â•›275 The supposed stone baetylâ•›276 from Room 110 was, however, most likely a working stone. The presence of a large number of kitchen tools such as grinders, pounders, and millstones indicates that the 274.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 132–333. 275.╇ Compiled by Schmitt using Daviau et al. 2003: Tell Jawa Artefact Database, vols. 1–2. 276.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: database, TJ 2028. The object is a worked stone that measures 14.2 × 5.9 × 3 cm, and seems to be broken in the middle.

Chapter 3

180

-13

Figurines Female

2

Male

3

3

1

2

1 1

1

1

-1 -12

Vessels Anthropo�morphic

1

1 5

Zoomorphic Relief on sherd

2

1

8

2

2 1

Rhyton/stand Shrine model sherds

3

Columns/capitals

3

Chalices

1

One-handled cup

1

1

1

-3 1 1

2

7

1

2

1

-5

2

1

-15 -10

1

1

1

Unperforated Lamps

1

1

3

1

7

1

2

3

3

6

2

2

Saucer 1

1

1 1

1

Cooking pot

3

5

Krater One handled cup

7 1

2

1

2

1

1

2

Jug Juglet

3

Jar

1

1 1

2 1

1

6

1 1

Decanter

3 4

5 2

Painted bottle

2 -9

Miniature vessels Bowl Cooking pot

-13 -33

Small vessels Bowl

1 -5

Tripod-cups Perforated

8 4

Zoomorphic Moulds

Total

B910

B900

B800

B700

B300

B204

B200

B113

B102

Table 3.2.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell Jawa

1

1

1

1

2

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

181

1

Jug

2 1

1

1

Decanter

1

1

Pithos

1

1

1

Black juglets Strainer bowls

1

Stone baetyl

1

2

-2

1

-2 -1 -3

High Status vessels 1

Stopper Assyrian bowl

Total

B910

1

Jar

Lamp

B900

B800

B700

B300

B204

B200

B113

B102

Table 3.2.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell Jawa

1

1

1

Double lamp

1

1

Imported vessels

1

-1

1

-4

2

Imitation imports

1

-4

Gaming objects 2

Vessels

2

1

Boards

1

Pieces

1

1

Tridacna dish

1

-1

1

Libation table Basalt bowls/trays Cosmetic dishes

1

1

-2

Miniature mortars

1

1

-2

Total

32

2

14

14

4

7

43

4

-1

2

4

36

2

10

-17

2

159

room was used for the processing of food. The material in Room 110 represents the ground floor level, although this also included one fragment of a figurine fragment that probably came from the upper story, from Room 214.

One of the most important assemblages was found in Str. VIIA, Room 303 (A). It consisted of numerous items of household pottery, including a bowl, a cooking pot, a juglet, a decanter, and a strainer bowl, as well as the fragment of a female figurine, and a tripod-cup (category A). A miniature cup found in this room probably also originated on the second

182

Chapter 3

floor.â•›277 A second assemblage was found in the same building, on the ground floor level of Room 302 (A). It contained the base of a figurine, miniature basalt tools, a strainer bowl, and various other vessel fragments lying on a bench (Locus E54:25; fig. 3.86).â•›278 The presence of ashes, a saddle quern, and sherds of cooking pots suggest that the room served as a kitchen. Inside Building 800 were two loci that contained material that may have held cultic significance, as suspected by Daviau. Room 807, Locus A83: 9–12 consisted of material that had fallen down from the upper story and yielded a jug, juglet, decanter, lamp, shell dish, and unique limestone table that was interpreted as having been a libation table.â•›279 Central Hall 804 (Loci A83:32; C27:66) had some luxury and nonutilitarian pottery such as red slipped bowls, a painted flask, a painted chalice, and a tripod-cup.â•›280 Because no category A objects were found, the cultic significance of the assemblages of this building does not appear to be as evident as was claimed by the excavator. A fragmentary bull vessel was found in Building 113, Room 107 of Str. VIII, but no other significant material was found associated with it. Because this house also contained tools and raw materials for the production of jewelry, the structure was interpreted as having been workshop (Daviau et al. 2003: 1.159; 2.749). These finds from Tell Jawa thus provide evidence for the comparison of domestic cult assemblages that include these typical items: • • • • • •

cult objects such as figurines and shrines nonutilitarian pottery luxury pottery or other luxury items, such as tridacnas miniaturized items of pottery or other miniature objects benches occasional objects that originated from second stories or roofs (Daviau 2001: 221–24)

It seems, however, that excavators have occasionally been overly optimistic in characterizing assemblages and objects as “cultic.” Although pottery of luxury, nonutilitarian, or miniaturized types may help to indicate the probable use of an item, a convincing decision requires the presence of explicit cult objects such as figurines, amulets, altars (here considered category A objects). This is especially true because luxury items of pottery may have been bought to indicate or enhance social prestige, which leads to their being found together with other luxury objects. Nevertheless, although care is needed in interpreting some of the assemblages from Tell Jawa, the finds do reveal strong evidence that cultic activities were conducted on the upper stories of the houses.

3.5.1.4.╇ Tell Juhfiyya (Tell Ğuḥfīya), map reference 2274.2109 Tell Juhfiyya is a small Iron II site in the northern part of Jordan, approximately 7.5 km south of Irbid. Excavations carried out by a joint German-Jordanian team revealed an Iron 277.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 254. 278.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 266. Figure compiled by Schmitt using Daviau, Tell Jawa Artefact Database, vols. 1–2. Because the pottery has not been published, only a sample of objects was presented. 279.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 316; see also 2001: table 1. 280.╇ Daviau et al. 2003: 322.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

183

Fig. 3.86.╇ Tell Jawa, Building 300: Figurine base and miniature tools from bench Locus E54:24.

Age II farmstead with two major architectural units encircled by a perimeter wall. One of these units was used for storage, the other for domestic purposes. The encircled compound encompassed an area of approximately 900 m² (Lamprichs and Saʿad 2003; 2004).

184

Chapter 3

The pottery and objects found inside the buildings themselves include utilitarian wares typical of domestic and agricultural purposes, such as vessels for the production, consumption, and storage of food, and other stone vessels and tools, as well as one fragment of a tripod incense cup (Lamprichs and Saʿad 2003: fig. 14). Remains of weapons, metal tools, jewelry, and several other luxury items such as beads, fibulae, a comb, pierced stone discs, and cosmetic bowls led the excavators to suggest that an elite group or family must have resided in the compound. Although evidence for domestic cult activities from Tell Juhfiyya is rather sparse, the tripod-cup suggests that the processing and consumption of food may have been accompanied by ritual actions.

3.5.1.5.╇ Tell Mazar (Tell el-Mazār), map reference 2072.1812 3.5.1.5.1.╇ Tell Mazar, mound A Tell Mazar is a small mound in the middle of the Jordan Valley that lies about 3 km north of Tell Dēr ʿAllā and was excavated by a Jordanian team between 1977 and 1981 (Yassine 1984; 1988; 1989). On Mound A, about 220 m from the tell proper, parts of a rectangular mud-brick building were excavated. The northern part of the building seems to have been approximately 24 m, although the width at the south is unknown. In front of what seems to have been a courtyard (Locus 103), three very similar rooms were unearthed (Rooms 100, 101, and 102), each of which was 2.5 m wide and between 4.6 m and 5.5 m deep. The entire structure has been dated to the 11th or 10th century b.c.e. A partially preserved bench of 32 cm height and 35 cm width ran along the northern wall of Room 100. The only item found here was a fragmented bowl. Room 102 also contained a bench (of 18 cm height and 30 cm width) that ran along the western and northern sections, an embedded stone basin 20 cm in diameter in the southern section, and a 1.9-meter-deep cistern. Room 101 yielded a large amount of pottery, although no distinguishing architectural features were evident. In addition to an undetermined number of storage vessels, the assemblage found in this room included a fenestrated stand (category A), two chalices (category B), two decorated Phoenician flasks, four jugs, two kraters, and a cooking pot (fig. 3.87).â•›281 Several tabuns were found in Courtyard 103, along with a stone work table. Storage jars and cooking pots were piled against the wall of Room 1000. Because of the presence of the presumably cultic pottery (that is, the stand and chalices), the structure as a whole was identified as having been a sanctuary that was separate from the nearby settlement. The many storage vessels were presumed to have supplemented the needs of the temple.â•›282 The labeling of the building as sacred was questioned by H. Weippert and Zwickel because of the layout of the building and the ambiguity of its finds. Zwickel (1994: 207–8) considered it to have been an entirely profane structure, while Weippert (1988: 409) proposed that the building was an exemplar of domestic cultic activities. As indicated by the presence of vessels dedicated to the storage and preparation of food as well as ovens and working stones, the building was truly domestic in nature. No category A objects were discovered on or in the vicinity of the benches, and they almost certainly served entirely 281.╇ Yassine 1984: figs. 1–4. 282.╇ Yassine 1984: 113–14. Yassine has later (1992: 646) qualified his view: “It is believed that the sanctuary served a public purpose but was not a place of large-scale public worship.”

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

185

Fig. 3.87.╇ Tell Mazar, Mound A: Pottery assemblage from Room 101.

profane activities. The building seems to have been typical of rural courtyard houses of the period (see Zwickel 1994: 207 n. 14). Room 101 contained mostly vessels related to the preparation and storage of food and liquids. The presence of the chalices and the stand among the storage vessels suggests the occasional performance of cultic activities (these items being stored away when not in use). This comparably large building was most likely the house of a wealthy farmer who may have been the chief of the village. It would have been the site of occasional cultic activities associated with the preparation and consumption of food. In terms of its architecture, contents, and date, the building seems to have been quite similar to Building 314 at Tel Masos.â•›283 283.╇ See above, pp. 125–129.

186

Chapter 3

3.5.1.5.2.╇ Tell Mazar, summit, field I A large building (Stratum III, Building 300) was excavated on the summit of Tell Mazar (see fig. 3.88 [after Yassine 1988: 84–89, fig. 6]). An ostracon that mentions the name of the Ammonite king HSLʾL indicates that this may have been the residence of an official. The structure measures about 10 × 15 m and was constructed with thick mud-brick walls. The entrance was found in the broad eastern side and opened up to two halls, similar to the layout of the bit-hilani palatial buildings. The inside layout was altered during a second phase by the division of the large halls into smaller chambers. Items found inside a fourth room attached to the east side indicate that they were used in the production and storage of food, including butchering and cooking. Numerous loom weights also indicate that the room was used for weaving. Cooking, weaving, and other domestic activities also seem to have been conducted in Rooms 305–8, inside the main hall. The destruction of the building during the Neo-Babylonian period sealed the material inside the rooms, although this was unfortunately not indicated in the original excavation report. Several figurines of horses and other animals belong with the finds taken from the rooms of Building 300. The report describes male figurines that included a distinctly male divine representation with a white crown and female pillar-figurines (Yassine 1988: pl. 13.1–4), although it does not indicate whether they belonged to Building 300 or not. However, it seems likely that later structures 200–500 on the summit of the tell were used for domestic purposes.

3.5.1.6.╇ Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, map reference 2365.1109 Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine is a site on the south bank of Wādī eṭ-Ṭemed, which is currently being excavated by a Canadian team from Wilfrid Laurier University (Daviau and Steiner 2000; Dion and Daviau 2000; Daviau and Dion 2002; Daviau et al. 2006; Daviau 2006). It has revealed significant finds associated with domestic and industrial buildings, as well as finds from a small gate sanctuary and a small temple. Of special interest to our book are the finds from the domestic and industrial areas. A cuboid altar was found in Building 140 in a room (number 114) that also accommodated a large clay oven, a stone work surface, and two mortars (Daviau 2006: 19–20). These structures suggest ritual activities conducted in association with the preparation of food. Buildings 200, 205b, and 210 served both domestic and industrial purposes, with the latter indicated by the presence of loom weights, plastered basins, and grinding tools. These items may have been associated with textile production, especially dyeing and weaving. A total of four large shaft altars were found in these three buildings, of which three had fallen from upper-story rooms (Daviau 2007: 128). These large altars again provide striking evidence for the presence of ritual objects and therefore for the importance of ritual activities in working communities that were associated with production processes. 3.5.1.7.╇ Pella (Ṭabaqāt Faḥl), map reference 2078.2064 Pella lies in the foothills on the eastern side of the Jordan Valley and has been excavated by a joint American-Australian team since the late 1960s (Bourke 1989; R. H. Smith 1993: 1174–75). In Plot IVE, a poorly preserved early Iron Age structure was considered domestic in character. It contained a deposit of pottery and ritual objects that lay be-

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

187

Fig. 3.88.╇ Tell Mazar, Building 300.

tween two burned surfaces (fig. 3.89).â•›284 The assemblage consisted of two tower-shaped pottery stands 50 cm in height, the better preserved of which had trees incised on its sides, while the other had two naked female plaque-figures en face with Hathor-locks, one of which stood above a partially preserved cat. One part of the rim depicted a female head-appliqué. These stands are similar in form and decoration to Taanach-stands 1 and 2. Among the category A objects was the fragment of a pointed stand-bowl as well. The utilitarian pottery consisted of cooking pots, bowls, jugs, and storage jars. The entire assemblage suggests ritual actions associated with the production and consumption of food. 284.╇ Compiled after Potts, Colledge, and Edwards 1985: 203–4; fig. 11; pls. 41–42; cf. McNicoll et al. 1992: 94–100 with. fig. 14 and pls. 70–71.

188

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.89.╇ Pella: Pottery and stands from Plot IV E.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

189

The excavations between 1996 and 1997 revealed an Iron Age I/IIA mud-brick domestic building that had been destroyed by a massive conflagration. This building yielded storage vessels as well as vessels for the preparation and consumption of food and drink, among which was a zoomorphic vessel that may have been used for libations (Bourke et al. 2003: 356–57, fig. 38).

3.5.1.8.╇ Tell Ṣāfūṭ, map reference 2286.1606 Tell Ṣāfūṭ is located 1.5 km north of Suweileh, near the modern Amman-to-Jerash highway, and was excavated by an American team led by D. H. Wimmer (Wimmer 1987; 1989). A destruction layer with sealed material was excavated in an Iron Age IIC casemate room. Room A was reported to have six fragments of figurines (mostly heads, some of which were painted), a horse figurine of category A, several cooking pots that had been smashed in situ, pilgrim’s flasks, an Assyrian bottle, and other unspecified items of pottery. The find corresponds closely to the material found in a casemate room in the Phoenician site of Tell Kabri.â•›285 3.5.1.9.╇ Tawīlān, map reference 197.972 Tawīlān is located in the northern hills above Wadi Musa, approximately 8 km northeast of Petra. The Tawīlān excavations were conducted between 1968 and 1970, and again in 1982. Because of the death of the excavator and several other unfortunate circumstances that included the loss of some records, the final report was not compiled until 1995 (Bennet and Bienkowski 1995). Although the report does not detail all items of pottery and reflects many of the difficulties suffered during the excavations, it nevertheless reveals a number of significant finds from Iron Age IIC–Persian period domestic structures. A limestone incense altar in the form of a panel decorated with geometrical incisions was found in situ under a collapsed wall inside the main hall of a four-room house (Area II, Locus II.32, Phase IV). Two carinated and two single-handle bowls were found in the same locus.â•›286 Another box-shaped incense altar was found in what appears to have been the rear room of a domestic building that was only partially excavated (Area III, Locus I.84.2, Phase VII).â•›287 No pottery was associated directly with the incense box, although a spindle whorl suggests possible domestic textile production. A considerable number of ritual objects were found in a structure that comprised several crudely constructed rooms (Area III west). Several hearths and pottery used for the processing and consumption of food indicate that domestic activities were conducted in the rooms. No specialized ritual or luxury vessels were found, which accords with the thinking that this was a poor farming village. The figurative material contained one fragment of a female plaque-figurine, a fragment of a pillar-figurine, three fragments of horse figurines, a clay mold for the head of a female pillar-figurine, and four pieces of another animal figurine, as well as a 285.╇ See p. 209 below. 286.╇ Bennet and Bienkowski 1995: 32; figs. 3.1–2 (plans); 9.14:1; 9.59; 3.28 (altar); 6.8:13, 22: 6.9:7 (pottery). 287.╇ Bennet and Bienkowski 1995: fig. 9.14:2.

190

Chapter 3

bowl (Locus III.8.3).â•›288 Along with domestic incense offerings and votive practices, the evidence from this site suggests the possibility that molded figurines were occasionally produced in domestic contexts.

3.5.1.10.╇ Tall al-ʿUmērī, map reference 2342.1420 A building from Tall al-ʿUmērī in Jordan (Herr 2000a; 2006; Herr and Clark 2001) is supposed to have provided evidence for ritual installations within a domestic unit. Building A measures about 17 m long and 8.5 m across at its widest point. The building was subdivided into three larger spaces or rooms (A1 to A3), with the fourth Room A4 forming a small alcove. Courtyard A5 lay to the east (fig. 3.90).â•›289 Both Rooms A2 and A3 were filled with brick debris and roofing mud to a depth of approximately 1.5 m, suggesting that these two rooms at least had been covered by debris from a second story. A stone stood in the center of the western wall of the partly paved Room A2, with another flat stone positioned at a right angle directly in front of it. A pile of carbonized barley was found immediately south of these standing stones. The structure was interpreted by the excavators (Herr 2006: 61–63 with fig. 3; see also Herr 2000a: 73–94) to have been a cultic room with a maṣṣebāh and an altar in front of it (fig. 3.91). The alcove Room A4 contained a line of stretcher stones with a group of seven stones lying flat. The latter stones were also interpreted as maṣṣebôt that were no longer in use (Herr 2006: 63). There were four pottery groups concentrated in Rooms A1, A2, A3, and A5. The last of these contained items from the upper floor. The pottery consisted of typical household items and did not contain any category A objects. Category B objects included two painted pyxides, three chalices, and a pair of cymbals (Herr et al. 1999: 101, fig. 7; Herr and Clark 2001: 47). Although the chalices and cymbals may have been used ritually, the absence of category A objects precludes conclusions. This did not deter Herr (2006: 72; see also 2000: 94) from concluding that “the four groups of pottery . . . strongly indicate a domestic use of the building, with hints of other specialized activities, perhaps ceremonial in nature. The architectural features of the building also suggest this dual function.” Impartial consideration of Building A and its associated finds, however, reveals no clear suggestion of cultic activities. The installation in Room A2 that included the standing stone most likely served some kind of architectural function. The stone lying in front of the supposed maṣṣebāh was most likely a working stone, and the flat stones in alcove A4 were probably nothing more than part of the pavement. The ceramic repertoire of the building was also completely utilitarian and did not include any objects obviously intended for specialized ritual usage. Additional evidence came from the courtyard of adjacent Building B, which was a typical four-room house. The feet, legs, and mounting pegs of a bronze figurine were discovered here, together with utensils for the preparation of food, grinding stones, a basalt stone weight, and textile implements (Herr and Clark 2001: 47). Although the presence of a bronze figurine may provide strong evidence of domestic cult activities, the findings still await final publication, and thus no final conclusions can be drawn at this point. 288.╇See Bennet and Bienkowski 1995: 80; figs. 9.3:1; 9.3:2; 9.3:3; 9.3:6; 9.3:7; 9.3:9; 9.4:1. 289.╇ Herr 2006: fig. 1.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

Fig. 3.90.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri, Building A.

191

192

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.91.╇ Tall al-ʿUmeri: Room A2 with supposed cultic stele.

Excavations in Area H uncovered a large room or courtyard of a well-constructed structure with a cobbled floor. Although first dated to the late Iron Age I, the structure has since been dated to the early Iron II period (Herr and Clark 2005: 255). Fragments of two model shrines were found together with a large number of pithoi fragments (Herr et al. 2001: 246–47, fig. 16; Herr and Clark 2003: 287–92, figs. 23–24). The structure was presumed by the excavators to have been a cultic building or shrine. This interpretation was based solely on the presence of the model shrine fragments, however, and the large number of pithoi suggest the more plausible interpretation of a storeroom in an administrative structure, and the storeroom may also have been used for ritual purposes.

3.5.1.11.╇ Conclusion for the Moabite and Ammonite evidence General observations of similarities between the material cultures of Israel, Judah, Moab, and Ammon in the Iron Age find additional support from evidence drawn from the domestic cultic items. Decorated stands associated with domestic rituals in Iron Age IIA were found both in Israel (Taanach) and in the Moab (Pella) square. Excavations at Tell Abu al-Kharaz and Tell Jawa also provided good evidence for the domestic use of perforated incense cups in the Iron IIC period; small incense altars of stone were used in domestic ritual activities, as evinced in the Iron II strata at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine and Tawīlān (Iron IIC); but in Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, they were directly associated with kitchen facilities. Domestic ritual patterns that involved female votary figurines and animal figurines along with other kitchen installations remained broadly similar throughout the Iron IIB and C ages, during which times they were often associated with the production and consump-

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

193

tion of food, in spite of changes in the dominant types of figurines (from JPFs in Judah to drummers in Transjordan). One significant difference is the occasional appearance in Transjordan of distinctly divine images and miniature shrines alongside votive figurines— items that were not found (or were extremely rare) in contemporary Judah. Nevertheless, female votive figurines and animal figurines were the dominant figurines used to symbolize prosperity in Judah, Moab, and Ammon. The presence of ritual objects, particularly altars, in industrial structures at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine reflects the objects found at Ekron, where shaft altars were also used in work-related cultic activities (see below).

3.5.2.╇ Domestic and related cult assemblages in the Philistine coastal plain 3.5.2.1.╇ Philistine terra-cotta figurines as diagnostic items Excavations at Ashdod led by Moshe Dothan between 1962 and 1969 revealed a large variety of unique Philistine terra-cotta figurines, many of them found in larger assemblages of utilitarian and nonutilitarian pottery. The corpus of Philistine terra-cotta figurines consisted of seven main types with several subtypes (fig. 3.92):â•›290 Type I:╇ Ψ-figurines Type II:╇ mourning-figurines Type III:╇ chair-figurines; the so-called Ashdodas Type IV:╇ snowman-figurines Type V:╇ snowman-figurines of musicians Type VI:╇ pillar-figurines or Ψ-type mixed style figurines Type VII:╇ snow woman-figurines The largest group of figurines was the type that are formed like chairs with four legs and a highly stylized head in the form of a kalathos on a long neck. These have been referred to as “Ashdoda.” They have been found in Ashdod and Tell Qasile, and fragments indicative of this type have also been found in Gezer, Tel Miqne, Tell es-Safi, Aphek, and Tell Judeideh. Only one figurine from Ashdod was fully preserved, while most of the others (which numbered approximately 60 pieces altogether) were fragments of necks, heads, or chairs (Schmitt 1999: 644–46; Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009: 49). Some of the chairs had breasts on the backrest. These figures were quite clearly designed to represent an enthroned female deity. In addition to these Ashdoda fragments, the Philistine repertoire also contained male heads and torsos, which probably belonged to standing male figurines. These figurines lacked traditional iconographic indications of divinity, such as crowns and weapons. Even though the Ashdoda clearly represented some kind of mother-goddess, there does not appear to be any convincing evidence that associates the goddess represented by these figurines with either the Asherah who was mentioned in an inscription found on a storage jar from Tel Miqne/Ekron (Gitin 1990: note 18) or the deity pt[â•›g]yh, who may originally have been a Philistine goddess (known from an inscribed dedication from Tel Miqne/ 290.╇ I examined the corpus of Philistine terra-cotta figurines in my dissertation (Schmitt 1994; 1999); a recent update of the material appears in Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009; and Ben-Shlomo 2010: 31–70.

194

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.92.╇ Typology of Philistine terra-cotta figurines.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

195

Ekron and dated to the 7th century b.c.e.; Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh: 1997: 1–16; Kottsieper 2001: 189–90). The male heads and figurines portrayed no divine emblems, and were most likely representations of ancestors (Schmitt 1999: 635).

3.5.2.2.╇ Material remains of domestic cult at Ashdod (Esdūd), map reference 1179.1293 The Ashdoda-figurines and other related figurines seem to have been widely used in domestic cult practices at Ashdod: Excavations of a Str. XI (4b/Iron IB) building in area H uncovered structural remains and artifacts indicative of the abode of a prosperous person or family.â•›291 The famous intact bichrome-painted Ashdoda-figurineâ•›292 was uncovered in Room 5032, although it was unfortunately found in a secondary context, in a large heap of rubble and broken pottery.â•›293 However, this complete Ashdoda, along with another fragment of a similar figurine,â•›294 a fragment of a bird figurine, and a zoomorphic kernos ring spout (which seems to have been in the form of a dog’s head)â•›295 were clearly and directly associated with the rich contemporary bichrome Philistine pottery found in other parts of the building. These other finds included a chalice and a lamp (fig. 3.93). â•›296 In residential Area G, Str. XI (Iron Age IIA), Room 4133 yielded a fragment of an Ashdoda-chair together with a krater,â•›297 while the adjacent yard (Locus 4109) yielded a fragment of an Ashdoda backrest and the head of another Ashdoda, together with a spinning bowl, juglet, and bone spatula (fig. 3.94).â•›298 The finds here are similarly suggestive of the performance of cultic activities in the rooms and courtyard of the building. Another domestic room in Area H (Stratum X, Iron Age IIA; Locus 5361) contained two tabuns and the famous decorated musician’s stand (Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 97; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 180–84), which were found together with part of a model shrine that was similar to those from the Yavneh favissa (Kletter and Ziffer 2007). These items were accompanied by a bowl, jar, and bichrome jug. These finds, which are shown in fig. 3.95, clearly indicate the performance of ritual actions in the food-processing area.â•›299 Another notable find was a unique knobbed stand taken from Area H, Locus 6212 (Stratum IX–VIII, Iron Age IIB). It was accompanied by an assemblage that included a chalice, a juglet, three bowls, two kraters, and a jug (fig. 3.96).â•›300 The entire area was interpreted by the excavators to be a domestic cult area (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 47). 291.╇ Dothan 1971: 162; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 152–53. 292.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 19 (= Dothan 1971: fig. 91.1). 293.╇ Dothan 1971: 161. 294.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 21 (= Dothan 1971: fig. 91.4). 295.╇ Dothan 1971: figs. 92.5, 8. 296.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan 1971: figs. 86–87. 297.╇ Dothan and Porath 1993: figs. 42.8 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 27); 40.3. 298.╇ Dothan and Porath 1993: Plan 12; figs. 42.4 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 27); 42.5 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 58); 42.1 (spinning bowl); 41.9 (juglet). 299.╇ Compiled after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2:10, figs. 3.69.4; 3.71.5; 3.72.4; 3.75; 3.76. 300.╇ Complied after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.12; figs.  3.88:7–9, 17; 3.89.4, 10; 3.93.5; 3.94; 3.95.

196

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.93.╇ Ashdod, Area H: Pottery and objects from Rooms 5032 and 5033.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

197

Fig. 3.94.╇ Ashdod: Figurines and pottery from Loci 4133 and 4109.

Additional evidence from clearly domestic loci of the residential sections of Areas H and K is summarized in table 3.3 (p. 198; after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005). The data in this table reveal that various types of Philistine terra-cotta figurines, zoomorphic vessels, and stands were used in domestic contexts during the Iron Age IB–IIC, often near or in the vicinity of tabuns. Moreover, evidence from Building 5184 suggests that a wide variety of ritual objects may have been used in the different rooms of the building.

3.5.2.3.╇ Remains of domestic cult at Tell Qasile, map reference 1307.1676 The only noteworthy structure excavated in the domestic quarters at Tell Qasile was Iron Age IB–IIA Building 495.â•›301 In Room 770 of this domestic unit, one fragment of an Ashdoda backrest was found on the burned floor of a room, together with a multiÂ�handled krater and a collared rim-pithos. The room opened onto a courtyard and had an adjacent kitchen, although its function remains unclear (Mazar 1986: 8, pl. 3a, fig. 61; see Schmitt 1999: 53 and cat. no. 21). These excavations accord with observations from Ashdod, in that cultic practices with figurines were also a defining feature of domestic cults in Philistine. 301.╇ The material from the earlier excavations (Mazar 1951) has only been published in a summary way.

Chapter 3

198

Table 3.3.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Ashdod, Areas H and K Room/ Locus

Stratum/ Date

Installations/ Function

Cat. A

Cat. B

Cat. C

5128

XII Iron IB

main hall of Building 5128

ψ-figurine

3 bowls submyc stirrup jar submyc bowl bichr 2 kraters bichr stirrup jar bichr 2? jugs bichr

5351a

XII Iron IB

longitudinal side hall of Building 3233 ?

bird bowl head

5355

XII Iron IB

continuation of Room 5351a

bird bowl

3 bowls submyc krater? submyc krater submyc jug submyc 7 bowls bichr 6 kraters bichr lamp 4 jugs bichr 2 kraters 2 cooking pots jug bowl submyc stirrup jar submyc krater bichr bowl krater juglet

5170b

XI Iron IB XIb Iron IB

room of Building 5184 main hall of Building 5184

pomegranate vessel 2 bird bowl heads

5152b (adjacent to 4189) 5181

XI Iron IB

main hall of Building 5184

1 bird bowl head

XI Iron IB

male fig. frag

5348

X Iron IIA X Iron IIA

room in western corner of Building 5184 floor corner of room

Type I or II ψ-figurine

corner of room

zoomorphic vessel body

5189

5143a 5134a

X Iron IIA

bowl submyc bowl bichr krater bichr jug bichr bowl cooking pot bowl/chalice?

strainer jug bichr

Ashdoda 4 bowls/ kraters 2 kraters krater?

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

199

Table 3.3.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Ashdod, Areas H and K Room/ Locus

Stratum/ Date

5103

IX–VIII Iron IIB

5109

IX–VIII Iron IIB

6190a

VII Iron IIC VII Iron IIC VII Iron IIC VI Iron IIC

5121 5111 6128

Installations/ Function

Cat. A

floor in partially excavated house north of street, near tabun floor in northwestern room of Building 5109 room with tabun

kernos zoom. spout plaque figurine

floor of room, near tabun floor of room, near tabun room

male head

Cat. B

Cat. C

kernos zoom spout Ashoda-frag.

bird bowl head knob-footed stand frag.

alabastron

2 bowls/kraters cooking pot? juglet

3.5.2.4.╇ Early Philistine hearth and bathtub installations Excavations of areas that correspond with times of Philistine settlement have uncovered several installations likely to have been associated with ritual actions conducted in households. As suggested by T. Dothan (2003; see also Dothan and Dothan 1992: 245), the Aegean religious heritage of the Philistines found expression in a combination of raised hearths, benches or bamôt, bathtubs, and in some cases pillars. A large building complex in Ashdod Area H, Stratum XIII/XII (numbered 5337; Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 26–30) was interpreted as having been the house of a prosperous family. It contained a hearth and bathtub installation in a hall,â•›302 along with Myc IIIC:1b and Philistine pottery, as well as a number of category A and B objects. The distribution of these objects is shown in fig. 3.97.â•›303 Northeastern Room 5312 yielded various luxury items, including gold disks that probably formed parts of sword pommels, ivories, a faience amulet, and miniature vessels, including a bowl and a kylix that were associated with a bench. Similar items were found in northwestern Room 5318, which held one fragment of a kernos ring, a fragment of a fenestrated stand, a bird rattle (category A), ivory objects (category B), Myc IIIC1:b and Philistine pottery, and other ivory and bronze objects. The main hall, designated Locus 5337, featured two pillars and a hearth and bathtub installation and yielded one fragment of an Ashdoda and two other fragments of anthropoâ•‚ or zoomorphic figurines, along with a stand (category A), bead (category B), bowl, and bichrome strainer or spouted jug (see Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: figs. 3.10–41). 302.╇ Dothan 2003: 200–201, fig. 10. 303.╇ Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: Plan 2.7.

200

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.95.╇ Ashdod, Locus 5361 with musician’s stand and shrine model fragment.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

201

Fig. 3.96.╇ Stand and pottery from Ashdod, Area H, Locus 6212.

Similar installations with hearths and bathtubs have been found in Ekron. Room I of a Stratum VII building contained a bench, a freestanding square hearth in the center, and an adjacent limestone bathtub on the eastern wall. Building 353 (Field IV, Stratum VI) also contained a bathtub and a raised hearth that had a monolith as well.â•›304 A centrally positioned square hearth and bathtub installation was also found in a building in Ashkelon.â•›305 Furthermore, the large domestic Building 404 in Ekron Stratum VI yielded 15 small, round pebbled hearths along with a bull-shaped zoomorphic vessel and a chalice.â•›306 Another installation with a hearth and bathtub was identified by Dothan in the Area G 304.╇ Dothan 2003: 204–7, fig. 14. 305.╇ Dothan 2003: fig. 15. 306.╇ Dothan 2003: 198.

202

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.97.╇ Distribution of finds from Ashdod, Building 5337.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

203

room or Courtyard 4124 of Stratum XII in Ashdod, although this is more likely to have been part of a workshop for the production of pottery.â•›307 These hearth and bathtub installations were interpreted by Dothan (2003: 203) as having been elements of purification rituals that were possibly communal. Such an assertion is, according to Dothan, further affirmed by the presence of category A and B objects in association with these installations. However, it does not seem likely that these relatively large rooms in domestic buildings, and their associated installations would have served ritual purposes exclusively. It is more likely that these hearths and bathtubs would have been used for domestic activities, including baking, cooking, and other activities associated with processing food. This association between kitchen installations and category A and B objects and luxury pottery, particularly as evinced in Building 5337 in Ashdod, accords neatly with the overall picture of other early Iron Age cult assemblages, which seem to have had strong associations with the processing and consumption of food.

3.5.2.5.╇ Work-related cultic elements at Ashdod and Tel Miqne/Ekron (Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿ) The archaeological contexts of the Philistine terra-cotta figurines provide significant insight regarding their functions. Most figurines at Ashdod were found in the so-called potter’s quarter and in the adjacent living areas of Area D. The potter’s quarter of Stratum VIII (Str. 3) was probably destroyed at the end of the 8th century during the conquest of Sargon II (Dothan 1993: 100). A great number of figurines were found in pits, where they were buried together with other pottery remains (Hachlili 1971: 125–26). A building complex in the south of Area D was interpreted by the excavators as a small temple (Dothan and Freedman 1967: 133–34; Hachlili 1971: 125, 135). Figure 3.98 depicts the structures of the potter’s quarter and their associated items.â•›308 The installations in Room 1010 consisted of a small platform (Locus 1022), with three courses of brick measuring 1.15–1.35 m long, and a bench running along the southeast wall (W1013). The installations were covered with whitewash. To the northwest of Room 1010 was another room (numbered 1009), about 3 × 4 m, that was paved with pebbles; in the southeast, there was a second room (numbered 1025), about 3  ×  3  m, that was paved with mud brick. A single fragment of one Ashdoda was found in Room 1010.â•›309 The mud-brick room yielded one male head.â•›310 One jug, two juglets, and a bowl were found in the debris of Room 1010.â•›311 Adjacent Room 1003 together with Rooms 1006 and 1045 seem to have formed a long corridor leading to Room 1010. Room 1003 contained two knob-footed cups of unclear use, two jugs, one storage jar, a loom weight, four bowls, one cooking pot, one jar, and a unique terra-cotta basin.â•›312 Three more fragments of Ashdodas, two Ashtarte-plaques, and two male heads were found either in the adjacent rooms of the 307.╇ Dothan 2003: 201 with fig. 12. The excavators interpreted the structure as a workshop and the hearth as a kiln (Dothan and Porath 1993: 72 with plan 12), which seems more likely. 308.╇ Redrawn and compiled by Schmitt, after Dothan and Freedman 1967. 309.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: fig. 43.6 = Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 24. 310.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 69. 311.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 37.15 (bowl), 22 (jug), 24–25 (juglets). 312.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 38.7–8; 37.2–3, 11–12, 16, 19; 39.1, 3.

204

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.98.╇ Ashdod: Potter’s quarter in Area D with figurine and pottery assemblages.

building or in their vicinity. Another assemblage of probable cultic objects and vessels was found in Locus 1019, which was an open space either belonging to the older Iron IIB Str. IX (4) or to Str. VIII (3). The assemblage consisted of one fragment of an Ashdoda, one head of a male figurine, a zoomorphic libation vessel, a stand, a fragment of a kernos-ring bowl (category A), six kraters, one miniature and four regular bowls, a juglet, a jug, and two jars.â•›313 It is possible that Str. VIII (3b) Pit 1004, which contained a similar assemblage including various items of pottery,â•›314 another Ashdoda fragment,â•›315 a plaquefigurine, and four zoomorphic kernos-ring spouts,â•›316 was associated with the assemblage of Locus 1019. Interpretations of the cultic character of Area D have been the subject of ongoing debate (Zwickel 1994: 247; Schmitt 1999: 582–83), with little resolution achieved. Interpreting the function and purposes of these structures remains difficult because they were not closely associated with any alleged cultic installations, and because Area D seems in its entirety to have been a dedicated potter’s quarter, containing shops and storerooms. Interpretation of items taken from the purportedly cultic Room 1010 also remains problematic, particularly because the architecture is not directly comparable with any other known temples in Iron Age Palestine. Nevertheless, the entire assemblage of utilitarian 313.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 42.18; 43.1; 42.19; 39.10; 42.3–7; 39.8, 10; 42.1, 2, 8, 15, 16; 42.9, 13; 42.11, 12. 314.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: 148; fig. 36: four bowls, three kraters, flask handle, lamp. 315.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 25. 316.╇ Dothan and Freedman 1967: figs. 43.4, 44.1–2, 45.4.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

205

and nonutilitarian pottery found in the building suggests distinct possibilities of some kind of cultic use. Cultic use of Room 1010 may only have been occasional, with the utensils used for these cultic activities stored in the meantime in the other general-purpose storage rooms. The similarities in the composition of utilitarian and nonutilitarian assemblages of Locus 1019 and Pit 1004 also accord with this picture of occasional cultic use. The fact that figurines were found accompanied by libation vessels, jugs, and kraters suggests at least the occasional performance of rituals of libation or meals for the goddess represented by the Ashdoda figurines. The adjacent workshops also suggest that these cultic activities may have somehow been associated with pottery-production processes. The finds from the potter’s workshop itself indicate that the production of pottery was accompanied by cultic activities. The Ashdoda-figurines and the other types of figurine found near the potter’s workshop—which was still in use in Stratum VII—could have been placed near the kilns in order to ensure success in firing the pottery.â•›317 A great number of broken figurines and kernos fragments that probably originated from the workshop were found in Pit 1067.â•›318 It therefore seems quite possible that the assemblages with the figurines of the Ashdoda and the male ancestors were used in cultic activities associated with the work of the craftspeople and that at least one purpose of these cultic activities was to ensure the success of firing the kilns and pottery. If this is true, these assemblages may be interpreted as examples of large-scale cults related to work practices that included laborers involved in industrial production. This evidence from Ashdod is supported by similar finds in Field I NE (Stratum VI–IV, Iron Age I–IIA) at Ekron (Gitin and Dothan 1987: 202–3; Dothan 1990: 27–28; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 241–42; Dothan and Gitin 1993: 1053; Dothan 2003: 209). Although the finds from the kiln area here have only been published in preliminary reports, they included Philistine figurines of Types I (Ψ-Type, Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 4 and 5) and II (Ashdoda, Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 66 and 67), kernos fragments, a lion-headed rhyton, incised bone scapulas, and miniature vessels. The excavators proposed that the building, which contained a plastered bench, was a shrine. However, these figurines and their associated cultic paraphernalia are also typical of both domestic and work-related cultic activities (Zwickel 1994: 211–12; Schmitt 1999: 588–89). Given the above interpretation of assemblages from the potter’s area, it is also likely that this building, whether domestic or industrial, was also the site of work-related cultic practices.

3.5.2.6.╇ Cultic elements from the olive-oil industrial area at Tel Miqne/Ekron (Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿ) The occasional use of industrial buildings for cultic practices is also manifested in 7thcentury Ekron, where a great number of limestone altars were found in an area used for 317.╇ Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 54 (near kiln 1164, under Hellenistic kiln 1053); cat. no. 33 (between kilns 1088 and 1164); cat. no. 31 (C/4, Locus 1085 near kiln 1169); Ashtarte-plaque near kiln 1168 (Locus 1051; Dothan 1971: fig. 64.2). 318.╇Kernoi: Dothan 1971: figs. 66.2; 68.1. Figurines: figs. 62.9, 10; 63.4 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 30); 63.6 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 34); 64.1 (Ashtarte-plaque); 64.10 (female head). Male heads/ figurines: figs. 62.9 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 77); 62.10 (= Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 93).

206

Chapter 3

the production of olive oil.â•›319 In an apparent anteroom containing an oil pressing installation, in Area II SW150, two horned altars (a larger one measuring 65 × 61 × 51 cm; a smaller one measuring 25 × 25 × 23 cm) and a cylindrical limestone stand of 32 × 30 cm were discovered in debris from phase C. The larger of these stands was partially resting on top of the smaller altar and the cylindrical stand (MacKay 1995: 24, 126–28; fig.: pl. 9 and field phase plan section 166/150). These items were obviously not originally placed in these positions but fell together when the structure was destroyed. Area II SW 134 was most likely a storage room and contained two limestone altars, one of which was intact and measured 39 × 24 × 16 cm, the other of which was found in two fragments but had originally been around 47 cm high. These also also were found in debris from the destruction of the structure and thus, similarly, were probably not in positions corresponding with their original use. The locus also contained a large amount of pottery, mostly in the form of jars and pithoi, as well as several juglets, a painted chalice, and the base of another chalice (MacKay 1995: 22, 115–19). Locus 118002 in Area II SW118 belonged to the same building and, in the debris of the 7th-century destruction, contained an intact pottery stand and a fragment of a zoomorphic figurine. The pottery consisted of store jars, lmlktype jars, cooking pots, a bowl lamp, and a votive goblet (MacKay 1995: 20, 100–101). In Area II SW 86, an olive-oil press and a stand-like chalice with a painted triangular design were unearthed. These items had very little pottery associated with them (MacKay 1995: 15). Because horned altars were found in contemporary Judah as well as in earlier Israel but have not been found anywhere else in Philistia, Gitin presumed these altars to have reflected some kind of foreign religious practice that was performed by Israelite craftsmen who had been forced to settle in Philistia following the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 721 b.c.e. The altars have therefore been interpreted to have been material parts of the religious practices of an Israelite craft guild in Ekron (Gitin 1993: 250; also see Gitin 1989: 61; 2003: 291). These altars may have been adopted from neighboring Israel or Judah, however, because of more-general cultural assimilation, without necessarily having an ethnic association. Moreover, because cults associated with large-scale industrial practices seem to have had a longer tradition in Philistia (as attested by the potter’s quarter in Ashdod), the specialized practice in Ekron seems more likely to have originated with these Philistine traditions. Ritual practices associated with the olive-oil industry consisted of the offering of dry or liquid foodstuffs on altars and stands. The altars and stands show no evidence of burning, and the offerings involved both chalices and juglets.

3.5.2.7.╇ Conclusions regarding the Philistine evidence The assemblages of terra-cotta figurines at Ashdod, together with nonutilitarian items of pottery including stands, kernos rings, and utilitarian pottery that was mostly the luxury type indicate their common use in cultic activities. These activities would have involved and been conducted by the craftspeople of the potters’ workshops, as well as their families, and would have consisted of the offerings of drinks and food to the goddess who was represented by the Ashdoda-figurines and to ancestors. The cultic assemblages of 319.╇See Gitin 1989: 52–67; 1993: 248–58; MacKay 1995. See also Gitin 1990.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

207

Ashdod are quite comparable with those of the superimposed phases (319, 200, and 131, Strata XII–X) of the temple at Tell Qasile, even through this was merely a village shrine. Assemblages from this shrine also contained terra-cotta figurines and a small terra-cotta naos, together with nonutilitarian pottery including kernos rings and other forms of libation vessels, stands, utilitarian luxury pottery, a lion-shaped rhyton, and small bowls.â•›320 Domestic remains associated with the shrines contained a larger number of specialized objects than remains associated with the potter’s cult, particularly the small model shrine (“naos”), anthropomorphic vessels, and stands. The composition of Philistine assemblages and the characteristics of their related installations thus enable us to differentiate between village shrines as typified by Tell Qasile; occasional cultic practices conducted in or near industrial areas ,as typified by the potter’s quarter of Ashdod and the industrial olive-oil area of Ekron; and domestic cults, as typified by finds from both Ashdod and Tell Qasile. Domestic units unearthed in Ashdod especially reveal the strong association between ritual activities and kitchen facilities.

3.5.3.╇ Comparative data from Phoenician and Syrian sites Data from Iron Age I and II living quarters at Phoenician and Syrian sites remain scarce, for both archaeological and political reasons.â•›321 Valuable data have nevertheless emerged from Phoenician sites in Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, especially from Tell Kazel, Sarepta, Tell Keisan, and a number of other sites.â•›322 Rather than present a comprehensive survey of Iron Age domestic cult remains, in the following section I compare and contrast a small selection of finds. The Tell Bazi excavations were examined in a case study by A. Otto (2006). Table-like installations were discovered in 17 Late Bronze Age domestic buildings, with an additional 10 possible occurrences. These tables were likely to have been altars used in domestic cult practices. All of these installations were located opposite entrances, in the middle of the shorter walls of the rooms. Additional evidence comes from anthropoâ•‚ and zoomorphic libation vessels and other specialized vessels; collectibles sometimes found inside vessels, which included jewelry, precious stones, and snail shells; utilitarian vessels, including cooking pots and storage vessels; animal bones, including bovine skulls that had been placed intentionally; stone utensils; and trays or vessels partially sunk into the ground near altars. On the basis of this sort of archaeological evidence, A. Otto proposed that domestic cult practices at Tell Bazi involved the offering of libations and meals, the anointing of altars, and the placement of votive objects. We may therefore be relatively certain that the 320.╇ Mazar 1980: 120. 321.╇ Early structures were strongly disturbed by building activities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, especially in the Phoenician centres. Moreover, archaeological work has often concentrated upon the later structures, or upon the more spectacular Iron Age palaces. See also Jamieson 2000: 261, with note 8 presenting a short list of Iron Age evidence from Syria. 322.╇ The Tel Dor excavations revealed quite a lot of material of religious significance (Stern 1995b: 435–56), but this material come from a later period (the Persian-Hellenistic) than that under discussion here. This is also the case for the rich Phoenician material of figurative art discussed by Nunn (2000).

208

Chapter 3

altar installations served cults of ancestors and of family gods. No anthropomorphic figurines of humans or deities were unambiguously associated with ritual installations and, according to Otto, figurines of deities were never present in Late Bronze Age houses, even through figurines and weapons—or at least fragments thereof—seem to have been used in apotropaic deposits near doors and on thresholds (A. Otto 2006: 241–44). Domestic cultic practices in the average Tell Bazi house thus seem to have been performed and culturally propagated by nuclear families that would generally have had at least seven members or, for larger houses, extended nuclear families that may have included up to ten slaves (Otto 2006: 276). We may also be relatively certain that single cultic installations found in subdivided houses would have been owned by the primary heir. Use of these installations would have been shared by the members of fraternal families who lived together (Otto 2006: 244).

3.5.3.1.╇ Houses and their furnishings in Iron Age Phoenicia and Syria At Iron Age Tell Halaf, private buildings consisting of 4–5 rooms formed an L-shaped structure—two wings surrounding an open court. These buildings most likely had two stories, although there is also evidence for considerably less grand two-room buildings that had only one level (Naumann 1950: 360–61, fig.  174–76). Tell Mastuma (Wakita, Wada, and Nishiyama 2000) provided strong evidence for pronounced social stratification. The sizes of houses ranged from simple twoâ•‚ or three-room dwellings of around 5 x 10 m to larger, two-storied houses of approximately 10 × 20 m, to even larger buildings measuring about 19 × 28 m. A standard house may have housed a nuclear family of about five people (Wakita, Wada, and Nishiyama 2000: 548 and n. 17). Regardless of the sizes of buildings, cooking seems generally to have been done in courtyards, as is known to have been the case for Building C2 of Tell Ahmar (Jamieson 2000). Urban houses of the Iron Age IIB–C period generally followed Neo-Assyrian building conventions, as exemplified by the late Assyrian Building C2 at Tell Ahmar (see Jamieson 2000: fig.  1). The rooms of this building were constructed around a central courtyard. This house itself was quite large, covering an area of 700 m², and would most likely have belonged to an elite family. Excavated pottery was used to discern several activity areas in the house (Jamieson 2000). The northwest half formed a general living space, while the southeast area was dedicated to domestic work and storage. Most of the items found in Rooms 1 and 2 were storage jars, almost certainly implying that these were dedicated storage rooms, although they may also have been used for activities associated with the preparation of food. Most food preparation and processing, however, took place in the courtyard (Room 7), in which were found ovens and a large number of cooking pots, as well as vessels for the consumption of food. A large number of the latter vessels, particularly bowls, were stored in the niche Room 8. An even larger number of small drinking vessels were uncovered in the main reception hall (Room 6), while Rooms 4 and 5, which were supposed to have been bedrooms, and the dressing and bathroom unit of Rooms 9–11 yielded at most only small amounts of pottery. No ritual objects were reported. The Iron Age figurative material of Phoenicia and Syria bears a close typological relationship with the Judean repertoire, especially the pillar-like figurines; the horses and riders; the crude, handmade figurines of snowmen and women; and various other types of

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

209

animal figurines. This typological relationship is evinced in the coroplastic items excavated from Tell Afis (see D’Amore in Mazzoni 1989: 75–98 and pls. 12–13), Sarepta (Pritchard 1988: figs.  10–15), and Beirut (Lehmann-Jericke 1997). Pillar-figurines with outspread arms are also closely related to the above figurines and, even though they were not found in Judah, they were commonly found in the Phoenician Iron II repertoire. Relatively few figures that are divine representations were uncovered by excavations of Iron Age deposits in Syria and Phoenicia, although exceptions are one enthroned male deity wearing an atef crown and a few fragments of a youthful male god with a high, white crown. In the following sections, I consider several exemplary sites with finds that provide insight into the extent to which these typological similarities, especially in relation to female and animal figurines, may reflect similarities in patterns of usage.

3.5.3.2.╇ Phoenician sites 3.5.3.2.1.╇ Kabri, map reference 164.268 Kabri is a Phoenician site near Nahal Gaton, approximately 4 km west of Naharya. It was excavated between the late 1980s and early 1990s by a joint Israeli-German team led by A. Kempinski (Kempinski and Niemeier 1994). At this site, an Iron Age II casemate room (Locus 890) that seems to have formed part of an enclosure measuring approximately 50 × 90 m was destroyed. The destruction produced debris in which an assemblage containing items of possible cultic significance was found. The assemblage consisted of one head and a fragment from a bust of female plaquefigurines, the head of a horse-figurine, an incense burner, an Egyptian fayance amulet depicting a baboon, a Neo-Babylonian stamp seal (category A), a goblet, three bowls, one juglet, a bottle, a cooking pot, two decanters, three storage jars, a basket-handled jar, a fragmentary clay basin, and a loom weight.â•›323 The pottery bears close parallels to pottery found in layers 4 and 4b of Tell Keisan, which has been dated between the middle and the end of the 7th century. Although it is not possible to determine with much certainty whether these objects were actually used at this site or were merely dumped here, the presence and composition of entire vessels suggests the first possibility. The casemate room was only about 1.5 m wide and may well have been used as a storeroom. The assemblage seems typical of Iron II domestic ritual assemblages from Phoenicia, particularly in including female fertility or votive figurines, animal figurines, incense burners, and domestic pottery suitable for the production and consumption of food. 3.5.3.2.2.╇ Tell Kazel Tell Kazel, ancient Ṣumura or Simyra, is located in Syria and has been excavated since 1985 by a joint European-Syrian team (Badre et al. 1990; 1994; Capet and Gubel 2000). It is located approximately 4 km east of the Mediterranean Sea and 10 km south of Amrit. The site has yielded convincing evidence of domestic cult activities in the Iron Age strata. A deposit of storage vessels was discovered in a solidly constructed, Iron Age II domestic building known as the “jar building” (Chantier I Locus T13 NW/SE, Niveau 9–10). 323.╇ Kempinski and Niemeier 1994: figs. 17.1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10; 18.1, 3, 4, 6–8, 12, 14, 17, 19; 20.3, 5, 9; 21.1, 8.

210

Chapter 3

The floors of the building were partially plastered, suggesting that the building was a storage room. This locus also yielded fragments of two fenestrated stands with red decorations and an unperforated tripod-cup, which was also thought to be an incense burner (Badre et al. 1994, fig. 20; Capet and Gubel 2000: fig. 18). The ritual objects were probably stored away when not in use. An imported Cypriot zoomorphic vessel, presumed to have been an askos, was recorded from the Iron Age strata (7–9) of Area I, along with approximately 11 fragments of terra-cotta figurines that depicted male and female deities (Badre et al. 1994: figs. 11; 15a–i). Although it seems likely that these figures would have been used in domestic acts of veneration, the publication did not provide explicit details on locations or contexts. A hollow figurine in the form of a votary carrying a sacrificial animal was also found in Locus T13 NE (Badre et al. 1994: fig. 14). Each of the succeeding Iron Age Levels 7–9 of the structure west of the jar building in Area I T12 NW contained category A objects together with domestic pottery (Badre et al. 1990: pl. 6, figs. 27, 29, 30). Level 7, dated to the earlier part of the 7th century, contained vessels for the storage and consumption of liquids, including cups, jugs, and a strainer jug, along with a decorated amphora. Objects of religious significance included the torso of a female plaque-figurine; one torso and one molded head of female figurines holding their breasts; a crudely made, possibly male anthropoid figurine;â•›324 and a fibula. The Level 8–9 square T12 NW from the latter part of the 8th century was characterized as a kitchen, and contained two ovens. Among many unspecified items of pottery, the Level 8 material contained a bowl and the head of a male deity. The Level 9 material contained pottery dedicated to the production and consumption of food, including bowls and cooking pots, ivory inlay in form of a female head with polos (presumed to have represented a female deity; see Barnett 1982: pls. 43 c–d, 44 c), and the head of a male figurine wearing a horned headdress. The assemblages of pottery and category A objects indicate ritual activities performed either within the kitchen or its vicinity. Although fragments of figurines are very commonly dispersed from locations where they originally might have been used, the concentration of figurine fragments within a room dedicated to cooking, eating, and drinking (Level 7) does not seem accidental. The Iron Age evidence from Tell Kazel reveals interesting parallels with contemporary Israel and Judah in the use of stands, tripod-cups, and zoomorphic vessels, but it also reveals differences, particularly in the domestic use of clearly divine images. Two essentially different cultic patterns can be observed within this figurative material. The first would have been domestic practices of worship addressed to the male and female divine representations, which would most likely have been of Baal and Ashtarte; while the second would have been some kind of votive practice utilizing the anthropoid figurines, as illustrated by the female figurines. This latter practice is particularly evinced by votary figurine bearing the sacrifical animal from Tell Kazel T13 NE.

324.╇ Interpreted by the excavators as a bear (Badre 1990: 50). The figurine is similar to other coarsely made objects found throughout Palestine (see, for instance, Gilbert-Peretz 1996: pls. 1.1–3; 8–10 from Jerusalem).

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

211

3.5.3.2.3.╇ Tell Keisan, map reference 164.253 Tell Keisan is one of only a few Iron Age Phoenician sites in which living quarters have been exposed that show some evidence of domestic cultic activities. The site was excavated by École Biblique between 1971 and 1976 (Briend and Humbert 1980). A room in a building in Str. 9 (Locus 630, Iron Age I) yielded one fragment of a zoomorphic figurine (a horse) together with typical household items, such as a cooking pot, a large bowl, two other bowls, a perforated juglet, two lentoid flasks, a jar, and three grinding stones (Briend and Humbert 1980: pls. 59.5; 63.6; 64.7a; 65.14; 66.4a, 12; 83.2, 6, 7, 103.3). The assemblage shows a great deal of similarity with the Megiddo Str. VI material and suggests the preparation and consumption of food. A building found in Str. 8 (Iron IIA) yielded a fenestrated and decorated stand from the northern room, in Locus 656 (Briend and Humbert 1980: fig. 50; pl. 56.1). Although no other pottery or object was reported in this locus, two chalices were found in adjacent loci (Briend and Humbert 1980: pl. 56.12–13). Similar to the stand at Tell Kazel, the stand at Tell Keisan is comparable to contemporary fenestrated stands from Megiddo and Lachish, revealing that stands of this type were in common domestic use in Israelite and Phoenician sites of Iron Age IIA. 3.5.3.2.4.╇ Sarepta, map reference 1705.1089 During the American excavations at Sarepta (Sarafand) that were led by Pritchard, several strata of Iron Age structures were exposed on the mound in Sounding Y (Pritchard 1975: 41–70; 1978: 71–96; Anderson 1979). The function of the buildings in the Iron Age strata remain difficult to discern, however, due to the limited extent of the excavations. It nevertheless seems plausible that the buildings in Strata D and F served industrial purposes, while those in Stratum E were of a domestic nature, and Stratum C may have been a public structure (Anderson in Pritchard 1975: 41–42; see also Anderson 1979; 1988). Evidence from Sounding Y is summarized in table 3.4. The data in the table suggest associations between votive practices and domestic areas, exemplified by the presence of horse-and-rider figurines, and the presence of other zoomorphic vessels likely to have been used for libations. Note also that Phoenician domestic structures commonly featured masks (see Anderson 1979: 736–40). Sounding Y was not the only place that suggested an association between work-related spaces and cultic activities. The Iron I potter’s quarter (Sounding × in Area II; Pritchard 1975: 71–84; 1978: 110–30; 1988; Khalifeh 1988) also yielded ritual objects that may have been both produced and used in this industrial quarter. Items found here included at least two pottery shrines, fragments of masks, anthropoid (although these lacked any signifiers of divinity) and zoomorphic figurines, a zoomorphic ladle, a pottery disc or amulet that depicted the moon and the Pleiades, and some Egyptian fayance amulets. While the pottery objects may simply have been artifacts of production, the fayance amulets could not have been, and they would likely have served apotropaic functions, perhaps related to pottery production itself. A decided majority of all anthropomorphic figurines found at Sarepta (76 of 96 total) were in the area of the shrine, adjacent to the potter’s quarter, in Area IIâ•‚A/B-3/4 (Pritchard 1988: 54). Of these figures, the most frequently occurring type was the seated pregnant woman, followed by pillar-type figurines. The shrine may

Chapter 3

212

Table 3.4.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Sarepta Room/Locus

Stratum/Date

Installation/ Function

Cat. A

IIK 21/Level 4

B2/Persian

public?

IIK 20/Level 26 balk IIL 20/Locus 18

C1/Iron IIB–C

room/domestic?

C1/Iron IIB–C

room/domestic?

IIK 20/Locus 12

C1/Iron IIB–C

room/domestic?

IIL 21/Level 26

E/Iron IB

domestic

IIK/L 21/Level 27 balk IIK 21/Level 27

F/Iron I F/Iron I

IIK 20/Locus 27-1

F/Iron I

pottery workshop pottery workshop pottery workshop

mask. fragment base of fem. plaque figurine rattle

IIK 20/Level 26

F/Iron I

IIL 21/Locus 29-1

F Iron I

pottery workshop pottery workshop

zoomorphic figurine base of female plaque fig. wheel of model chariot

Cat. B

Cat. C 3 bowls

male head with conical cap (horse-andrider) zoomorphic spout mask. fragment zoomorphic figurine

2 bowls jug lid wall bracket goblet

bowls pilgrim flask jug cooking pot

cooking pot krater 2 bowls jug pithos potter’s rib

wall bracket

storage jar bowl 2 cooking pots

well have been a dedicated cult place serving the industrial area, and the figurines suggest votive activities as well.

3.5.3.3.╇ Sites from northern, central, and eastern Syria 3.5.3.3.1. ʿAin Dara ʿAin Dara, approximately 40 km north of Aleppo, is known best for its Neo-Hittite temple sculptures. Although limited in extent, soundings taken in the domestic quarters revealed some evidence of domestic ritual activities (Stone and Zimansky 1999). In the early Iron Age II Square 4 (Locus 24 of Phase XIV), one fragment of a female plaque-figurine was found in an open space (fig. 3.99).â•›325 This space was probably the 325.╇ Stone and Zimansky 1999: 43, figs. 43 and 86.5.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

213

Fig. 3.99.╇ ʿAin Dara: Figurine plaque fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 24, Level 2, Phase XIV.

courtyard of a house and contained a tannur-oven, Cypro-Phoenician barrel jars, and a bone spatula—all of which suggest domestic activities, most likely associated with the processing of food. It is possible that the figurine was used in the courtyard near the oven. An almost complete yet rather small animal figurine of 4 cm height was found in Square 4 (Locus 15 of Phase VII, from about 900 b.c.e.). This square was part of an open space that was used for domestic activities, as manifest by an adjacent kitchen that contained two tannur-ovens. Several spindle whorls and clay cylinders were also found in

214

Chapter 3

Fig. 3.100.╇ ʿAin Dara: Animal figurine from Sq. 4, Loc.15, Level 1, Phase VII.

the square (fig. 3.100).â•›326 The presence of the figurine suggests that the domestic activities conducted in this area were associated with votive practices. One fragment of a horse-and-rider figurine was excavated from the courtyard of a Level V domestic building (fig. 3.101)â•›327 although no other objects or installations were discovered in this courtyard. A crude, apparently female figurine that lacked divine attributes was found in the northwest quarter, in Level 6 Trench 1. The general area had been used for the preparation and consumption of food, as indicated by the presence of cooking pots and bowls (Stone and Zimansky 1999: 30–31). The presence of layers of ash led the excavators to conclude that there had been an oven in the vicinity. 326.╇ Stone and Zimansky 1999: 47–49, figs. 52, 86.1. 327.╇ Stone and Zimansky 1999: 50, figs. 55 and 86.4.

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

215

Fig. 3.101.╇ ʿAin Dara: Horse-and-rider fragment from Sq. 4, Loc. 12 (not specified), Level 2, Phase V.

One relatively rare object found in a pit was a broken plaque of a woman en face wearing a richly decorated dress (Stone and Zimansky 1999: 54–55, figs. 64, 82.2–3; for parallels, see Nunn 2000: 73). Items of pottery such as cooking pots and other small objects taken from the pit indicate that it served domestic purposes. 3.5.3.3.2.╇ Tell Afis Tell Afis, the site of ancient Hazrak or Akkadian Ḥatarikka, is located about 50 km southeast of Aleppo and approximately 10 km north of the important site of Ebla/Tell Mardikh. Excavations conducted by an Italian team since 1986 (Mazzoni 1992; Mazzoni

Chapter 3

216

Table 3.5.╇ Domestic ritual assemblages at Tell Afis Room/ Locus

Stratum/Date

Installation/ Function

Cat. A

Cat. B

Cat. C

Area E1/ CsV2

Level 9c/ Iron Age I

domestic, tannur-oven / kitchen

animal figurine fragment

Area E1/ Level 818 Area E2/ Dc V3

Level 7/ Iron Age IB Level 3/ Iron Age IIB

animal figurine

Area E2/ Level 852 Area E2/ DcV4 Area G/ Level 1355

Level 2a/ Iron Age IIB/C Level 2

domestic/ 1-room house domestic, tannur-oven / kitchen domestic

animal figurine

loom weights

domestic

animal figurine

loom weights

Level 4a/ Iron IIA

domestic/ room

female snowman figurine

Area G/ Level 1355

Level 3/ Iron IIA

domestic/ room

animal figurine

cooking pot, jug, pithos, basalt tripod bowl, grinder, loom weights, stone blades, bronze chisel cooking pots, bowls, krater, pithos, amphora, basalt grinding slab, basalt kitchen tools, loom weights

Area L/ Level 134

Level 4/ Iron IIA

street

bust of male figurine

animal figurine

goblet

stone foodprocessing tools, bowls, cooking pots, kraters, storage jars bowl, storage jar bowls, cooking pot, jar

and Cecchini 1995; Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998) have concentrated on the Iron Age remains. Even though many diagnostic objects were found buried in pits or within other mass loci or surface finds (see D’Amore in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 419–25), and LB figurines were often found intermixed with Iron Age material, it is nevertheless possible to discern some evidence of ritual activities performed here in domestic contexts. A domestic quarter in Area E1 contained category A objects together with utilitarian household wares. The most important find, however, came from a single-room house in Level 3 (from early Iron Age II, around 1000–900 b.c.e.), where a crude limestone statuette 22.5 cm high was found in the form of a seated, beardless figure holding a cup or flower. An unspecified broken female terra-cotta figurine was also found in Square CsV2. Pottery and other domestic tools found in the two Loci 803 and 806 included a basalt

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

217

Fig. 3.102.╇ Tell Afis, Area E1, Level 3: Limestone figurine and pottery from Loci 803 and 806.

grinding slab, a bowl, three cooking pots, and two storage jars (fig. 3.102).â•›328 The limestone figurine, which is typologically similar to MB and LB statuettes, was interpreted by the excavators as an ancestor figurine (Mazzoni in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 203). This type of figurine is similar to contemporary Syro-Hittite funerary statues, which were used to represent the deceased (see Bonatz 2000: figs. 5, 6.11). Additional evidence taken from distinguishable lociâ•›329 in the domestic structures of Tell Afis is summarized in table 3.5. This evidence shows that human and animal figurines, when it is possible to associate them with clearly discernible loci, were often associated with vessels functioning in the production, consumption, and storage of food. These loci 328.╇ Mazzoni in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 171, figs. 5, 22–23; p. 208, fig. 4. 329.╇ Many diagnostic objects were found in the Mass-locus 1344/F. 1008, a depression created by the collapse of a building that had been used as a dump (see Cecchini in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 282–93).

218

Chapter 3

also contained evidence of other domestic activities, such as weaving. In two clear cases, figurines were found in rooms that also held tannur-ovens. Most of the figurines that were found in clearly domestic contexts were votive animal figurines or crude anthropomorphic figurines that lacked divine attributes. In addition to these anthropomorphic figurines, several fragments from clay chariots were found, most of which were pieces of wheels (Cecchini and Mazzoni 2000: TA.91.E.102, 180; TA.88.E.134; TA 89.E 26; TA.89.G.146). These model chariots may have been cultic objects or may simply have been toys. Tell Afis thus seems to have nurtured a domestic cult characterized by votive practices involving male and female animal and human figurines, and possibly also the veneration of ancestors, as represented by the limestone statuette and the terra-cotta objects. 3.5.3.3.3.Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad or the Akkadian Dūr-katlimmu, is located on the lower Ḫabur in the Assyrian Province of Raṣappa. The Aramean city was conquered in 894 b.c.e. during the Syrian campaign of Adadnerari II. The large domestic Building G, from the Neo-Assyrian period, consisted of three wings and has been interpreted as being the residence of an official. Inside this building, an assemblage of distinctive, local pottery suggestive of ritual activities was found (Kühne 1989–90: 316–21 with fig. 137). The northern part of Room D, which was accessible from a courtyard, yielded a cylindrical stand on which bull protomes and incised decorations were found. The stand had been placed near a hearth, along with several other vessels, including two bowls and a pot with a tall base with incised decorations. In this large room of 17 × 5 m, both cooking and ritual actions seem to have taken place, including libations and the offering of dry goods.

3.5.3.4.╇ Furnishings of a late Assyrian house from Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh A salvage excavation during Saddam Hussein’s dam project unearthed Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh in the Mossul Area (Curtis and Green 1997). Although Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh lies outside the geographical purview of the present book, it provides useful comparative evidence. Two rectangular rooms were excavated in Level 4, each measuring 10.20 x 3.25 m. They yielded large numbers of pottery and ritual objects (Curtis and Green 1997: fig. 6–7). The south room contained food-processing installations such as an oven, a stone basin, and a bin, along with a number of storage vessels grouped around these installations. A finely-worked, lion-headed rhyton was also found in the eastern half of the room’s north wall. The installations suggest that the room was predominantly used as a kitchen, although the presence of several loom weights also indicates that it must have been used for weaving. The north room may have had no roof, and it contained 47 mostly intact vessels, 18 medium-to-large-sized jars, 13 small jars, 8 very small jars, a large bowl, a cooking pot, a krater, a pot stand, a clay coffin used for storage purposes, and a mortar and pestle. Ceramic rims from up to 24 additional bowls and 35 jars were also found. The most important ritual object found in this room was a small limestone incense altar. A fragment of a zoomorphic figurine was also found, although it was not shown on the plan. Most of the pottery was found alongside the walls, suggesting that this was a storage room, although a large pile of loom weights again indicates that weaving was done here. Although this may

Elements of Domestic Cult in Ancient Israel

219

have been a place for the storage of ritual objects, the presence of the incense altar in the northwest part of the room strongly suggests that it was a site of ritual actions. In this case, the rituals would have included the burning of incense and the placement of votive objects such as animal figurines.

3.5.3.5.╇ Conclusions for the Phoenician and Syrian evidence Iron Age remains of domestic cultic practices reveal strong similarities between sites in Phoenicia and Syria and those in Judah and Israel. In all of these places, human and animal figurines were often found in association with kitchen installations such as ovens and pottery or tools for the production of food on the ground floors. Stands and other ritual vessels such as tripod incense cups were also often found in association with fireplaces. Unlike the Late Bronze Age evidence from Tell Bazi, fixed ritual installations do not appear to have been common, with patterns more similar to many cases from Israel and Judah, where the paraphernalia of domestic cults was stored away. This kind of storage of cultic items was evident in Tell Kazel Locus T13 and perhaps also at Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh. There also does not appear to have been a standard set of ritual objects. Although actual patterns of use for votive objects, incense burners, and libation vessels in rooms dedicated to the production of food may have been similar, votive figurines seem to have been used in various rooms of the houses. One important difference was revealed through the occasional appearance at Syrian sites such as Tell Kazel of divine representations in the same contexts as both human representations and animal figurines. Limestone figurines lacking divine emblems seem to have been a north Syrian speciality and most likely represented ancestors. As was the case in Israel and Judah, the human and animal votive objects were probably intended to symbolize fertility or prosperity and to ensure the basic needs of a family. Representations of divine figures reveal that deities had a place in domestic rituals and were directly addressed with offerings and other votive practices. The presence of divine images seems, however, to be an exception rather than a rule. Having ritual assemblages close to areas of food production demonstrates that offerings such as libations and votive practices such as the burning of incense would have been conducted either in kitchens or very nearby. Evidence from Ḥirbet Khatuniyeh indicates that rituals of this sort were practiced at Assyrian sites as well. Moreover, these associations between ritual objects and kitchen facilities suggest that women very likely performed ritual activities during their daily work.

Chapter 4

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places The foregoing survey of Iron Age cult assemblages from domestic and other environments revealed a variety of association patterns that distinguish various types of domestic cult practices, and cult practices performed outside domestic spaces as well. The ability to make distinctions of this sort based on these data is a considerable advance beyond previous studies.â•›1 Most earlier reference works and applied studies directed at the archaeology of ancient Israel have made simple distinctions between enclosed temples and open-air places of cult practice: the Hebrew ‫ במות‬bamōt.â•›2 Local or provincial shrines have occasionally been discerned (A. Mazar 1990: 492–502), as well as sites of domestic cults (H.€Weippert 1988: 409–10, 447, 628), although little in the way of additional differentiation or systemization has been offered. One study presented by L. G. Herr (2000a) distinguished between primary official or state sanctuaries (as in Jerusalem) and smaller local sanctuaries that may have been official (as in Arad) or may only have served some private group (as in Lachish Locus 49); however, this study was based more on formalistic arguments than on extensive consideration of early Iron Age evidence. Nevertheless, Herr did direct his attention toward the nature of actual cult practices performed in these sanctuaries. An elaborate typology of ancient Israelite cult places was developed by J. S. Holladay (1987): national sanctuaries, town sanctuaries, neighborhood shrines, and domestic areas of religious activity. National and town sanctuaries represented for him the “establishment cultus,” as characterized by architectural features such as direct ingress, ashlar masonry, and a prominent location in the town. Permanent and portable cultic apparatuses associated with these sorts of sanctuaries typically consisted of horned altars, steleform stones, podiums, benches, stands, and a variety of uniquely formed lamps. Sanctuaries on the neighborhood level represent a cultic subset of these national or town sanctuaries that were constructed on a smaller scale (Megiddo Locus 2081, Lachish Building 49). Holladay further noted that the “establishment cultus” was essentially aniconic (1987: 280). In addition to this designation of “establishment cultus,” Holladay further discerned “nonconformist” places of worship that were characterized by extramural locations (as in Samaria 1. See, for example, Holladay 1987: 268–70; Zwickel 1994: 8–16; Herr 2000a; Zevit 2001: 123– 24; Dever 2005: 110–75. 2. See, for instance, Fritz 1977: 70–75; 1985: 156–57; H. Weippert 1988: 407–10, 447–49, 620– 31; Mazar in Kempinski and Reich 1992: 161–87; Stern 2001: 201–3; King and Stager 2001: 320–38.

220

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

221

E 207, Jerusalem Cave 1) and typically contained “foreign” material, human and animal figurines, models of birds and furniture, and vessels for the offering of food and drink. He also suggested that domestic cult assemblages revealed elements suggestive of a “distributed” or “nonconformist” cult, such as anthropoâ•‚ or zoomorphic figurines that could be considered “foreign material,” vessels, models of furniture and lamps, cups and saucers, and small, cubic limestone altars. Holladay’s typology, however, relies on distinguishing “nonconformist” cults by the presence of “foreign” material. This sort of characterization assumes that religious activities as practiced on this social level showed “an attempt on the part of individuals or groups of individuals to remedy perceived deficiencies in the established religion” and that such processes must have taken place outside the internal constraints of organized societies (Holladay 1987: 269–70). He presupposed the existence of a fundamental tension between “official” or “established” cultic activities and the religious activities practiced by individuals or groups in domestic realms that were rooted in traditions of folk religion. Archaeological evidence reveals that official sanctuaries such as those at Dan and Arad commonly contained elements indicative of these allegedly “nonconformist” cultic practices, such as terra-cotta figurines and other votive objects, “foreign” material, and elements typical of domestic cults.â•›3 However, the type of material that was considered “foreign,” including Egyptian-type amulets and fayence figurines, terra-cotta figurines, and other types of votive objects, were quite common in local tradition and have been found throughout the Levant.â•›4 Egyptianobject amulets and other small artistic items bearing repertoires of Egyptian motifs in particular ought not be considered “foreign” but, rather, to reflect local traditions that extended back to the Late Bronze Age and occasionally—as with seal amulets—even to the Middle Bronze Age. The fundamental antagonism recognized by Holladay between a “nonconformist” or “distributed” cultus and an “establishment” cultus does not seem to be supported by material cultural evidence, because the ritual apparatuses that included figurines were used equally in both “establishment” and “nonconformist” cult practices. Moreover, this sort of distinction seems to be based on Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic verdicts against specific ritual practices and presupposes the official cult to have held a “legitimate” status and other forms of ritual activities to have been considered from an official point (at least to some extent) “illegitimate.” As will be demonstrated below,â•›5 observed differences between cult practices and places are better explained from a perspective of internal religious pluralism instead of competing levels of cultic activity. Zwickel (1994: 9) distinguished five forms of cult structures: (1) monumental temples as locations of official cults and comprising differentiated areas and supporting buildings; (2) chapels as places for public or private cult activities that were not intended for larger communities (this category also included gate sanctuaries); (3) additional buildings or rooms that may have belonged to temples or other sacred precincts but were not used for ritual activities; (4) open-air cultic structures (bamōt); and (5) domestic cult places 3. See above, p. 58. 4. See, for instance, Pritchard 1988 for the material from Sarepta, including Egyptian fayence figurines and amulets. 5. See pp. 239–241.

222

Chapter 4

typically defined by the presence of cultic items such as figurines or incense burners. It must be presumed that official or sanctioned cult personnel would have been associated with the first four of these types of structure, while locations of domestic cult practices would have served and been maintained by families alone. Zevit (2001: 652–58) distinguished six primary forms: (2) temples and temple complexes exemplified by the fortress temple at Arad; (2) undefined cult sites such as Lachish Locus 81; (3) cult complexes such as the bull site; (4) cult caves such as Jerusalem Cave I; (5) cult corners or rooms exemplified by those at Megiddo 2081, Megiddo 340, Lachish Room 49, and Ai; and (6) places of domestic cult. These six categories additionally comprised two classes, distinguishable according to social contexts. Class I designated structures that had been integrated into some greater order attributable to centralized planning and control (as at Arad, Dan, Lachish Room 49, and Megiddo 340); while structures of Class II lacked these features (for example, those at Megiddo Locus 2081, the Ai cultic structure, the bull site, and Cave I). Dever (2005: 110–75) distinguished local shrines, open-air cult places, larger communal sanctuaries, and monumental temples. He defined a local shrine as “a local holy place that served either a nuclear family, or at most a small group of related families” (2005: 111). These were characterized by the presence of standing stones, altars, stone tables and basins, offering stands and benches, jewelry, “exotic” vessels, animal bones and food remains, astragali, and female terra-cotta figurines. However, most of the structures considered by Dever to have been shrines (such as Ḥirbet Raddana, Tell el-Fārʿah House 440, Samaria Locus E 207, and the northeast room at Tell el-Wawiyat) were in fact not shrines but (as demonstrated in the survey in chap. 3 above) either places of domestic cult activities or other functions, such as, for example, at Samaria E 207â•›6 or Tel Reḥov, which was an open-air cult place.â•›7 Moreover, there does not appear to be any evidence for Dever’s assertion that these shrines would have served larger, extended-family compounds (p. 117; and see pp. 18–19), because areas in which neighborhood shrines have been excavated do not demonstrate any kind of clustering, which would be necessary for these structure to be considered “compounds.” Furthermore, in the period considered by Dever, no evidence has arisen to suggest that these shrines would have been the sole locations of regular, ritual activities; these kinds of shrines appear, in fact, to have been rather uncommon,â•›8 but there is much stronger evidence for the regular performance of ritual actions in individual domestic units. Detailed consideration of the kinds of sites and structures grouped together in Dever’s classification presents even greater problems. The sanctuary at Dan was grouped together with the “bull site” within the category of “public open-air sanctuaries” (with this category also including Hazor 3283, the Taanach “cultic structure,” and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd), in spite of differences in internal layouts and locations within their larger areas. Moreover, the Tel Dan “bamāh” was actually a podium for a temple building, and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd was definitely not a cultic structure but a caravanserai. Dever included the Iron II Arad fortress temple in his category of monumental temple buildings and the last phase 6. See p. 466 below. 7. See p. 165 above. 8. See appendix A, pp. 518–519.

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

223

of the Shechem migdal-temple. Cult use of the latter and its maṣṣebāh ended, however, in Iron Age I, after which the structure was used only for profane purposes (Campbell 1993: 1352; see also 2002). Thus, although the essence of Dever’s typology appears to be useful, its application to archaeological examples is in most cases problematic. Holladay, Zwickel, Zevit, and Dever have each presented plausible schemes for differentiating cult places on the basis of their architectural features and their social contexts. These schemes nevertheless offer no way of identifying the social carriers of particular cult types and practices or of distinguishing the social carriers of the various rituals that must have been associated with the various levels of cult activities. Zevit’s distinction between two classes, based on whether the planning appears to have been centralized or not, is definitely not specific enough to be used for the present purposes, especially since it aggregates cult structures that may have served and been used by distinctly different social carriers of ritual practices. Moreover, relationships between these potential social carriers of ritual practices must be examined—both the personnel and the participants associated with the cult sites and structures. A second weakness of both Zwickel’s and Zevit’s typology is that they pay little attention to the significance of cult paraphernalia in characterizing cult activities. Moreover, in chap. 3 we demonstrated the necessity of differentiating between the features typical of domestic cult practices and those of the larger industrial, neighborhood, or village levels, even though this sort of differentiation has not been attempted previously (H. Weippert 1988: 409–10, 628–29; and, following her, Albertz 1992: 150–52). Furthermore, the widely held assumption that there was a strong distinction between official religious practices and those performed in private or family environments—which has led to their being seen as competing arenas of religious activity; Holladay 1987; Nakhai 2001: 203)—is highly problematic. By analyzing the differing contexts of four-horned altars from Tel Miqne, Gitin (2002: 113–17) examined the intersections between public and private religious activities and identified five examples of coexistence and duality in the cult practices of Ekron. These were: (1) the coexistence of private worship in religious and secular settings; (2) the coexistence of public worship in religious and secular settings; (3) the coexistence of portable and fixed forms of worship; (4) the coexistence of centralized and decentralized forms of worship; and (5) the coexistence of local and foreign forms of worship. Regardless of the fact that Gitin made no attempt to discriminate among different levels of cult practice, his description of the intersections and coexistence of different forms of cult activities provides a useful supplement to the model of internal religious pluralism proposed in the present study. After considering all aspects of location, evidence of centralized planning, architectural features, potential social carriers, cult participants, cult functionaries, and assemblages of cult paraphernalia, we are proposing eight types of cult places here as well as subdivisions. Type IA describes common domestic cult places, with the nuclear or extended family presumed to be the carrier group. Type IB describes larger-scale domestic cult places or shrines, for which again the nuclear or extended family is presumed to be the carrier group, which was also assigned to an inner circle of ritual activities. Type II comprised cult places associated with work environments, within which a distinction is made between two different sizes of carrier groups: (A) small scale, incorporating an inner circle or nuclear family; and (B) larger scale, incorporating inner and middle circles, nuclear and

224

Chapter 4

joint families, and their broader kin group. Type III cult places were neighborhood installations or shrines, for which the carrier is presumed to have been a medium circle ranging from a nuclear or extended family to a co-residential lineage or neighborhood. Type IV describes places associated with cults of the dead, with carriers also presumed to belong to this same medium circle.â•›9 Type V consisted of village sanctuaries, which are further subdivided into (A) shrines, (B) open-air places, and (C) gate sanctuaries. Social carriers for these locations presumably belonged to an outer circle the encompassed members of a co-residential lineage or the local community. Type VI presumes palace shrines to have been a distinct group, representing an official variant of large-scale domestic practices performed and socially carried by local military or elite administrative personnel. Type VII describes regional sanctuaries, subdivided into (A) shrines or temples, and (B) openair places. Carriers for these sites are presumed to have been regional tribes, inhabitants of regional communities, or perhaps official bodies. Finally, Type VIII comprised supraÂ� regional temples of the official cult, and the social carriers were royal personages or associated officials. There is, of course, a degree of artificiality to these classifications, and there must have been some degree of flux among the various categories; for example, Types III (neighborhood shrines), VA (village shrines), and VIIB (regional sanctuaries). This classification also reflects evidence drawn from a wide period of time, ranging from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIC and is intended primarily for heuristic purposes.â•›10

4.1.╇ Domestic cult: The house as space for ritual activities (Type IA) Chapter 2 demonstrated that most houses in Iron Age Israel and Judah would have contained nuclear or extended families, who would thus have been the social carriers of domestic cult activities. Contemporary Transjordanian structures attest closely related architectural traditions, suggesting that most Moabite or Ammonite houses would also have been inhabited by nuclear or extended families, as would the similarly constructed domestic units excavated in Phoenician and Syrian sites such as Tell Keisan and Tell Mastuma. It therefore seems that, in the regions around Israel and Judah, nuclear families would also have been the social carriers of domestic cult activities. Ovens, tabuns, and cooking pits would have been the most important household installations, along with items such as basins and associated tools. In most cases, these facilities were installed in central courtyards on the ground floor,â•›11 although they have also been found (less often) in back rooms and longitudinal rooms. The preceding chapters revealed that ritual objects were often assembled and arranged near fireplaces or other facilities associated with the processing and consumption of food.â•›12 It can therefore be 9. See below, pp. 429–473. 10. This methodological problem was also recognized by Dever (2005: 110–11). 11. For the Iron I settlements, see Zwingenberger 2001: 338. 12. This observation was also made by Willett (1999: 157–65). There is nevertheless only inconclusive evidence supporting her assumption that certain domestic installations such as the alcoves at Tell el-Fārʿah and the bench structure Locus 36 at Beersheba represent household shrines; these structures were in fact predominantly used for domestic activities.

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

225

concluded that ritual actions would generally have been performed on the ground floor near or in the vicinity of a fireplace. Association patterns of this sort have been observed in excavations spanning the entire Iron Age up until the end of Judah in 586 b.c.e. Permanent installations dedicated to ritual objects and actions, such as platforms and benches, seem to have been rare. In only one case was a small domestic platform found in a niche (at Tel Batash Locus 914); a second platform-like installation found at Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh (in House 64) would most likely have been a kitchen installation. Ritual objects used in domestic contexts were generally light and readily portable and may have been arranged in various ways to suit a variety of needs throughout the house. The same ritual objects often appear to have been used in different rooms, sometimes individually and sometimes in association with a group of other objects, as illustrated by the assemblage from the Lachish lower house. There is strong evidence that cult objects or even entire cult assemblages were stored in separate storage rooms when not in use, as seems to have been the case in Tell Mazar Room 101 and Tel Halif Locus G 8005. The standard “holy corner” or domestic shrine that is found in Late Bronze Age Tall Bazi in Syria does not appear to have existed in Iron Age Israel or Judah.â•›13 Rather, early Iron Age assemblages appear to reflect closely the local traditions found in Late Bronze Age domestic cult assemblages.â•›14 There is little evidence that religious activities were conducted regularly in upper stories of houses, but this may reflect the fact that older excavation reports often did not sufficiently delineate the material from a second story. The Beersheba hoards and several finds from Tel Halif certainly provide evidence of ritual objects that were located on upper stories, and the possibility cannot be excluded that ritual activities were performed on upper stories. It does appear that the rooms of a second story were occasionally used for ritual purposes, as is known to have occurred in domestic structures in many other areas. Based on recent studies on gender in relation to activities in Israelite households (AckerÂ�man 2003; Meyers 2003a, b; van der Toorn 2003: esp. pp. 398–402), we must emphasize the fact that the strong association between areas that contained ritual vessels and other objects associated with food production and installations commonly found in main, ground-floor halls indicates the important roles played by women in the ritual performances of daily life. Detailed data collated on the nature of ritual apparatuses suggest the likelihood that daily offerings and gifts were presented to deities and ancestors, the latter perhaps being represented by human figurines;â•›15 these ritual acts would have accompanied the preparation of food (see also van der Toorn 2003: 399). It may also be assumed that the daily family meal was accompanied by presenting a ritual portion to one or more deities or ancestors. Compelling evidence for the performance of these activities has been found in remnants of food offerings and libations that had been presented in bowls on stands, poured out on the ground, or stored in bowls along with specialized libation vessels. Evidence for the burning of aromatic compounds provides additional support. Acts of this sort would have provided a means for deities or ancestors to participate in 13. The regular occurrence of domestic shrines was also concluded by Albertz (1992: 150–52) following the considerations of H. Weippert (1988: 409–10). 14. For instance, the LB assemblage from House 305 (Givon 1999: 173). 15. See pp. 60–66 in this volume.

226

Chapter 4

the daily lives of families, thereby ensuring the family’s continuation, whether in terms of health, wealth, or prosperity. Patterns typical of Iron Age IIC domestic cults suggest that a prominent role was played by female votive pillar-figurines, which expressed and conveyed the desire for female fecundity (Meyers 1988: 162). Male votaries such as the horse-and-rider may also have been used to represent male interests. As argued above, figurines of sheep, goat, and cattle also encapsulated powers of fertility, as well as more generally ensuring the abundance of livestock. Miniature furniture and possibly miniaturized vessels may also have symbolized the prosperity and wealth of a household (see Moorey 2003: 65), while the same purpose may be posited for luxury items and certain rare, collectible objects. The function of these objects as generic symbols of prosperity may also be the reason for their presence at burial sites. Category A and B objects thus benefited the continuation of family wealth, fecundity, or prosperity—the essential needs of a nuclear family. Several excavated items may also provide insight into mantic practices in the domestic buildings of Israel and Judah. The mask found along with a fenestrated stand in Hazor Room 44 (Iron IIB) suggest practices of divination and perhaps necromancy. Astragali and other game pieces that have often been found in domestic contexts may also have been used for mantic purposes. Although such conclusions may often be tentative, the astragali found in a bowl excavated in Megiddo Locus 2081 were very likely intended for ritual use. There are also certain types of figurine that may have been used to represent ancestors and that may have been used in necromantic practices, such as the unique pair of peg figurines from Lachish (Kletter 2004: fig. 28.36:3–4). Figurines of various types may also have been used for magical purposes, such as to engender love, to avert evil, or even to allow evil to fall on someone else, although archaeological evidence has not revealed significant patterns of disposal or ritual figurines that suggest practices of this sort (unlike the lead Hellenistic period figurines that were bound with wire or had their limbs twisted; Bliss and Macalister 1902: pl. 85; Dothan 1971: fig. 27.5; pl. 31.1). These practices can only be conjectured on the basis of textual and archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia (see Schmitt 2004: 187–93). Patterns discerned in the domestic assemblages of Israel and Judah that suggest that religious practices were performed by or in nuclear or extended families are essentially identical to patterns seen in domestic assemblages from Jordan, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria. One apparent difference is the occasional occurrence of clearly divine images in the households of Ammon, Philistia, Phoenicia, and Syria; images of this sort have not been found in Iron Age Israel and Judah. Figurines of deities similar to the Moabite figurines that bore atef crowns or the Syro-Phoenician divine representations that bore conical headdresses or white crowns and polos have occasionally been found in domestic contexts in Transjordan, Phoenicia, and Syria. Clearly, divine images providing evidence of domestic cult activities seem to have been common only in Philistia, where they took the form of Ashdoda figurines. Nevertheless, in Transjordan, Phoenicia, and Syria, animal and female anthropoid figurines, as well as horses and riders—all lacking divine attributes—commonly appeared in domestic contexts as well as in industrial contexts in Philistia and Phoenicia (at Sarepta). Zoomorphic libation vessels also appear to have been common both in Ashdod (as attested in the potter’s area, Area H domestic quarter) and Tell Jawa

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

227

(in Room 107). Although there is some evidence from Tell Jawa of cultic practices that occurred on a second story, most of the domestic cult remains seem to have originated on the ground floor itself, suggesting that it was the primary site of religious activity (see Daviau 2001: 201; 2003: 455).â•›16 Concentrations of ritual artifacts at Tell Jawa were found in the kitchen (Room 302) and a food-processing room (Room 110), similar to patterns observed at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (in Building 140). Although Dothan’s theory that the Philistine bathtub and hearth installations served purely cult purposes is not supportable, there is evidence from Philistia for the ritual use of kitchens. Evidence from Tell Kazel T12 NW and Room D of Building G at Dur Katlimmu in Syria supports a similar conclusion: that ritual objects were found in clear association with kitchen installations or rooms. Evidence from Philistine, Jordanian, and Syro-Phoenician sites supports the conclusion drawn from Israel and Judah that the same ritual objects were used in various rooms and in various domestic contexts, and a considerable number of objects in all cases were associated with food-preparation activities. Thus ritual activities performed in domestic areas appear to have been very similar across the entire West Asian region throughout the Iron Age. The house as the domain of the nuclear or extended family—the inner circle—can therefore be considered the primary center of the fundamental religious activity and needs of the family. The very general association between ritual activities and domestic activities such as the preparation and consumption of food indicates the regularity of the ritual activities, which may often have been performed on a daily basis. Ritual activities would typically have included the offering of drink, food, or aromatic compounds; the honoring of ancestors; the worship of gods represented by figurines (at least in Jordan, Philistia, Syria, and Phoenicia); and votive practices involving fertility figurines and animals, which would have ensured the fertility and abundance of family and flocks in Israel and Judah.

4.2.╇ Domestic shrines (Type IB) Domestic shrines were permanent cult installations such as benches or platforms in domestic structures or dedicated cult rooms. They typically contained large numbers of distinctly specialized objects, such as altars and stands, often accompanied by vessels for the consumption of food and drink. A uniquely distinct example of a domestic shrine was found in Locus 2081 (Iron IIA) at Megiddo, which included a corner that was not directly accessible and that contained a large number of specialized objects and food-consumption vessels. A less distinct example was found in Room 307 of House 314 at Tel Masos, which was characterized by a platform that was associated with unique, collectible items, as well as an oven and vessels for the preparation and consumption of food. The platform in this case was directly accessible. These two structures appear to have served fundamentally different purposes, with Megiddo Locus 2081 having been a true domestic shrine, and Tel Masos Room 307 appearing to have been a room that was predominantly used for the preparation of food. Ritual actions conducted in domestic cult structures typically were libations, offerings of food, the burning of aromatic compounds or incense, and the consumption of ritual meals. In Megiddo, these activities may have been accompanied by 16. For discussion, see above, pp. 178–182.

228

Chapter 4

playing games or casting lots for mantic purposes. The Megiddo assemblage seems to represent a subset of assemblages typical of neighborhood or village shrines, rather than being a distinctive type of its own (contra Holladay 1987: 271), while the assemblages from Tel Masos House 314 clearly display a more domestic character. These domestic shrines could have served and been used by elite, extended nuclear families or paternal joint families, either in urban contexts such as Megiddo Locus 2081 or in rural contexts such as Tel Masos. These large, permanent cult installations in domestic contexts do, however, seem to have been exceptional, and evidence from Megiddo Locus 2081 and Tel Masos House 314 should not be considered definitive.

4.3.╇ Patterns of cult places outside the domestic realm The present survey has revealed the existence of ritual assemblages similar to those in domestic settings but differing in size, layout, patterns of use, content, and associated installations. These differences in turn suggest that there were ritual places that were explicitly used for social purposes outside the domestic realm, and we will consider these in the remainder of this section.

4.3.1.╇ Work-related cults (Type II) Cult remains from Iron Age Israelite and Judean industrial sites reveal patterns similar to those found in domestic cult areas. Type IIA represents places that may have contained installations serving processes of production, yet contained no dedicated cult installations within work areas that were otherwise integrated into domestic environments. Type IIB represents larger-scale industrial areas, exemplified by those at Ashdod and Ekron, that contained permanent or semipermanent ritual installations, such as the benches at Ashdod and the Ekron potter’s quarter or the built-in altars in the industrial olive-oil processing areas of Ekron. Cult inventories from small-scale industrial areas, assessed on the basis of objects in categories A and B seem to have generally been quite similar to the cult inventories of domestic areas. Cult items found in Iron Age I and IIA industrial areas have mostly been libation vessels such as kernoi and zoomorphic vessels, generally accompanied by vessels for the storage, transport, and consumption of liquids. Although few vessels related to the production of food have been found in Iron Age IIB–C industrial areas, cult items from these sites closely resemble those in domestic assemblages and have typically included anthropoid or zoomorphic votive figurines or zoomorphic vessels, and in one case a censor cup (from Tell Qiri Locus 1027). With the exception of the Ekron altars and the larger shaft altars from Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine in Jordan, cult objects used in association with industry were typically small and light, readily ported and stored, and were similar to those used in domestic spaces. These similarities in cult objects associated with both small-scale industrial contexts and domestic contexts suggest that the social carrier groups of ritual traditions were likely to have been identical: nuclear, extended, or joint families. Ritual actions in industrial structures would most likely have been performed in order to gain reciprocal assurance of production processes after the giving of portions to deities or ancestors or the uplifting of ritual requests via votive objects. These actions would also

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

229

have strengthened the social cohesion of groups of workers by binding together the people who were directly or indirectly involved in the ritual performances. Dedicated cult organizations (see Schmitt 1999: 639–41) would probably have directed these rituals on highly specialized or large-scale industrial production sites that featured permanent ritual installations of Type IIB, such as the potters’ workshops in Ashdod and Ekron or the olive-oil production facilities of Ekron. This may also have been the case at the textile production and dyeing installations of Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, where relatively large altars were originally used on rooftops. The altars found in the olive-oil production area of Ekron were too large to be portable, which is compelling evidence that regular cult activities took place. Type IIA smaller industrial installations, typically found in or near domestic units, would more likely have been used by families who worked in industrial processes together; these were probably joint families. The fact that the ritual assemblages form a clear subset of domestic assemblages indicates that nuclear or joint families in most cases were the groups responsible for work-related cult activities. Cult practices associated with small-scale industrial areas or workshops would therefore have been confined to the inner circle of nuclear and joint families, while practices associated with larger-scale industrial areas would have been carried out by a medium-sized social circle (expanded to include more kin), who probably were part of a multiple-family household, as well as servants, slaves, and clients.

4.3.2.╇ Neighborhood shrines (Type III) Neighborhood shrines were generally small in size, were integrated with the domestic architecture (exemplified for the Iron Age I by Ai, Locus 69; and the Tell Qiri, Area D cult building), lacked sacred areas such as courtyards, and were solely dedicated to cult purposes. They also contained permanent installations such as benches and platforms, offering a physical focus for cult activities. Although access to these shrines could be indirect, as at Tell Qiri, it would more likely have been direct, as at Ai. At Tell Qiri (VIII B), the cult focus was oriented to the north, while at Ai, it was directed to the west. Cult equipment on these sites consisted of stands and other specialized objects such as a variety of libation vessels. These ritual vessels were also often accompanied by vessels for the consumption of food and drink, as well as for the preparation of food (as found at Tell Qiri). Common sizes suggest that only small groups of people, generally less than ten, participated in ritual actions in these shrine rooms. Neighborhood shrines seem to have been typical in Iron Age I sites.â•›17 Neighborhood shrines were clearly intended to serve and unify members of social levels above that of the household and domestic-scale industrial cults.â•›18 These larger-scale social levels would have formed a medium circle of cult activities, most likely consisting of members of conjugal or joint families, and possibly also larger kinship groups or multiplefamily households. The ritual apparatus used at these higher levels seems to have been an 17. Therefore, they should not be used for a model of religious organizational patterns in Iron Age II, as done by Holladay (1987: 268). 18. �����������������������������������尓������ This difference was not recognized by H. Weippert (1988: 409–10) and, following her, Albertz (1992: 150–52).

230

Chapter 4

enlarged subset of contemporary domestic cult assemblages (contra Holladay 1987: 268– 69), but the restricted size of most neighborhood shrines probably means that the larger ritual apparatuses were unsuitable for serving entire communities. The lack of available data prevents determining whether specialized personnel were responsible for directing ritual actions at neighborhood shrines and, because the societies in which these shrines have been found show little differentiation between social levels, it seems most likely that the above-mentioned carrier groups were responsible for the maintenance of the cults.

4.3.3.╇ Local and village shrines, local high places, and gate sanctuaries (Types VA–C) Although they were similar in size to neighborhood shrines, village shrines (Type VA)â•›19 were independent or freestanding structures, as exemplified by the Iron Age IIA structures of Lachish Room 49 and Tell Michal Building 300 and probably also Iron Age I Hazor Room 3283. Ingress to these structures was always direct, and there does not seem to have been a fixed direction for orienting the cult. The focus at Tell Michal 300 was oriented northwest, at Lachish Room 49 to the west, and at Hazor 3283 to the south. Adjacent courtyards that formed sacred areas have been found at Hazor, as well outside Israel and Judah at Tell Qasile Temple 319 (A. Mazar 1980: 13–20, fig. 4), representing an early phase in the development of these sorts of structure. Other structures such as bamōt may also have been associated with these kinds of shrine (as at Lachish and Tell Michal). Interiors were characterized by installations such as platforms and benches, and often they contained many specialized objects, such as stands and altars suggestive of frequent libations and food offerings, as well as vessels for the consumption of liquids (at Hazor, Lachish, and Tell Michal Building 300) or the preparation and consumption of food (at Hazor and Lachish). An oven in Lachish Room 49 was also directly associated with the installations of the shrine room. In Hazor 3283, a maṣṣebāh was found within the shrine itself, and another was found near the shrine at Lachish Locus 81, although the latter may have been a cult installation in its own right (and thus of Type IIB). Remarkably, none of these cult rooms contained anthropoid or zoomorphic votive figurines, although this may merely reflect the happenstance of the excavations. Architectural cult features and ritual paraphernalia of local shrines or temples have also been found in Tell Qasile Temples 319 (Stratum XII) and 200 (Stratum XI), Shrine 300 (Stratum XI–X), and Temple 131 (Stratum X; A. Mazar 1980: 13–73). Architectural features commonly found in association with these structures were benches and raised platforms in main temples (nos. 319, 200, and 131), as well as in Shrine 300. The cult orientation in all of these structures was southwest. The foundation of an open-air altar was excavated in the courtyard of the Stratum X sanctuary. The contents of assemblages excavated from the Tell Qasile temples are summarized in table 4.1 (after A. Mazar 1980: table 17; and 1985: table 2). These assemblages are quite comparable with those from both domestic and industrial ritual assemblages at Ashdod, although they contained a considerably higher proportion of specialized and luxury wares. Cult activities performed at the Tell Qasile local shrine 19. Type IV (places for the care of the dead) will be dealt with in chap. 7 below.

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

231

Table 4.1.╇ The assemblages from the Tell Qasile temples Temple 319 1 anthropo� morphic juglet 1 zoomorphic vessel fragment 1 (spout) kernos fragment

Temple 200 1 anthropo�morphic mask 1 zoomorphic spout 1 bird figurine 1 rhyton

Cat. B

goblet

Cat. C

15 bowls 1 krater 1 flask

goblet conch miniature bowls 54 bowls 1 amphoriskos 3 juglets 1 pyxis 2 flasks 2 stirrup jars 5 lamps

Cat. A

Temple 131 1 pottery shrine 1 cult stand decorated with human figures 1 stand with animal figures 1 cult jar 1 zoomorphic “trick” vase 1 composite libation vessel 1 kernos-ring bowl in the shape of a bird 1 fragment of an anthropomorphic vessel 1 pomegranate vessel 2 composite flasks 1 chalice 3 goblets miniature bowls 72 bowls 1 krater 2 cooking pots 4 amphoriskoi 2 small jars 11 jugs 7 juglets 1 pyxis 25 flasks 6 stirrup jars 4 lamps

Shrine 300 3 cylindrical stands 3 stand bowls 2 low stands fragments of bird-shaped bowls

3 chalices 5 goblets 2 bowls 1 small jar 1 lamp

appear to have included offerings of animals on the courtyard altar, the burning of incense, offerings of food and liquids, and the consumption of sacrificial meals both inside and outside the temple. Although terra-cotta representations of deities and votive figures appear to have been common in domestic and industrial realms, none was found in association with the Philistine temples at Tell Qasile (although one ceramic model shrine depicting two naked goddesses was found in Temple 131; see Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 112).

232

Chapter 4

The finds from the Yavneh favissa included a clay miniature altar with horns, 120 unique model ceramic shrines, and thousands of small bowls, kernoi, zoomorphic vessels, and chalices (some of which had traces of soot). It seems possibly that this extraordinary number of objects formed the furnishings of a local Philistine temple (Kletter and Ziffer 2007). One fragment of a model shrine similar to the model shrines found at Yavneh was found in a domestic context in Ashdod, indicating the cultural intersection of domestic and public cults in Philistia (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: fig. 3.75). Thus, many of the finds from the Yavneh favissa probably served as votive objects dedicated by the participants of the cult. Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine Temple 149 in Moab (Daviau and Steiner 2000; Daviau 2006: 19) was built south of the gate and seems also to have been a village shrine with typical features such as benches along its walls and a stone slab. Two stone pillars supported the roof and divided the main room, with a central bench connecting these pillars that may indicate the cult focus. The entire structure was square and measured 5.5€m per side. Objects found here included a larger shaft altar that seems to have been painted and contained a depression for liquids; a smaller shaft altar that showed traces of burning; and the famous candelabrum altar inscribed with ‫ ליסף בת אות‬/ ‫ מקטר אׁש‬mqṭr ʾš ʿś ʿlšmʿ / lysp bt ʾwt ‘the incense altar that Elishama made for YSP, the daughter ʾWT’ (Dion and Daviau 2000). The debris of the temple also yielded three fragments of female votive terra-cotta figurines (in the form of one torso and two heads), two murex shells, a fayence bead, an Egyptian-type Udjat-amulet, a spouted libation vessel, five lamps, two stone pegs of uncertain usage that may have been foundation objects, a chalice, a juglet, a number of jugs, and a decanter. Two bowls, one jug, and four jars were also recovered from a pit in the main room (Daviau and Steiner 2000: figs.€11–12). The annex room yielded a game board and a limestone mortar. Type VB is a category of small, freestanding, intramural, open-air sanctuaries, as represented by the ‫ מצבה‬maṣṣebāh installations from Tel Reḥov (Tell eṣ-Ṣārem), Area E (A.€Mazar 1999: 23–28), Hazor Locus 80019 (Ben-Ami 2006), the open-air cultic place at Tell Michal (Avigad 1993: 932–33), and Arad Stratum XII, which consisted of a built altar and a structure that was most likely a ‫ במה‬bamāh (Y.€Aharoni 1981: fig.€1; 1993: 82; see also Zevit 2001: 157–58). Although a cultic interpretation of the Iron I structure from Arad Stratum XII is to some extent tentative (see Fritz 1993: 186; Zwickel 1994: 243–44), the fact that the Stratum XII altar lay in precisely the same position as the altar of the later fortress temple strongly suggests the long-time use of this place for cult purposes. Animal slaughter and consumption at open-air cult places occurred in the bamāh structure at Tell Michal (Avigad 1993: 933), as well as at Tel Reḥov (A. Mazar 1999: 26). Cult paraphernalia used in open-air sanctuaries included stands, human and animal votive figurines, chalices, and vessels for the preparation and consumption of food and drink, as found at Reḥov (A. Mazar 1999: figs. 14–16). Tabuns were also constructed in the immediate vicinity of the ritual installation at Tel Reḥov. This type of sanctuary seems only to have appeared during the limited time between Iron Age I (at Arad) and early Iron Age IIB (at Tel Reḥov). No structure of this kind has been found in Israel or Judah in Iron Age IIC. Local and village sanctuaries also include cult installations constructed at city gates, such as at Tel Dan, Tell el-Fārʿah North, Bethsaida, and Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine in Jordan,

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

233

with the latter forming its own typological group (Type VC).â•›20 A platform (bamāh) with an offering trough was found at the gate of Bethsaida, positioned in front of stelae that depicted ā stylized image of the moon-god, and an additional aniconic maṣṣebāh besides the bamāh (Bernett and Keel 1998). These structures were dated to the 8th century b.c.e. Both stelae were oriented to the west. The trough contained three perforated tripod cups. A number of ritual installations were discovered at Tel Dan (Biran 1994: 245; 1998), including a row of five small standing stones along with a bench adjacent to the city wall (Locus 5122b), associated with an assemblage of two tripod cups, two lamps (one with a stand), three bowls, and a platter (Biran 1994: fig. 205). It remains unclear whether animal bones found in the vicinity were associated with the installation. A similar installation with five standing stones was discovered in Locus 5180, again adjacent to a wall. Both installations have been dated to Iron Age IIB. A third, freestanding structure (Locus 5188) has been dated to the Assyrian period, and consisted of four maṣṣebôt of heights between 50 and 117 cm enclosed by a wall of 2.5 x 3 m. All three of these maṣṣebôt installations were oriented to the north. A maṣṣebāh that was oriented roughly northwest was also discovered in the area of the inner gate at Tell el-Farʿa (North), Stratum VII b–e. It included an offering trough, and has been dated to the 10th–9th centuries b.c.e. (Chambon 1984: Plan IV–VI). The gate sanctuary thus revealed a clear pattern of cult features, with the maṣṣebāh as a focus, an installation for offerings (most likely involving libations poured into the trough), and the burning of aromatic compounds. An extramural gate shrine was built at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine, directly abutting the north face of the eastern gate tower. It contained two maṣṣebôt that were oriented to the east (Daviau 2006: 17, with fig. 2; pl. 5a). Similar to neighborhood shrines, the spaces formed by typical freestanding village shrines would rarely have been able to accommodate larger communities, although communities may well have been involved in ritual performances in adjacent courtyards or other unbuilt areas. Village shrines may therefore be considered to have served and been directed by an outer (larger) social circle consisting of families, additional kin, especially multiple-family households, and friends or neighbors. Herr’s speculation, however, that the generally direct ingress to village shrines indicated a closer and more-direct relationship with a god or gods (2000a: 141–43) remains largely unsupported. The highly specialized assemblages found at local and village shrines such as Hazor, Lachish, and Tell Qasile and the variety of ritual actions that must have been conducted with these objects suggest that specialized personnel would have been responsible for the maintenance of the cult. At village shrines, regular ritual actions would probably have been conducted by a priest or priesthood on behalf of the community, as described in Judg 17:7–8 for Micah’s sanctuary, while gate sanctuaries would more likely have been sites of en passant ritual actions performed by community members themselves.

20. See Bernett and Keel (1998: 53–71) for a discussion of other possible remains of cult places in or near the city gates at Ḥorvat ʿUzza, Ḥorvat Radum, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, Beersheba, Megiddo, and Kinneret. Most of these, however, are considerably less certain in their interpretation.

234

Chapter 4

4.3.4.╇ Palace shrines (Type VI) Only one unambiguous example of a palace shrine has been found, in Iron Age IIB Megiddo Room 340 of Building 338. It shared features of both neighborhood and village shrines as well as large-scale permanent domestic cult installations (such as platforms and altars). Palace shrines clearly reflect a high degree of differentiation among the members of the society and would have served the ritual needs of the social, governmental, or military elite. Although the later Arad fortress temple could be interpreted as a palace shrine, it formed a distinctly separate building within the fortress, while palace shrines were properly integrated within palatial structures. In contrast to the structure at Arad, the palace shrine of Megiddo would not have been suitable for large-scale offerings. The predominant ritual actions likely to have taken place here are libations and the burning of grain—performed facing east—as well as the preparation and consumption of ritual meals, as indicated by a cooking pot and basalt vessel. Once again, no votive figurines that might indicate individual rituals have been found. Although this shrine would have been too small to serve audiences of any appreciable size, excavated objects indicate that some ritual actions, such as the burning of incense, may have been performed in the adjacent Courtyard 313. Because all cult activities were closely aligned with the activities of domestic cults, palace shrines can be considered to represent expanded subsets of installations and objects typically associated with domestic shrines but incorporated into official realms. Although the predominantly domestic character of cult objects and associated actions indicates no particularly high degree of ritual specialization, suggesting that ritual specialists would not necessarily have needed to be present, it seems plausible that the specialists would have been present in these permanent ritual installations that were integrated into official buildings. In order to transfer typical domestic cult activities to higher levels, hierarchical social structures would have needed the presence and authority of a priest or military commander (attended by subordinates) to function in the role of pater familias. Palace shrines can therefore be seen to have formed points of intersection between the cult activities of families and the official bureaucracy. However, as stated at the outset of this section, the Megiddo palace shrine is the only example of this type known to date and, in the absence of further evidence, the conclusions of the present subsection should be considered tentative.

4.3.5.╇ Regional sanctuaries (Type VII) Sanctuaries serving social groups at regional scales or larger were generally situated beyond villages or cities themselves, at a convenient central place, and served communities from surrounding regions by providing places for offerings or worship. This description seems especially apropos for the so-called bull site in the Samarian hill country, which could have served the Dothan–Yibleam region. Similarly, the Hathor temple could have served the copper-mining and -processing region of the Timnah Valley.

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

235

4.3.5.1.╇ Open-air regional sanctuaries (Type VIIA) An example of an early regional sanctuary that had no temple building is the muchdiscussed “bull site” (Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīle, map reference 1807.2016), excavated by Mazar between 1978 and 1982 (A. Mazar 1982). The site was located on a hillock, where large stones were used to form an elliptical enclosure. Although very few details about the construction of and items found in this sanctuary are known (see Fritz 1993: 185–86; Zwickel 1994: 212–15), it nevertheless seems possible that there was a maṣṣebāh here. Among other fragments of pottery, there was a piece that was probably part of a square offering stand (Mazar 1982: fig. 10), similar to the stands found at Taanach and Pella. It therefore seems that the “bull site” was used for cult purposes. The tumuli west of Jerusalem that were previously considered cultic heights (for example, by Amiran 1958) generally lack clear indication of cult functions, such as installations or associated paraphernalia, and are therefore not likely to have been sanctuaries (see Fritz 1993: 186; Zwickel 1994: 249–50). The same applies to a presumed bamāh on Mount Ebal/el-Burnāṭ (Zertal 1993), which is more likely to have been a watchtower (Zwickel 1994: 204–7; see also Fritz 1993: 185). One structure with identifiable cult features was an Iron Age IIC open-air Edomite sanctuary found at Ḥorvat Qitmit.â•›21 Objects excavated from a favissa at the Edomite fortress at ʿEn Ḥazeva (Cohen and Yisrael 1995; 1996; 1997) included 7 stone miniature altars, 3 anthropomorphic stands, 31 stands of various shapes, 11 chalices, 4 perforated tripod cups, and 4 incense shovels. The material originally belonged to a U-shaped openair cultic structure at the northern front of the fortress that had a bench, an altar, and a hearth. Two maṣṣebôt marked cultic foci, both toward the southeast. One of these showed sign of having been decorated with a crescent. An open-air regional sanctuary slightly predating the “bull site” (Late Bronze IIB– Iron I) was found at Timnah in the Arabah, the so-called Hathor temple (Site 200; Rothenberg 1973: 134–92; 1993: 1482–85). It contained a row of iconic and aniconic maṣṣebôt (the former being Hathor pillars, hence the name), benches, altars, offering troughs orienting the ritual focus to the west, and large amounts of pottery and votive objects (including a copper snake, copper figurines, fayence objects, jewelry, Egyptian-type amulets; collectibles such as shells, fossils, stones of unusual shapes, slag, and corals; and vessels of stone, alabaster, and pottery). A second cultic site was also found here (Site 2, Area A), with five southwest-oriented maṣṣebôt, an offering basin, and a bench in a square structure that measured 8 × 9 m (Rothenberg 1973: 118–20; 1993: 1479–80). Apparent ritual actions conducted in the sanctuaries were the slaughter and consumption of animals (as evidenced by animal bones: Rothenberg 1973: 119, 185), the offering of incense and libations, and the presentation of votive objects. These open-air regional sanctuaries were generally located in isolated places, removed from other large structures, and were not associated with permanent buildings that accommodated people who might otherwise have been responsible for the maintenance of the cult. They therefore probably were sites of occasional rather than regular ritual actions, with ritual performances being conducted by members of local communities or their for21. See pp. 236–237.

236

Chapter 4

mal representatives. Although it does not seem that dedicated priesthoods were associated with these open-air sanctuaries, it is possible that official priests served at the cult mounds on special occasions, as indicated in 1 Kgs 12:31–32 (presuming this was not a polemic).

4.3.5.2.╇ Regional sanctuaries with shrines or temples (Type VIIB) The fortress temple at Arad (see Herzog et al. 1984; M. Aharoni 1993; for further discussion, Zwickel 1994: 266–75; Zevit 2001: 156–71) was centrally located on the road to the Arabah and dominated the plain of the eastern Negev (see Y. Aharoni 1984: 60), suggesting that it functioned as a regional sanctuary. The temple was built inside and was protected by the fortress and is thus likely to have been an official sanctuary that served both the military and the administrative staff of the fortress, the inhabitants of the Negev region, and traders who traveled on the road. The cult paraphernalia of the temple seems mostly to have been in use between the 9th and 8th centuries b.c.e. (Herzog 2001) and consisted of a number of maṣṣebôt (see Bloch-Smith 2005: 32–33), two incense altars in a niche that marked the cultic focus (oriented westward), and a sacrificial altar in the courtyard. Five JPF fragments and one horse-and-rider figurine were found in the temple (see Kletter 1996: fig. 35),â•›22 as well as a bronze lion figurine aside the sacrificial altar of Str. IX (Herzog et al. 1984: fig. 20). Although not many figurines were concentrated in the temple itself, it seems possible that they were used as votive objects in the temple cult. Other category A objects included a small stand with a separately made bowl from Stratum X, found in the room adjacent to the altar (1984: 15), as well as offering dishes with the incised letters qop-kap (for qōdeš kōhanîm ‘set apart for priests’) found on the steps of the sacrificial altar in Stratum X (1984: 12 and fig. 14 a, b). The utilitarian pottery of Stratum X consisted of bowls, cooking pots, jugs, juglets, storage jars, and lamps (figs. 12–13), indicating the cooking and consumption of ritual meals. The pottery assemblages of Strata XI and IX–VII were similar in character (see Y. Aharoni 1981: figs. 6–10; Herzog et al. 1984: figs. 18–25). As noted above, this Iron II temple at Arad had an Iron Age I predecessor in an open-air sanctuary on the very same spot, as represented by an altar in the same place as the altar of the fortress temple, and a bamāh (Y. Aharoni 1981; 1993: 82). Iron II regional sanctuaries are also represented by Ḥorvat Qitmit Sanctuaries A and B (Beit-Arieh 1995: 303–10, fig. 9.1–2). Sanctuary A was a three-room shrine (oriented northeast, albeit without any apparent cult focus) with benches and an open-air cult place with a bamāh and stone basin oriented toward southwest. Ritual vessels and figurines were found at the latter spot. The second complex, Sanctuary B, was a structure of several rooms with a courtyard and maṣṣebāh (oriented westward) that lay in front of the main building. This sanctuary hosted an abundant ritual assemblage consisting of incense altars, perforated tripod cups, cylindrical stands, anthropoid stands, composite vessels, chalices, human and animal figurines, collectibles (especially mollusk shells), and figurines of Edomite deities, together with large amounts of pottery for the storage, prepa-

22. Kletter 1996: cat. no. HR 80 (Locus 380, entrance to the temple), JPF 442 (Locus 783), JPF 446 (Locus 350, small room near the altar), JPF 448 (Locus 380, entrance to the temple), JPF 453 (Locus 350), JPF 456 (Locus 795, Hellenistic pit).

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

237

ration, and consumption of food, mostly in the form of bowls.â•›23 Ritual actions that must have been performed at this sanctuary include sacrificial slaughter on the altar, the consumption of sacrificial meals, the burning of incense, the offering of libations and votive objects, and perhaps—as was supposed by the excavators (Beit-Arieh 1995: 306)—formal processions between the sanctuary buildings. The excavators also suggested that some of the built structures (Structure I and B may have served to accommodate priests; 1995: 308). Given the permanence of the buildings and their installations, it does indeed seem likely that there was a priesthood associated with this sanctuary complex, whose employ may have been supported by the local tribes. All of these regional sanctuaries discussed above would have served different forms of social organization dependent upon their geographical and economic contexts. The “bull site” was likely a regional sanctuary serving the early (or proto-) Israelite settlements in the vicinity of the Samarian hill country. The Ḥorvat Qitmit sanctuary was most likely a central sanctuary for the semi-nomadic tribes who lived in the wider vicinity, and would perhaps have been maintained by a priest or priesthood. The Timnah valley temple served the mining colonists in the Timnah Valley area. The Arad fortress temple was an official structure serving military and administrative staff, the inhabitants of the Negev, and traders en route throughout that region. The existence of dedicatory inscriptions (qōdeš/ qōhanîm), along with good evidence of differentiated cult actions, particularly in regard to the slaughter of animals, strongly argue that the cult of the Arad temple was maintained by a priesthood. The evident intersection of military and religious institutions further suggests that the priesthood of Arad would have been sanctioned and employed by a central administration based in the capital, Jerusalem.

4.3.6.╇ Supraregional and state sanctuaries (Type VIII) The most important supraregional sanctuary in Iron Age Israel found to date is the Temple in Jerusalem, which served as the main temple for the Judean state. Evidence for the function and purpose of this temple appears only in written sources, which have been already been the subject of much consideration.â•›24 For the purposes of the present book, it is sufficient to note that the unquestionably monumental Jerusalem Temple was not only an official temple of supraregional importance but was also the primary sanctuary of the Kingdom of Judah—as well as being the only official sanctuary subsequent to the Josianic reform—which was considered, according to official theology, to be located at the central point of the known world and to be the sole place blessed with Yhwh’s presence (see Albertz 1992: 190–212). Its counterparts are the main sanctuaries of the Northern Kingdom, in Dan and Bethel, of which only the Dan temple has been excavated. There are very few traces of the first temple remaining in Jerusalem, and the nature of Israelite supraregional or state temples can thus only be ascertained by examining the evidence from Tel Dan. The Tel 23. From Complex A came 1534 bowls, 73 kraters, 15 clay basins, 39 cooking pots, 93 jars; from Complex B, 605 bowls, 5 kraters, 17 clay basins, 23 cooking pots, 50 jars (Beit-Arieh 1995: 209–19). 24. I only mention here some of the more recent studies: Hurowitz 1992; 2005; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §§103–8; Zwickel 1999a; Bloch-Smith 2002.

238

Chapter 4

Dan Sanctuary contained a number of built features that seem to have been typical for monumental architecture in the Northern Kingdom, including the use of ashlar masonry, a rectangular layout for the sacred precinct (measuring 45 × 60 m), and the fact that the building complex of the sanctuary proper, which measured 17 × 28 m, consisted of bamōt A (Stratum IV: 9 × 18.5 m) and B (Stratum III: 18 × 18 m) with northwest orientations, a large built altar, and additional buildings. Among items excavated from the early (Stratum IV, 10th century) sacred precinct were two pithoi decorated with snakes, a pottery stand, bowls, jugs, and other vessels that included Phoenician imports from one of the storerooms north of the central complex (Biran 1994: figs. 125, 126, 128, 129). A bar-handled bowl filled with animal bones, two tall cylindrical stands, and a 10-cm-long fragment of a male bearded head were found on a cobbled floor near the altar (Biran 1994: figs. 133–34). The presence of Egyptian-type fayence figurines (Biran 1994: figs. 139, 141, 142) suggests votive practices. A stone-lined basin associated with a stand and a terra-cotta bathtub measuring 65 × 82 × 141 cm with an internal seat were interpreted by the excavators as an installation for cleansing rituals (Biran 1994: 174; figs. 135–36). Another installation with a sunken basin, basalt slabs, and sunken jars at both ends was also interpreted as having served ritual purposes (Biran 1994: 177, fig.  137), although this installation was much more likely to have been an olive-oil press that provided oil for the needs of the temple (see Dever 2005: 140). A built altar from the later periods (Stratum II) was found in Room 2844 with two iron shovels and a jar that contained ashes and burned animal bones. Room 2844 also contained two miniature altars and a carinated bronze bowl. A blue fayence dye was discovered north of the altar room in a small annex (Biran 1994: 192–99). The objects unearthed at Tel Dan indicate that rituals performed in the temple consisted of the slaughter of animals, food offerings and incense, the ritual consumption of meals, ritual cleansing, and divination (through the casting of dice). Temples 350, 351, and 650 at Tel Miqne–Ekron (Gitin and Dothan 1987: 204–5; Dothan 1990: 29–35; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 245–52; Dothan and Gitin 1993: 1054–56) are also structures of official or supraregional levels. The supraregional importance of these structures is also attested in 2 Kgs 1:2–4, where Baal-zebul of Ekron is consulted by the Israelite king. The first temple building of Stratum VIA (Temple 351, dated to the 12th century b.c.e.) was a small mud-brick building with an open hearth, containing Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery and a delicately made ivory pyxis. The much more elaborate Stratum V megaron-type temple of about 15 × 21 m was erected on the same spot. This had an entrance hall with two pillars leading to another pillared hall and three cellae oriented east, as well as several annexes. The installations in the cellae consisted of a raised platform with a bench in the central room, a bench in the southernmost room, and a funnel-like depression in the floor of the northern room, as well as a hearth and a bench in the hall. A foundation deposit consisting of an oil lamp inside two bowls was discovered in the southeast corner of the main hall beneath the floor. The main hall also yielded ashes, charcoal, and the bones of animals, including fish. Objects found inside the middle cella of Stratum VI included fragments of a wheeled stand of cast bronze (similar to the biblical mekonôt), two bowls, and a flask; while objects from Stratum V included chalices and other vessels, a fayence gaming piece, a fayence ring, and the fang of a wild pig. The northern room contained an assemblage of bichrome pottery (including a chalice, bowls, a beer jug, and

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

239

horn-shaped flasks), as well as 20 loom weights from the middle of the floor. The southern room yielded an iron ingot found on the platform, an iron knife with an ivory handle, and a bronze linchpin. The finds from Stratum IV (late 11th to early 10th centuries b.c.e.) included a variety of fayence votive objects within the northern room, as well as kernos fragments, chalices, flasks, pomegranate-shaped vessels, and votive miniature vessels. Building 353 adjacent to the temple proper contained a stone bath. Objects found inside this temple indicate that ritual actions performed here would have included the offering of animals, consumption of ritual meals, the offering of libations and votive objects, ritual bathing, and perhaps divination. Stratum IC (Iron IIC) Temple 650 was even more monumental, spanning 43 × 57 m. It consisted of the main sanctuary building with two rows of pillars, a monumental courtyard with additional rooms (see Gitin and Cogan 1999: fig. 3), and an auxiliary complex (formed from Units 651–55) that contained vast amounts of pottery and other objects, including a treasure trove of silver, bronze, and ivory objects that have yet to be fully published. Several inscriptions were found in the temple and its auxiliary complex, including 15 inscriptions on store jars, some of which were dedicatory inscriptions (Renz and Röllig 1995: Muq[7]:1), and 2 royal dedicatory inscriptions, the first of which was from Achish or Ikausu to his lady ptgyh (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997), and the second mentioned King Padi and the god Baal (Gitin and Cogan 1999). The Temple 650 complex also contained an olive-oil press, most likely dedicated to the needs of the cult. Supraregional and state sanctuaries like these, which show a high degree of differentiation between various cult activities and generally contained specialized and dedicated installations, would obviously have necessitated a priesthood for their maintenance. This priesthood would have been sanctioned by local rulers (see 1 Kgs 12:31–32) and would have met their financial needs with a temple income collected from official and nonofficial cult participants.

4.4.╇Conclusions This analysis of cult assemblages and other features has revealed a variety of cult practices associated with a range of contexts, as summarized in table 4.2 (pp. 242–244 below). Type IA domestic cultic assemblages were often associated with facilities for the preparation of food. They have typically yielded only a small number of specialized ritual objects, all of which would have been portable. Ritual performances would have been occasional and would have included libations, food offerings, the burning of incense, and votive practices. The portable ritual paraphernalia would have been stored when not in use. Ritual activities conducted in Type IIA small-scale industrial structures would have been similar. In both of these cases, the presence of a deity would have had to be imagined during ritual performances. In domestic structures, permanent installations with a clear cult focus and enlarged ritual assemblages (of Type IB) seem to have been extremely rare, and probably only served elite families. Type VI palace shrines that would have served administrative and military elites appear generally to have had features similar to domestic shrines, although in this case serving the realms of official religion. Cult installations

240

Chapter 4

and assemblages for the medium circle (above the nuclear family level) of Types IIB (installations in large-scale industrial areas), III (neighborhood shrines), and IV (places for the care of the dead) are readily distinguished by the presence of more-specific ritual assemblages and permanent ritual installations (for Types IIB and III). Permanent installations, especially maṣṣebôt and dedicated altars, were primarily used by the outer circle, as represented by Type V (village or city shrines or temples, and cult installations situated at gates). Maṣṣebôt certainly do not seem to have been present in the realm of domestic religion. Ritual assemblages of pottery found in the outer-circle sites are larger, more differentiated, and have larger numbers of specialized and luxury vessels. Animal slaughter seems to have been an important religious practice in the outer-circle realms, as attested in local or city-level structures (of Type V), regional structures (of Type VII), and supraregional sanctuaries (of Type VIII). Some sort of priesthood was probably responsible for the maintenance of cult practices and structures at all levels, from village shrines upward, and would have been employed either by local bodies (for Type V) or centralized, official bodies (for Types VII and VIII, and perhaps also Type VI). Official regional shrines of Type VII (exemplified by the Arad fortress temple) comprised temple buildings with differentiated installations (such as maṣṣebôt, multiple altars, or courtyards) and specialized vessels. Ritual assemblages excavated from official, supraregional temples (Type VIII Temples 350 and 650 at Tel Miqne and the Dan sanctuary) contained quite a few more specialized objects (especially metal objects) than local or regional-level sanctuaries did. Similarly, multiple specialized installations seem to have been present only in official, supraregional sanctuaries, where they may have served the special ritual activities of priests, such as ritual cleansing. There appears to have been no standardized orientation for cultic foci in cultic structures of Levels III–VIII. Orientations differed even within the same periods and cultural realms (see A. Mazar 1992: 186–87 with graph on p. 178). It is particularly notable that, in the Northern Kingdom, the cult structures in Megiddo Room 340 and the Dan sanctuary were oriented toward the east and the north, respectively, while in Philistia, Ekron Temple 350 and the Tell Qasile temple were oriented toward the east and west, respectively. There is currently insufficient evidence to discern whether there were significant positions for official temples to be placed in a town’s overall plan (as observed by Holladay 1987: 268). While the Dan sanctuary was located at the northwestern edge of the tell, the sacred precincts at Ekron and Tell Qasile were both located in the city center, although the latter was not situated on the very summit of the tell. A feature that was common to all levels of ritual activity in Israel and Judean cultic structures was votive practices with anthropomorphic and animal figurines. Votive objects of greater material value, such as those made of fayence or metal, seem to have been restricted to official sanctuaries on the regional or supraregional level. No unambiguously divine images likely to have been cult objects have been found in type VII or VIII public cult structures in Israel or Judah, although they have been found in the Edomite sanctuary at Ḥorvat Qitmit. Assemblages of category A and B ritual objects and utilitarian pottery that were used in cult structures of all levels suggest an ongoing interdependence and interaction between the levels. This interdependence can be observed during all periods surveyed in

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places

241

the present study. Ritual paraphernalia of neighborhood and local shrines in the early Iron Age seem to have been formed by enlarging the ensembles typical of contemporary domestic practices. The use of tripod incense cups seems to have been typical for domestic cult activities during Iron Age IIB, as attested at the gate sanctuaries of Dan and Bethsaida. JPFs and other terra-cotta votive objects were used in Iron Age IIC, both in domestic realms and in official cult structures (such as the Arad fortress temple). Domestic and public votive practices by individuals and families thus coexisted in Iron Age IIB–C Judah. The most important difference between cult activities on the private or domestic level and the cult activities on the public level seems to have been that, on the domestic level, performances were responsible for inviting and invoking the presence of deities, as reflected in the portability of ritual paraphernalia, whereas the permanent presence of a deity was indicated in structures on the levels of neighborhood shrines and upward (Types III and V–VIII). Permanent presence is manifested by permanent installations that marked cult foci, especially maṣṣebôt, as well as platforms, benches, and other fixed features. Type IV places, which cared for the dead,â•›25 also seem to have shared features typical of domestic cult practices, particularly the use of portable ritual apparatuses. In line with previous comments on Ekron by Gitin (2002), we find that the interdependence and coexistence of several layers and realms of cultic activity are perhaps best understood using the concepts of internal religious pluralism, which permitted multiple intersections among the circles of domestic, local, and official religion to meet the entire range of needs in the various levels of social organization involved in these cult practices. 25. See chap. 6 below.

nuclear/ extended family

elite nuclear/ extended/joint family

nuclear/ extended/joint families

joint families broader kinship groups and servants/ clients

joint families multi-family household, Neighborhood

IA Domestic (inner circle) (appendix A)

IB Domestic shrine (inner circle) (Megiddo 2081; Tel Masos R307)

IIA Work-related, small-scale (inner circle) (appendix A)

IIB Work-related, large-scale (medium circle) (Ashdod and Tel Miqne potter’s quarter; Tel Miqne olive-oil industrial area)

III Neighborhood shrine (medium circle) (Ai Locus 69, Tell Qiri, Area D)

Cult Type

Group/ Body

integrated building

workshop separate industrial area

workshop storage building or within domestic building

room or corner integrated into the domestic architecture

room within house, usually central hall

Architecture

benches platform

industrial installations ritual installations

industrial installations

benches platform

ovens

Permanent Installations

stands altars libation vessels votives

altars stands libation vessels votive figurines

stands libation vessels votive figurines

stands votive figurines altars censor-vessels

stands votive figurines libation vessels censor-cups or small altars

Category A (dominant items only)

chalices goblets lamps miniature vessels

sometimes chalices and luxury vessels

sometimes chalices and luxury vessels astragali

chalices goblets luxury items lamps collectibles astragali

chalices goblets lamps luxury items collectibles game pieces

Category B (dominant items only)

Table 4.2.╇ Typological chart of Iron Age cult places

food and drink preparation and consumption

storage food and drink preparation and consumption

storage sometimes food and drink preparation and consumption

food and drink preparation and consumption

food and drink preparation and consumption storage

Category C (dominant items only)

libation food and incense offerings votive cult ritual meals

libation food and incense offerings votive cult ritual meals

libation food and incense offerings votive cult ritual meals

libation food and incense offerings votive cult ritual meals

libation food and incense offerings votive cult ritual meals

Cultic Activities

242 Chapter 4

platform bench maṣṣebāh stone trough

installations near the gate

multiplefamily household village community

VC Gate sanctuary (outer circle) (Dan, Bethsaida, Tell el-Fārʿah, Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine)

maṣṣebāh platform altar (Asherahpile?) oven

freestanding

multiplefamily household village/city community perhaps maintained by priesthood

benches platforms built altars maṣṣebāh

VB Village or city high place (outer circle) (Lachish Locus 81, Hazor Locus 80019, Arad Str. XII, Tell Michal open-air cult place; Tel Reḥov, Area E)

(mostly) freestanding building courtyard annexes

multiplefamily household village/city community maintained by priesthood

oven

VA Village shrine/ or city temple (outer circle) (Lachish Room 49, Tell Michal Build. 300, Hazor Room 3283, Tell Qasile Temples; Temple 149 at Ḥirbet elMudēyine)

caves (Jerusalem) or extramural location (Samaria E207)

joint families multi-family household neighborhood

Architecture

Permanent Installations

IV Places for the care of the dead (medium circle) (Jerusalem Caves I–III, Locus 6015, Samaria E207)

Cult Type

Group/ Body

miniature bowls chalices

miniature bowls

tripod incense cups

chalices goblets luxury items lamps collectibles

chalices goblets lamps rattles

Category B (dominant items only)

libation vessels stands votive figurines

stands altars model shrine libation vessels votive figurines

stands altars model furniture model shrines libation vessels tripod-cups votive figurines

Category A (dominant items only)

Table 4.2.╇ Typological chart of Iron Age cult places

food and drink consumption

food and drink preparation and consumption

food and drink preparation and consumption

food and drink preparation and consumption

Category C (dominant items only)

libation incense burning, ritual meals (?)

animal slaughter libations ritual meals

animal slaughter libation food and incense offerings ritual meals

libation food and incense offerings votive cult ritual meals

Cultic Activities

Typology of Iron Age Cult Places 243

food and drink preparation and consumption

food and drink preparation and consumption

chalices luxury items lamps collectibles

chalices and luxury vessels dice

cult figurines altars tripod-cups stands votive figurines libation vessels metal ritual objects and tools stands altars figurines silver and gold hoards

platform benches built altar maṣṣebāh stone trough

platform benches built altar hearth and other fixed cultic installations industrial installations (olive-oil presses)

shrine or temple building temenos fortification

monumental temple building additional buildings temenos

regional tribe inhabitants of the region administrative elite traders maintained by priesthood royalty administrative, military, and religious elites citizens of city and state maintained by priesthood

VIIB Regional sanctuary, shrine or temple (regional circle) (Arad temple, Ḥorvat Qitmit shrines A and B)

VIII Supra-regional sanctuary: (supra-regional/ official circle) (Tel Miqne temples 350, 650, Tel Dan, [Jerusalem])

food and drink preparation and consumption

luxury vessels collectibles

cult figurine (bull) votive figurines stands libation vessels

food and drink preparation and consumption

platforms benches built altar maṣṣebāh hearth stone trough

lamp

location on hill or other central location temenos

stands altars model shrines

Category C (dominant items only)

regional tribe inhabitants of villages in vicinity economic community

benches platform stone trough

Category B (dominant items only)

VIIA Regional sanctuary, open-air (regional circle) (bull site, Timnah sanctuaries, ʿEn Ḥazeva)

room integrated into palatial structure

Category A (dominant items only)

administrative elite perhaps maintained by priesthood

Architecture

Permanent Installations

VI Palace shrine (official, administrative elites) (Megiddo 338)

Cult Type

Group/ Body

Table 4.2.╇ Typological chart of Iron Age cult places

animal slaughter libation votive cult food and incense offerings ritual meals animal slaughter libation votive cult food and incense offerings ritual meals animal slaughter food and incense offerings ritual meals ritual cleansing divination

libation food and incense offerings ritual meals

Cultic Activities

244 Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Personal Names and Family Religion Most Hebrew personal names are theophoric, and thus they constitute an important source for reconstructing Israelite and Judean religion. Names have been used to draw general conclusions regarding ancient Israelite religion, as J. D. Fowler (1988) did, for example. She suggested that the names provide “a detailed picture of what the Hebrew man conceived his God to be” (1988: 18). She was interested in the “nature of the Hebrew deity” (1988: 19) rather than the social context of various religious statements. Interpreting the personal names in such a general theological way did not enable nuanced discernment of differences but only “congruity in thought with what is revealed as the character of the Israelite God throughout the Old Testament” (1988: 318). This sort of uncritical interpretation of the religious messages conveyed by Hebrew personal names has led to some far-reaching conclusions. For example, J.  Tigay (1987: 177) used the large proportion of epigraphic names containing Yhwh to make a broad inference about general religious history: there “existed an overwhelmingly Yahwistic society in the heartland of Israelite settlement.” H.-D. Hoffmann (1980: 83, 103) went so far as to wonder whether Ahab could have constructed a temple for Baal as reported in 1 Kgs 16:31–33, because the names of his sons (Ahaziah and Jehoram) contained Yahwistic elements. General conclusions such as these are highly questionable; in the latter case, for example, it is entirely possible that Ahab considered the realms of state religion and his own personal belief to be two distinct realms. M. Noth (1928: 133), in his foundational investigation of Hebrew anthroponymy, stated that Israelite personal names are not alluding to any particular theology or dogmatic speculation but instead are a direct reflection of the simple piety of individuals.

5.1.╇ Introductory questions 5.1.1.╇ Personal names as a source for family religion In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 49–77), I demonstrated that the personal names of the Hebrew Bible do not reflect the Israelite religion in any general way; instead, they specifically attest the personal piety of Israelite and Judean families.â•›1 Furthermore, although the traditions of Israel’s official religion—such as the exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai, Zion, or Bethel—seem to have had no impact on personal names, and they contain only a 1. This view is also accepted by Rechenmacher (1997: 3) but not by Fowler.

245

246

Chapter 5

few possible allusions to Israel’s political and sacred history,â•›2 the verbs and nouns used in personal names show a high rate of correspondence with the verbs and nouns that were used in the individual psalms of complaint and thanksgiving and in the oracles of salvation. More than half of all the roots of theophoric personal names found in the Hebrew Bible also occur in the genre of individual prayer;â•›3 and over 60% of all verbs and nouns that appear in the petitions for divine attendance and salvation or in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints or the psalms of thanksgiving and oracles of salvation can also be found in personal names. Thus, there is a close relationship between Hebrew personal names and the genres of psalms that reflect aspects of private prayer practices. In contrast, statements of hymnic praise reflect primarily the religion of the state, and only 10% of theophoric names in the Hebrew Bible allude to those statements (Albertz 1978a: 49–50). In the following section, I will extend the work begun in previous investigations of Hebrew personal names in the epigraphs on excavated ostraca and seals, and so on,â•›4 which will enable us to confirm and strengthen these conclusions. Some may object that, although Hebrew personal names are derived from the roots of words that express familial piety, their use was determined more by fashion than by the religious convictions of the parents. If this were the case, these names would reflect the religious environment only indirectly and would offer no access to the beliefs of Israelite families. There are, however, several indications that the bestowal of names in ancient Israelite societies reflected more than mere ephemeral fashion. Foremost among these is the fact that, many times in the Hebrew Bible, the naming of a child is followed by an explicit explanation for the choice of the name.â•›5 In most cases, these explanations reflect the specific circumstances of birth, such as the distress of the mother during labor or an association with her religious experiences at that time. These explanations are admittedly occasionally inaccurate etymologically; for example, the name Jacob, which is explained in the biblical narratives using the root ‫ עקב‬I ‘to deceive’ (Gen 27:36), or ‫ עקב‬II ‘to hold back’ (25:25–26), is actually derived from the Amorite root ‫‘ עקב‬to protect’ and should be interpreted as a shortened form of ya-aḫ-qú-ub-ilu, which originally meant ‘god has protected’ (Huffmon 1965: 203–4; see also Gröndahl 1967: 111–12). This example nevertheless demonstrates that ancient Israelites found contemporary religious meanings for names, even when perhaps the original meaning had been lost. There is, of course, an abundance of etymologically accurate interpretations of personal names; for example, Hagar is asked to call her child Ishmael, because God has heard her distress (Gen 16:11). Even though biblical explanations are generally stylized literarily, they do presuppose that parents in ancient 2. In particular, the name ‫ ׁשכניה‬Šĕkanyāh ‘Yhwh has taken [his] living’ was interpreted (following Noth 1928: 194) to refer to the reconstruction of the Temple in 520–515 b.c.e. (Albertz 1978a: 58) because in the Hebrew Bible the name only appears in the postexilic period. However, the name has since been found in epigraphic records from the preexilic period; see pp.€267–268 below. 3. The correspondence between roots in names expressing thanksgiving and confession, on the one hand, and individual psalms and oracles of salvation, on the other hand, is shown in the tables in appendixes B1 and 2 below. 4. See pp. 269–330 below. 5. See Gen 4:1, 25; 5:29; 16:11; 21:6; 29:33, 34, 35; 30:5–6, 10–11, 13, 18, 20, 24; 35:18; 38:27–30; Exod 2:22; 18:3–4; 1 Sam 1:20; 4:21; 2 Sam 12:24, see also Fichtner 1956: 372–96.

Personal Names and Family Religion

247

Israelite societies were aware of the specific meanings of personal names and chose names with intent and deliberation. A second argument against fashion’s having been the primary factor in naming conventions is that the naming of a child in ancient Israel seems to have been considered a special occasion that was commonly celebrated with a family feast. During birth, mothers were kept isolated from their husbands and the rest of their family (Jer 20:15) and were assisted only by midwives or female neighbors (Gen 35:17, 18a; 38:27–30; Ruth 4:13–15). Because a woman who had given birth was considered unclean for another 7 to 14 days (Lev 12:1–5), she had to remain in isolation with her newborn infant. The mother and infant were not reintegrated into a family until after this period. One can imagine that the first meeting with her husband and entire family would have been a joyful moment. It would likely have been celebrated with a family feast, giving the mother an opportunity to present her baby proudly and to tell of her physical and religious experiences during the dramatic process of birth. It probably would have been on this joyful day, at the end of the mother’s time of impurity that the naming of the child was celebrated. One piece of evidence indirectly supports this idea. Later priestly regulations fixed the day of circumcision for boys precisely on the 8th day of life, immediately following the 7-day period of impurity (Lev 12:3; Gen 17:12; 21:4). Thus the integration of newborn boys into their families, now expanded by the wider aspect of their integration as one of Yhwh’s people occurred precisely on the day when the purportedly older naming feast took place. Although there is no direct evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the naming of a child occurred on the day of circumcision, there is later evidence (Luke 1:59–66; 2:21; b. Šabb. 134a; Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 48) as well as the fact that the practice prevails in present-day Judaism (EncJud 5:572; EncJudâ•›2 4:732). It is thus reasonable to suggest that the celebration of circumcision intentionally coincided with the older naming feast. The ritual context of the family feast would have imbued the act of naming with great significance. These interpretations of the circumstances surrounding naming also help clarify one peculiarity of the biblical reports on naming. In the Hebrew Bible, the naming of a child is reported 46 times: the mother names the child in 25 of these instances,â•›6 the father in 15,â•›7 both parents in just 1 or 2 cases (Gen 25:25, 26),â•›8 and in 1 case the father corrects the name bestowed by the mother (35:18).â•›9 The reconstructed ritual background offers a ready explanation. The mother would naturally have had the prerogative in naming the child, because she may have chosen the name during the seven days of her impurity, in the absence of family. Thus arises the frequent connotation of personal names with 6. See Gen 4:1, 25; 16:11; 19:37, 38; 29:32, 33, 34, 35; 30:6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20, 21; 35:18a; 38:4, 5; Exod 2:10; Judg 13:24; 1 Sam 1:20; Isa 7:14; 1 Chr 4:9; 7:16. In Ruth 4:17 the female neighbors, who accompanied the birth process, chose the name. 7. See Gen 4:26; 5:3, 29; 16:15; 17:19; 35:18b; 38:3; 41:45; Exod 2:22; Isa 8:3; Hos 1:4, 6, 9; Job 42:14; 1 Chr 7:23; in Gen 38:29, 30 the verbal form is masculine, but the subject is not mentioned. 8. In 2 Sam 12:24 the text varies as to whether David or Bathsheba named Sholomo (Kethivâ•‚ Qere); in Gen 4:26 the MT reads a feminine, but the Samaritan Pentateuch reads a masculine form; in Exod 2:22 a few Hebrew manuscripts read a feminine form against the masculine reading of the MT. 9. Restricted to the unambiguous cases, the ratio of naming by women is 54.3%; this is a bit lower than the ratio of 62% deduced by Meyers (2002: 291).

248

Chapter 5

the religious experiences of a mother during pregnancy, labor, or childbirth. Even secular circumstances during processes of birth found expression in personal names.â•›10 Of course, the husband would have had to agree with the mother’s choice, and agreement was probably reached during the naming feast after the mother had revealed her experiences and the father and other family members had had their chance to respond. The father could also propose the child’s name during the feast and then convinced his wife; or husband and wife could reach a mutual decision on naming. Thus, the broader religious experiences of families that transcended the birth itself could also determined or influenced the choice of a child’s name. Personal names thus reflect and convey many aspects of the religious beliefs of Israelite families, particularly aspects brought to the fore during the dramatic events of childbirth. Names primarily reflected the woman’s personal piety as focused on the wonder of birth, although women were also influenced by related religious experiences of the father, other family members, or even friends and neighbors (Ruth 4:17).

5.1.2.╇ Epigraphic material When I dealt with personal piety in Israelite families years ago (Albertz 1978a), I restricted myself almost entirely to the names transmitted in the Hebrew Bible. Meanwhile, many more examples of Hebrew names have been found in epigraphic sources such as ostraca, jars, seals, seal impressions (bullae) and have been nicely edited so that it is possible to take them as one’s primary source and use the biblical material only in a comparative way. This methodical inversion of sources has several advantages. The epigraphic evidence has a higher degree of authenticity, because the names were recorded during the period with which we are dealing. As far as we can determine on stratigraphical or (mostly) epigraphic grounds, some of them come from the 10th and 9th centuries, but most of them from the 8th to 6th centuries b.c.e. Thus, based on the epigraphic material, it is much easier to distinguish preexilic names from postexilic names, while they are much more intermingled in the Hebrew Bible. This is especially true in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, where the largest number of biblical names appear. Since our investigation of family religion is focused on the preexilic period, epigraphic material from the postexilic period, such as the Elephantine texts, Daliyeh papyri, and the Aramaic ostraca from southern Palestine are excluded. *â•…â•…*â•…â•…* A first comprehensive edition of the new Hebrew epigraphic material was presented by Davies (1991) and contained only transcriptions of the Hebrew texts. A much more detailed edition that included not only the texts but also drawings of the material, translations, and detailed interpretations was compiled by Renz and Röllig in their Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik (HAE); vols. 1, 2/1, and 3 dealing with the inscriptions were published in 1995; vol. 2/2, which presents the seals and bullae, followed much later, in 2003. In 1997, Avigad and Sass published the foundational Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (WSS). This was supplemented by an edition of the seals from the Hecht Museum in Haifa, prepared by Avigad, Heltzer, and Lemaire (2000). During this period, Deutsch and Heltzer (1994; 1995 [NEE]; 1997 [WTP]; 1999 [EN]) also published a series of small editions presenting new inscriptions and seals from Israel and its surrounds; another was done by Deutsch alone (1999). Seals from Israel and its neighbors from the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection (BPPS) were published by Deutsch and Lemaire (2000).

10. For example, that the child quickly came out of the womb like an arrow (‫ חצי‬Ḥēṣî), a bolt of lightning (‫ ברקי‬Barqay), or a waterfall (‫ צנר‬Ṣinnor); see appendix B6.1.1.

Personal Names and Family Religion

249

As far as the Hebrew seals and bullae are concerned, all the material mentioned above is included in HAE 2/2 by Renz and Röllig (2003). This edition has been chosen to form the basis of the present investigation, although the authors’ assignment of origins (to Hebrew, Ammonite, or Moabite, for example) and associated interpretations differ in some cases from the original publications.â•›11 However, we use all of the older publications cited above for the personal names that originated in the lands of Israel’s neighbors. The New Epigraphic Evidence (NEE) by Deutsch and Heltzer (1995) presents more ostraca and Hebrew inscriptions, beyond those originally treated in the earlier volumes of HAE, especially HAE 2/1. New Hebrew inscriptions found during Shiloh’s excavation in Jerusalem (1978–85) were published by Naveh (2000). Most recently, Lemaire and Yardeni have published details of 15 new Hebrew ostraca from the Shephelah (2006). A recently found large hoard of Hebrew bullae has been treated in recent publications, the majority in the Josef Chaim Kaufmann Collection (BPHB), and a smaller group as part of the Shlomo Moussaieff collection (FHCB), both edited by Deutsch (2003a; 2003b). While the majority of the ostraca and some seals and bullae have come from controlled archaeological excavations, the remainder were bought on the antiquities market.â•›12 Thus, the authenticity of a large portion of the epigraphic material is questionable. Many of the recently described bullae and perhaps also the ostraca seem to have belonged to some kind of official archive, because several seal impressions of King Hezekiah and of several other officials were found on them (see BPHB 1–43; FHCB 45–56:1–7). Lemaire suggested that these archives were possibly located in the vicinity of Ḥirbet el-Qôm (2006: 236). Although all evidence providing insight into the use of personal names for the reconstruction of family religion is valuable, it is possible that some of these seals were forgeries. In the present critical examination, we will exclude all the epigraphic objects previously supposed to be forgeries by one or more of the scholars who examined them. We argue belowâ•›13 that the overwhelming majority of epigraphic personal names are genuine and thus the presence of a relatively small number of forgeries in the evaluated material will have little effect on overall interpretations. *â•…â•…*â•…â•…*

As can be seen from table 5.1 (p. 505), 675 different Hebrew personal names are present in the epigraphic material, drawn from 2,922 individual records. When we use the word different, we mean not only differences in semantics or morphology but also all differences in orthography, including differences in hypocoristic endings, different sorts of plēne and non-plēne writing, and different abbreviations for the Tetragrammaton (-yāhû, â•‚yau, â•‚yāh, Yĕhô-, and Yau-). The largest collection of Hebrew personal names presented to date is Renz and Röllig’s edition (2003), which includes names from seals, bullae, and weights collected in HAE 2/2.109–456 (470 names; 1,636 instances) and from inscriptions in HAE 1/1.55–87 (251 names; 477 instances). Many names from bullae were also described in the Kaufmann collection, BPHB (Deutsch 2003a), comprising 227 names from 644 instances. Smaller numbers have also appeared in the editions of NEE (44 names; 51 instances from 3 ostraca), and FHCB (30 names; 39 instances from 50 bullae). Under the heading ‘others’ on this table, the recent editions by Naveh (2000) and Lemaire and YarÂ�deni (2006) are summarized, and three additional names from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, mentioned by Zadok (1988: 279) and revisited by Heide (2002). These comprise in total 66 names from 75 instances. Of course, few names are unique to any one collection, and the final total of 675 includes unique names compiled from all six collections. 11. See, for example, the concordance in WSS that compares HAE 2/2.441–45. 12. To give a brief impression of the phenomenon, according to Deutsch (1999: 27–47), before the year 1999, 45 bullae had come from controlled excavations, but they represented only 13.3% of the total number known to him at that time. 13. See pp. 260–262 below.

250

Chapter 5

Most of the names are represented more than once, and therefore the number of instances is considerably higher than the number of names. In the present analysis, every occurrence of a name is counted, except when several occurrences of one name obviously refer to the same person, in which case only one instance is counted. For example, many of the names in FHCB (21 out of a total of 51) are excluded, because they refer to people already counted in the BPHB collection. But this is unusual; in most cases, names are only excluded when they cannot be read or interpreted with a sufficient degree of certainty. Biblical parallels to the epigraphically attested personal names are shown in table 5.2 (p.€505). There is a considerable degree of correspondence, with 545 biblical names being identical or similar to many of the 675 epigraphic names that use the same verbal or nominal roots. Many of these names are popular in the Hebrew Bible, referring to no less than 1,362 different people. As we see in the detailed tables of appendix B, there are approximately 60 epigraphically represented roots that do not appear in the Bible, indicating the richness of the epigraphic material. However, the Hebrew Bible presents more names than these epigraphic sources. Noth’s index (1928: 234–60) tallies an impressive 1,426 names. However, excluding uncertainties in the Hebrew text (142), local and tribal names (97), symbolic names (2), otherwise unexplainable names (51), and all the names that Noth included from ostraca and seals (53) and from the Elephantine papyri (124) reduces the tally to 957 personal names appearing in the Hebrew Bible. Many of these names appear only a few times, and some only emerged after the exile—for example, names derived from the verb ‫ זבד‬zābad ‘to present, give’ (represented 19 times), which clearly supplanted older names that had used the verb ‫ נדב‬nādab, which had the same meaning.â•›14 The 675 epigraphic personal names that constitute the basis of the present investigation probably are not all the personal names that were in use prior to the exile, because they represent only about 70% of the biblically attested names. However, considering that the Hebrew Bible reports names that were in use over a much longer period—from the patriarchs (whose names, for example, were not common between the 9th and 6th centuries, as verified by epigraphic sources) to the late Persian period—the 30% difference is not very great. Probably most of the common names that were in use during the monarchic period are included in these 675 names. Moreover, most of the epigraphic names (between 80 and 90%) that have been presented in recent publications have also appeared in previous publications. Obviously, a degree of saturation has been reached. Thus, conclusions drawn from the present epigraphic material is provisional to some extent; but, considering that these names refer to some 2,500–3,000 people, who represent about 400 families, or the population of a larger Judean or Israelite town during this period, we have a sound basis for the present religious-historical investigation.

5.1.3.╇ Grouping the personal names To understand the significance of personal names, accurate grouping is crucial.â•›15 One possible way of grouping is by grammatical criteria. In Northwest Semitic names in gen14. Only names from the root ‫ נדב‬are attested in the epigraphic sources from the 8th–6th centuries b.c.e. (11 times); names from this root also appear 17 times in the Hebrew Bible. 15. Noth (1928: 3) pointed out that misunderstanding a single name can be avoided only if it is interpreted in its wider context.

Personal Names and Family Religion

251

eral and Hebrew names in particular, one can distinguish between word/epithet names and sentence names. Northwest Semitic names can be subdivided into single-word names and construct names; Hebrew names can also be subdivided into nominal sentence names and verbal sentence names (see Noth 1928: 11–32). This purely grammatical grouping of names was followed by J. D. Fowler (1988) and, with a high degree of sophistication, by Zadok (1988) and Rechenmacher (1997). But, although this kind of grouping by grammatical criteria may be clear, names with similar or even identical meanings may be split into different groups. To give just one example, ‫ עׂשיהו‬ʿAśāyāhû ‘Yhwh has made [the child]’ belongs to the group with verbal sentence names, while ‫ מעׂשיהו‬Maʿaśēyāhû ‘the work of Yhwh’ belongs to the construct subgroup of epithet names, even though both express the same belief that the child is a creation of Yhwh. Consequently, this system is not especially suitable if one takes into account the intent for these pious names. Because Noth (1928: 132–213) considered the names to be active expressions of piety, he pursued another classification scheme. He combined grammatical criteria with criteria of intent and divided the names into Bekenntnisnamen (‘names of confession’, which consisted of one of the groups of construct epithet names, and one group of the nominal sentence names), Vertrauensnamen (‘names of trust’; another group of nominal sentence names), Danknamen (‘names of thanksgiving’; consisting of mostly verbal sentence names in the perfect but also some construct epithet names), and Wunschnamen (‘names of desire’; verbal sentence names in the imperfect). In addition, he considered secular names (profane Namen) to be a specific group (1928: 221–32); grammatically, these are mostly one-word names. Noth’s grouping is much more flexible and tries to keep together names with similar religious statements and intent; thus the two creation names mentioned above are together interpreted as names of thanksgiving (1928: 172). Stamm followed Noth in many respects and added additional subgroups to his scheme. Using the additional criterion of content, he conceptualized, for example, a group of substitute names (Ersatznamen), by which he meant that the parents named one child as a substitute/comfort for a deceased child (Stamm 1980: 45–80). Moreover, Stamm criticized Noth’s category of Wunschnamen, because names with an imperfect-x or an x-imperfect structure are mostly understood as names of thanksgiving in the Hebrew Bibleâ•›16 and not as names of desire.â•›17 They seem to represent an older use of the imperfect for the past tense, as in Amorite names from Mari and texts and names from Ugarit.â•›18 According to Stamm, only in some cases can one consider an alternative jussive translation (1980: 62–64). This view was accepted by Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.54) and further affirmed by Rechenmacher (1997: 47–50), who pointed out that approximately 20 verbal roots that were used to derive both imperfect and perfect names most likely refer back to the same situation at birth in both cases (1997: 48).â•›19 In accordance with this position, I usually 16. See the explanation of the name Yišmāʾēl in Gen 16:11: ‘because Yhwh has heard your ill-treatment’. 17. See the names spelled plēne that have hollow roots such as ‫ אליקים‬ʾElyāqîm ‘El has raised [me]’. 18. See Huffmon 1965: 61–87; Gröndahl 1967: 41–43, 55–59; she still follows Noth in interpreting these names as names of desire; but see Tropper 2000: 682–701. 19. Most convincing are the names Yiptāḥ and Pĕtaḥyāh, which both mean that the deity has opened the mother’s womb; desiring this to happen by expressing it in a personal name would be

252

Chapter 5

translate verbal-sentence names with imperfect-x and x-imperfect structures in the perfect tense in this book; only in cases where a wish for the infant might make sense contextually is a jussive sense alternatively considered. In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 49–77), I modified Noth’s grouping by considering a form-critical criterion in addition to the grammatical and intention criteria. The first group thus distinguished, the names of thanksgiving, may be considered parallel to petitions for attention and petitions for salvation in the individual complaints or with salvation reports in the thanksgiving psalms of individuals. The second group, the names of confession, may be considered parallel to confessions of confidence in the complaints of individuals or to the nominal reason clauses in assurances of comfort in the salvation oracles. In contrast to Noth, I considered the names that make general praise statements about God to be distinct from the names of confession. The names of praise find their counterpart in the hymns. The sorts of confession in which both elements of a nominal sentence indicate a deity or a divine epithet were separated into a group of their own, referred to as equating names, because their referents lie beyond the realms of the psalms.â•›20 In contrast to these theophoric groups was the group called secular names, again in accordance with Noth. In this previous study, there remained the names that had no obvious relation to the Psalms yet had a relation to birth because of their content (Albertz 1978a: 58–60). This group seemed rather diverse, containing as it did names which stated that the deity had opened the womb, created the child, given the child as a gift, blessed the mother or should bless the infant, or had provided a substitute for a deceased child. Yet these diverse names all directly referred to different events in the birth process, beginning with the stigma of childlessness, through to prayers and vows, including birth oracles, and ending with procreation, pregnancy, delivery, and the acceptance of the child. Because they all refer to birth processes, these names can be classified together and labeled birth names (see appendix B5). Thus, this book adds a new criterion for grouping personal names, a “situational criterion” of referring to the birth process. These birth names actually form one of the largest groups, including nearly one-third of all epigraphic names.â•›21 Many of the most frequently appearing names belong to this group, such as names formed from the roots ‫ עׂשה‬ʿāśāh ‘to make’ (55 occurrences), ‫נתן‬ nātan ‘to give’ (94 occurrences), or ‫ ׁשלם‬šillem ‘to substitute’ (111 occurrences). However, many rare names that have previously been difficult to explain are much more readily interpreted in the context of this group, such as ‫ דרׁשיהו‬Dĕrašyāhû ‘Yhwh has asked for [payment of the vow]’,â•›22 ‫ קליהו‬Qōlyāhû ‘Yhwh has spoken [a birth oracle]’,â•›23 or ‫ גזא‬Gāzāʾ senseless, because the name could only be bestowed after the birth had taken place. 20. Only the names in which the tutelary deity (“my god”) is Yhwh are connected with the confessions of confidence in the complaints of individuals; see Ps 22:11, among others. 21. In biblically attested names, the rate is slightly higher again (31.4% of names and 32.4% of instances). 22. See the phrase ‫ דרׁש נדר‬dāraš nēder in Deut 23:22. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.193–94) have offered the translation ‘Yhwh demanded an account from’, but this would be a strange personal name; Ps 10:4, 13, to which they refer, deals with the wicked. 23. To Noth (1928: 256), the name was unexplainable; see also Stamm 1980: 150.

Personal Names and Family Religion

253

‘[DN] has severed [the umbilical cord]’.â•›24 Establishing this group of birth names has one important consequence for our understanding of the personal names in general. J. D. Fowler disagreed with Noth’s grouping of the names, because his grouping confined them too often “to the context of birth events and limited the acts and characteristics of the deity to the past and future, without allowing a timeless quality and permanence to the divine personality” (Fowler 1988: 18). In particular, for Fowler the imperfect verbs should be translated in a habitual or customary sense. So Fowler tended to interpret all theophoric names as signifying general praise to God. Even a perfect verbal name such as Yĕšaʿyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’ could, according to her, “refer to the successful birth of the child, to the deliverance of the parents or the family in the time of need, or perhaps even to a wider sense of the delivery of the whole people and a time of national importance” (Fowler 1988: 89). The possibility of understanding a personal name in this sort of context cannot be ruled out completely, as indicated by the prophet Isaiah himself, who asserted that his name had symbolic significance for the destiny of the people as a whole (Isa 8:18), but this is a rare exception restricted to prophetic preaching. The fact that more than a third of all theophoric personal names refer directly back to the events of birth makes it much more likely that the other theophoric names, especially those of thanksgiving and confession, should also be primarily interpreted in the wider context of birth, or at least in a general context of familial events. Of course, other experiences of divine salvation, support, or protection encountered by family members could have had some influence on the giving of a name, but the suggestion that a wider, national context might have played a major role or that the name-givers wished for a name to reflect the everlasting nature of the deity is highly improbable. As already discussed, references to Israel’s national history are absent in Israelite names, and actual names of praise constitute only a minor group. Thus, Hebrew names are grouped in this book according to the following six categories: 1.╇ names of thanksgiving 2.╇ names of confession 3.╇ praise names 4.╇ equating names 5.╇ birth names 6.╇ secular names The plausibility of these groups is apparent in that almost every one of the Hebrew names known to date from epigraphic sources can be unambiguously assigned to one of the six groups. The same is true for the parallel biblical names. Furthermore, almost all names currently known from the Ammonite, Moabite, Edomite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticon can be accommodated by these six groups, as shown in appendix B. Thus, perhaps this proposal will now be considered a solution to the problem of finding a classification system that is sufficient for use with all Northwest Semitic names. 24. Compare biblical Gāzez (1 Chr 2:46), the son of Caleb; Noth could not explain the name (1928: 240); the meaning given above is supported by Ps 71:6, where the Masoretic Text reads: ‘you are the one who severed me [‫]גוזי‬from my mother’s womb’; the LXX offers a lectio facilior; no conjecture is necessary.

254

Chapter 5

*â•…â•…*â•…â•…* Two minor problems remain, however. One is the question of whether names of lament, such as ‫איעם‬ ʾAyyaʿam ‘where is the [divine?] uncle?’, which are extremely rare in the Hebrew onomasticon (with only one epigraphic and one biblical occurrence) and in the onomasticons of the surrounding cultures (with three Ammonite, one Moabite, and one Aramaic occurrence), constitute a group of their own. Because of their scarcity, a ready solution is to consider them birth names under the heading ‘misfortune in the vicinity of birth’ (see appendix B5.7). It may also be possible to posit a small subgroup of “theophany names” in the names of praise. The uncertainty arises primarily because of uncertain readings: Renz and Röllig (2003) read the name ‫סעריהו‬ Săʿaryāhû ‘Yhwh has stormed’ on two seals, one bulla (HAE 15.19, 20; 21.7), and one ostracon (Arad [8].31:4). The hypocoristikon ‫ סערי‬Săʿaray ‘[DN] has stormed’ from the seal HAE 10.58 would also belong to this group. Presuming this reading to be accurate, the names would refer to a divine theophany in a storm. There are also a couple of names (with nine instances) from the root ‫סעד‬, for example, ‫סעדיהו‬ Săʿadyāhû with the meaning ‘Yhwh has supported’, that are thanksgiving names (see appendix B1.3.1). The problem is that, in archaic Hebrew script, the two letters reš and dalet can look very similar, because the only distinction between them is that reš has a longer downstroke than dalet. Although on epigraphic grounds, Renz and Röllig’s readings are correct, it hardly seems necessary to devise a new subgroup for a mere two names, both of which were perhaps only badly written. From the neighboring lands, only three names should perhaps be interpreted as theophanic names: two are the Aramaic names ‫מראיבב‬ Māreʾyabab ‘[my] lord has triumphed’ [WSS 810] and ‫ ׁשעיבב‬Šēʿyabab ‘Sin has triumphed’ [WSS 851]), and the third is Phoenician (‫ יחרבעל‬Yaḥrebaʿal ‘Baal has been furious’ [Benz 128], because the root ‫יבב‬ literally means ‘to cry loudly’). But these constitute very sparse evidence. Because there are names that state god’s furious intervention on behalf of a despised mother, these latter three names have been assigned here to the group of birth names (appendix B5.1).

5.1.4.╇ Classifying the personal names based on the six groups Table 5.2 shows the distribution of the 675 epigraphically attested personal names in the six groups. In terms of numbers of unique names, the largest group consists of the birth names, with 192 names, or 28.4% of all distinct names. This demonstrates the importance of the often dramatic experience of birth in name giving. The group of thanksgiving names is slightly smaller, containing 164 names, or 24.3% of the total. However, in terms of the number of instances, these names of thanksgiving constitute the largest group, which includes no less than 993 instances, or 34.0% of all inscribed names. Many names in this group appear frequently, such as those derived from the roots ‫ ׁשמע‬šāmaʿ ‘to hear’ (133 occurrences), ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ Hiphil ‘to save’ (103 occurrences), and ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’ (87 occurrences). Thus, the core personal names are the thanksgiving names. The names of confession are closely related to the names of thanksgiving. What has been an experience of god’s attention, salvation, or protection in the thanksgiving names becomes a personal confession of one’s trust in god in the confession names; similar statements can be observed in the confessions of confidence in the individual complaints. Thus, many of the roots—verbal in the confidence, nominal in the complaints—appear in both name groups. The names of confession constitute the third-largest group, with 119 names (17.6%) and 434 instances (14.9%). The classification of certain personal names as names of thanksgiving or of confession is sometimes uncertain. Because the epigraphic material is unvocalized, in some cases we cannot determine with certainty whether a verbal or nominal form is meant. The consonants in the name ‫אלעזר‬, for example, can be translated either ʾElʿāzār ‘El/god has helped [me]’ or ʾElīʿezer ‘El/[my] god is [my] help’, both

Personal Names and Family Religion

255

of which appear in the Hebrew Bible (in Exod 6:23; 18:4). This name has been assigned here to the names of thanksgiving category (appendix B1.3.1), because no suffix with the theophoric element ʾēl is written. However, because such plene writing was not normally used in the epigraphic material from this period, one could equally decide to classify these as names of confession. Because of these sorts of uncertainty, the names of thanksgiving and confession should be regarded as closely related; together, they represent 41.9% of all names and 48.9% of all instances. The names of praise are a relatively small group, representing only 7.1% of all names. A few of them had limited popularity, such as ‫ מכיהו‬Mīkāyāhû ‘who is like Yhwh?’, which appears 18 times, or 35 times taking all its variants together. Thus general praise of god is apparently rare in personal names. There are naturally a few translation uncertainties. Some names that contain state-of-being verbs, such as ‫ גדליהו‬Gĕdalyāhû, can be translated two ways. They can be understood as signifying a state of becoming, which has been chosen for the meaning here: ‘Yhwh has become great’ (see appendix B1.2.3).â•›25 Or they can be understood as statives or adjectives: ‘Yhwh is great’.â•›26 If the second interpretation is preferred, the group of praise names would be a little bit larger at the expense of the group of thanksgiving names. To the names of praise have been assigned the names that clearly correspond to the genre of hymns.â•›27 However, because of these potential differences in interpreting names of this sort, the names of praise should not be considered too distinct from names of thanksgiving and confession. Considering all groups together, the prayer names constitute approximately one-half of all Hebrew personal names (49.0% of names, 53.5% of instances). The equating names, which identify one divine term, name, or epithet with another, constitute another, smaller group. This group is the smallest in terms of distinct names (47 occurrences, or 7.0% of the total), only slightly smaller than the group of praise names (7.1% of the total). Some very popular names occur in the equating-names group, such as ‫ אחמלך‬ʾAḥīmelek ‘[my divine] brother is king’ (33 appearances) and ‫ מלכיהו‬Malkīyāhû ‘my king is Yhwh’ (32 appearances). Because the element ʾēl indicates the tutelary god, there is a bit of overlap between the equating names and the confession of confidence in the individual laments (Ps 22:11, among others), but most of these names represent a very specific sort of confession in a polytheistic world that is far removed from the Psalms. I have already mentioned that the group of birth names is largest in terms of names (28.4%) and second-largest in terms of instances (29.9%). The birth names without doubt form a second core of Hebrew personal names after the main core of prayer names. Some features of this large group have been described above, but delimitation problems still re25. In this case, I follow Noth (1928: 190). 26. This reading was preferred by Rechenmacher (1997: 62–67). 27. For example, the root ‫ גדל‬in Qal with a divine subject appears four times in the Psalms, three times in individual laments (Ps 35:27; 40:17; 70:5), and once in an individual hymn (Ps 104:1). In Psalm 104, the use is clearly in the sense of becoming; the short praise-calls, ‫יגדל יהוה‬, in the laments can perhaps be understood as hymnic statements (see the word ‫‘ תמיד‬everlasting’ in that context), although the use of the imperfect would be a little bit strange. Nevertheless, since the passage should be interpreted as part of a broader vow of praise, of the type normally found at the end of a lament, a praise of thanksgiving is probably meant in this context.

256

Chapter 5

main. Since the process of birth inevitably entails distress, pain, and danger, it is little wonder that there is some overlap between the names about birth and the thanksgiving names. A mother in labor might utter complaints and petitions to god and might also receive answers from god or signs of his attention. Thus, all the prayer names that reflect a high degree of immediate experience have been included in the group of birth names. These include all imperative names, which in contrast to Akkadian names constitute a relatively small group in the West Semitic onomasticon. Examples are ‫ ׁשבאל‬Šūbʾēl ‘Come back, oh god!’ and ‫ תנאל‬Tenʾēl ‘Give, oh god!’ This group also includes names of divine response or salvation that contain a first-person-singular suffix or address the deity in second-person singular, such as ‫ ענניהו‬ʿAnanyāhû ‘Yhwh has responded to me’ or ‫ דלתיהו‬Daltāyāhû ‘You, oh Yhwh, have drawn [the child] out’.â•›28 These names can best be understood as the personal testimony of a mother who remembered her prayers and experiences of salvation during the distress of earlier childlessness or the pain of labor. For the present book, ten roots that I previously designated names of thanksgiving (Albertz 1978a: 61–65) have been reassigned to this group of birth names.â•›29 Although it is possible for these roots to refer to other kinds of distress besides birth, all may be attributed to this group without ambiguity. The last group contains secular names, a group that lies outside the present study of family religion. This group nevertheless serves to demonstrate the coherence of this scheme for grouping names. In terms of both the number of names (105 occurrences) and the number of instances (251 occurrences), the group is the fourth largest. Although the first number is (a large portion) 15.6% of all names, a percentage not much smaller than that of the names of confession, the proportion of instances is only about half that percentage (8.6%). This indicates that, although there was a great variety of secular names, they seem not to have been very popular in preexilic Israelite society. This finding, that less than 10% of the population of monarchic Israel and Judah bore secular names, is strongly suggestive of the importance of family religion in this society. It may be argued that most of the eprigraphic material is restricted to the upper classes, members who would have been able to afford these seals, which were often made of precious or semiprecious stones. However, even if we consider only the ostraca (see table 5.6), which represent people from all social classes and strata, the instances of secular names still amount to less than 10% (9.8%). There seems therefore to have been no significant difference in degree of family piety among the classes of Israelite monarchic society. Family religion seems to have played a prominent role in nearly all households, whether rich or poor. The secular names further underline the significance of birth in name giving, because many of them record peculiarities experienced during or after delivery or portray the most striking physical or mental traits of the newborn, most notably by comparison with animals or plants (see appendix B6.1–3.). 28. For the first three names, see appendix B5.2.; for the last, B5.5. 29. These roots are: ‫‘ אסף‬to gather, to take away’, ‫‘ גמל‬to complete’, ‫‘ גמר‬to complete’, ‫‘ דלה‬to draw out’, ‫‘ חיה‬to live or to bring to life’, ‫‘ חמל‬to spare’, ‫‘ אמס‬to carry on one’s arm’, ‫‘ אנה‬to answer’, ‫‘ רפא‬to heal’, and ‫‘ ׁשוב‬to come back’.

Personal Names and Family Religion

257

Finally, table 5.2 reveals the distribution of names from the Hebrew Bible to be quite similar. Names expressing thanksgiving or birth-experience again rank highest, followed by names of confession, and secular names; only the rank of names of praise and equating has changed. There are more names of thanksgiving (30.5%), although nearly the same number of instances (34.1%). There are fewer names of confession (14.0% of names; 13.2% of instances) and, although there are fewer names of praise, the total of all prayer names is similar (50.3% of names; 52.9% of instances). Furthermore, birth names appear slightly more frequently (31.2%) and are more often represented (32.2%). It must be emphasized, however, that this distribution of biblical names does not include all possible biblical names but only names with parallels in the epigraphic material. However, the statistical similarity of name distribution among the categories in both biblical sources and the epigraphic onomasticon is quite striking.

5.1.5.╇ The onomasticons from the Northwest Semitic environment It has long been recognized that there were many similarities among personal names in the various ancient Semitic cultures. Noth (1928) spoke of a gemeinsemitische Namengebung, which he considered to be the natural context for his study of Hebrew names. Relationships among both Israelite and Judean names and other Northwest Semitic personal names were especially close, not only because of their identical grammatical structure,â•›30 but also because of many similarities in content. This fact suggests that Israelite family religion shared many common features with family religions in the surrounding cultures, in contrast to the state religions of Israel and Judah which, although being similar in many ways to the state religions of other ancient Near Eastern regions, nevertheless developed clearly distinguishable profiles of their own. This conclusion, however, was questioned in J. D. Fowler’s (1988) study of personal names. In comparing concepts of the deity found in the Hebrew, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Amorite, Aramaic, Akkadian, and Palmyrian onomasticons, she concluded that, in spite of some similarities, “there are sharp distinctions between the religious thought discernible in the Hebrew theophoric names and other ancient Semitic names, distinctions which claim for Hebrew an individuality among the Semitic nomenclatures” (1988: 317). According to Fowler, one cannot refer to “a general ‘Semitic piety’” (1988: 317). Fowler’s conclusion, however, is restricted to concepts of the deity, rather than the functions of the deity expressed in names, as in this book. In contrast to Fowler, the present study is restricted to the Northwest Semitic neighbors of ancient Israel, the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Arameans, and Phoenicians. These foreign onomasticons are not studied here in their own right but are included for comparative purposes only. This comparison nevertheless aids our understanding of Hebrew personal names and provides answers to the question how to determine the relationship between the family religions of Israel and its neighbors. 30. In contrast to the East Semitic names from Babylonia and Assyria, the Northwest Semitic sentence names are mostly restricted to a subject and predicate but avoid objects, although object suffixes do sometimes appear. There are also many similarities with Akkadian names, but similarities with the Northwest Semitic onomasticons from Phoenicia, Syria, and Transjordan are much closer.

258

Chapter 5

*â•…â•…*â•…â•…* There are a number of earlier works that describe the onomasticons of Israel’s Northwest Semitic neighbors, including those of Benz (1972) for Phoenicians, Maraqten (1988) for Aramaic, and Aufrecht (1989 [CAI]) for Ammonite personal names. Revisions and corrections to the seals and bullae are available in the WSS of Avigad and Sass (1997), where most of the Moabite and Edomite material is also presented. In addition to these editions, the studies of Hübner (1992 [AMM]) and Eggler and Keel (2006 [SAJ]) have been used for the Ammonite names; Timm (1989 [MZM]) for the Moabite names; Hug (1993), Röllig (1997), Lemaire (2001 [NTA]), Schwiderski (2004 [ARI]), and Bachelot and Fales (2005 [TSF]) for the Aramaic names; and Gibson (1982), Yon and Sznycer (1991 [Kition]), Deutsch and Heltzer (1997 [WTP]), Deutsch (1999 [EN]), and Sader (2005 [FSL]) for the Phoenician names. Additional seals from all of these cultures were presented by Heltzer (1999) and by Deutsch and Lemaire (2000 [BPPS]). This list of references is not exhaustive but serves for compiling sufficient personal names from these different cultures to provide a solid statistical basis for comparison. Moreover, there are several cases in which the attribution of an inscription or seal to a particular culture is a matter of ongoing debate.â•›31 As far as possible, names from Israel’s neighbors are restricted to those of the 10th–6th centuries b.c.e., in accordance with the selected Hebrew epigraphic material. This was particularly important for the Aramaic names, for the results may otherwise have been distorted by the high number of Jewish Aramaic names from Elephantine and other places in the 5th and 4th centuries. For the same reason, Tell el-Mazār ostracon VII (CAI 147), which is dated to the 5th century, was excluded from the Ammonite names. For the Phoenician names, the dating of epigraphic material is imprecise, and so all material was included here. The Punic names, however, mostly come from later periods and were excluded. *â•…â•…*â•…â•…*

Table 5.3 (p. 506) shows that 146 different Ammonite personal names were compiled, which represent 305 instances. A smaller number of 55 names can be attributed to the Moabite culture, from 63 instances. The nominally Edomite names are so few (19 names out of 20 occurrences) that they have been excluded here. A considerable number (374 names) can be assigned to the Aramean culture, which are attested altogether 443 times. An additional 101 names were excluded because, although they were written in the Aramaic script, they were foreign in origin, coming from Akkadian or Iranian. To a lesser extent, Hittite, Hurrian, and Luwian names have been found in the Phoenician material. However, 319 Phoenician names were identified, representing 581 total instances. Combining all material from the surrounding Northwest Semitic cultures produces 1,414 recorded names. Although this number is slightly less than half of the 2,922 names in the Hebrew culture, it nevertheless forms a sound basis for comparison. I mentioned above that almost all personal names from the five surrounding cultures can be unambiguously classified assigned to one of the six name groups. A comparison of the relative distributions of Ammonite, Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician names among the six groups (see table 5.3) reveals striking similarities, a fact that suggests strong relationships among these cultures. Names of praise varied in occurrence from 9.6% in the Ammonite onomasticon, to 6.3% in the Phoenician (or from 8.9% to 4.8% of instances, respectively). The equating names ranged in occurrence from 10.9% in the Moabite culture to 5.5% in the Ammonite (or from 12.7% to 4.9% of instances, respectively). As in the Israelite onomasticon, the birth names constituted a much larger group, attaining a max31. For example, the Nimrud Ostracon has been included here among the Ammonite inscriptions (CAI 47 = AMM 35–36:2), following Aufrecht (1989), and in spite of Hübner’s (1992: 35–37) doubts.

Personal Names and Family Religion

259

imum of 30.8% of all names for the Moabite onomasticon, and a minimum of 22.2% for the Aramaic onomasticon (respectively, 30.1% and 23.2% of instances). The secular names varied from 12.8% in the Aramaic onomasticon to 5.5% in the Moabite (12.9% and 4.8% of instances, respectively). Differences between cultures were less than 9% in all cases. The one notable divergence appears between the names of thanksgiving and those of confession. While the Ammonite and Moabite onomasticons had a high number of thanksgiving names (26.0% and 29.1%), and fewer names of confession (23.3% and 18.2%)—similar to rates seen in the Hebrew material—the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons showed higher proportions of names of confession (30.2% and 35.1%, respectively) compared with the respective proportions for names of thanksgiving (20.6% and 15.7%). As mentioned above, however, both groups are closely related, and the names are often difficult to assign unambiguously to one or the other category because of the unÂ�vocalized inscriptions.â•›32 Taking the names of thanksgiving and confession together produces nearly equal proportions that range from 50.8% of names in the Aramaic onomasticon to 47.3% in the Moabite, with a difference of only 3.5%.â•›33 Accepting the validity of this larger grouping of names of thanksgiving and confession leads to the astonishing result that, in all four Syro-Levantine cultures, personal names fall most frequently in two major groups: a larger group consisting of names of thanksgiving and confession, and a slightly smaller group consisting of birth names. In all of these cultures, three additional minor groups obtained: praise names, equating names, and secular names. Comparing the distribution of names in the Syro-Levantine cultures with those in ancient Israel reveals a very similar pattern. Names of thanksgiving and confession are again most prominent, especially when considered together. Birth names are also prominent. These prominent groups are again accompanied by the same three minor groups of praise names, equating names, and secular names. Most astonishingly, the rankings of the six groups in the Ammonite onomasticon were identical to the rankings of the Israelite names. This would be expected to happen only once every 720 times (= 6×5×4×3×2). This agreement in rankings is not accidental, therefore, but reflects genuine cultural similarities. This striking result suggests that family religion in Israel followed the same basic structure common throughout Syria and the Levant during the first half of the first millennium b.c.e., irrespective of minor differences among cultural groups. The minor differences include, for example, a particularly high rate of confession names in the Phoenician culture, reflecting the popularity of names formed from the roots of ‘servant of [DN]’ (105 occurrences), or ‘sojourner of [DN]’ (26 occurrences), which where much less popular in Israel and Transjordan.â•›34 Intriguingly, the rate of all prayer names in Israel was lower (at 49.0%) than in all the other surrounding cultures, for which it varied between 58.9% in Ammon, and 52.8% in Moab, while the rate of secular names in Israel corresponded to the highest rank (15.6%). This does not suggest, however, that the Israelites were less pious. The rates 32. See pp. 254–255 above. 33. The difference between the Phoenician (53.3%) and Moabite (47.6%) onomasticons is a little greater: 5.7%. 34. These together comprise 23% of all occurrences in the Phoenician onomasticon; the two types together appear 58 times in the Israelite onomasticon, but this constitutes only 2% of names. In the Moabite onomasticon, the rate is 3%; in the Ammonite, only 1%.

260

Chapter 5

of occurrence of the prayer and secular names in Israel (53.5% and 8.6%, respectively) place them firmly in the middle of the rates in the surrounding cultures. Secular names represent less than 10% in all cases, with the minor exception of the Aramaic onomasticon, for which the rate of occurrence is 12.9%. Although there was a wider range of metaphorical expressions in the theophoric names of Israel compared with the surrounding cultures, there was nevertheless very little difference in family religion in terms of the degree of piety expressed in the naming of children.

5.1.6.╇ Additional arguments for the authenticity of epigraphic material The extraordinary similarities among the cultures in the percentage of names divided among the six groups strengthen arguments for the authenticity of the epigraphic material. Authenticity can, of course, only rightly be determined by thorough scientific, epigraphic, and grammatical research, which we have pursued insofar as possible in all the material considered here.â•›35 However, many Hebrew seals, bullae, and even ostraca are suspected of being forgeries because they did not come from controlled excavations. There admittedly remain troubling questions, such as: Why have so many more Hebrew seals and bullae been offered for sale on the antiquities market in comparison with numbers from other Syro-Levantine cultures? In what ways does this reflect the general demand for artifacts from ancient Israel in the Jewish and Christian communities? Why have such a small number of Hebrew seals and bullae been found in controlled excavations? Although we do not have answers to these questions, in the following observations we can largely counter the possible suspicion that much of the Hebrew onomastic material included in this study might have been forged. Every one of the different editions or collections of onomastic material of sufficient size showed a very similar distribution of names among the six name groups. This finding is all the more impressive, in that each one of these large editions or collections reflects its own unique history in the compiling of such vast and diverse material. The HAE 2/1 volume contains personal names from many inscriptions found engraved in stone or metal or written on ostraca, the majority of which were found in controlled excavations in many places, from the middle of the 19th century to the 1980s. Although this collection was compiled using very stringent, methodical principles, uncertainties nevertheless remain regarding the interpretation of many objects. By contrast, the HAE 2/2 volume contains a large number of personal names from stamps, bullae, and weights that were collected and published by many people during the century and a half before the year 2000; only a few of these came from excavations, while most were bought on the antiquities market. The artifacts appear to originate from many different places, mostly from Judah, as well as some from Israel. Finally, the most recent large collection, BPHB, contains names from 515 bullae impressed by 421 different seals (Deutsch 2003: 11). Thus it represents many instances of only one specific kind of artifact, all of which seem to have come from the same place in Judah, possibly in the vicinity of Ḥirbet el Qôm (Lemaire 2006: 236). They 35. See, for example, Deutsch (2003: 11–12) for the bullae of the Kaufmann collection.

Personal Names and Family Religion

261

probably originate from a relatively short span of time, between the second half of the 8th century and the first quarter of the 7th. In spite of these differences, all three publications or collections show the same basic pattern, as can be seen in table 5.4 (p. 506). All collections contain a large group of thanksgiving names: between 27.9 and 29.1% of all names. The group of birth names is similarly large: between 27.0 and 31.3% of all names, while the medium-sized group, confession names, ranges in proportion between 15.8 and 17.2% of all names. These are followed by the group of secular names: between 12.3 and 14.0%. The lowest ranking in terms of frequencies of occurrence are the two groups of equating names and names of praise: between 5.3 and 10.8%, and between 4.0 and 7.9%, respectively. Maximal differences between the published collections’ frequencies of occurrence in the groups range only between 1.2 and 4.3%, with only two notable exceptions. First, HAE 2/1 contained 5.5% more equating names than the averages of the others, while the BPHB contained 5.7% fewer. The second exception pertains to thanksgiving names—and not the number of different names but the instances. In BPHB, thanksgiving names occur considerably more often than normal (38.9% of all cases). This differs from the inscriptions in HAE 2/1 (with thanksgiving names forming 30.2% of all cases) by 8.7%. This kind of theophoric name seems to have been particulary popular in southwestern Judah during the 8th century. But as already seen above, the thematically close names of thanksgiving and of confession are not always easily to distinguish grammatically. In a comparison of the collections, lower values in one of the groups generally correspond to higher values in the other.â•›36 Combining both groups of names reduces the largest difference between the three collections to 4.7% for instances and 1.1% for names. The fact that these collections, which arose predominantly (HAE 2/2) or entirely (BPHB) from the antiquities market, concur so strongly with the collection that emerged mostly from controlled archaeological excavations (HAE 2/1) firmly supports the authenticity of their material, which has often been suspected of containing numerous forgeries. Including smaller publications in this research (see table 5.5, p.  507) enhances discrepancies somewhat, because the statistical basis of the smaller editions is not as firm. To mention only the extreme: the occurrence of thanksgiving names is 12.3% less in the small publications than in BPHB and, conversely, there is a higher proportion of praise names. Collating prayer names from all editions reveals normal deviations of 3.5% for individual names and 3.7% for instances. Seals and bullae have more frequently been suspected of forgery than inscriptions found on ostraca. However, the frequencies of occurrence of all names groups are very similar, with differences only exceeding 2% in a rare few cases (see table 5.6, p.  507). Notable differences include the seals and bullae having 5.9% more thanksgiving names than ostraca, 2.7% more praise names, and 3.5% fewer equating names (or 3.9% instances of these names). The percentage of personal names in the six name groups cannot be considered accidental but seems to have remained constant over a broad geographical area and during a long period of time. Moreover, the similar percentages of occurrence in the six name 36. See pp. 254, 258–259 above.

262

Chapter 5

groups of data from different sources of epigraphic material strongly supports the authenticity of the material and the conclusion that the distribution of personal names among the six groups mirrors the social realities of Israelite society and the basic structure of Israelite family religion. The similarities of these distributions could of course reflect some kind of centralized forgery controlling distribution in the antiquities market, but this sort of assumption would be ludicrous. It seems much more reasonable to conclude that these items provide firm evidence for the names’ frequencies of occurrence. Even if some items are subsequently determined to be forgeries, given the large number of items considered here, this event would not affect the percentages. Thus, the external evidence compiled here to inform notions of Israelite family religion must be considered entirely reliable.

5.2.╇ Religious beliefs expressed in Hebrew personal names Having established and described this corpus of epigraphically attested Hebrew personal names (with 675 names from 2,922 instances), we are now in a position to analyze the beliefs expressed by their predicative elements. This epigraphic corpus constitutes the primary subject of the following study; biblical names and other biblical texts are consulted only for comparitive purposes.

5.2.1.╇ The absence of official religious traditions In a previous study (Albertz 1978a: 56–58), I observed that there are almost no references to the traditions of the Israelite official religion—such as exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai, Zion, or Bethel theology—in the corpus of biblical names. This surprising observation suggests that none of these traditions, which generally played a central role in both Israelite states,â•›37 was especially significant for the symbolic world of Israelite family religion (1978a: 57). The present book’s thesis of internal religious pluralism requires us next to determine whether an analysis of the epigraphic names will result in the same conclusion. A guiding observation at the outset is that the verb most frequently used for Israel’s exodus from Egypt, ‫ יצא‬Hiphil ‘to lead out’,â•›38 does not appear in the Hebrew onomasticon, either epigraphic or biblical. The second most frequent verb in this context, ‫עלה‬ 37. The age of the exodus tradition is disputed, but it probably functioned as a kind of foundation myth for the establishment of the Northern Kingdom (1 Kgs 12:28–29) and was transferred to and elaborated in Judah during the 7th century b.c.e. (see Deuteronomy and the Josianic reform). The prominent position of Sinai theology may be the result of postexilic Priestly reflections, but its theophanic tradition seems to be much older (Judg 5:5), and it provided the Book of Covenant with theological legitimation, probably in the late 8th century (Exodus 19–24). The related Priestly concepts of holiness and purity were probably even older (2 Sam 6:6–7), and conquest theology is Deuteronomic at the latest. Kingship theology, of which we know only the Southern variant in any detail, was certainly developed during the monarchic period (see Ps 89:21–38). Zion theology seems to have originated in pre-Israelite traditions of Jerusalem and was fully established by the 8th century (Mic 3:11–12); its relevance, of course, is restricted to Judah. There is also information available about the state cult of Northern Israel: for further details, see Albertz 1994: 1.40–66, 105–46, 180–86, 195–231. 38. It appears 78 times in (among others places) Exod 3:10–12; 20:2; Deut 6:12, 21; 26:8; 1 Kgs 8:16; and Ps 114:1.

Personal Names and Family Religion

263

Hiphil ‘to lead up’, is similarly lacking; it appears only among the names of praise in the Qal, meaning ‘Yhwh is exalted’, for example, ‫ עליהו‬ʿAlīyāhû (see appendix B3.1). It is therefore probable that the verbs of salvation that were frequently used in names, such as ‫ יׁשע‬Hiphil, ‫פלט‬, ‫חלץ‬, ‫גאל‬, and ‫( פדה‬see appendix B1.2.1), were not alluding to the rescue of the Israelites but to the rescue of an individual, although they are also used to refer to the exodus in biblical texts.â•›39 This assertion is further supported by the use of the verb ‫נצל‬ Hiphil ‘to deliver’; names derived from ‫ נצל‬do not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but they appear 17 times in the epigraphic material—for example, ‫ הצליהו‬Hiṣṣīlyāhû (see appendix B5.5). In the Hebrew Bible, the verb ‫ נצל‬Hiphil can often refer to the events of the exodus.â•›40 However, because the verb ‫ נצל‬Hiphil appears in three names of individuals who were members of people-groups that had no exodus history—in Ammon (‫ הצלאל‬Hiṣṣīlʾil ‘El has delivered’) and Moab (‫ יצלבעל‬Yaṣṣīlbaʿal ‘Baal has delivered’ and the shortened form, ‫ הצל‬Hiṣṣīl↜)â•›41—these names most likely have a different referent, one that harks back to the more literal meaning of the root, ‘to snatch away’, and are therefore referring to the delivery of a baby (see appendix B5.5). Names referring to conquest theology are similarly nonexistent. There are no names derived from the verbs ‫ נחל‬Hiphil ‘to give as a heritage’ or ‫ נוח‬Hiphil ‘to give a resting place’, verbs that are frequently used in reference to Israel’s conquest.â•›42 The verb ‫‘ בוא‬to come’, which can also be used (including Hiphil ‘to bring into’) in the context of Israel’s emigration,â•›43 appears in only one epigraphically attested name, ‫ אלבא‬ʾElībāʾ, although the most accurate translation is probably the sense of the Qal: ‘El [or (my) god] has come [to me]’. Thus, mass immigration is not what is being implied but divine attention bestowed on an individual (see appendix B1.1.5). The concept of Israel’s divine election, which is closely related to the exodus in Deuteronomic theology (Deut 7:6–7), seems also to have had little impact in the Hebrew onomasticon. The only related name that appears in the Bible is ‫ יבחר‬Yibḥār ‘[DN] has chosen’, who was one of the sons of David (2 Sam 5:15). If anything, this name is referring to the election of the king (Ps 89:4). The only theophoric parallel appears to be the Aramaic name ‫ יבחראל‬Yibḥarʾēl ‘El has chosen’, which was found recorded on the Layard bronzes of Nimrud (8th century; appendix B1.1.4). In the Hebrew epigraphic material, a portion of the word ‫ לבחר‬is recorded once (NEE 92.79:14); however, it remains uncertain whether the infinitive construct was intended (‘to choose’), whether the word was the preposition plus common noun bāḥur ‘to a young man’, or whether it was the shortened form of a theophoric name (see Deutsch and Heltzer 1995: 100; Lemaire 2006: 235). Consequently, we have excluded this name from the present corpus. Thus, evidence for Hebrew names derived from the root ‫ בחר‬remains sparse. Because the most likely evidence is found in an Aramaic name, intentional allusion to Israel’s divine election can be excluded. It is likely 39. For ‫ יׁשע‬Hiphil, see Exod 14:30; Hos 13:4; for ‫פלט‬, see Ps 22:5; for ‫גאל‬, see Exod 6:6; 15:13; Isa 51:10; Ps 74:2; 77:16; 106:10; for ‫פדה‬, see Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 24:18; only ‫ חלץ‬is not attested in the context of the exodus. 40. For example, Exod 3:8; 6:6; 18:8–10; Josh 24:10; and others. 41. The names are attested altogether five times: see appendix B5.5. 42. For ‫נחל‬, see Deut 12:10; 19:3, 14; for ‫נוח‬, Deut 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; Josh 1:13, and others. 43. See Exod 13:5, 11; Num 14:3, 8, 16, 24, 31; Deut 6:10, 23; 7:1; etc.

264

Chapter 5

that names with these sorts of roots referred only to the divine attention that had been directed toward a particular mother or child, as also suggested in names derived from ‫ ידד‬II (?) ‘to love’ or ‫‘ חמד‬to take a fancy to’ (although names of this sort are also uncommon; see appendix B1.1.4). Thus, the notion of election is entirely absent in the Hebrew onomasticon.â•›44 Furthermore, Hebrew personal names show no direct influence from kingship theology. God was often seen as ‘king’, of course, or equated with melek in personal names, reflecting long traditions of usage in the ancient Near East as a divine epithet or even a divine name (see appendixes B4.1.2 and 4.5). But no other monarchic metaphors appear. While the king is often compared with a shepherd, there are no names containing the verb ‫‘ רעה‬to graze’ in either the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon or the biblical. The name ‫נהל‬ Nēhāl (HAE 14.40) has appeared once in an epigraphic name, which is interpreted here to mean ‘[DN] has guided [me]’, in accordance with Ps 23:2. The metaphor of the divine shepherd thus appears to have been transferred to the individual sphere, similar to Psalm 23. One potential influence of kingship theology appears in the names BarÂ�hadad ‘son of Hadad’ and Binbaʿal ‘son of Baal’; this sort of name was quite popular in the Aramean and Phoenician cultures (see appendix B2.6.3). In all ancient Near Eastern cultures, the king was regarded the son of god par excellence (Ps 2:7). Yet even on this topic, the familial religious practices of Israel with regard to state theology seem to have been more reserved than the religious practices of their urban neighbors. The ‘son/daughter of DN’ type of name is almost entirely absent from the Hebrew onomasticon: it occurs only in the Egyptian loan-name ‫ פׁשחר‬Pašḥūr ‘son of Horus’, which is recorded in epigraphic and biblical material nine and four times, respectively.â•›45 There is one other case of possible influence from royal theology, the peculiar epigraphic name ‫ לעגיהו‬Lăʿagyāhû ‘Yhwh mocks/scorns’ (HAE 12.1). It reminded Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 220) of the statement in the Kingship Psalm (Ps 2:4) that Yhwh sits in heaven and laughs at the rebellious vassal states trying to throw off their Judean yokes (see also Ps 59:9). But it is quite unlikely that a personal name would reflect this unusual international political crisis. It seems much more plausible to connect the name to a family crisis, such as the distress of an infertile woman. In this case, the name would connote ‘Yhwh has ridiculed [the mother’s despisers]’, because he cured her infertility. This name has thus been assigned to the names of birth (see appendix B5.1).â•›46 Personal names rarely include references to state temples, their symbols, or their theology. Although Zion theology celebrated Yhwh’s enthronement in Jerusalem (Ps 29:10; 47:9; Isa 6:1), there is no name in the Hebrew onomasticon that contains the central verb ‫‘ יׁשב‬to sit [down]’. Moreover, the concept of the glory of Yhwh (‫ )כבוד יהוה‬in connection 44. See also the Phoenician names derived from the verbs ‫‘ חפץ‬to take a fancy to’ and ‫ צבה‬II ‘to desire’ (see appendix B1.1.4). 45. Another rare name is ‫ אפלי‬ʾAplāya (HAE 1.126), which can be interpreted as an Akkadian loan-name, in which case it means ‘the inheriting son of [DN]’ (see appendix B2.6.3). 46. The name cannot be classified as a Vertrauensnamen in the sense that Noth meant (1928: 147–69), as suggested by Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.268. Lemaire (2006: 212.10, rev. 7) has recently demonstrated the existence of the hypocoristicon ‫ לעגי‬Laʿagî; thus, the name cannot be considered as unusual as once thought.

Personal Names and Family Religion

265

with the enthroned god of Jerusalem (Isa 6:3), which was later elaborated in the Priestly theology of Sinai (Exod 24:17; Lev 9:23, and others), is absent in personal names. The one name that refers to it, Ichabod, is a symbolic name only (1 Sam 4:19–22).â•›47 Likewise, the concept in Zion theology of Yhwh fighting against all attacking nations (Ps 46:7–12; 48:5–8) does not appear to have had any influence on personal names, which do not refer to fighting. Cursory consideration might lead one to suppose that the cult symbol of Bethel had some impact on name giving, particularly since the name ‫ עגליו‬ʿEgelyau ‘young steer of Yhwh’ appears in a Samarian ostraca (Sam[8]:1.41,1). We know that Jeroboam erected a cult symbol in the shape of a ‘calf ’ (‫ )עגל‬in the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan (1€Kgs 12:28), but any correspondence between the cult symbol and the reference to a literal calf in the name ‫ עגליו‬is merely coincidental. In the report by the Deuteronomist, the diminutive of a bull, ‫‘ עגל‬calf ’, is used in a pejorative sense to denounce Jeroboam’s cult. The cult statue of Bethel was actually intended to symbolize El or Yhwh in the image of a fully grown or wild bull (in Hebrew, ‫פר‬, ‫ׁשר‬, or ‫)ראם‬.â•›48 In the personal name, by contrast, the noun ‫ עגל‬functions as a term of affection, characterizing the child as a small companion of god, the closest parallels to which are the names that contain the element ‫ כלב‬kaleb ‘dog’.â•›49 Although it remains possible that the ancient Near Eastern iconography that depicts Baal or El standing on a bull influenced the choice of animal to some extent in personal names in Bethel and Dan, it was not likely to be a reference to the name directly connected with the sanctuary in Bethel, because the element ‫ עגל‬also occurs in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons (see appendix B2.6.1). Personal names are equally reserved in reference to the domain of official cultic activities. Verbs that express fundamental priestly concepts, such as ‫‘ קדׁש‬to be holy’, ‫‘ טהר‬to be [ceremonially] clean’, or ‫ כפר‬Piel ‘to make atonement’ do not appear anywhere in the Hebrew onomasticon. There are a few praise names that contain the verb ‫‘ זכה‬to be pure’— for example, ‫ זכא‬Zakāʾ, which makes one epigraphic appearance,â•›50 and ‫ זכי‬Zakkai, which makes one biblical appearance. However, this verb does not mean purity in a cultic sense but in a moral sense, as in ‘to be pure from sins’, ‘to have a pure heart’, or ‘to be blameless’ (Job 15:14; Prov 20:9; Ps 73:13; 119:9). In reference to god, this statement means, ‘[DN] is pure, or blameless, or beyond reproach’, similar to the names derived from the root ‫תמם‬ ‘to be complete’ (see appendix B3.2).â•›51 In the Hebrew onomasticon, there are names derived from one particular root, ‫חׁשב‬ ‘to take into account’, which is actually used in Priestly language and denotes divine acceptance of a sacrifice (Lev 7:18; 17:4; Num 18:27; cf. Gen 15:6; Ps 32:2).â•›52 In my previous 47. Stamm (1980: 64) even interpreted it as a substitute name. 48. See Num 23:22; 24:8. 49. In its short form, it is epigraphically attested once and biblically attested twice. This type of name was more popular in Aramean and Phoenician cultures; there are also some explicit theophoric forms; see appendix B2.6.1. 50. The same name can possibly be assigned to the Ammonite onomasticon (WSS 792). 51. Likewise, moral purity is meant in the Ammonite and Aramaic praise names derived from the root ‫ברר‬, such as ‫ אליבר‬ʾIlībar ‘my god is pure’ (WSS 893; 897); see Job 11:4 and appendix B3.2. 52. See von Rad 1961: 130–33.

266

Chapter 5

study (Albertz 1978a: 56), the names that contain this root were classified as professional names, because in postexilic biblical texts they were the names of 18 people, all of whom were Levites and temple singers. However, the name ‫ חׁשביהו‬Ḥăšabyāhû, is now known to have appeared two other times, once on a seal (HAE 8.64) and once in an inscription (MHas[7].7:1), both of which can be dated to the 7th century b.c.e. and neither of which alludes to the cultic background of the name-bearers,â•›53 a fact that argues against my earlier classification. Since there are several Aramaic names containing the root ‫‘ רקה‬to be pleased with’ (see appendix B5.2), whose Hebrew counterpart ‫ רצה‬was likewise a Priestly term and was used in the same context (in which the priest proclaimed that the deity had kindly accepted a sacrifice: Lev 1:4; 7:18; 19:7; 22:23, 25, 27), appearances of these Priestly terms in personal names cannot be accidental. Thus, these terms are perhaps better understood in reference to the practice of vows promised and paid in the context of birth. These were instances in which family religion and priestly ritual overlapped. In these contexts, the name Ḥăšabyāhû was given in gratitude as a reminder that Yhwh had taken a vow into account and accepted the promised sacrifice. Therefore, this name is here classified as a birth-experience name (see appendix B5.2). In spite of this evident connection with the Priestly sphere, no expressions of permanent relationships with local sanctuaries are found in Israelite personal names, in contrast to Phoenician names such as ‫ גרהכל‬Gerhēkal ‘sojourner of the temple’ (recorded 4 times) or ‫ גראהל‬Gerʾohel ‘sojourner of the [divine] tent’ (recorded once; see appendix B2.6.2). In comparison with the attachments manifested by these names, which derive from an urban society, emotional relationships of Israelite families with their sanctuaries seems to have been less intense.â•›54 Hebrew personal names are also largely devoid of reference to the Sinai theophany. Although several personal names refer to forms of divine revelation, such as ‫אמריהו‬ ʾAmaryāhû ‘Yhwh has spoken’, ‫ הגלניה‬Higlānīyāh ‘Yhwh has revealed to me’ (WSS 344),â•›55 or ‫ בעלנחׁש‬Baʿalnāḥāš ‘Baal has predicted’, these revelations clearly are not alluding to theophany to a people but to a divine oracle to an individual, as explicitly seen in the second of these three names. Moreover, the name ‫ מלאכי‬Malʾākî ‘My messenger [was DN]’, now also known from epigraphic material (Arad[7].97:1), refers to a particular sort of revelation, when a divine being in the form of a human being reveals a divine message, especially a birth oracle, but leaves his divine origin undiscovered until afterward (Gen 16:11; Judg 13:3, 21). This kind of private revelation has nothing to do with dramatic 53. The name Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, given to the fort where the ostraca were found, is accidental; it was based on an incorrect reading of ostracon 1, line 7; see Renz and Röllig, HAE 1.316. 54. In this context, it can hardly be accidental that, in Israelite names, divine presence is not symbolized by local sanctuaries but by functional realities such as ‫‘ אור‬light’ or ‫‘ עזר‬help’ in names such as ‫ קרבאור‬Qĕrabʾûr ‘the [divine] light has come close [to me]’ or ‫ עזריקם‬ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine] help has arisen’. These differences are of no great consequence regardless, because ʿAzrîqām also appears in Aramean and Phoenician cultures (see appendix B1.1.5). 55. See also HAE 20.2 and PIAP 34. In the Hebrew Bible, the Hiphil of the root ‫ גלה‬only occurs in a context in which it means ‘to take into exile’, although this could be accidental, because the meaning ‘to bare, to open, to reveal’ is present in all other stems. Avigad and Sass (1997: 492) consider a Niphal form of the root to be more likely, even though the reading Higgalēnayāh ‘be revealed, O Yhwh’ sounds artificial.

Personal Names and Family Religion

267

theophanies such as described as happening on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19–20; Deuteronomy 4–5).â•›56 In this book, all of these names that refer to birth oracles have been assigned to the group of birth names (see appendix B5.3). Additional depictions of theophany appear in a small group of personal names that reflect the radiant presence of God above a sufferer, such as ‫ אליאר‬ʾElyāʾīr ‘El has shone [above me]’, ‫ יהוזרח‬Yĕhôzārāḥ ‘Yhwh has risen gloriously [upon me]’, ‫ בלגי‬Bilgay ‘[DN] has illuminated’ (see appendix B1.1.6), or ‫ ׁשחר‬Šaḥar ‘[DN] is [my] dawning’ (see appendix B2.1). This group also includes Aramaic names such as ‫ יפעהד‬Yapaʿhadd ‘Hadad has shone forth’, or ‫ נסחנגהי‬Nasuḥnaghî ‘Nasuḥ/Nusḥu is my morning light’. All such names connect the helpful attention of the deity with the phenomenon of illumination, especially dawn and sunrise. These metaphors admittedly converge with others commonly associated with epiphanies, such as where Yhwh powerfully comes to the salvation of his people (see ‫ יפע‬Hiphil in Ps 80:2). These names, however, are more directly associated with concepts of divine salvation in the morning.â•›57 This concept is not restricted to individual experiences (cf. Ps 88:14; 143:8 with 46:6; 90:14), although it is clearly distinguishable from the scenery of thunderstorms and earthquakes associated with the Sinai theophany. There are two names that could possibly refer to a theophanic storm: ‫ סעריהו‬Săʿaryāhû ‘Yhwh has stormed’ (HAE 15.20; 21.7; Arad[7]:31.4) and the short form ‫ סערי‬Săʿaray ‘[DN] has stormed’ (HAE 10.58), following the reading of Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.77; 2/2.329). But their reading is not entirely certain; in the case of the two seals HAE 15.20 and 21.7, Avigad and Sass (1997: WSS 355 and WSS 286) preferred the reading ‫סעדיהו‬ Săʿadyāhû, which would mean ‘Yhwh has supported’; the same reading was adopted by Zadok (1988: 28) with regard to the Arad ostracon. As I mentioned above, the characters reš and dalet were sometimes shaped very similarly in archaic Hebrew. Arad Ostracon 31 and the seal HAE 10.58 = BPPS 7 show a clear reading of reš; in these cases, Renz and Röllig were in agreement with Y.€Aharoni (1981: 56) and Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 221). However, because such a group of ostensibly theophanic names would be extremely small, and because names derived from the root ‫ סעד‬are much better represented (with nine appearances), the question can be raised whether a dalet is a more accurate reading than a reš in all these cases. Even if all four occurrences of theophanic names were accepted, their percentage of the Hebrew onomasticon would be very small (0.13%). In any case, if there was influence of Sinai theophany on the personal names, it must have been quite slight. Although it is now clear to us that Hebrew personal names lack references to Israel’s national history, Noth (1928: 215) connected two names that appear in the Hebrew Bible to Israel’s history. According to him, the name ‫ אליׁשב‬ʾElyāšīb, which he understood as a wish that ‘God may cause the return [of the dispersed Israel]’, refers to the return from exile (1928: 213), and the name ‫ ׁשכניה‬Šĕkanyāh ‘Yhwh has taken [his] home’ was related to the reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 520–515 b.c.e. These readings were plausible because in the Hebrew Bible both names only arise during or after the exilic period. In the case of the name ʾElyāšīb, Stamm (1980: 71) undermined Noth’s interpretation 56. In the Hebrew Bible, the name ‫ נועדיה‬Nôʿadyāh ‘Yhwh let oneself be met’ also occurs in Neh 6:14; Ezra 8:33. 57. See Janowski 1989: 1–18.

268

Chapter 5

by classifying it as a substitute name and understanding it to mean that El has caused a deceased child to return through the birth of a new child. His interpretation was supported by the archaeological finds in Arad and Lachish, which verified that the name was in use from the 8th to the 6th centuries b.c.e.—that is, before the exile. In the absence of archaeological evidence for the name Šĕkanyāh, Noth’s interpretation seemed plausible; thus, I accepted it as the only case in which an ordinary personal name,â•›58 because of accommodation to aspects of official Temple theology,â•›59 referred to an important event of Israel’s history (Albertz 1978a: 58).â•›60 Subsequent archaeological finds cast these interpretations into doubt, and there are now eight known appearances of the name ‫ ׁשכניהו‬Šĕkanyāhû, dating from the early 7th to the early 6th centuries b.c.e. (see appendix B5.4). The dialectic variant from Northern Israel, ‫ ׁשכניו‬Šĕkanyau, known from one occurrence in Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, dates back even further, to the 9th century (PIAP 279). Any reference in this name to the postexilic reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem can thus be excluded.â•›61 Since the name also occurred in Northern Israel, even a relationship to Jerusalem seems improbable. It therefore seems highly implausible that the name Šĕkanyāhû/yau referred to any kind of established sanctuary at all, notwithstanding the possibility that it could refer to a place in which no permanent divine presence could be supposed. It thus seems more sensible to relate the name to house shrines or neighborhood chapels where a mother or young couple had prayed for a child. Yhwh had actually been present in the domestic cult of the parents; a presence further affirmed through a successful and joyous pregnancy and birth (see appendix B5.4). Thus the last potential piece of evidence that may have supported a close relationship between a personal name and national history, and in particular the history of the Temple of Jerusalem, now also carries no weight. The primary traditions of official Israelite state and temple religion are thus almost entirely absent from both biblical and epigraphic names. There are a few scant references to the sphere of priestly activities with regard to vows and sacrifices performed during the process of birth. The potential existence of a small number of personal names referring to Yhwh’s theophany on Mount Sinai remains unconfirmed. In comparison with urban Phoenician culture, Israelite society, which was more rural, seemed to have more differences between the beliefs of the family and the temple theologies. There is no epigraphic evidence for Israelite personal names referring to events of Israel’s national history. This of course does not imply that the traditions of the exodus or conquest were unknown to Israelite families. Rather, it suggests that these traditions did not play any significant role in the religious lives of these families during experiences of childbirth, whether they were 58. In contrast to the symbol names, which are given in order to point to a special event or behavior of the people; see Ichabod in 1 Sam 4:19–22 and Immanuel in Isa 7:14. 59. The concept that Yhwh dwells in the Temple of Jerusalem or in Zion is attested in 1 Kgs 8:12; Isa 8:18; Joel 4:17, 21; Zech 2:14–15; Ps 68:17; and 135:21; it is supplanted by Deuteronomic theologians in that now Yhwh will let his name dwell in his chosen sanctuary; see, among others, Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; and 26:2. 60. This interpretation was also accepted by KBL31390; and Rechenmacher 1997: 72. 61. It is strange that Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.387), although they date the seals from the 7th to the 6th centuries, still retain Noth’s interpretation.

Personal Names and Family Religion

269

fearful or joyful. Israelite families obviously had a wealth of religious experiences of their own, but these experiences occurred almost entirely independent of the official state and temple religion.

5.2.2.╇ The religious significance of childbirth Although childbirth is central to many passages in the Hebrew Bible, the circumstances surrounding birth generally receive only scant attention. Birth rituals are known from ancient Mesopotamiaâ•›62 and Anatolia (Beckman 1983), but no reports of these sorts of ritual are known from Syria–Palestine or from the Hebrew Bible. Inscriptions on an amulet tablet from Arslan Taš (KAI 27) that were previously interpreted by Donner and Röllig (1979: 43–47) to refer to a birth ritual have since been confirmed to record a more general incantation against various demons’ entering a house (see Butterweck in TUAT 2/3.435–37), even though one of the demons depicted on the tablet seems to be devouring a baby (ANEP no. 662). In his book From the Cradle to Her Grave, van der Toorn (1994: 77–92) compensates for the lack of evidence from Israel for rituals of childbirth by incorporating material from Mesopotamia, although cultural differences between the two must render any general conclusions somewhat speculative. Other scholars, who restrict themselves exclusively to either archaeological or biblical sources, deal only very broadly with Israelite rituals surrounding pregnancy, labor, and birth, such as, for example, Bird (1987: 410) and Meyers (2002: 283); or else they deemphasize or even overlook the ritual and religious significance of childbirth in ancient Israel, as in the studies of Miller (2000: 71), King and Stager (2001: 40–41, 52–53), and Borowski (2003: 81). In the latter case, Dever (2005: 237–51) listed 15 different items used in female cultic practices yet neglected to include childbirth in the practices considered. Such restricted considerations may be understandable considering the scarcity of sources, yet the undoubted importance of childbirth to the biological and economic survival of families in ancient agrarian societies (Meyers 1997: 27–28) and its dramatic and often very dangerous character for women under the primitive medical and hygienic conditions at that time (Albertz 1978a: 51) strongly imply that it would be improper to deny its ritual setting and religious significance merely because of an absence of direct textual or archaeological evidence from Israel. There are in fact two sorts of archaeological source that offer indirect evidence regarding the crucial importance of the birth of a child, especially a son, to the religious life of Israelite families. The first kind of source comprises the masses of “Ashtarte-plaques” and “pillar-figurines,” which certainly refer to women’s fertility, birth, and lactation.â•›63 The second indirect source consists of the Hebrew personal names that refer to childbirth. The existence of these birth names, which constitute the largest name group in terms of different names and the second-largest in terms of instances, demonstrates that the acts and experiences surrounding childbirth were a very important part of Israelite family religion.

62. See Krebernik 1984: 36–47; Farber 1989; van der Toorn 1994: 77–110; 1999: 139–47; Stol 2000: 49–89; and Albertz 1978a: 51–55. 63. See pp. 388–393 below.

270

Chapter 5

This last source, which has not been comprehensively analyzed to date, provides great insight for reconstructing the significance of childbirth in family religion. However, a methodological problem arises, in that the appropriate grouping of the personal names is vital to their accurate interpretation (see Noth 1928: 3). An accurate grouping of birth names should rightly require detailed information about the sequence of events that occurred during the birth process, along with all associated rites and rituals. Unfortunately, there are no authentic ritual texts from ancient Israel that were intended to accompany the most important events of conception, pregnancy, and confinement. The short reports and mentions in the Hebrew Bible do, however, enable us to construct a typical sequence of childbirth events and to connect each element of this sequence with the personal names that refer to them. This also enables us to construct a sequence of subgroups with which interpretations of related names can be compared and contrasted.

5.2.2.1.╇ The distress of infertility In societies in which children must sustain family farms and provide for the older generations, women’s infertility is generally regarded as a heavy burden. A wife without children is often an economic threat to her family and likely to suffer terrible social pressure. Thus we read the laments and sorrows of infertile women, such as Hannah (1 Sam 1:4–18) and Rachel (Gen 30:1–2; see also Isa 54:1–2; Ps 113:9). Several times, the infertility of a wife is the beginning point of an entire narrative (Gen 11:30; 25:21; 29:31; Judg 13:2). God is often seen as responsible for a woman’s infertility (Gen 16:2; 20:18; 30:2; 1 Sam 1:5–6), which is also occasionally regarded as divine punishment for the woman’s sin (2 Sam 6:20–23).â•›64 Two distinct groups of personal names can be associated with the distress of infertile women (see appendix B5.1). The first consists of several names derived from the root ‫אסף‬ ‘to gather’, which is used in this context in Gen 30:23 with the meaning ‘God has taken away my humiliation’ (‫ ;)אסף את־חרפתי‬see Isa 4:1). Thus the names ‫ אספיהו‬ʾAsāpyāhû (BPHB 108) and ‫ אספיו‬ʾAsāpyau (HAE 1.125) should be rendered ‘Yhwh has taken away [the stigma of childlessness]’, an interpretation first considered by Noth (1928: 181–82) and subsequently established by Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.158).â•›65 The name is also epigraphically attested in two short forms, ‫ אספא‬ʾAsāpāʾ and ‫ אסף‬ʾAsāp, the latter well known in the Hebrew Bible (2 Kgs 18:18 and other places). The Hebrew Bible contributes the theophoric name ‫ אביאסף‬ʾAbîʾāsāp ‘My [divine] father has taken away [the stigma of childlessness]’ (Exod 6:24); thus there are altogether 8 epigraphic and 4 biblical instances. Interestingly, these Hebrew names have several parallels in Phoenicia; in one of them, the removal of infertility is explicitly ascribed to a goddess: ‫ עׁשתרתאסף‬ʿAštartʾespa ‘Ashtarte has taken away [the stigma of childlessness]’; in another, a goddess is directly addressed: ‫ אספת‬ʾAsaptī ‘You, [O goddess,] have taken away [the stigma of my childlessness]’. The fact that the bearer of this name was a woman supports the suggestion that all the names in this group express specifically female experiences. 64. Against van der Toorn 1994: 79. 65. J. D. Fowler (1988: 109) misunderstood the biblical names based on this root by inferring from its possible meaning ‘to gather’ “the concept of selection of certain people.”

Personal Names and Family Religion

271

The second group consists of two roots that express divine revenge or anger and includes names such as ‫ נקמאל‬Nĕqamʾēl ‘El has taken revenge’ and ‫ לעגיהו‬Lăʿagyāhû ‘Yhwh has ridiculed’. These are names that have previously been difficult to explain, because personal names generally avoid negative attitudes toward the deity. However, considered in relation to the conflicts in which infertile women had to experience the contempt and insults of their relatives and neighbors, these names gain a positive meaning. By presenting a child to a formerly infertile woman, god had taken revenge for her on all who derided her and had ridiculed them. Thus, the mother who bestowed one of these names on her child constructed a reminder of her former distress and confessed that god had reversed her social humiliation.

5.2.2.2.╇ Prayers and vows In the distress of their infertility, women were accustomed to praying to god. If they wanted to provide their prayers with more urgency, they could make a vow. So Hannah made a vow to Yhwh at the regional sanctuary of Shiloh in order to conceive a son (1 Sam 1:11). Furthermore, the fact that the mother of Lemuel called him “son of my vow” (Prov 31:2) demonstrates that women’s vows designed to conceive a son were very common. We also know from Jer 44:25 that women in particular liked to make vows to their family goddess at home, although childbirth is not explicitly mentioned in this case. These vows made by women seem to have occurred so frequently and to have been so expensive that they could become a threat to a family’s property, and thus required male control. According to Numbers 30, a father or husband was allowed to invalidate the vow of a daughter or wife on the day that he first heard of it. The custom of poor women working as harlots in order to be able to pay their vows apparently was so common that it had to be strictly forbidden (Deut 23:18). Gen 25:21 also reports a case in which a husband formally interceded on behalf of his barren wife. Thus, private prayers and vows, especially those made by women, were important rituals of Israelite family religion.â•›66 While evidence of prayers and vows regarding childbirth is rather sparse in the Hebrew Bible, 27 names referring to 105 people are now known from epigraphic material, each of which constitutes or refers to small prayers or vows (see appendix B5.2). The name ‫ ׁשבאל‬Šūbaʾēl ‘Come back, O god!’ is addressed to a personal god who had gone astray.â•›67 A probable variant of this name that contains a cohortative -na- infix is the frequently occurring name ‫ׁשבניהו‬, which in agreement with Zadok (1988: 43) and Avigad and Sass (1997: 534), I vocalize Šūbnayāhû and render ‘Do come back, O Yhwh!’â•›68 If this translation is correct, this simple prayer name was given to 60 different people, as well as another 11 referred to in the Hebrew Bible. Other prayer names refer more directly to the gift that a child is, such as ‫ אׁשניו‬ʾUšnayau ‘Do present, O Yhwh!’ (again with cohortative -na- infix) and ‫ תנאל‬Tenʾēl ‘give, O god!’; 66. See especially Berlinerblau 1996; and also Tita 2001. 67. The name was also popular in the Ammonite culture, where it appeared 6 times. 68. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.380; see HAE 2/1.85) prefer a derivation from an uncertain Arabic root, šabana ‘to come close’, but the popularity of this name (with all variants represented 48 times) strongly suggests a Hebrew origin. The vocalization Šĕbanyāh in the Hebrew Bible (Neh 9:4, 5; 10:5, 11, 13; 12:14) seems to be incorrect.

272

Chapter 5

more frequent was the short form ‫ אׁשנא‬ʾUšnāʾ ‘Do present, [O DN]!’ (10 instances), with one person of this name being a servant of King Ahaz (HAE 1.151). A newborn child could also be called ‫ ׁשאל‬Šāʾūl ‘requested’, ‫ ׁשאלה‬Šĕʾilāh ‘[the object of the] request’, or (from another root) ‫ בקׁש‬Baqqūš ‘requested’ and the female form ‫ בקׁשת‬Baqqūšet. Thus, girls as well as boys were explicitly desired from god. Almost all of these names are similarly extant in the surrounding cultures,â•›69 among which is the Aramaic variant ‫ׁשאלתי‬ Šaʾaltî ‘I have requested [him]’, a name that always harks back to the prayers of the child’s mother or parents.â•›70 Several personal names that refer to vows made by women or couples have gone unrecognized as such thus far.â•›71 The name ‫ דרׁשיהו‬Dĕrašyāhû, which is epigraphically extant three times, means neither ‘Yhwh has demanded an account’, as suggested by Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.193–94), nor ‘Yhwh seeks [the welcome of the child]’, as supposed by Avigad and Sass (1997: 494). It means ‘Yhwh has demanded [the payment of the vow]’, because in this special sense the verb ‫‘ דרׁש‬to ask, to seek’ with Yhwh as subject appears in Deut 23:22. Accordingly, the hypocoristic name ‫ יׁשאל‬Yišʾal, from the related verb ‫ׁשאל‬ ‘to ask, to seek’, has the similar meaning ‘[DN] has asked for [the payment of the vow]’. These names suggest that Yhwh is entitled to demand payment of the vow by presenting the child requested. Likewise, the hypocoristicon ‫ פצרי‬Paṣrî probably means ‘[DN] has urged [the payment of the vow]’. A similar meaning can be found in the name ‫ חׁשביהו‬Ḥăšabyāhû ‘Yhwh has taken [the vow] into account’. As already mentioned, in this case the personal names incorporated a technical term used by the priests when they proclaimed their verdict that god had accepted a sacrifice (Lev 7:18; 17:4).â•›72 Although this name occurs only twice in the epigraphic material, it is much more frequently used in the Hebrew Bible (18 times), even in forms personally related to the person who profited from the vow (via a first-person-singular suffix), as in ‫ חׁשבניה‬Ḥašabnĕyāh or in a better vocalized form, Ḥašabāniyāh ‘Yhwh has charged [the vow to my account]’ (Neh 3:10; 9:5). Finally, the names ‫ ׁשעריהו‬Šĕʿaryāhû ‘Yhwh has charged [the vow]’ and ‫ מכר‬Mākīr ‘sold [by DN]’ express a meaning similar to the same words used in a commercial context. A similar juxtaposition of priestly and commercial language can be found in birth names in the surrounding cultures.â•›73 Thus, although there are connections between family religion and priestly theology, they are mostly restricted to cases in which the payment of a vow involved animal sacrifices. The conjunction of commercial and priestly terms reveals a very pragmatic feature of family piety: a woman promised to pay a fee so that the family god would give her a child. The prayers and vows of barren or childbearing women could result in divine attention. In the biblical narratives, God heard a woman’s plea (‫ ;ׁשמע‬Gen 30:17, 22), saw her distress 69. The name ‫‘ ׁשאל‬Saul’ also appears in the Ammonite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons. 70. See also the name of Zerubbabel’s father, ‫ ׁשאלתיאל‬Šĕʾaltîʾēl ‘I have requested [him] from God’ (Hag 1:1), which follows the form of Babylonian names. It shows that the Judeans were ready to adopt names of their Babylonian environment during the period of exile, even in the royal family. 71. Even by Berlinerblau (1996). 72. See pp. 265–266 above. 73. See the names ‫ הדרקי‬Haddraqî ‘Hadad has accepted [the vowed sacrifice] with pleasure’ and ‫ זבנאדן‬Zĕbinʾadān ‘bought from Adon’, both of which come from Aramean culture.

Personal Names and Family Religion

273

(‫ ;ראה‬Gen 29:32), remembered her (‫ ;זכר‬Gen 30:22; 1 Sam 1:19), or looked after the afflicted (‫ ;פקד‬Gen 21:1). Here, a wide range of verbs normally used in the names of thanksgiving for god’s attention are employed in these prayers, even though they are not specific to the birth process. These verbs and names will therefore be considered later.â•›74 There is one verb with regard to divine attention, however, that stands somewhat apart from the others, namely, ‫‘ ענה‬to answer’. Of the four epigraphically represented names from this root, two explicitly refer back to the mother: ‫ ענניהו‬ʿAnānyāhû ‘Yhwh has responded to me’ (HAE 14.7), and ‫ קוסענל‬Qausʿanalī ‘Qos [the national god of the Edomites] has replied to [me]’ (Arad[6].12:3).â•›75 The Hebrew Bible offers similar evidence: in the six names that use this root, two have a first-person-singular suffix—‫ ענניה‬ʿAnānyāh (Neh 3:23) and the short form, ‫ ענני‬ʿAnānî (1 Chr 3:24). Both are also attested at Elephantine. The mother desired to refer to her own experience during childbirth by naming her child this way: her complaint did not go unheard; god responded to her petition. These names do not necessarily refer to a favorable oracle obtained from a priest (1 Sam 1:17) or prophet;â•›76 it is also possible that a woman had discerned a nonverbal sign that she interpreted as being affirmation from god (Judg 13:23). This rich group of personal names reflecting prayers, vows, and divine answers in the context of birth demonstrates that prayers, vows, and oracles of salvation that were accompanied by other ritual acts such as libations, incense, and meal offerings played very prominent roles throughout the entire process of childbearing.

5.2.2.3.╇ Birth oracles According to the Hebrew Bible, birth oracles might be given to barren women (Gen 17:19; 18:10, 14; Judg 13:3, 5, 7; 1 Sam 1:17; 2 Kgs 4:16) or to pregnant women whose life was in danger (Gen 16:11; 25:23). In addition to vows of sacrifice, this suggests a second point when male religious functionaries were sometimes included in the birth process. Divine oracles were mediated by priests at regional sanctuaries (1 Sam 1:17) or by peripatetic practitioners of magic, so-called ‘men of God’ (‫ ;איׁש ]ה[אלהים‬2 Kgs 4:16; see Judg 13:6, 8). Birth oracles were occasionally delivered by strangers who were later revealed to have been heavenly messengers of Yhwh (‫ ;מלאך יהוה‬Gen 18:1–16; Judg 13:15–21). In almost all cases, these birth oracles were spoken to women; they asked a request of Yhwh (‫ ;דרׁש את־יהוה‬Gen 25:22); they offered personal hospitality to the “men of God” (2 Kgs 4:8–10) or had secret meetings with divine messengers (Judg 13:2–5). These birth oracles thus evidence specifically female religious experiences. Like vows, these oracles lay largely outside the control of husbands; thus, in the late birth story of Judges 13,â•›77 the mysterious messenger had to repeat the birth oracle to 74. See pp. 298–309 below. 75. The interpretation of this name, which also appears on many Edomite seal impressions, is somewhat uncertain, because the verb ‫ ענה‬I is normally collocated with an accusative rather than being suffixed with the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫‘ ל‬to’. 76. For oracles of assurance as answers to individual complaints, see Begrich 1934; and Albertz 2003: 166–73. 77. Stipp (1995: 346–49) has shown that Judges 13 functions as a secondary but coherent introduction to the Samson stories (Judges 14–16) that was composed in order to incorporate them into

274

Chapter 5

Manoah (13:8–14) that he had already given to Manoah’s wife (13:3–5). This repetition reinforced the credibility of the wife’s religious experience. The remarkable significance of birth oracles is reflected in 10 different personal names that are epigraphically attested 34 times (see appendix B5.3). The name ‫ אמריהו‬ʾAmaryāhû ‘Yhwh has spoken’ was most popular and is recorded 22 times. Its Northern variant, ‫אמריו‬ ʾAmaryau, was recorded as far back as the 9th century b.c.e.; 9 other people in the Hebrew Bible bear this name. The name ‫ קוליהו‬Qôlyāhû (Qal) or Qawwelyāhû (Piel) appears less frequently and probably had the same meaning, ‘Yhwh has spoken’. There were 5 names derived from this root altogether. Names from both roots were also used in surrounding cultures, as well as names derived from the root ‫רגם‬, such as Aramaic ‫ בעלרגם‬Baʿalragam ‘Baal has spoken’. Of particular importance is the single occurrence of the Hebrew name ‫ הגלניה‬Higlānīyāh ‘Yhwh has revealed to me’ (HAE 20.2).â•›78 This name verifies that none of the oracles referred to by these names were general statements; they were addressed to an individual personally. The divine oracles were probably associated with mantic procedures. The most recent appearance of the name ‫ בעלנחׁש‬Baʿalnāḥāš is on an ostracon from the late-7th-century Shephelah. Rather than meaning ‘Baal is a snake’ by being derived from the noun ‫( נחׁש‬the god Baal is never conceptualized as a snake in ancient Near Eastern iconography), the name refers to the verb ‫ נחׁש‬I ‘to look for an omen, to divine’, which means that it must be rendered ‘Baal has predicted [a good omen]’. The verb may originally have denoted a specific kind of divination performed with the help of snakes.â•›79 However, in the Hebrew Bible, this term is associated with a number of different objects used by mantics, such as Joseph’s silver goblet (Gen 44:5), as suggested by Schmitt (2004: 110–12).â•›80 Thus, although the details of the divination technique connoted by this personal name in connection with the Baal oracle remain uncertain, it was probably delivered using an instrumental medium. Similarly, the name ‫ נחׁש‬Nāḥāš, which was the name of an Ammonite king (1 Sam 11:1–2), probably does not mean ‘snake’, as has often been suggested (by Noth 1928: 230 and Hübner 1992: 128, among others) but alludes to a good omen in the context of childbirth. Both Deut 18:10 and Lev 19:26 state that the kind of divination denoted by the term ‫ נחׁש‬was strictly forbidden by the Deuteronomic and Priestly reformers along with other mantic and magic practices. The time during which this sort of prohibition might have been enacted cannot be ascertained. Interestingly, this kind of divination was still practiced in Judean family religion at the end of the 7th century, in periods during or after the Josianic reform (622 b.c.e.). This close relationship to the god Baal, as expressed in the personal name under discussion, may have been associated with some kind of mantic the already existing Deuteronomistic History; thus it can be dated to late preexilic or exilic times at the earliest, depending on one’s model for the DtrH. The attempt by Römheld (1992: 47–48) to reconstruct Judges 13 as a pre-Dtr story is less convincing. 78. For the problems with this interpretation/translation, see p. 266 above. 79. See the hints at snake omina in Isa 3:3, Jer 8:17, Ps 58:5–6, and Qoh 10:11, connected with the related term ‫‘ לחׁש‬to whisper, to charm’. 80. This may have been a kind of oil omina, which are known from Mesopotamia; see Pettinato 1966.

Personal Names and Family Religion

275

practice that had been rejected by representatives of the official Israelite religion, although this does not seem likely. Unfortunately, the father of Baʿalnāḥāš remains unknown because of the fragmented state of the record (see Lemaire and Yardeni 2006: 220 and pl.€15). However, there is one bulla from a period about 100 years earlier that reveals that a certain ʾAmaryāhû had a father named Nāḥāš (BPHB 103). Thus, Nāḥāš would almost certainly have been a believer of Yhwh, even though his parents had used the unapproved divination practice prenatally. Interestingly, Nāḥāš again chose a name referring to a birth oracle for his own son, suggesting that birth oracles were popular in this family. Several personal names are known from Aramean and Phoenician cultures that probably refer to other mantic practices that involved some sort of instrument. The Aramaic name ‫ אחלכד‬ʾAḥlakad probably means ‘[my divine] brother has picked [me by drawing lots]’, because this special meaning of ‫‘ לכד‬to catch’ may be the meaning that was intended in Phoenician inscription KAI 37.B8 (see DNWSI 1:577), and it certainly is the meaning in Hebrew (Josh 7:14 Qal; 1 Sam 10:20–21 Niphal).â•›81 Reference to the casting of lots may also have been intended by the Aramaic name ‫ הדדסמני‬Hadadsamānî ‘Hadad has designated me’ (samek instead of śin). Finally, the Phoenician name ‫ אׁשמניעד‬ʾEšmunyaʿad ‘Eshmun has determined’ may refer to a date of birth, although the sort of divination involved cannot be determined. In the Hebrew onomasticon, the name ‫ מלאכי‬Malʾākî refers to a special form of intuitive mantic. A human being, often a foreigner, served as the medium of a birth oracle and was later revealed to have been a ‫־יהוה‬â•”‫מלאך‬, a ‘messenger of Yhwh’ (Judges 13). In accordance with the Punic name ‫בעלמלאך‬, which verifies that it was a nominal sentence, it should more accurately be rendered ‘my messenger [was DN]’. By choosing this name, a mother was emphasizing that the person who had promised her a child was in fact god himself (see Gen 18:1–16).â•›82 Thus, this group of personal names clearly verifies that divine oracles delivered by priests and laymen, as well as other sorts of divination played integral roles in Israelite family religion, especially in the context of childbirth. Birth oracles given by laymen who were later revealed to have been divine messengers can be considered specifically female experiences of divine revelation.

5.2.2.4.╇ Conception and pregnancy Equal in importance to the day of birth for the emergence of new human life was the time of conception (Job 3:1). For Job, the two dates played equal roles in forming his existence (3:1–10). In the Hebrew Bible, every conception and pregnancy is viewed as the work of god, especially following a period of infertility (Gen 20:17–18; 21:1–2; 29:31–32; 30:17, 22; 1 Sam 1:19–20) but also in more typical cases (Ruth 4:13). Thus, during the night of conception, god draws very near the couple and is especially engaged with the female partner by healing her infertility (‫ ;רפא‬Gen 20:17) and opening her womb (‫פתח‬ ‫ ;רחם‬Gen 29:31; 30:22). 81. The translation ‘ʾḥ ist [mein] Angriff ’ (‘. . . is my attack’) by Maraqten (1988: 121) is doubtful for a name in the Northwest Semitic onomasticon because, in other confession names of this sort, only locations or weapons of defense are compared to god. 82. Based on this name that appears on Arad(7).97:1, it is clear that the name of the prophet Malachi is a genuine personal name rather than a symbolic name.

276

Chapter 5

The Atramhasis Epic demonstrates that the period of procreation and conception was surrounded by specific rites in Babylonia intended to honor the mother-goddess (I  90– 306).â•›83 It seems highly probable that, in ancient Israel, conception was accompanied by rites and rituals intended to ensure the divine presence. These rites were likely to have included libations, incense offerings, and prayers at a house shrine or perhaps at a portable installation of cultic artifacts that was positioned in or near the marriage chamber. Pillarfigurines, Bes figures, and amulets may have been used or invoked in this ritual context. Ten names are known to date from epigraphic material that signify this decisive sexual ritual; these 10 names appear 64 times (see appendix B5.4). A first subgroup of these names relates to the opening of the womb, such as the hypocoristica ‫ פתח‬Pĕtaḥ ‘[DN] has opened [the womb]’, ‫ נפתח‬Niptaḥ ‘[the womb] was opened [by DN]’. The complete theophoric variant, ‫ פתחיה‬Pĕtaḥyāh ‘Yhwh has opened [the womb]’, is known only in the Hebrew Bible, where it is the name of 3 different people (1€Chr 24:16; Ezra 10:23; Neh 11:24). Most prominent among these is the army commander and judge who went by the hypocoristicon ‫ יפתח‬Yiptaḥ ‘[DN] has opened or may open [the womb]’ (equivalent to Jephthah; Judg 11:1–12:7). This name in turn is probably the shortened version of ‫יפתחאל‬, which is a place-name in Josh 19:14. These names have often been connected with birth, especially the birth of a firstborn,â•›84 but considering that in Gen 29:31 and 30:22 the verb ‫ פתח‬is related to the beginning of pregnancy, a reference to the act of procreation and conception seems more plausible. By opening the female womb to the male sperm, the deity creates the prerequisite for birth by overcoming the infertility of the woman. According to Gen 20:17, names that allude to god’s healing act likewise refer to this critical situation of procreation and conception, such as ‫ רפאיהו‬Rĕpāʾyāhû ‘Yhwh has healed’, with the short forms, ‫ רפא‬Rāpāʾ and ‫ רפאי‬Rĕpāʾî ‘[DN] has healed’. This subgroup appears much more frequently (represented 27 times) than names from the root ‫( פתח‬represented only 3 times); it appears another 10 times in the Hebrew Bible and 9 times in surrounding cultures. A slightly smaller subgroup comprises names derived from the root ‫( דמל‬represented 25 times), a group that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. The meaning of these names remain the subject of ongoing debate. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.65) derive it from the Arabian root damila ‘to prepare, to make peace, to heal’. Avigad and Sass analyzed a name consisting of the root ‫‘ דמם‬to be silent’ plus the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫‘ ל‬for, to’ and translated it as an imperative name, ‘be silent before [DN]!’ Names of this sort do appear among names of confession, such as ‫ חכליהו‬Ḥakalyāhû ‘Place your hope in Yhwh!’ However, in contrast to the verb ‫‘ חכה‬to hope’ and its synonyms, the verb ‫ דמם‬is used quite infrequently in the confessions of confidence in the Psalms.â•›85 Moreover, an exhortation ‘to be silent before god’ occurs only once in the postexilic wisdom psalm, 37:7; it refers to a unique kind of devotional piety that would be distinctive in the preexilic Israelite onomasticon. Following Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.65; 2/2.191), we interpret these names similarly to 83. See Lambert and Millard 1969: 63–64; TUAT 3/2.625–26. 84. See Noth 1928: 179; Albertz 1978a: 58; Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.367–68. 85. Although verbs denoting ‘to hope’ appear in Ps 25:5, 21; 33:20, 22; (37:14); 39:8; 40:2; 52:11; 69:7; 71:14; 119:43, 49, 74, 81, 114, 147, 166; 130:5, 7; (131:3) (21 times), the verb ‫ דמם‬appears only once in a confession of confidence (Ps 62:6) and twice in modifications (Ps 37:7; 131:2).

Personal Names and Family Religion

277

names derived from ‫רפא‬: ‫ דמלאל‬Dĕmalʾēl ‘El has healed’, ‫ דמליהו‬Dĕmalyāhû ‘Yhwh has healed’, and the short form ‫ דמלא‬Damlāʾ ‘[DN] has healed’. Although these healing names could refer to various general healing experiences in a family, the high number of appearances—52 instances—suggests that the main focus was childbearing. The name ‫ ׁשכניהו‬Šĕkanyāhû and its Northern variant, ‫ ׁשכניו‬Šĕkanyau ‘Yhwh was present’, which are known from 9 epigraphic records (and the first also appears in 8 biblical records), have already been discussed.â•›86 Because they were used only between the 9th and 6th centuries, they could not have been related to the postexilic reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple, as Noth (1928: 194) suggested. They are perhaps more plausibly interpreted as being related to a house cult in which Yhwh’s presence was not regarded as being permanent (which would have been the case in a temple) but was only experienced sporadically by a family as an extraordinary event. Of course, the divine presence might have been discerned in rituals that accompanied the birth process, but it would have had special significance during the act of procreation and conception. The very experience of becoming pregnant often might have been proof enough for a woman and her husband that Yhwh had been present during the ritual acts that accompanied their sexual intercourse. He had opened the womb, healed her infertility, and transformed it into fertility, and thus his presence could not be doubted. Interpreted in this way, the name Šĕkanyāhû shows that the shrine or cultic space in the household and the ritual activity of the family, no matter how simple or even primitive they may have been, were accorded the full dignity of divine presence.

5.2.2.5.╇ Creation and birth Creation and birth are at the very center of existence, and no less than 63 different names derived from 24 different roots can be assigned to this group, with these names appearing 227 times total (see appendix B5.5). This subgroup consists of the greatest percentage of all birth names (25.9%) and can itself be subdivided further into three groups: pregnancy, confinement, and care for a newborn. 5.2.2.5.1.╇ The religious dimension of pregnancy In ancient Israelite society, pregnancy and birth were defining events for women, and during their lives, most women could expect to pass through four or five cycles of pregnancy and birth, only partly interrupted by longer phases of nursing. Pregnancy was a part of daily life, and women had to continue their daily work while pregnant (see Meyers 1997: 27–28). The time of pregnancy, which lasts ten lunar months, was a sufficiently defining period for woman that it was referred to with a special term, ‫ עת חיה‬ʿet ḥayyāh ‘the time of [emerging] life’ (Gen 18:10; 2 Kgs 4:16).â•›87 In ancient Israel, pregnancy was commonly regarded as a supernatural process. It was believed that god created a new creature in the womb of a mother during this period (Jer 1:5; Ps 139:13; Job 10:8–11; 31:15; see also Isa 49:1, 5). Ps 139:13 uses the weaving metaphor for this creative act of god (‫ ;)סכך‬Job 86. See p. 268 above. 87. In the Hebrew Bible, the term only appears in the context of birth oracles. The corresponding Akkadian term, ana balāṭ ‘in the period of [emerging] life’—that is, ‘in the coming year’—became a much more common term and was used to designate a generally longer period of time.

278

Chapter 5

10:10–11 even describes, with medical detail, how god solidified a human embryo out of a milk-like liquid. As I previously demonstrated (Albertz 1974: 44–51), according to the symbolic world of ancient Israel, the two events of god’s primeval creation of man and human pregnancy and birth are closely connected (particularly in Job 10:8–11). Notions of the divine origin of pregnancy were not restricted to an inner circle of religious experts or literati but circulated among the whole population, as can now be verified by the many extant creation names: a total of 39 epigraphic names derived from 11 different roots appear no less than 148 times, describing the divine creative activity surrounding conception from a surprising variety of aspects. One concept that is very close to the metaphor in Ps 139:13 is found in a personal name on the Lachish tablets, ‫ סבכיהו‬Sĕbakyāhû ‘Yhwh has woven [the child in the womb]’ (Lak[6].1.11:4). The biblical name ‫ סבכי‬Sibbĕkay or Sibkay (2 Sam 21:18) may be the shortened form. The metaphor of “weaving” accommodates the divine creative activity to the emergence of an embryo in its mother’s womb (see appendix B5.5.1). Other creation names use more ordinary verbs for god’s creative activity. More-frequent names include ‫ בניהו‬Bĕnāyāhû ‘Yhwh has created [the child]’ (with 22 epigraphic and 12 biblical occurrences), which emphasizes the constructive aspect of creation; in the Akkadian language, banû is the most frequent verb used to denote divine creative activity; in the Hebrew Bible, the cognate verb is used for the primeval creation of Eve (Gen 2:22). Names from this root also appear in the Ammonite, Aramean, and Phoenician cultures, such as the Ammonite name ‫ בנאל‬Banāʾil ‘El has created’ (appearing twice). Other common names are derived from the most general root, ‫‘ עׂשה‬to make’, including ‫ עׂשיהו‬ʿAśāyāhû ‘Yhwh has made [the child]’ (with 17 epigraphic and 4 biblical instances) and ‫ מעׂשיהו‬Maʿaśēyāhû ‘the work of Yhwh’ (with 13 epigraphic and 21 biblical appearances). This epithet name, which denotes the newborn as a creature of Yhwh, shows that, in all creation names, the child is regarded as the implicit object. The root ‫עׂשה‬ is often used for the creation of human beings, for example, in Job 10:8 and 31:15. Curiously, names derived from ‫ עׂשה‬were rarely used by Israel’s neighbors. The opposite is the case with regard to a second common root, ‫‘ פעל‬to make’. Only one derived name is known in Hebrew, from two epigraphic appearances of the hypocoristicon ‫ פעלה‬Păʿalāh ‘[DN] has made [the child]’ (BPHB 326, 327) and the full name, used once in the Hebrew Bible, ‫ אלפעל‬ʾElpaʿal ‘El or god has made’ (1 Chr 8:11–12). Names from this root are more common in Phoenicia, where goddesses such as Bastet and Ashtarte are also attested as creators, as in ‫ פעלאבסת‬Peʿlaʾabast (attested twice) ‘Bastet has made’, and ‫ פעלעׁשתרת‬Peʿlaʿaštart ‘Ashtarte has made’ (attested once). In the Bible, the root ‫ פעל‬for the creation of humans appears in Job 36:3. Among Aramaic names, the root ‫עבד‬, denoting ‘to serve’ in Hebrew, is used for expressing god’s creative activity in a general way, as in ‫ אלעבד‬ʾElʿabad ‘El has made’ (NTA 42.4:5). Creation names derived from the root ‫קנה‬, which has the two meanings ‘to acquire’ and ‘to create’, are more specific. While the former meaning predominates in most biblical texts, the latter seems to be preferred in personal names, since it occurs several times exclusively in the context of birth and the creation of human beings (in Gen 4:1; Deut 32:6; and Ps 139:13). Stolz (1970: 132–33) suggested an underlying meaning of ‘to bring forth, to produce’, from which both of these meanings may have developed. Gen 4:1 even

Personal Names and Family Religion

279

expresses a sexual connotation, where Eve boasts that she created (‫—)קניתי‬in the sense of ‘bore’—a man ‘with Yhwh’. Although this does not explicitly mean that Yhwh had a child by Eve, a close cooperation between her and him is nevertheless implied. The male aspect of procreation is hinted at in Deut 32:6, where Yhwh is considered the father who made or created Israel (‫ קנה‬with 2nd-person-singular suffix). Thus, in the verb ‫ קנה‬itself, both realities (that of creation and that of procreation and birth) are closely intermingled. Hebrew personal names derived from ‫ קנה‬are known from 22 epigraphic instances (and 8 biblical reports); the most frequent of these is the epithet name ‫ מקניהו‬Miqnēyāhû ‘creature of Yhwh’ (with 15 epigraphic attestations and one biblical), which also appears in one variant from the Northern Kingdom (Israel) as ‫ מקניו‬Miqnēyau. Similar names come from Ammon and Phoenicia—for example, ‫ מקנמלך‬Miqnēmilk ‘creature of Milk’. Names containing the root ‫‘ כון‬to be firm’ should also be interpreted as creation names, because the verb can be used in the Polel stem to designate the creation of humanity (Ps 119:73; Job 31:15). Since the names probably use the Hiphil and the Qal stems with the same meaning, they serve to emphasize god’s fashioning of his creation. Job 31:15 clearly indicates that this fashioning occurs in the mother’s womb (‫)ברחם‬. Thus, the verb ‫ כון‬connotes a concept similar to the description in Job 10:10–11: the creator fashions the embryo from a milk-like liquid. This type of creation name therefore also refers to the birth process. The most frequently attested of these names is ‫ כניהו‬Konyāhû ‘Yhwh has fashioned [the child]’ (9 instances), followed by ‫ אליכן‬ʾElyākin ‘El has fashioned’ (5 instances); this type of creation name appears a total of 17 times. It also appears in the Phoenician and Aramaic onomasticons, for example, in Phoenician in the form of ‫ יכנׁשלם‬Yakīnšalim ‘Shalem has fashioned’. *â•…â•…*â•…â•…* Thus, almost all roots used in the Hebrew Bible for god’s creation of human beings, whether primeval creation or ongoing creation, are also used in creation names, with 2 exceptions: the verbs ‫ יצר‬yāṣar ‘to form’ and ‫ ברא‬bārāʾ ‘to create’. The former alludes to the concrete action of God’s forming man from clay; in the Hebrew Bible, it is frequently used for both god’s primeval (Gen 2:7) and his ongoing creative activity (Isa 43:1; 44:2, 21, 24; 64:7; Jer 1:5). However, remarkably, only 2 rare hypocoristic names from this root appear in the Hebrew Bible: ‫ יצר‬Yeṣer (Gen 46:24) and ‫ יצרי‬Yiṣrî (1 Chr 25:11) ‘creation [of DN]?’ The root ‫ ברא‬has a similar status in the Hebrew Bible. It is used in important theological passages such as Gen 1:27; Isa 43:1; 45:12; and Ps 89:48 but appears only once in one name: ‫ בראיה‬Bĕraʾyāh ‘Yhwh has created’ (1 Chr 8:21). The absence of these roots in the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon is not unusual. The absence of the root ‫ ברא‬probably reflects its adoption as a specific theological term by religious officials (most likely sometime after the exile), but there is no such ready explanation for non-use of the root ‫יצר‬. It may be that the unique concept of creation conveyed by this root was somehow too explicit, or it may be that alluding to a child’s having been formed from dirty clay was considered unfair or insulting. Both roots are similarly absent from the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors. *â•…â•…*â•…â•…*

Aside from the larger groups of creation names, there are a few more that are used infrequently. The name ‫ קדבׂש‬Qadbeś, an Egyptian loan-name with the meaning ‘Bes has formed’, has been found only once, in the Samaria ostraca (Sam[8].1:1:5). The name ‫חצב‬ Ḥāṣāb also only appears once. This name is difficult to understand, coming as it does from a verb that means ‘to carve out’, especially used in relation to cisterns, winepresses, or tombs (Deut 6:11; Isa 5:2; 22:16). Avigad and Sass (1997: 500) postulated that it was

280

Chapter 5

some kind of professional nickname, akin to ‘stone hewer’. But, since in Isa 51:1 the verb is metaphorically used to designate Israel’s origin from Abraham and Sarah, Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.226) offer what is perhaps a more plausible interpretation in relation to god’s creative act. The reading ‘[DN] has carved out’ seems best, because the text explicitly refers to Sarah’s labor, and thus the metaphor would allude to childbearing. Translation of the name ‫ ירימות‬Yerîmaut is similarly uncertain. Although this name occurs relatively frequently in the Hebrew Bible (a total of 12 times), only one epigraphic record is known (HAE 10.75). According to Zadok (1988: 61), the name may be interpreted as ‘founded by Mot’, in reference to the old Canaanite deity of death but in the function of creator here. Although we will show below that there was almost no overlap between the specific qualities ascribed to deities by religious officials and those referred to in family religion,â•›88 it nevertheless is difficult to explain why a name with this sort of meaning would be used so frequently, and exclusively in the late books of the Hebrew Bible. A different concept of divine creature is referred to in personal names derived from two other roots. The name ‫ עמליהו‬ʿAmalyāhû ‘the [laborious] work of Yhwh’, which is known in only two instances to date, emphasizes the great pain that god had taken to create the child. Names derived from the second root, ‫ עדיהו‬ʿAdāyāhû ‘Yhwh has adorned [the child]’, and its variants have been found much more frequently (17 instances total) and emphasize the wondrous product of Yhwh’s creative act. This name would likely have been a popular choice for acknowledging god’s creation of a handsome newborn. During the compilation necessary for writing my earlier work on the creation of the world and humankind (Albertz 1974: 156, 246–47), evidence for personal names referring to Yhwh’s creative activity was rather limited. However, the number and variety of creation names now known from epigraphic material clearly reveal that the divine creation of every human being constituted a primary tenet of family religion. The religious significance of birth also was emphasized to a much greater extent than we previously supposed. It was not only the elites who transcribed and collated the Hebrew Bible but also the masses of ordinary people, especially women, who considered birth a direct creative act of god rather than a generic, natural event. The primordial creation of mankind (Gen 2:7, 18–24) was continued (Job 10:8–11) in every human birth, and each birth reflected and symbolized a necessarily intimate cooperation between a woman and the divine creator (Gen 4:1). All mothers were included in a miraculous divine activity during pregnancy and birth, partaking in a mythical reality that lay behind more-quotidian familial perceptions of the event. The attribution of both religious and mythical dimensions to birth suggests that birth rituals in Israel were cultural moments of the conjunction of both of these realms. In birth rituals known from Mesopotamia—whether they expressed the primordial creation of man or the fathering of a cow by the moon-god Sin—this mythical reality (see Albertz 1978a: 51–55; van der Toorn 1994: 89–90; Stol 2000: 59–70) was incanted to safeguard pregnancy and to prevent difficulties during delivery. As already mentioned, no record of this sort of ritual has been found to date in ancient Israel or the Levant. It is only the He88. See pp. 344–348 below.

Personal Names and Family Religion

281

brew Bible that records the women’s customs of consulting the deity to prevent or alleviate danger regarding a pregnancy (Gen 25:22).â•›89 5.2.2.5.2.╇ The religious dimension of confinement during pregnancy Little is known of the confinement of expecting women in ancient Israel. Sites of confinement seem typically to have been an inner room (‫ חדר‬ḥéder) of a family house (Cant 3:4) or a place outside the village boundaries (Cant 8:5: ‘under the apple tree’), and in all cases they were somewhere removed from the public domain.â•›90 It seems that access to a woman in the very late stages of pregnancy was limited to a select few women (Ruth 4:14–17). Even husbands seem to have been entirely excluded (Jer 20:15). This strict division by gender during birth probably reflected the extraordinary pain suffered by women during birth and the perceived need to prevent men from witnessing such painful experiences (see Gen 3:16; Isa 26:17–18). The death of a mother during childbirth would not have been uncommon in that time (Gen 35:16–18; 1 Sam 4:19–22). Being exposed to the men of the family in the face of such peril, a woman would risk being socially degraded. The condition of ritual impurity therefore protected mothers from this risk (Leviticus 12). Only one type of primitive installation is known that directly related to confinement— the kneeling of a woman on two birth stones (Exod 1:16). Women were assisted by midwives (‫ מילדת‬mĕyallédet) during labor, at least in cases of difficult birth (Gen 35:17; 38:28; Exod 1:15, 17–20). These female experts, in being responsible for ensuring a safe delivery, were probably held responsible to perform special rites and recitations. In Gen 35:17, a midwife utters a form of salvation oracle, “Fear not; this is another son for you!” in an attempt to rouse the failing Rebecca (see also 1 Sam 4:19). This oracle may have been part of the longer ritual text that we know from Mesopotamia (see above). The absence of birth rituals such as these in the Hebrew Bible may reflect the fact that their practice was limited to specifically female realms, and neither male priests nor prophets would have had ready access. The procedure following delivery is known from Ezek 16:4, according to which the umbilical cord was cut, and then the infant was bathed in water, rubbed with salt, and wrapped in swaddling clothes. These acts also were probably performed by the midwife. An apotropaic ritual may have guided one act in particular, which was the rubbing with salt, which may have functioned to protect the child from demonic attack (Zimmerli 1979: 349). There were various notions regarding god’s presence during confinement: he induced labor (Isa 66:9); he gave birth (Jer 2:27); he himself acted as midwife in delivering the baby from its mother’s womb (Ps 22:10); and he even severed the umbilical cord (Ps 71:6). These identifications reiterate and reinforce the religious significance of midwives during the dramatic event of birth. Although the explicit connection between god as divine creator 89. See the birth oracles on pp. 273–275 above. 90. It is also possible that the secular name ‫ כרמי‬Karmî (see appendix B6.2.2) did not refer to the typical occupation (‘wine-grower’) but to the place where the child was born. In this case, it should be translated ‘the one from the vineyard’. This interpretation is supported by the nisbe, and we know that there were huts or towers in Israelite vineyards (Isa 1:8; 5:2) where birth could have occurred.

282

Chapter 5

and as midwife has been denied (Grohmann 2006: 85), in a broader context, god’s role as midwife merely indicates his presence during the final stages of the creative act that he commenced in the mother’s womb at conception. Divine activity during the dramatic events of confinement is often memorialized in personal names (see appendix B5.5.2). One name, ‫ דלתיהו‬Daltāyāhû, interpreted as a direct address to god (see PIAP 33), is particularly impressive. It appears on an 8th-century seal (HAE 4.5). The mother expressed direct gratitude to Yhwh for the delivery of her child by saying, ‘You, Yhwh, have drawn out [my child]’. Although the root ‫ דלה‬literally means ‘to scoop’, and it also carries the wider metaphorical sense of ‘to draw from distress, or to liberate’ (see Ps 30:2), it is nevertheless understandable that names derived from this root were often considered to be expressing thanksgiving (Albertz 1978a: 63; Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.64–5). However, if one presumes that names were formulated shortly after birth, these thanksgiving names would also have been an apposite means of expressing gratitude for a mother’s safety during her confinement. Rather than using the root ‫דלה‬, Ps 22:10 connotes a similar meaning by use of the rare root ‫ גחה‬gāḥāh, where what is expressed from the child’s perspective as ‘You have drawn me out from the womb’ is equivalent to the name Daltāyāhû, which expresses the same thing from the mother’s perspective. Thus, all the personal names derived from the verb ‫ דלה‬are perhaps best interpreted as deriving from the literal meaning of the root, even though a metaphorical meaning may occasionally embellish or enrich the reading. Thus both ‫ דליהו‬Dĕlāyāhû and ‫ דליו‬Dĕlāyau are taken to mean ‘Yhwh has drawn out [the child]’. These names are known from 12 epigraphic artifacts and 5 biblical references. This type of name was also popular in Aramean culture, and is known from one inscription on a small Moabite onomasticon. Interestingly, one Aramaic variant explicitly relates its religious sentiment to the bearer of the name ‫ ביתאלדלני‬Baytʾeldalanî ‘Bethel has drawn me out’. This name may also have been intended in a wider metaphorical sense, but Ps 22:10 suggests that the literal reading as a personal confession in the sense of ‘the god Bethel has created me’ is more apposite. By giving this sort of name, the mother would have been projecting her experiences onto the child. By a similar argument, personal names derived from the root ‫ נצל‬are also more plausibly interpreted with reference to the Hiphil stem, which literally means ‘to tear out or away’, with the metaphorical extension ‘to deliver’. Names derived from this root could also have expressed thanksgiving, as noted, for example, by Avigad and Sass (1997: 515). Regardless of their categorization, their absence from the Hebrew Bible and their relative paucity in epigraphic impressions (17 total) in comparison with names derived from other verbs of deliveranceâ•›91 suggest that they probably had a more specific meaning. It is thus likely that the name ‫ הצליהו‬Hiṣṣīlyāhû was literally intended to mean ‘Yhwh has torn away or delivered [the child from the womb]’. Names from this root are also known in both Ammonite and Moabite cultures, such as Ammonite ‫ הצלאל‬Hiṣṣīlʾil ‘El has delivered’ and Moabite ‫ יצלבעל‬Yaṣṣīlbaʿal ‘Baal has delivered’. As mentioned above,â•›92 this evidence is sufficient to refute the conjecture of intentional reference to exodus traditions. 91. For example, names from the root ‫‘ יׁשע‬to save’ occur 103 times, from the root ‫‘ פלט‬to rescue’ 38 times, and from the root ‫‘ פדה‬to ransom’ 35 times. 92. See pp. 262–263 above.

Personal Names and Family Religion

283

A number of other names may also refer to maternal confinement. The rare name ‫איץ‬ ʾIṣ is probably best interpreted as a hypocoristicon, because the theophoric variant ‫אצבעל‬ ʾIṣbaʿal is known in Punic names. This suggests the translation ‘[DN] has hastened [the birth]’. The single name ‫ גז‬or ‫ גזא‬Gāz or Gāzāʾ, the final letter of which is difficult to read on bulla BPHB 341, is probably derived from the root ‫ גוז‬as a variant of the common root ‫‘ גזז‬to cut off, to shear’. By this meaning, the name is probably referring to the cutting of the umbilical cord, especially since Ps 71:6 records the alternative root, ‫גזה‬, as a statement that it was Yhwh who severed the petitioner from his mother’s womb. Thus, a plausible rendering of the name would be ‘[DN] has severed [me from the umbilical cord]’. The name Gāzez appears twice in the Hebrew Bible, although its meaning remains unclear. Two names from the Phoenician onomasticon derived from two different roots should possibly be translated similarly: ‫ גדעת‬Gadaʿta ‘You, [O DN,] have severed [me]’ and ‫פרם‬ Parom ‘[DN] has cut off ’. Although no interpretation is certain, the personal names clearly verify the role of the deity as midwife during confinement, as well as safely delivering the baby, and possibly severing the umbilical cord. One name known from an Aramaic seal (‫ כרעדד‬Kĕraʿadad ‘Hadad kneeled down’) that has thus far eluded interpretationâ•›93 may also derive from the generic concept of divine midwifery. Although the name seems contradictory, because mortals conventionally kneel before deities (for example, 1 Kgs 8:54) rather than the other way around, if the name was intended to refer to divine midwifery, it could simply have depicted Hadad as a midwife kneeling before the woman giving birth. The birthing mother would then have been kneeling in the same posture but above her on the birth stones, while the divine creator acted to bring his/her creature safely out of the womb unto light. Finally, two roots share almost identical meanings in commemorating a joyous end to confinement: ‫ גמריהו‬Gĕmaryāhû ‘Yhwh has completed [the birth]’ and ‫ גמליהו‬Gĕmalyāhû ‘Yhwh has completed [the birth]’. Both roots carry the meaning ‘to be benevolent toward a person’ and are also used in the individual complaint psalms (Ps 13:6, 57:3). Although these names were formerly considered thanksgiving names (Albertz 1978a: 64), they are perhaps better interpreted as literal expressions of their etymological roots, because the literal meaning was usually what was intended in personal names. The underlying meaning of the verb ‫ גמל‬was ‘to be ready or ripe, to finish’, which, when used in reference to birth, would have referred to the weaning of the child (1 Sam 1:23); and while the literal meaning of ‫ גמר‬is ‘to come to an end, to finish’, Noth (1928: 175) considered Gĕmaryāhû to be related to a fortunate outcome of birth. It therefore seems reasonable to propose a similar meaning for the name Gĕmalyāhû.â•›94 This interpretation is supported by two appearances of the name ‫ גמול‬Gāmûl in the Hebrew Bible, where the form participle passive, meaning ‘completed’, is best understood as signifying the name-bearer himself as witness to the fortunate completion of his birth, due to the direct aid of god. Names derived from these two roots appear 6 times in the Hebrew Bible and have been found on 22 epigraphic 93. Maraqten (1988: 175) states: “Wahrscheinlich ist dieser Name aus dem Element krʿ ‘sich beugen, niederknien’ . . . und dem theophoren Element dd herzuleiten,” but he does not reveal how he would understand this. 94. In this case, Noth (1928: 182) preferred the derived meaning ‘to be good to somebody’.

284

Chapter 5

artifacts. The short form ‫ גמר‬Gamor ‘[DN] has completed [the birth]’ is also known from a Phoenician record. *â•…â•…*â•…â•…* There were also secular names that referred to the delivery of a child. If a child was delivered rapidly, it might be named ‫ חצי‬Ḥēṣī ‘[s/he who was swift] as an arrow’, ‫ ברקי‬Barqay ‘[s/he who was quick] as lightening’ or ‫ חׁשי‬Ḥušay ‘the speedy one’. The name ‫ צנר‬Ṣinnōr ‘[like a] waterfall’ is known from both Ammonite and Phoenician cultures. Although it does not seem to have found a definitive interpretation to date, it was probably related to the amniotic fluid that accompanied the delivery. The Hebrew name ‫גרפי‬ Garpay may also refer to the same context and can be rendered ‘s/he who was washed away’ (which was left unexplained in FHCB 88.37). In a situation where the newborn required a great deal of prompting to take its first breath, s/he might be named ‫ פרפר‬Porpar ‘s/he who was shaken to and fro’, ‫ מׁשמׁש‬Mōšmaš or perhaps ‫ מׁשׁש‬Mūšaš ‘the palpated one’. Although names such as ‫ בכי‬Bĕkî ‘whiny’ and ‫ צרח‬Ṣeraḥ ‘bawling’ may sound improbableâ•›95 because they seem to connote negative characteristics, acts such as bawling and crying also provided the first indicators of life, and they may have expressed the positive fulfillment of the mother’s longing for the emergence of her whining, bawling baby. The existence of these secular names evinces the significance of birth in the bestowal of names, but their interpretation in reference to the actual delivery process fosters even better understanding.

5.2.2.5.3.╇ Divine support for the newborn Names that relate to events following confinement reveal that the attention of the divine creator was turned toward the newborn, whose tenuous beginning required divine care and attention. One of the first occasions when the creator was present was for the opening of the newborn’s eyes. The letting in of earthly light that followed a safe delivery was memorialized in the name ‫ פקחיו‬Pĕqaḥyau ‘Yhwh has opened [the eyes of the child]’ or, in its more-frequent, short form, ‫ פקח‬Peqaḥ ‘[DN] has opened [the eyes]’. Ten recorded names from this root have been found so far in epigraphic material, and there are two instances in biblical texts. These names have been related to the opening of the womb during the birth process (KBL3 903, and possibly Ges18 1073) but, because this root is primarily referring to the opening of the eyes (Prov 20:13; and see Gen 21:19), and one time refers to the opening of the ears (Isa 42:20), its intended meaning was probably not the opening of the womb. These names are distinct from the names that are derived from ‫פתח‬, which explicitly refer to the opening of the womb.â•›96 Mesopotamian birth rituals testify to the crucial importance of the moment when the baby emerged from darkness and first perceived the bright light of the exterior world (see Albertz 1978a: 59). The second important moment for a newborn that was memorialized in a name was the moment when the bawling baby was placated with the aid of god. Thus, Renz and Röllig (HAE 1/1.84) interpreted the names ‫ רגא‬Rāgāʾ and ‫ רגע‬Rāgāʿ as ‘[DN] quieted [this baby]’. According to them, the ʾalep of the first variant, which superseded the final ʿayin of 95. Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.169–70) considered names from the root ‫ בכה‬to be unlikely. In the case of ‫צרח‬, the reading of the first letter is unsure: Avigad and Sass (1997: 201) read ‫ זרח‬zeraḥ ‘[DN] has arisen gloriously’ on the bulla from Jerusalem (WSS 505); although Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.224–25) assert that the first letter was clearly like a ṣāde, they doubted that the name would have been derived from the root ‫צרח‬. 96. See pp. 275–276 above.

Personal Names and Family Religion

285

the root, suggests a hypocoristicon. However, these names appear less frequently (a total of 4 times) than names from ‫ פקח‬and are not found in the Hebrew Bible. The essential act of God in bringing a newborn to life is expressed in names derived from the root ‫ חוח‬or ‫‘ חיה‬to live’, such as ‫ חויהו‬Ḥawwīyāhû ‘Yhwh has brought [the child] to life’. Although these types of name refer to past events, one similar name from this root clearly expresses a wish regarding the future: it is ‫ יחי‬Yĕḥî, which may be translated ‘May it [the baby] stay alive, [O god]’. Thus the names in this subgroup may express thanksgiving for a fortunate birth as well as expressing hope for the survival of a newborn. In this case, names constructed in imperfect tense are not necessary constrained to the past but may also express wishes such as ‫ יחועלי‬Yĕḥawwiʿalay, which can mean either ‘The Exalted has brought [the child] to life’ or ‘The Exalted will keep [the child] alive’. Both meanings express events that immediately followed confinement; the second was more appropriate for a newborn that was perceived as being weak or otherwise imperiled. Names derived from the root ‫חוה‬/‫ חיה‬are comparatively rare in Hebrew epigraphic material, appearing only 4 times altogether, compared with 12 appearances in the Hebrew Bible. It is possible that the unusual name ‫ בלטה‬Balṭāh, found on a block of stone excavated in Jerusalem, was derived from the Akkadian verb balāṭu ‘to live’ and would have been intended to convey a sentiment similar to ‘[DN] brought to life’.â•›97 There are a few other names derived from East Semitic roots that have not been found in Hebrew.â•›98 In contrast, names derived from ‫חוה‬/‫ חיה‬were more frequent in surrounding cultures: found 9 times in Moab and Phoenicia. One Phoenician name of particular interest not only mentions a goddess but addresses her personally: ‫ עׁשתרתחות‬ʿAštartḥewwiti ‘O Ashtarte, you have brought [my child] to life’. One expression of a wish has been found in the Moabite culture, together with its theophoric element, ‫ כמׁשיחי‬Kamōšyĕḥî ‘O Chemosh, may it stay alive!’ Several names from the Aramean culture may be expressing similar concepts by using the root ‫‘ מנה‬to count’. Avigad and Sass (1997: 512) suggested that the intended meaning was ‘to count among the living’. Thus, for example, the name ‫ אלמנני‬ʾElmanānî would mean ‘El counted me [among the living]’. The last names in this subgroup probably referred to serious complications that arose during or after pregnancy, including three names derived from the root ‫‘ חמל‬to have compassion, to spare’. Although the name ‫ יחמליהו‬Yaḥmolyāhû might be understood in a more general sense as ‘Yhwh had compassion’ and accordingly be categorized as a thanksgiving name (see Albertz 1978a: 62), there is a strong argument against this interpretation. There are two appearances of the root ‫ חמל‬that, according to Num 26:21, are the passive participle Ḥamūl. The bearer of this name was the one who was spared; that is, although his life was imperiled during or after birth, he survived. The names in this small group (5 instances altogether) are probably references to god’s sparing the life of a specific child, 97. Naveh (2000: 8) considered it to have been a misspelling of the thanksgiving name, ‫פלטה‬ Palṭāh, which is epigraphically attested four times; see appendix B1.2.1. However, since exactly that name was written twice upon one block, it would be unlikely to have been an error. 98. For example, ‫ יהוסחר‬Yĕhôsāḥār (HAE Arad [8]:90,1), which contains the Akkadian verb saḥāru ‘to turn to’; or ‫ אפלי‬ʾAplāya, which contains the Akkadian noun, aplu ‘inheriting son’. A similar name occurs in the Aramaic onomasticon (‫ בלט‬Balaṭ).

286

Chapter 5

whether his life was in danger during or after pregnancy, or he was the sole survivor in the birth of twins. The name ‫ אצליהו‬ʾAṣalyāhû probably had a similar meaning, even though Noth (1928: 193–94) proposed that it was derived from the Arabic root ʾaṣula in the sense of ‘Yhwh has shown himself to be distinguished’, and J. D. Fowler (1988: 108) considered the name to be derived from the Hebrew root ‫‘ אצל‬to set aside, to reserve’,â•›99 with the meaning ‘Yhwh has reserved, set apart’. Although Fowler’s extrapolations from the Hebrew origins of this name may have been accurate, she nevertheless misunderstood the name to refer to “the concept of selection of a certain people” (1988: 108)—that is, Israelâ•›100—and not the more plausible meaning of sparing an individual child from mortal danger. As such, the name would be rendered ‘Yhwh has set [the child] aside’, a very likely meaning if the bearer of the name survived but his/her twin died. This interpretation is supported by the fact that another name from this root appears as the passive participle (‫ אצול‬ʾAṣûl ‘the reserved’; see HAE 2/2.162), although it was not found in preexilic epigraphic material but in later material from Elephantine. Thus, alongside the manifold expressions of gratitude conveyed in names about birth experiences, the dangers and perils of childbirth are also noticeably present. All of these names related to pregnancy, confinement, and other aspects of birth and the experiences of newborns contribute to an impressive image of the profoundly religious impact of childbirth on ancient Israelite society, especially as experienced by the women. These experiences must have constituted the very center of Israelite family religion.

5.2.2.6.╇ Acceptance, naming, and circumcision of the child Postpartum, a woman was considered unclean for a period of time following birth. Although this ritual impurity may have reflected the bleeding of the mother after giving birth (Lev 12:2), it was also a cryptic reflection of the intimate encounter with the divine that had happened during birth. This impure state of women after childbirth was the sole ritual aspect of birth with which religious officials were concerned. In Leviticus 12, an official purifying ritual was established for women postpartum in order to avoid defilement of a sanctuary. A woman who had given birth to a boy was considered impure for seven days and was not allowed to enter the sanctuary for 33 days; a woman who had given birth to a girl was considered impure for 14 days and had to stay away from the sanctuary for 66 days (Lev 12:2, 4). Regardless of how these regulations were implemented, we must presume that a mother and her newborn would have been isolated for a certain period. Although the good news of the birth of a boy or girl might have been conveyed to a husband (Jer 20:15), it seems that husbands were forbidden access to their wives during this period of impurity. After childbirth, mothers were probably accompanied only by their midwives or perhaps a few select female neighbors (Ruth 4:17). This time would also have allowed a new mother 99. This meaning is made clear in Gen 27:36; consider the preposition ‫‘ אצל‬apart’ as well. 100. While the root ‫ אצל‬was used to refer to the election of a person, the root ‫בחר‬, which can be seen as the terminus technicus for Israel’s election, does not appear in personal names; see pp.€263–264 above.

Personal Names and Family Religion

287

to recover from the difficulties of childbirth and to form emotional bonds with her baby. Emotional bonds with daughters may have been forged even tighter because of the longer period of isolation. A woman who had given birth was not permitted to leave isolation or be reunited with her family for at least one (for boys) or two weeks (for girls). This prolonged period of absence was followed by the mother’s reintegration with her family and society and the introduction and initial integration of the newborn. This joyful moment would in most cases have been celebrated in a family feast, during which the mother would have proudly presented her baby and talked about her physical and religious experiences during the birth process. Although the father would usually have welcomed and blessed his wife and their new baby and, by doing so, would have accepted the newborn as his own child, there would have been exceptional cases when a newborn might have been refused by a father (Hos 1:6). His absence from the actual birth process would have created space for doubt, and rejection of a newborn by a father would have required the baby’s being fostered or even abandoned (Ezek 16:5). It has been argued above that it was this family feast on the 8th day that was later transformed into a feast of circumcision for boys and a time when the child’s name was bestowed, whether it was the mother’s or the father’s choice or a joint decision.â•›101 For girls, the naming celebration would naturally have occurred on the 15th day. Although all of the names mentioned above originated during this celebration of naming or circumcision, there was one particular group of names that directly commemorated the gratitude felt and expressed during this feast and the concurrent integration of the newborn into the family (see appendix B5.6). One very large subgroup of these names expresses conditions related to the acceptance or potential rejection of a child. In classifying the child as a gift from god, the father and all the other members of his family were accepting the child. One cannot refuse a gift from god but is compelled to accept it with gratitude. This social function of integrating the newborn into its family probably motivated the great number of names recorded in epigraphic material. No less than 35 of these sorts of names derived from 11 different roots are represented a total of 166 times. There are 33 names derived from 7 roots in the Hebrew Bible, referring to 114 different people. The largest subgroup comprises names derived from the root ‫‘ נתן‬to give’, such as ‫ אלנתן‬ʾElnātān ‘El or god has given [the child]’, ‫נתניהו‬ Nĕtanyāhû ‘Yhwh has given [the child]’, or ‫ מתניהו‬Mattanyāhû ‘gift of Yhwh’, which appear 94 times altogether.â•›102 Second-most frequent are the names derived from the root ‫‘ אוׁש‬to give’, such as ‫ אׁשיהו‬ʾAšyāhû ‘Yhwh has given [the child]’â•›103 and ‫ יאוׁש‬Yāʾûš ‘[DN] has given [the child]’, which are attested 50 times altogether. Names derived from the root 101. See pp. 247–248 above. 102. Names of this type also appear frequently in the surrounding cultures, sometimes with different verbs that have the same meaning, such as ‫ יתן‬yatōn in Phoenicia or ‫ יהב‬yahab in Arameanspeaking Syria. 103. Because the epigraphic names of this type are never written with a medial yod, a derivation from the noun ‫‘ איׁש‬man’ is less plausible. Thus the biblical interpretation of the name of Saul’s son, ‫( אׁשבעל‬1 Chr 8:33), as ‘man of Baal’ (2 Sam 2:8, among others) is highly questionable. This is also supported by the fact that the rare names of the type ‘man of God’ are not formed in Ammonite and

288

Chapter 5

‫‘ נדב‬to present’ also appear quite frequently (11 instances) and include ‫ יהונדב‬Yĕhônādāb ‘Yhwh has presented [the child]’ and the synonymous ‫ נדביהו‬Nĕdabyāhû. These names, which were also very popular in Ammonite culture (17 instances), emphasize divine munificence. Interestingly, names from the related root ‫ זבד‬zābad ‘to present’, of which 19 appear in the Hebrew Bible, have not been found in epigraphic material from the monarchic period, and this Aramaic root does not seem to have appeared in the Hebrew onomasticon until after the exile. Personal names derived from the following roots appear considerably less frequently. The roots ‫ בקק‬bāqaq ‘to bring forth amply’, ‫ חצה‬ḥāṣāh ‘to divide’, and ‫ פזר‬pāzar ‘to spread’â•›104 place an even stronger emphasis on god’s lavish generosity. Examples of names derived from these roots are ‫ בקיהו‬Buqqyāhû ‘Yhwh has amply given’, ‫ יחץ‬Yaḥaṣ ‘[DN] has distributed’, and ‫ פזרי‬Pazrî ‘[DN] has generously given’. Two variants of theophoric names derived from the root ‫ חצה‬appear in the Hebrew Bible, of which one is ‫ יחציאל‬Yaḥăṣîʾēl ‘Yhwh has selected [the child for us]’ (1 Chr 7:13). Names derived from these three roots have been found in only 4 epigraphic records, and appear 5 times in the Bible. There are 3 other names for which no clear etymology can be determined. The first is the name ‫מגן‬, which is epigraphically attested 3 times but absent in the Hebrew Bible. Zadok (1988: 124) considered it to have been derived from the noun māgēn ‘shield’ and regarded it as a confession name, interpreted as ‘[DN is my] shield’ (see Ps 18:3). However, because similar Punic names are better understood in a verbal sense (see Benz 1972: 339), it is more likely that the name derives from the verb ‫‘ מגן‬to present’ (for discussion, see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.73). Thus the name should be understood as Māgān ‘[DN] presented’. The name was also used by Phoenicians and Ammonites in the 1st millennium. The second case is the name ‫ מנח‬Manōăḥ, which has been found on 1 seal (HAE 13.2; WSS 22) of unknown provenience from the early 7th century, as well as 3 plene-written instances in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 13:2). This biblical vocalization contradicts suggestions for an active participle Hiphil derived from the root ‫‘ נוח‬who gives rest’. Relating the name to the conquest of Israel cannot be right either, despite the fact that the root is used with this meaning in narrative (in Josh 1:13 and other places). The problem with relating names derived from the same root to the conquest by the Israelites is that the name also appears in Ammonite and Moabite cultures. It is similarly unlikely to have been derived from the noun ‫ מנוח‬mānôăḥ (see HAE 2/2.269), meaning ‘place of rest’. In common familial contexts, new infants would not have signified a period of ‘rest’ for the parents; quite the opposite. Thus, Lemaire’s suggestion (1983: 24–25) that the name represents a Qal passive participle derived from the verb ‫‘ מנח‬to present’ is more likely. This root may also be related to the common noun ‫ מנחה‬minḥāh ‘gift, offering’, as found in Ugaritic (DLU 2:282–83), among other languages. Thus the name was probably intended to signify ‘presented [by DN]’. The final case is the name ‫נמׂשר‬, which is known from 3 late-7th-century epigraphic records, 2 of which are seals (HAE 14.20, 21), and 1 of which is an ostracon (NEE 92.79:6–7). Aramean cultures from ‫ איׁש‬but from ‫‘ מת‬man’ (see appendix B2.6.1). For additional discussion, see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.61. 104. In Ps 112:9, the verb has the meaning ‘to give generously’, parallel to ‫נתן‬.

Personal Names and Family Religion

289

Although it has the form of a Niphal participle from the root ‫מׂשר‬, the grammatical form of which commonly appears in the Hebrew onomasticon (see Zadok 1988: 126–27), there is in fact no such root known. Thus, both Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.309) and Deutsch and Heltzer (1995: 98) were unable to offer any convincing interpretation. However, the two letters samek and śin are occasionally interchangeable in Hebrew writings, thus suggesting the root ‫ מסר‬māsar ‘to hand over, to transmit’. This root is frequently found in later Hebrew derivatives (e.g., “Masoretes”), as well as occasional appearances in late passages of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, if we accept the interchange of sibilants and suppose the root to have been in earlier use, perhaps in its basic meaning the name Nimśār may be translated ‘handed over [by DN]’. The idea of accepting a child as a gift from god could also find more extraordinary or even striking expression by drawing on foreign languages or concepts. The name ‫פטיהו‬ Pūṭīyāhû is a hybrid form of Egyptian and Hebrew elements (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.81), the meaning of which is ‘the one whom Yhwh has given’. Only epigraphic appearances of the name are known, but there are 2 of these. It is also known from Phoenicia, where it referred to the Egyptian goddess Isis. The name ‫ ׁשמיה‬Šemyāh, which was found on an ostracon from Arad (HAE Arad [6].110:1), is somewhat ambiguous. It does not occur in the Hebrew Bible, although it is reminiscent of Aramaic and Phoenician names of the same type, such as ‫ ׁשמאדד‬Šemʾadad and ‫ ׁשמזבל‬Šemzabūl. Although the element šem ‘name’ could have been used as a theophoric element,â•›105 it is perhaps more accurately understood (in accordance with Hug (1993: 154) in the secular sense of ‘descendants’. Thus, the Hebrew form of this name would have denoted a child as being a ‘descendant of Yhwh’, parallel to the Aramaic ‘descendant of Adad’ and the Phoenician ‘descendant of the prince [Baal]’. The concept of a child as belonging to the relatives of a deity would have been less transcendent than being related to a divine creature or a divine gift, which may be why this metaphor appears infrequently among Israelite names. A similar metaphor, which meant that the child was the ‘semen’ (‫ זרע‬zéraʿâ•›) of god, is known from a few instances in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons and adds a sexual dimension. This sexual connotation may be the reason, however, that this metaphor has not appeared in any Hebrew epigraphic material and appears in the Hebrew Bible only as an old place-name (Jezreel: 1 Kgs 4:12; 1 Sam 25:43; and other places).â•›106 One could even assert that, if the metaphor of ‘descendant’ or ‘semen’ were used as a name, the child would have been accepted as begotten by god to such a degree that its natural father would no longer have been considered a rightful parent. In Israel, however, the more transcendental metaphor of regarding the child as a gift from god that should be joyfully received was much more prominent. The next subgroup of names was associated with divine blessing on or the care and support of an infant and his/her newly constituted family. In ancient Israel, blessing was 105. Thus, the Hebrew clan name ‫ ׁשמידע‬Šemyādāʿ from Samaria (Sam[8]:1) should probably be rendered ‘the [divine] name has taken care’ (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.86). It is also possible that the Aramaic name ‫ ׁשמהיקר‬Šemēhyeqar, with the suggested meaning ‘his name should be honored’, rightly belongs in this same category (see Maraqten 1988: 220). 106. The name of Hosea’s first son (Hos 1:4) is a symbolic name derived from this place-name; this is also true of the clan name (1 Chr 4:3).

290

Chapter 5

considered to be the divine power of fertility (Gen 1:28; Isa 65:8). Because the blessed birth of a child was evidence of this divine power, and because further blessing was required to ensure the ongoing health and growth of the newborn, names of blessing could refer equally to the past and to the future, as in ‫ ברכיהו‬Berekyāhû ‘Yhwh has blessed’ and ‫ יברכיהו‬Yĕberekyāhû, which can be rendered either ‘may Yhwh bless’ or ‘Yhwh has blessed’. A name formed from the passive participle, ‫ ברך‬Bārūk ‘blessed [by DN]’ (with biblical parallels in Jer 32:12 and other places), suggests that god’s power of fecundity found primary expression in the appearance and life of a newborn, although this fecundity was also bestowed in a more general way as property given to entire families. Names derived from the root ‫ ברך‬have appeared so far in 15 epigraphic records and also appear in the Hebrew Bible 13 times. Names from this root were also popular in the surrounding cultures, one of which is a Phoenician name that addresses the god of Tyre: ‫ברכתמלקרת‬ Baraktamelqart ‘You have blessed, O Melqart’. This succinct prayer of thanksgiving clearly shows once again the common expression of personal experiences and emotions in West Semitic theophoric personal names. Another, rather small group (only 5 names) could be formed that comprises names referring to divine blessings. This group would consider the element ‫ מרי‬to be derived from the root ‫ מרר‬with the meaning in the D-stem of ‘to give strength, to bless’, as in the names ‫ מריבעל‬Mĕrībaʿal, ‫ מרימות‬Mĕrêmôt, and perhaps ‫ מריהו‬Mĕrayāhû. The root is known from Ugaritic (see the discussion in HAL 1/1.74–75). These names would be rendered ‘Baal has blessed’, ‘Mot has blessed’, and ‘Yhwh has blessed’ (although this last reading may be less certain). Curiously, the names in this small group, which mention foreign gods and use a foreign root, were not used by neighboring peoples. Rather, a number of names express similar divine blessings by using different roots, such as [‫ אלדׁש]א‬ʾElidiššeʾ ‘[My] god has caused to thrive’ and ‫ אׁשמנצלח‬ʾEšmunṣaloḥ ‘Eshmun has caused to prosper’ (both of which are Phoenician). There are 2 Hebrew names that allude to similar abundance experienced by families. The name ‫ יסף‬Yōsep appears once, on a late-7th-century bulla from Jerusalem (HAE 15.1 = WSS 587). The name is clearly a statement that ‘[DN] has added [a child to the family]’, but Gen 30:24 also uses this name as an expression of desire for another child. Theophoric variants of this root appear in Phoenicia, such as ‫ בעליסף‬Baʿalyūsep ‘Baal has added [a child]’, as well as in the Hebrew Bible, such as ‫ אליסף‬ʾElyāsāp ‘El has added a child’ (Num 1:14), where the derivation is Qal instead of Hiphil. The name of the first Northern king, Jeroboam, probably conveyed a similar meaning. This name is known from a seal that was found at Megiddo and probably belonged to a servant of Jeroboam II, who reigned during the first half of the 8th century. Although interpretations of this name are still disputed, a likely derivation would be from the root ‫רבב‬ ‘to become many’ or ‘to multiply’ in the Hiphil, in conjunction with the element ‫ עם‬ʿam as the divine subject (‘divine uncle’).â•›107 Thus the name ‫ ירבעם‬should be read Yarobʿam and rendered ‘the [divine] uncle has increased, or may increase [the family]’. 107. Noth’s explanation (1928: 207), which relates the element ‫ עם‬to the people of Northern Israel (“es mehre sich das Volk”), is entirely unconvincing. No other name has this secular meaning of ‫עם‬.

Personal Names and Family Religion

291

Three roots were used to derive names that refer to divine care for an infant. The use of the verb ‫‘ עמס‬to carry’ portrays a particularly vivid picture. As a mother takes her baby in her arms, so god carries his little creature (see Isa 46:3), and ‫ עמסיהו‬ʿAmasyāhû may be read ‘Yhwh has carried [the child on his arm]’. The name of the prophet Amos, also known from 2 epigraphic records, makes clear that the bearer of this name was thought in his infant state to be the object of god’s care, because the name is constructed as a passive participle, ‫ עמס‬ʿAmōs ‘who is carried [by DN on his arm]’. This name was also used in Phoenicia. In Ammon, the theophoric variant ‫ עמסאל‬ʿAmasʾil ‘El has carried [the child on his arm]’ seems to have been popular and was found in 3 records. Divine care is also referred to in names derived from the Palpel stem of the root ‫כול‬ ‘to look after, to supply’, such as ‫ כלכליהו‬Kalkōlyāhû ‘Yhwh has looked after [the child]’. Together with its short form, this type of name is attested 6 times epigraphically and 1 time biblically. A final name in this small group has been found no less than 8 times in epigraphic material, although it does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. It is clearly derived from the active participle of the root ‫‘ יעל‬to be useful’, and thus the name ‫ יועליהו‬Yôʿelyāhû should be rendered ‘the one to whom Yhwh is useful’. Thus Israelite family religion again reveals a very practical attitude toward the divine. It is interesting to note, while we are considering names that express divine care for an infant, the absence of names relative to the nursing of an infant. Inadequate lactation poses a potential problem in raising children, and the prominent breasts of the pillar-figurines certainly suggest an abundance of lactation. However, not one personal name is known to be derived from the roots ‫ ינק‬yānaq Hiphil and ‫ עול‬II ʿûl ‘to suckle, to nurse’, either in Israel or among its neighbors. There does not seem to be an immediate explanation for this omission, particularly because Hebrew personal names, which mirrored almost all typical events in the birth process, did not shy away from transferring anthropomorphic concepts to the deity. Moreover, ancient Near Eastern iconography provides a number of examples of a goddess suckling an infant, who was often a king.â•›108 It may be that the metaphor of lactation or breastfeeding was too intimate for personal names that were used publicly. It is also possible that many of the personal names discussed here, especially names derived from the root ‫עמס‬, obliquely referred to nursing an infant. A final subgroup consists of 1 name, which most likely referred to the rite of circumcision: ‫ מליהו‬Malyāhû ‘Yhwh has circumcised [the child]’. Although no such name appears in the Hebrew Bible, the fact that it existed at all is astonishing. It is known from 4 epigraphic records to date, 3 of which were clearly imprinted on 2 seals and a bulla, all dated to the 7th century b.c.e. (HAE 13.32, 33, 34), and one less distinct on a broken early-7thcentury bulla (BPHB 404).â•›109 Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 220) proposed an alternative derivation from the presumably Aramaic root ‫ מלל‬mālal ‘to speak’, although such names are rare in the Hebrew Bible. A much easier grammatical interpretation is that the third108. See, for example, Keel 1972: 165; 182 (illustrations 253 and 277a); ANEP 829; Orthmann 1971: plate 15e. 109. The upper register of the imprint is partly broken, so it is not able to be discerned whether the letters ‫מליהו‬, which fill the whole lower register, constitute the complete name; if not, ‫גמליהו‬, ‫דמליהו‬, or ‫ רמליהו‬would be possible.

292

Chapter 5

person-singular perfect element was derived from the root ‫ מול‬môl ‘to circumcise’. This explanation was proposed by Avigad (1989: 10) and thus seems to be established (see Deutsch 1999: 126; Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.278; Deutsch 2003a: 409). Either way, all of the interpretations presume a metaphorical use of this root, as expressed in Deut 30:6, “Yhwh, your god will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Yhwh, your god.” Such an explanation is doubtful, however, for three reasons. First, Deut 30:1– 10 is one of the latest additions to the book of Deuteronomy and did not emerge before the late exilic period;â•›110 thus the text is much more recent than the epigraphic material. Second, this spiritualization of circumcision presupposes that the rite had become very common at the time. However, as far as we know, rites of circumcision did not gain widespread popularity before the period of exile (see Genesis 17). Third, widespread incorporation of such a highly sophisticated theological concept from the Deuteronomistic traditions of official religion into the rites and rituals of family religion seems unlikely. A much more plausible theory is that this personal name was intended to refer simply to the family rite of infant circumcision, in the same was that many other names reflected various family rites such as prayers, vows, sacrifices, and birth oracles. Circumcision as practiced in Israel seems to have been an old apotropaic rite in connection with puberty or with preparation for marriage originally (see Exod 4:25; Gen 34), as is also suggested by Arab and Egyptian practices. By the time the postexilic texts of the Hebrew Bible were collated, the rite had already been transferred to the context of birth. According to P, it was to be performed on all male members of the family eight days after birth (Gen 17:12; 21:4; Lev 12:3).â•›111 This biblical evidence thus suggests that the practice of circumcising infants was adopted as a widespread cultural practice during the period of exile, when the rite served as a mark of Jewish identity in the Diaspora. However, if the explanation given above for the name ‫ מליהו‬holds true, this general thesis needs to be accommodated. The circumcision of infants had already emerged in the late preexilic period but, because the name was evidently relatively rare, it seems likely that only a minority of families performed circumcision rites on infants during the 7th century. I argued aboveâ•›112 that the rite of circumcision performed precisely on the 8th day after birth, by which time a woman’s postnatal period of impurity would have ended, overlapped with the older family feast tradition of name giving. As has now been demonstrated, this transition had probably occurred by the late monarchic period, long before Israel’s national identity and unity began to be challenged. Although no references have been found to explain the purpose of circumcising infants at this early time, the rite probably symbolized the integration of the newborn into the larger family, which had always been the purpose of the feast of name giving. The festival may also have been augmented by adding an apotropaic function, which has been associated ever since with the rite of circumcision. By naming an infant Malyāhû, a family expressed a very literal and genuine belief that Yhwh had performed the rite of circumcision himself, had integrated the 110. For reasons for this moderate dating, see Nelson 2002: 344–50; Albertz 2003: 284. For Person (2002: 106–8, 123–25), the passage belongs to the early or late postexilic period. 111. For more details, see Albertz 1994: 2.407–8. 112. See pp. 247 above.

Personal Names and Family Religion

293

newborn into the family, and had provided him with a divinely bestowed sign to protect him from demonic or malevolent powers. The name would have served to remind all of its bearers that these ritual feasts had occurred on the occasion of their circumcision. Thus, all personal names in this subgroup express aspects of the integration of a child into his/her family and the assurance of his/her continued well-being.

5.2.2.7.╇ Misfortune surrounding a birth The overwhelming majority of personal names testify to the feelings of jubilation and thankfulness following a fortunate birth. Occasionally, however, the normally joyous revelry would have been overshadowed by a misfortune surrounding the birth. Thus a number of names of complaint arise among the Northwest Semitic personal names (see appendix B5.7). Only one name of complaint has been found in Hebrew epigraphic material: ‫ איעם‬ʾAyyaʿam ‘Where is the uncle?’ This name is formally parallel to the well-known biblical name ‫ איוב‬ʾIyyôb, which probably had the meaning ‘Where is the father?’ (Job 1:1). Although both of these names may have referred to a relative’s death during the time of pregnancy and birth, consideration of equivalent names in Ammonite, Moabite, and Aramean cultures renders this interpretation less certain. In Transjordanian societies, the name ‫ אינדב‬is attested 4 times: 3 Ammonite and 1 Moabite. It is usually transcribed ʾAynadab and interpreted as ‘Where is [the] noble [one]?’ (as translated by Aufrecht 1989: 123; and Avigad and Sass 1997: 514). The person declared to be noble by giving him this name could have been either human or divine, and thus this name should not be considered separately from the names that express gratitude to a deity for the munificent gift of a child, as attested 17 times in the Ammonite onomasticon, including the name ‫אלנדב‬ ʾIlnadab ‘El has presented’ (4 known instances). Thus, reference to a deity in the above names seems more plausible than to a relative, which means that it might be preferable to interpret the name ‫ אינדב‬as a present participle verbal form. The transcription of the complaint name would then be ʾAynudeb ‘Where is the [divine] giver?’, thus complaining about the absence of the god who had so recently given the gift of a healthy infant. The Ammonite hypocoristicon ‫ איא‬ʾAyyāʾ, which forms the simple question ‘Where?’ and the existence of the comparable Aramaic complaint name ‫ איעזר‬ʾAyʿezer ‘Where is help?’â•›113 also seem to imply that a theophoric understanding is plausible. Although I am interpreting these complaint names this way, it remains unclear whether the death of an actual relative prompted the distress that the names commemorate. The name ʾAyʿezer in particular could reflect various severe problems, such as the death of the mother during or shortly after birth that left the infant suddenly abandoned. 5.2.2.8.╇ Infant mortality and substitute names The events following birth were not completed with the naming feast, because these two events were followed by a period of nursing that could extend to two or three years (2€Macc 7:27). The weaning of a child that followed this nursing period was again 113. In Aramaic names, it is less likely that the element ‫ אי‬was an intentional allusion to the Babylonian goddess Ayya or that it was an abbreviation for the theophoric element ‫‘ אבי‬my father’ (see Num 26:30 and Josh 17:2; for discussion, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 480–81).

294

Chapter 5

celebrated with an extensive family feast, which in Gen 21:8 was referred to as ‫מׁשתה‬ ‫‘גדול‬a large banquet’. No personal names are known that reflect the rituals that marked weaning, which is hardly surprising because this ritual occurred long after the naming feast. This observation does, however, reinforce the assertion here that personal names did not reflect the full variety of potential ritual and religious statements but generally referred directly to the religious and secular experiences encountered during the circumstances of birth. Weaning could also be accompanied by the payment of any vows that had been promised before, during, or shortly after birth. This would have been especially true when the dedication of the child was the fulfillment of a promissory vow. Thus, after weaning, Hannah brought her son to the priest Eli at the temple of Shiloh (1 Sam 1:22–29). Other vows made on various occasions surrounding birth might have been paid on dates when families customarily visited sanctuaries anyway, such as the required annual festivals (1€Sam€1:21). The apparent scale of the celebrations that marked the weaning of a child may reflect the communal joy when a child passed the age of the greatest risk of infant mortality—a risk that would have been considerably higher than in modern industrial societies. Scholars estimate that more than one-third of all infants died during the first few months or years of life, and as many as half of all children did not survive to adulthood;â•›114 in Isa 65:20, children at this stage of life were referred to as ‫ עול ימים‬ʿûl yāmîm, literally, ‘infant of days’.â•›115 The simple fact that an infant had actually reached childhood, as explicitly stated in Gen 21:8 (‫ גדל‬gādal), was cause for rejoicing and thanksgiving. The mortality of an infant is likely also the intended reference of another name of complaint, the name, ‫ חבלי‬Ḥablî, which is reminiscent of the Akkadian name Ḫabil-kēnu and thus should be rendered ‘[the genuine] is destroyed’ (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.206). In bestowing this name, the parents were creating a reminder of an older brother’s death and indirectly denoting the newborn as a substitute for his deceased sibling (see appendix B5.8). This indirect reference to substituting the living for the dead became a more-direct declaration in the group of substitute names.â•›116 The large number and variety of substitute names reflect the shockingly high rate of infant mortality in preexilic Israelite societies. This group is the second-largest group of birth names, next to creation names, and it comprises one-quarter of all instances. In this group appear no fewer than 20 different names, 114. See C. Meyers 1988: 112–13 with reference to ancient Palestinian burials in Jericho, Lachish, and Meiron; in one tomb group, 35% of individuals had died before the age of five; see J. D. Schloen 2001: 122–25; C. Meyers 2005: 16. For Egypt in Late Antiquity, R. S. Bagnall (1993: 182) calculated that ‘nearly one-third of all children died before their first birthday and more than twofifths by the age of five’. According to E. A. R. Willett (2008: 2), “on average, 35 percent of all individuals died before age 5” in Iron Age Cisâ•‚ and Transjordan. 115. The high rate of mortality, especially during the first month, is also reflected in the priestly regulations concerning the first born in Num 18:15–16. The payment of 20 Shekels for redeeming a child from sacrifice was not demanded before the end of the first month after birth (V. 16), only after which time would it have become clear that a child would have been likely to survive this most dangerous period. 116. The insight that these names constitute their own distinct group was established by Stamm 1980: 59–80.

Personal Names and Family Religion

295

derived from 6 different roots, known from 219 occurrences. The apparent popularity of these names suggests that, confronted with a desire to express experiences related to birth by choosing a name, something like a quarter of all parents felt themselves still so attached to a previously deceased infant that they gave their newborn one of these substitute names. The actual rate of infant mortality should be presumed higher than the 25% rate of substitute names given. Thus, the estimated rate of 30–40% mortality manifests the fact that many parents had probably ceased grieving and no longer felt the need to declare their sorrow in such a public fashion as using a substitute name.â•›117 The first type of substitute name conveyed the sentiment that the birth of the new child had helped the parents to overcome their sorrow for the deceased child. These names could be formulated with explicitly religious references, as in the names ‫נחמיהו‬ Nĕḥemyāhû ‘Yhwh has comforted’ (12 times) or the short form, ‫ נחם‬Naḥam or Naḥum ‘DN has comforted’ (27 times), or in more-secular forms, testifying that the newborn him/herself had directly served to comfort the parents, as in ‫ מנחם‬Mĕnaḥēm ‘comforter’ (29 times), ‫ מנׁשה‬Mĕnaššēh ‘who makes [the parents] forget’ (2 times), and ‫ תנחם‬Tanḥum ‘comfort’ (10 times). These names nevertheless presuppose the new infant to be both created by and a gift from god. Both of these sorts of substitute name have also been found in surrounding cultures, with the name Mĕnaḥēm, for example, appearing 15 times in the Ammonite onomasticon, 6 times in the Phoenician, and 4 times in the Aramaic. The second type of substitute name conveyed a belief on the part of the parents that the newborn represented their deceased child returned to them, as in ‫ אליׁשב‬ʾElyāšīb ‘El caused [the deceased child] to return’, which is known so far from 14 epigraphic records (and appears 8 times in the Hebrew Bible). Although, as mentioned above, Noth (1928: 213) postulated that this name was related to the return from exile,â•›118 it has since become clear that the name was in common use up til the 8th century b.c.e., thereby refuting this explanation. Strikingly, however, there appear to have been no parallels to these substitute names used by Israel’s neighbors. The third type of substitute name appears to have been much more common (120 times) and expresses the parental belief that, rather than the new child’s being their deceased child returned to them, the newborn was given as a replacement for the deceased. Among these names, there is only one that conveys an explicitly religious sentiment, the name ‫ ׁשלמיהו‬Šellemyāhû ‘Yhwh has replaced’, which has been found in 11 epigraphic records and appears 8 times in the Hebrew Bible. Most Hebrew names in this group denote the substitute status of the newborn in a more secular way, as in ‫ ׁשלם‬Šallum (58 instances), ‫ מׁשלם‬Mĕšullam (37 times), and ‫ תחת‬Taḥat (appears once), meaning ‘substitute [for the deceased child]’. Similar sentiments are expressed in the name ‫סלא‬, which, interpreted in accordance with Num 25:14 as the passive participle Sālūʾ, means ‘[the deceased child has been] replaced’. Suffixes occasionally served to relate the newborn to the deceased child as a substitute, as illustrated by the name ‫ׁשלמה‬. This name was used for both females (HAE 21.51) and males (21.52) and thus would have had the two variants 117. The rate as estimated from names in the Hebrew Bible is lower: 86 appearances, representing 19.7% of the birth names. 118. See p. 267 above.

296

Chapter 5

Šallumāh ‘her substitute’ and Šallumōh ‘his substitute’. The latter version is formally identical to the name of King Solomon. Several other explicitly female names, such as ‫ׁשלמת‬ Šĕlōmīt, ‫ מׁשלמת‬Mĕšullēmīt, and ‫ סלאה‬Sĕlūʾāh ‘[female] substitute or replaced’ verify that ideas of substitution were considered in relation to infant girls and demonstrate that Israelite families commonly mourned the loss of daughters and desired their replacement or substitute. An additional female substitute name has been found in the small Edomite onomasticon: ‫ מנחמת‬Mĕnaḥemet ‘[female] comforter’. In the Phoenician, Aramean, and Ammonite cultures, there were also several names derived from ‫ ׁשלם‬Piel ‘to make complete, to substitute’ as well as a number from the root ‫‘ סלא‬to pay, to refund’. In these cases, the distribution of names between their theophoric and secular variants seems to have been more equitable than in Israel. For the more-frequent names derived from the root ‫ׁשלם‬, the ratio of secular to theophoric forms is approximately 10:1 for Hebrew names, 3:2 for Phoenician, and 1:1 for Aramaic. A typical theophoric example from the Phoenician onomasticon is ‫ בעלׁשלם‬Baʿalšillem ‘Baal has replaced’, which occurs 4 times. These substitute names effectively convey the ways that Israelite families handled crises of infant mortality. We know from the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 12:15–25; 2 Kgs 4:18–24; Isa 65:20) that infant mortality was a heavy burden for families, especially for women who were confronted with the ultimate futility of their pain and labor (Isa 65:23). However, the high rates of infant death and the incalculable sorrow of grieving mothers and their families did not fundamentally alter their belief that god was the magnificent creator of all and the generous provider of children, and it was he who desired and was capable of ensuring their survival. In exceptional situations, god was capable of rescuing a child from death through the intervention or intercession of a “man of God” (1 Kgs 17:17–24; 2€Kgs 4:32–37). In most cases, god comforted the mourning parents simply by presenting them with their new child as the replacement for the deceased. This symbolic overcoming of the moments of crisis presupposes particular conceptions of family, with children seen primarily as members of the larger social group and only secondarily as individuals in their own right. The role of latter-born children as substitutes or replacements for their deceased older brothers or sisters was apparently not considered degrading but honorable. According to the concept of substitution, families included their dead members along with the living members. The name ʾElyāšīb arises as a direct reflection of the lack of distinction between the living and deceased members of a family: god may grant the return of a deceased infant in the form of a younger brother or sister.â•›119 Finally, the concept of substitution reveals that Israelite family religion was directed more at the continued existence of the family group than at the survival of its individual members. The notion of substitution or replacement was, however, much less explicitly religious than it was secular; with the ratio of religious to secular substitution names was 1:4. This is an indication that theological problems about infant mortality—which must have included the eternal questions about how god could allow the death of one of his own new creations—could not be resolved on the level of family religion.

119. The relation of the family to its deceased members is dealt with below; see pp. 455–469.

Personal Names and Family Religion

297

In summary, epigraphically attested personal names refer in extensive detail to almost all aspects of the birth process and reflect their own religious dimension as well. They verify that childbirth was extraordinarily significant in ancient Israel. Conception, pregnancy, and confinement were strongly influenced by mythological concepts regarding the creation of humankind, which will be shown below to be at the center of all familial belief. The whole birth cycle was accompanied by various rites such as prayers, vows, offerings of libations and incense, birth oracles performed to overcome difficulties, birth rites performed by midwives, purification rites, naming feasts, associated circumcision feasts, weaning feasts, and the payment of vows by sacrifices. However, these rites and rituals marking the significant events surrounding birth were limited to family and household religion and were of little direct relevance to state religion. There were three possible times when families might have been aided by religious officials such as priests or “men of God.” When difficulties arose, birth oracles were consulted; when vows were made, they were paid in a sacrifice aided by a priest; and when an infant was in mortal danger, a man of God could be consulted. Only at these specific times did the rites and rituals extend beyond the practices of the immediate family to overlap with official religion; in all other cases, rites accompanying birth were performed in or near the domestic environment. Vital medical and ritual support for families during a birth was provided by midwives, who had no official cult function whatsoever. The only aspect of birth that would in any way have concerned a priest directly was the impure state of postpartal women (Leviticus 12), yet birth was such a defining event on all social and religious levels that Genesis 12–36 presents Israel’s prehistory in the narrative framework of a miraculous birth oracle. Nevertheless, the primary religious and ritual venue for birth was the family. Conversely, no other event in the life of a family combined so many varied religious and ritual aspects. And records of the personal names provide an enduring testament to the religion of the family. As stated above, nearly one-third of all recorded personal names and instances (28.4% and 29.9%, respectively) refer directly to secular and religious experiences before, during, and after the processes surrounding childbirth. These data are also significant in evaluating the relative status of males and females and their roles in family religion. Scholars have noted that women assumed much more prominent roles in the family and in household religion than they did in Israel’s official cult (see Bird 1987: 408–10; Ackerman 2003: 461–65; Meyers 2005: 13–17; and others), and van der Toorn stated (1994: 92) that: If we review the multitude of religious customs and duties that were connected to pregnancy and parturition, we cannot help but think that these experiences formed the high point of the religious life of the average woman. . . . It was a climax in her religious life. The kindness of the gods was tangibly present in the fruit of the womb. If all pain and tension [were] brought to a good conclusion the woman could say that she had bodily experienced the gracious concern of the gods.

Although Dever (1991: 64; with a slight retraction in 2005: 236–37) may have overÂ� emphasized the role of women in identifying what he referred to as “folk religion” directly with “women’s religion,” it is nevertheless clear that the female members of families, particularly the mothers, contributed enormously to the specific beliefs and characteristics of family religion.

298

Chapter 5

5.2.3.╇ Familial beliefs relating to other experiences of crisis Although all Hebrew theophoric names are always related to childbirth in some way, they are not necessarily restricted to referring to this particular experience. In bestowing a child’s name after surviving the perils of birth, parents might acknowledge memories of divine salvation or protection that was granted to them or other members of their family on previous occasions and thereby express their gratitude more generally. Religious beliefs and experiences of family members related to crises were expressed in prayer names, which account for half of all Hebrew theophoric names (49% of names and 53.5% of instances; see table 5.2) and can be divided into three main groups, the largest of which was the names of thanksgiving (24.3% of names and 34% of instances), followed by the names of confession (17.6% of names and 14.9% of instances), and the names of praise (7.1% of names and 4.6% of instances).

5.2.3.1.╇ Familial beliefs as represented by names of thanksgiving Epigraphic records attest 164 names of thanksgiving to date, which is evidence of an astonishingly rich treasury of familial beliefs. All of these names allude to divine acts of salvation, assistance, or protection as experienced by members of a family, with a large diversity of emphases. No less than 58 different verbs are used in the epigraphic names (11 more than are found in the entire Hebrew Bible),â•›120 and only 6 of the verbs found in biblical names have not yet been found in epigraphic names.â•›121 Thus a total of 64 different roots are used in the names of thanksgiving found so far. Of the 58 epigraphically attested verbs, 39 also appear in the individual psalms and in oracles of salvation; they are particularly frequent in the petitions for attention and salvation in the individual laments, in the reports of god’s attention and salvation in the individual psalms of thanksgiving, and in the reason clause accompanying the command “Do not fear!” in the oracles of salvation, where the verbs appear in the perfect. These biblical texts use more than two-thirds of all verbal roots known from all names in the epigraphic record that express thanksgiving, which is an even greater percentage (67%) than I previously estimated.â•›122 With the inclusion of the psalms gattungen that portray some connection to the experience of individual prayers, the number of biblical verbs increases to 48, or 83% of all verbs used in epigraphic names.â•›123 Thus, epigraphic names of thanksgiving reveal a strong interconnection with the individual prayer psalms. Although 120. The 11 additional verbs are: ‫ אמן‬ʾāman ‘to remain faithful’; ‫ בוא‬bôʾ ‘to come to’; ‫ בחן‬bāḥan ‘to test’; ‫ בין‬bîn ‘to notice’; ‫ חמד‬ḥāmad ‘to take a fancy’; ‫ נהל‬nāhal ‘to guide’; ‫ סעד‬sāʿad ‘to support’; ‫ עוׁש‬ʿûš ‘to come to help’; ‫ פקד‬pāqad ‘to pay attention’; ‫ קרב‬qārab ‘to come close to’; and probably the Akkadian verb saḫāru N ‘to turn to’. 121. These are: ‫ הדה‬hādāh ‘to guide’; ‫ חמה‬ḥāmāh ‘to shelter’; ‫ יׁשב‬Hiphil hōšīb ‘to let dwell safely’; ‫ יׁשר‬yāšar ‘to be just’; ‫ נבט‬nābaṭ ‘to look at’; and the Amurrite verb ʿāqab ‘to protect’, the meaning of cannot be inferred from the Hebrew Bible itself. It must not be by chance that the name Jacob does not appear among the epigraphic names. 122. See Albertz 1978a: 49–50, where I mentioned a proportion over 50%, and this calculation included the less-common names of confession. 123. Including the six additional biblical roots in the calculation alters the rates of correspondence to 65.6% and 82.8%.

Personal Names and Family Religion

299

the prayers that were actually spoken by family members in their domestic cult activities may have been modified in both form and use to meet the ritual demands of prayers used by religious experts as cult formulas, and although cult formulas of this sort may have been originated later than the family prayers from which they were derived, these psalms nevertheless reveal a variety of beliefs and practices characteristic of family religion. Individual laments derived from two distinct kinds of petition: petitions for attention and petitions for salvation. Accordingly, the thanksgiving names can be subÂ�divided into the two categories of “divine attention” and “divine intervention” and the latter group further subdivided into names about “divine salvation,” “divine assistance,” and “divine protection.” The following analysis draws on these four categories of religious belief.â•›124 5.2.3.1.1.╇ Reference to divine attention in names of thanksgiving The yearning for divine attention to rectify or alleviate difficult situations was of utmost sincerity (see appendix B1.1) and necessitated the utterance of complaints to God or, to address more severe cases, the utterance of lamentations or the performance of intercessory rituals. However, one could never be assured of god’s attention, and therefore names of thanksgiving commonly reflect the first grateful experience of God’s response to the prayers and rites of a sufferer or his/her family. The most frequent expression of these names is that God has heard the complaints addressed to him (see appendix B1.1.1), and the names ‫ אלׁשמע‬ʾElīšāmāʿ (37 instances), ‫ ׁשמעיהו‬Šĕmaʿyāhû (also 37 times), and ‫ יׁשמעאל‬Yišmaʿʾēl (33 times)—meaning ‘My god, Yhwh, or El has heard’—belong to the most frequent epigraphic names of all. The root ‫ ׁשמע‬šāmaʿ forms the basis of 9 different names recorded in 133 instances (and is used in 12 biblical names mentioned in 55 instances). This concept of divine attention is also common in nearly all Levantine cultures, being absent only in the Moabite. Divine attention is less frequently alluded to by names based on the verb ‫ אזן‬ʾāzan ‘to hear’ (Hiphil), with only 8 of these names known from 22 references. In the Psalms, this concept is expressed, for example, in Ps 30:11 (individual thanksgiving) and 143:1 (individual lament). These complaints represent the specific beliefs of individuals, because neither of these types of verb appears in the collective laments of the Hebrew Bible. It is much less common for epigraphic Hebrew names to express the analogous concept of God’s having seen the distress of the sufferer (see appendix B1.1.2). There are only two known names derived from the root ‫ חזה‬ḥāzāh and ‫ ראה‬rāʾāh ‘to look, to see’. They are ‫ יחזיהו‬Yaḥzēyāhû ‘Yhwh has seen [my distress]’ and ‫ יראיהו‬Yĕrīʾyāhû ‘Yhwh has seen [my distress]’, each of which appears 4 times. However, both the neighboring cultures and the Hebrew Bible provided further examples. The biblical onomasticon records a third root, ‫ נבט‬nābaṭ ‘to look at’, which has not been found so far in epigraphic material. The general absence of this verbal root in personal names probably reflects a conception of the deity’s focus as being more on collective or national identities than on individuals. Verbs of seeing frequently appear in 124. In contrast to my former treatment of the biblical material (Albertz 1978a: 61–65), I now include in the birth names 6 of the roots mentioned before among the names of thanksgiving; see p. 256 n. 29 above.

300

Chapter 5

the collective laments,â•›125 but there are only a few appearances in individual prayers (for example, Ps 13:4; 17:2; 31:8; 59:5; 119:153). Aside from direct sensory perception, divine attention could be felt in a general intellectual or emotional sense (see appendix B1.1.3), for which the deity signified as remembering a sufferer was most common, whether the deity was the personal god, Yhwh (in ‫ אלזכר‬ʾElīzākār and ‫ זכריהו‬Zĕkaryāhû) or Baal (in ‫ בעלזכר‬Baʿalzākār). There are 5 known names that were derived from the root ‫ זכר‬zākar ‘to remember’, which appears in 38 epigraphic records and is mentioned 35 times in the Bible. These names presuppose god’s personal acquaintance with the sufferer, which presumably reflected the deity’s original creation of the person. This divine awareness of one’s existence could not be taken for granted, however, because it was occasionally possible for god to forget or appear to neglect one’s existence (Ps 13:2; 42:11), in which case a complaint could serve to remind god of one’s existence. Receipt of God’s benevolent attention is expressed in the name ‫פקדיהו‬ Pĕqadyāhû ‘Yhwh has carefully paid attention’, which does not appear in the Bible but appears in two epigraphic records. In Ps 8:5, the two verbs zākar and pāqad appear alongside one another, expressing the rapturous experience of the almighty god and creator of the world actively and directly caring for insignificant mortals. This psalm represents a hymnic generalization with semantic elements that had their origins in practices and beliefs of family piety. There are also names derived from the root ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ ‘to know’ (expressed in 5 names, with 28 instances), which expressed not only divine intellectual activity but also emotional knowledge. As emphasized by Noth (1928: 181), this root could denote the kind of entirely pragmatic “knowledge” that comes from extensive, intimate dealings with a particular person or practice.â•›126 Thus the name ‫ ידעיהו‬Yĕdaʿyāhû may be accurately rendered ‘Yhwh has taken care [of me]’. A similar meaning may be supposed for the root ‫ בין‬bīn ‘to understand’. Thus, the name ‫ אחבן‬ʾAḥbān, which has been found only once epigraphically, probably had the intended meaning of ‘the [divine] brother has noticed [me]’. This verb is also used in one individual lament in relation to a sufferer’s sighs (Ps 5:2). Concepts of this sort about the deity’s remembering and caring for his lamenting creatures during their sorrow were also common in names found in the neighboring Ammonite, Aramaic, and Phoenician cultures. There are also names that emphasize emotional responses to the granting of divine mercy to a sufferer (see appendix B1.1.4), the largest group of which comprises names derived from the root ‫ חנן‬ḥānan ‘to be gracious’. There are no less than 10 of these names, known from 55 different epigraphic occurrences (and 10 in the Hebrew Bible, with 49 occurrences), such as ‫ אלחנן‬ʾElḥānān ‘El was gracious’ and ‫ חנניהו‬Ḥananyāhû ‘Yhwh was gracious’. These names express typical individual experiences, in that ‫ חן‬ḥēn denotes a mark of favor bestowed by a person in higher position or status on someone lower in status, a distinctly noteworthy act that would naturally have been restricted to very few in125. See Ps 74:20; 80:15; Isa 63:15; 64:8; Lam 5:1; see also Lam 1:9, 11; 2:20. 126. J. D. Fowler (1988: 101–2) has questioned Noth’s insight because, according to her, this nuance of meaning cannot be read into the Hebrew Bible. However, Noth was referring to verses such as Exod 33:12; Isa 63:16; and Amos 3:2.

Personal Names and Family Religion

301

dividuals. Thus, the verb appears frequently in the Hebrew Bible in the individual prayersâ•›127 but is absent in the collective laments and hymns. Names derived from more-emotive roots, such as ‫ רחם‬rāḥam, as in ‫ ירחמאל‬Yĕraḥmĕʾēl ‘El has shown mercy to [me]’, appear much less frequently (recorded in 4 instances of 3 different names). The same holds for the root ‫ ידד‬yādad ‘to love’, from which the hypocoristicon ‫ ידו‬Yiddû (?) is probably derived (4 appearances of 1 name). These names thus reveal that, although divine attention and affection were directed toward individuals, the prevailing perception was of distance separating god and man, and occasions on which god acted to broach this distance were worthy of being memorialized by the giving of such names. In addition to the names about the occasional turning of god’s attention toward a sufferer, a few epigraphic names emphasize the faithfulness of god’s attention on the sufferer, such as ‫ חסדיהו‬Ḥăsadyāhû ‘Yhwh has shown loyalty [to me]’ (5 instances of 3 names) and ‫ יואמן‬Yauʾāmān ‘Yhwh has remained faithful [to me]’. Neither of these names is found in the Hebrew Bible, and they probably do not represent hymnic praise but only refer to god’s direct acts of care (see Ps 18:26). The same seems to hold true of the only known Hebrew name (Arad[8].55:1) that expresses divine fancy turned on a sufferer: ‫ חמדא‬Ḥemdāʾ ‘[DN] has taken a fancy [to me]’. This name can be compared with the Phoenician name ‫חפצבעל‬ Ḥapoṣbaʿal ‘Baal has taken a fancy [to me]’ and the Aramaic name ‫ יבחראל‬Yibḥarʾēl ‘El has chosen’, all of which testify to the special affection of the deity granted to a sufferer, who was thus honored above others. The intention of these names would have been similar to what was intended by use of the root ‫ ;חנן‬however they would not have been intended as expressing theological concepts of divine election, let alone the Deuteronomic concept of the election of Israel.â•›128 Names in one small subgroup that refer to divine attention express notions of movement toward a sufferer (see appendix B1.1.5). The most common of these are derived from the root ‫ קום‬qûm Qal (5 names, 41 occurrences), including ‫ אחיקם‬ʾAḥîqām ‘my [divine] brother has arisen’ and ‫ יהוקם‬Yĕhôqām ‘Yhwh has arisen’, meaning the deity had risen from his seat or throne—regardless of whether this was a heavenly or earthly throne—to move toward the sufferer (see Ps 3:8). In spite of the potentially bellicose imagery of Ps 35:2, there is no necessary connection between this rising of Yhwh and his being a deity of war (Num 10:35), as was suggested by Noth (1928: 176), especially because names of this sort were also used by Israel’s neighbors. It was also possible in variants of this name in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons to replace references to the deity himself with expressions of divine aid that was impending (‫)עזר‬, as in the name ‫עזריקם‬ ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine] help has arisen’. Similar intentions were also likely in expressions in which the divine light (‫ )אור‬was drawing close to a sufferer, as in ‫ קרבאור‬Qĕrabʾûr ‘the [divine] light has come close [to me]’, a name found in 2 variants used in 5 instances (see Ps 69:19). God’s coming to a sufferer in his/her need also appears to have been attested in the rare names ‫ אלבא‬ʾElībāʾ ‘[my] god has come [to me]’ and ‫ קדם‬Qiddem (?) ‘[DN] has come toward [me]’. We also know of 2 names (each appears once) that express the deity’s volition in directing his attention toward a sufferer: ‫ פנאל‬Pĕnīʾēl ‘El has turned to 127. Ps 4:2; 6:3; 9:14; 25:16; 27:7; 30:11; 31:10; 41:5, 11; 56:2; 57:2 (twice); 59:6; 86:16; 119:132. 128. See above, pp. 263–264.

302

Chapter 5

face [me]’ (see Ps 86:16); and ‫ יהוסחר‬Yĕhôsaḥar, which Röllig and Renz (HAE 1.158 n. 1) presumed to be derived from the Akkadian root saḥāru in the N-stem and thus to mean ‘Yhwh has turned [to me]’. This concept is also found in the Phoenician onomasticon: ‫ ביתלפן‬Bayt[ʾ]elpano ‘Bethel has turned to face [me]’. In addition to the above name stating that divine light was drawing nigh, there were other names that mentioned various aspects of divine illumination or radiance (see appendix B1.1.6). In the darkness of sorrow (see Ps 18:29), god might manifest his radiant presence above a sufferer, prompting the names ‫ אליאר‬ʾElyāʾīr ‘El has shone [above me]’, ‫ יהוזרח‬Yĕhôzārāḥ ‘Yhwh has risen gloriously [above me]’, and ‫ בלגי‬Bilgay ‘[DN] has illuminated’. The subgroup formed from these names is rather small and consists of only 4 different names recorded a total of 18 times. As already discussed,â•›129 these names do not refer to an epiphany of the deity, as in collective laments (see Ps 80:2), but to the more peaceful concept of divine salvation in the morning (Janowski 1989: 1–18). Thus, with the possible exception of the last subgroup, names of divine attention encompass the entire range of possible sensory, cognitive, emotional, and physical experiences that a person in need might desire or receive from an individual deemed to be sufficiently important or capable of granting aid. The anthropomorphic traits of god can then be seen as direct extensions of the typical behaviors that mothers and fathers might show toward their children or kings might show toward their subjects. Similarly extensive qualities of god appear in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors, which attest more than half of the roots used in Hebrew names with regard to divine attention (12 of 23) and which can be categorized into every subgroup described here for Hebrew names. 5.2.3.1.2.╇ Divine salvation in names of thanksgiving In most cases, petitions for divine attention naturally sought for god to intervene by granting salvation, assistance, or protection. The largest group alluding to the intervention of god comprises names that testify to divine salvation, of which there are 50 known names derived from 16 different roots (see appendix B1.2). There is only 1 root that does not appear in the Bible but appears in epigraphic records (‫ בחן‬bāḥan ‘to test’; BPHB 99), and conversely, 1 root that appears in the Hebrew Bible but has not yet been found in the epigraphic material (‫ יׁשר‬yāšar ‘to be just’). The first subgroup of names expresses God’s salvation directly or the fact that he ransomed a sufferer (see appendix B1.2.1). The most frequent names in this group are derived from the root ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ and appear equally in the Qal and the Hiphil. Of these, the name ‫ אליׁשע‬ʾElîšaʿ ‘[my] god has saved [me]’ is known from 8 epigraphic appearances (and also occurs 8 times in the Ammonite onomasticon), ‫ יׁשעיהו‬Yĕšaʿyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’ from 22 instances, and ‫ הוׁשעיהו‬Haušaʿyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’ , 39 instances. There are a total of 9 of these names known from 103 recorded instances. Four names that occur a total of 38 times are derived from the root ‫ פלט‬pālaṭ, which denotes a person’s escape from danger or catastrophe, including, ‫ פלטיהו‬Pĕlaṭyāhû ‘Yhwh has saved’. Furthermore, 2 names that appear in 35 records are derived from the root ‫ חלץ‬I ḥālaṣ, which emphasizes a person’s having been snatched from need—for example, ‫ חלציהו‬Ḥeleṣyāhû ‘Yhwh has delivered’. 129. See above, p. 267.

Personal Names and Family Religion

303

All 3 of these roots are used in the individual laments of the Hebrew Bible (Ps 3:8; 31:2; 6:5), and all are appear in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors as well. There are also many Aramaic names derived from the root ‫ מתע‬mataʿ ‘to save’ (NTA 107) and 1 Phoenician name derived from the root ‫ ׁשלך‬šillek Piel ‘to save’. The custom of impoverished people being enslaved by their creditors and obligatorily ransomed by their closest relatives (compare Exod 21:8; Lev 19:20; 25:48–49; Ruth 3:13) is mentioned in 7 names. The two names ‫ גאליהו‬Gĕʾalyāhû (recorded 8 times) and ‫פדיהו‬ Pĕdāyāhû (21 times) share the same meaning, that ‘Yhwh has ransomed’. Thus, Yhwh himself metaphorically assumes the liberating duty (compare Ps 69:19; 26:11). Names from these roots appear in epigraphic material from the 8th century b.c.e. on, and it therefore seems that individual theological expressions of this concept preceded the collective use later introduced in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:8; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18) in the 7th century and in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:1; 44:22–23; 48:20; 52:9) in the 6th century. Thus, a familial custom once again transformed into a religious belief that subsequently influenced Israel’s official religion. The root ‫ פדה‬also appears in the Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite onomasticons, although names derived from the root ‫ גאל‬do not. The name ‫ ירחב‬Yarḥib (?), which can be interpreted as a hypocoristicon with the meaning ‘[DN] has widened [my restriction]’, expresses more-general concepts of divine liberation (compare Ps 4:2). The theophoric name ‫ רחביהו‬Rĕḥabyāhû ‘Yhwh has widened [my restriction]’ is found in the Hebrew Bible,â•›130 as is the name of King Rehoboam, ‫רחבעם‬, which can be rendered ‘[my divine] uncle has widened [my prior restriction]’.â•›131 A second subgroup contains names that conceptualize divine salvation as God’s provision of justice for a sufferer (see appendix B1.2.2). These concepts derived from local judicial traditions that hardships suffered by an individual should be treated as though they were unjust legal actions taken by human or demonic adversaries. This subgroup comprises 10 names, derived from 6 different roots. The most common derive from the root ‫ ׁשפט‬šāpaṭ and include ‫ ׁשפטיהו‬Šĕpaṭyāhû ‘Yhwh has given [me] justice’ (cf. Ps 43:1); the hypocoristicon of this root also appears in the Phoenician onomasticon. The root ‫צדק‬ ṣādaq is epigraphically represented only in the hypocoristicon Ṣādōq ‘[DN] was just’ (4 instances), although the theophoric form appears in the Hebrew Bible (‫ יהוצדק‬Yĕhôṣādāq) as well as the Moabite onomasticon (‫ כמׁשצדק‬Kamōšṣādāq). From the similar root ‫ דין‬dîn ‘to judge’, the name ‫ ידניהו‬Yĕdīnyahû ‘Yhwh has given justice’ is derived, which is known from 2 epigraphic instances. However, there are 4 names derived from this root that occur 7 times in the Hebrew Bible, and such names also appear in the Ammonite, Moabite, and Aramaic onomasticons. Names derived from the verb ‫ ריב‬rîb ‘to conduct a legal case’ are similarly distributed, with 1 epigraphic attestation of the name ‫ אלירב‬ʾElyārīb ‘El has given justice’ (Lak[7/6].27:1), but 6 records of 4 different names in the Hebrew Bible. The name ‫ יהוירב‬Yĕhôyārīb has even been found on seals written in Aramaic script. These latter 2 roots also represent verbs used in the individual laments (Ps 54:3; 35:1). 130. See 1 Chr 23:17. Although Ges18 1234 suggests a possible reference to the mother’s womb, the verb is intended in a more general sense in Ps 4:2. 131. In correction of Noth’s (1928: 193 n. 4) suggestion, “Das Volk hat sich ausgeweitet, hat sich ausgebreitet.”

304

Chapter 5

There are a few names containing the verbs ‫ פלל‬pālal and ‫ פלה‬pālāh, which explicitly refer to an arbitrator’s having made a just decision. The name ‫ מיפלל‬Mîpillel ‘Who has given justice?’ forms a prayer expressing astonishment at the success of the divine arbitrator’s actions. The name could be considered as much a name of thanksgiving as a name of praise; however, it should not be separated from the thanksgiving name ‫ פליה‬Pĕlayāh, which means ‘Yhwh has made a just decision’. The final name in this group, ‫ בחנא‬Băḥanāʾ ‘[DN] has tested [me]’, explicitly refers to legal proceedings in which an individual had been falsely charged. In choosing this name, the sufferer desired to express gratitude to an unnamed deity who had tested him and thereby proven him innocent. This is a unique name; although the verb appears in the laments of the innocent (in Ps 26:2), the name derived from it must have been rare because no parallels have been found to date. The third subgroup comprises names that express more-general concepts of divine salvation, such as that God has acted miraculously toward a sufferer (see appendix B1.2.3). This idea is most directly stated in the name ‫ פלאיהו‬Pĕlāʾyāhû ‘Yhwh has acted wonderfully’, which is known from a single epigraphic record. The Hebrew Bible contains 2 names derived from this root, each of which is recorded twice. The only personal names in this subgroup that appear more frequently are those derived from the root ‫ גדל‬gādal ‘to be great’, such as ‫ גדליהו‬Gĕdalyāhû, which has been found in 20 epigraphic records and appears 3 times in the Hebrew Bible. A total of 5 names are derived from this root, attested in 27 instances. As discussed previously, in accordance with Noth (1928: 190), names derived from this root should be understood in a resultative sense, in that it is through his saving act that ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be great’.â•›132 These interpretations are supported by similar statements that primarily appear in the individual laments (Ps 35:27; 40:17; 70:5), where direct experience with god’s saving acts is intended. Noth (1928: 191) also proposed that the rare name ‫ עתיהו‬should be understood in this context. Derived from the Arabic root ʿatā ‘to be beyond measure’, this name should be read ʿAtāyāhû and understood as a statement that ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be outstanding’. This interpretation remains uncertain, however, and by analogy with the name ‫ עותי‬ʿÛtay in the Hebrew Bible, Zadok (1988: 30, 32) proposed a derivation from an uncertain Aramaic root, ‫‘ עות‬to help’, which would correspond to the Hebrew root ‫עוׁש‬. Presuming this derivation to be accurate, the name should be included as a name of divine assistance. It is remarkable that this subgroup that is so closely allied with the names of praise is so small. It seems that concrete descriptions of god’s saving acts were favored much more than general statements, not only in Israelite family religion, but also in the family religions of the greater Northwest Semitic region. 5.2.3.1.3.╇ Divine assistance in names of thanksgiving If we compile names that express notions of divine assistance, a group appears that is almost as large as the group with names of divine salvation. There are 43 known names that allude to divine assistance and are derived from 15 different roots (see appendix B1.1.3). Only 2 roots are known only from epigraphic material: ‫ סעד‬sāʿad ‘to support’ and ‫נהל‬ nāhal Piel ‘to guide’. The Hebrew Bible also reveals a name that means ‘to guide’, but it is 132. See above, p. 255; contra Rechenmacher (1997: 62–67), who preferred a stative meaning.

Personal Names and Family Religion

305

derived from the root ‫ הדה‬hādāh. The prevalence of names in this group illustrates the significance of the concept of divine assistance in family religion and, as will be shown later, the significance of divine protection as well. Most verbs that appear in the names of this group relate specifically to individual actions or experiences rather than to the experiences of collective social units or entire peoples (Albertz 1978a: 66–67). One primary function of collective societies is the diffusion of risk, and danger or threat is generally experienced by individuals more often than by larger social groups. Thus, individuals were more likely to feel an immediate need for divine support and protection, and this need reflected the relative frailty of the individual with respect to the larger society. Accordingly, a significant function for family religion was to express a desire for divine support and protection. The first subgroup of names reflecting these desires acknowledges in various ways that God has supported the sufferer (see appendix B1.3.1). The most common names are derived from the root ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’ (87 attestations of 6 different names). The name ‫ עזריהו‬ʿAzaryāhû ‘Yhwh has helped [me]’ and its shortened form, ‫ עזר‬ʿAzzūr or ʿEzer ‘[DN] has helped [me]’, are known from 44 and 35 epigraphic records, respectively (biblically, including variant spellings, 25 and 9 times, respectively). Although the verb ‫ עזר‬appears 3 times in the collective laments (Ps 44:27; 60:13; 79:9), it appears a total of 27 times in the individual laments, thanksgiving psalms, and oracles of salvation.â•›133 Names derived from this root were also popular among all of Israel’s neighbors, as exemplified by the Ammonite name ‫ אלעזר‬ʾIlʿazar ‘El has helped [me]’ (8 instances) and the Phoenician name ‫ אׁשמנעזר‬ʾEšmunʿazor ‘Eshmun has helped [me]’ (9 instances). There is one known appearance of the hypocoristicon ‫ יעׁש‬Yēʿūš ‘[DN] has come to help’ (Sam[8].1.48:3), which also appears 4 times in the Hebrew Bible and once as a king’s name ‫ יועׁש‬Yôʿāš (Joas) ‘Yhwh has come to help’. Names derived from the root ‫ סמך‬sāmak ‘to support’ appear only 3 times in the Hebrew Bible, but epigraphic sources have revealed them to be the second-largest subgroup in this category, consisting of 56 appearances of 6 different names, such as ‫ אלסמך‬ʾElsāmāk ‘El has supported [me]’ and ‫ סמכיהו‬Sĕmakyāhû (or the Northern variant ‫ סמכיו‬Sĕmakyau) ‘Yhwh has supported [me]’. Names from this root are also well attested in the surrounding cultures. The verb ‫ סמך‬occurs several times in the individual laments (Ps 3:6; 51:14; 54:6; see also 71:6; 119:116) but not in their collective counterparts. To be supported by god was typically experienced by an individual and expressed in a name derived from the verb ‫ סעד‬sāʿad ‘to support’. These names are known from between 9 and 13 appearances of 6 variants.â•›134 As above, the names ‫ סעדיהו‬Săʿadyāhû and its Northern variant ‫סעדיו‬ Săʿadyau have parallels in the individual laments and thanksgiving psalms (Ps 18:36; 41:4; 94:18; see also 119:117) but are absent in the collective complaints. Names derived from the root ‫ אחז‬ʾāḥaz ‘to hold [someone] tight’ were even more explicitly focused on an experience by an individual and were extensions of images of god holding the hands of sufferers, as expressed exclusively in the individual laments (Ps 73:23; 133. Ps 22:20; 27:9; 28:7; 30:11; 35:2; 38:23; 40:14, 18; 54:6; 63:8; 70:2, 6; 86:17; 94:17; 109:26; 118:7, 13; 119:86, 173; cf. 121:1, 2; Isa 41:10, 13, 14; 44:2; 50:7; cf. 49:8. 134. The number depends on whether one feels obliged to derive 4 of the instances from the root ‫ סער‬sāʿar ‘to storm’; see above, p. 267.

306

Chapter 5

139:10).â•›135 There are 15 known epigraphic records with 4 names of this sort (and 10 biblical instances of 5 names), including ‫ יהואחז‬Yĕhôʾāḥāz and ‫ אחזיהו‬ʾAḥazyāhû, both meaning ‘Yhwh has held [me] tight’. There is also a related Aramaic name, ‫ נבלאחז‬Nabalʾaḥaz ‘the noble one has held tight’. These names of assistance thus reveal the sorts of intimate relationship with god that were typical of Israelite and Levantine family religious practices and beliefs. The second subgroup of assistance names consists of names expressing the fact that god has proven his strength through assistance (see appendix B1.3.2). These rather rare names are derived from a variety of roots and include ‫ חזק‬Ḥāzāq (appears twice), ‫אמץ‬ ʾAmōṣ (also twice), and ‫ ילא‬Yilāʾ (appears once),â•›136 all of which share the meaning ‘[DN] has proven himself to be strong’. Purely theophoric forms derived from 3 roots have been found. There is one probable epigraphic reference to the name, ‫ עזזיהו‬ʿAzazyāhû ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be strong’. This name is analogous to names such as ‫גבריהו‬ Gĕbaryāhû ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be superior’ (attested twice) and ‫ יהוכל‬Yĕhôkal ‘Yhwh has proven himself to be mighty’ (ten times). All of these roots find parallels in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighboring cultures. The use of these roots in Isa 41:9, plus ‫עמץ‬ in Isa 41:10 and ‫ עזז‬in Ps 86:16 further suggest a possible translation of them in the transitive sense, meaning that the deity has strengthened a sufferer (Albertz 1978a: 65). However, because there are other roots in this subgroup that clearly have intransitive meanings (namely, ‫לאה‬, ‫גבר‬, ‫ )יכל‬and thus can be understood in a resultative sense,â•›137 this potential duality of interpretation may perhaps be conceived best this way: any experience of being strengthened by god’s assistance simultaneously reveals god’s strength in its own right. A third subgroup consists of names that express divine assistance in the sense of God’s raising a fallen sufferer (see appendix B1.3.3), for which the most frequent are those containing the Hiphil of the verb ‫ קום‬qûm ‘to stand up’ (with 6 names recorded a total of 49 times). The intended imagery of these names is ‫ אליקם‬ʾElyāqīm ‘El has raised [me]’ and ‫ יקמיהו‬Yĕqamyāhû ‘Yhwh has raised [me]’, as we know by referring to the individual psalms of lament and thanksgiving (Psalms 40–41); the sufferer, whose former friends had caused him or her to fall, first asks for Yhwh’s assistance in raising him (41:10–11), then directly experiences Yhwh’s raising his sunken position in a muddy pit to set his feet on a rock (40:3). The sentiments of these names thus express very typical individual experiences. One rare name of interest is ‫ מקמיהו‬Mēqīmyāhû, which is formed from the Hiphil participle (HAE 14.10) and should be rendered ‘[He] who has raised [me] is Yhwh’.â•›138 This name demonstrates that the sorts of experiences manifest in thanksgiving names could also be transferred to the sorts of concepts expressed in names of praise.

135. In the salvation oracle of Isa 41:10, a similar concept is expressed with the verb ‫ תמך‬tāmak, that God has supported the sufferer with his right hand. 136. The root ‫ לאה‬lāʾāh, which in the Hebrew Bible means ‘to be tired, exhausted’, has the opposite meaning in other Northwest Semitic languages; see Maraqten 1988: 126; Lemaire 2001: 16. 137. See above, p. 255. 138. A similar name is attested in the Nabatean onomasticon (mqymʾl ‘[he] who has raised [me] is El’); whether the Phoenician name mqm (Benz 404) constitutes a parallel remains uncertain; see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.305.

Personal Names and Family Religion

307

Similar concepts of divine assistance were expressed in names derived from the Hiphil of the root ‫ רום‬rûm ‘to be exalted’ (known from 28 appearances of 2 names). In the individual lament in Ps 3:4, Yhwh is called by the sufferer ‘the one who raised my head’, and the hymn Ps 113:7 generalizes this statement to ‘Yhwh lifts the weak from the dust’. Thus, the name ‫ ירמיהו‬Yĕrīmyāhû ‘Yhwh has exalted [me]’ arises from the direct experience of someone who had been humiliated and had sunk into the dust. This individual has been exalted by god and is once again able to lift his or her head. Similar Ammonite and Phoenician names, such as ‫ ירמאל‬Yarīmʾil ‘El has exalted’ and ‫ מלכירם‬Milkyarīm ‘Milk has exalted’ also express this typical individual religious experience. Finally, the name ‫ עדד‬ʿOded expresses similar sentiments and is known from 1 epigraphic reference (HAE 13.14) and 2 biblical appearances. This name is clearly a hypocoristicon, as shown by the Aramaic name ‫ יעדדאל‬Yĕâ•›ʿodedʾel (WSS 801).â•›139 Noth and others took the name to be derived from the root ʿDD ‘to count, to reckon’, which appears in Ugaritic (DLU 73) and Aramaic (KAI 202.A12) texts. They interpreted it as referring to some sort of professional mantic, such as a ‘seer’ or ‘prophet’ (Noth 1928: 252), thus taking the name as a Qal active participle. However, evidence from an Aramaic seal contradicts this interpretation. And, if it’s not a Qal active participle hypocoristicon of ʿDD, then the following DN element cannot be a genitive; it’s grammatically no longer possible. This leaves the alternative interpretation of ʿoded as a Polel of the root ‫ עוד‬ʿûd with the meaning ‘to help up’ (Ps 146:9; 147:6), which was first suggested by Wilhelm Rudolph (1955: 245 n. 1) as being much more likely.â•›140 Although both psalms are hymns, they use the verbal form ‫ יעדד‬yĕʿōded to refer to the same kind of divine assistance for the weak as referred to in Ps 113:7, but this psalm uses the root ‫רום‬. Thus, the name under discussion should be rendered ‘[DN] has helped [me] up’. The fourth and final subgroup of names that allude to notions of divine assistance consists of 1 epigraphic name, the use of which is supported by a similar name in the Hebrew Bible. It can thus be considered an established name that expressed the fact that God had carefully guided a sufferer. The two versions are ‫ נהל‬Nēhāl ‘[DN] has guided [me]’, which was found on a seal (HAE 14.40), and ‫ יהדי‬Yāhday ‘[DN] has guided [me]’, which appears in 1 Chr 2:47.â•›141 The imagery expressed in these names reflects Ps 23:2, which is a psalm of personal trust in which god is conceived as the faithful shepherd who leads the individual to refreshing waters.â•›142 Although this usage in the psalm may allude to notions of divine kingship, and although the verb ‫ נהל‬Piel can also be used in poetic contexts to denote Yhwh’s care for Israel (Exod 15:13; Isa 40:11; 49:10), the sentiment conveyed in the names was a form that had already been transferred to the individual sphere, as demonstrated by Psalm 23 (see also 31:4). These concepts of divine assistance expressed in names of thanksgiving thus usually had their origins in individual experiences.

139. For the preferable reading of this seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 300. 140. KLB3 752; HALOT 911 clearly preferred this interpretation; Ges18 923 remains undecided. 141. The name is probably derived from the verb ‫ הדה‬hādāh, which is only attested once, in Isa 11:8, in the meaning ‘to grasp’. 142. Overlooking this reference, Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.316) suggested the meaning “[GN] hat [die Eltern] zur Ruhe gebracht.”

308

Chapter 5

5.2.3.1.4.╇ Divine protection in names of thanksgiving The group of names that express divine protection is considerably smaller than the names that express divine assistance (see appendix B1.4). The divine protection group consists of 10 epigraphic names derived from 4 different roots. Names derived from 3 additional roots are recorded in the Hebrew Bible: the Amorite root ʿāqab ‘to protect’, the meaning of which was no longer known in Israel in the monarchic period; and the Hebrew roots ‫ חמה‬ḥāmāh ‘to shelter’ and ‫ יׁשב‬yāšab Hiphil ‘to let dwell safely’. Curiously, the Ammonite and Aramaic onomasticons often record several different roots that, although mostly known from Biblical Hebrew, have not been found to date in any Hebrew epigraphic material. These roots all have the meaning ‘to protect’ and are: ‫ ׂשגב‬śāgab Piel, ‫ נצר‬nāṣar, ‫ חוט‬ḥûṭ, and perhaps ‫ יקע‬yāqaʿ (see Maraqten 1988: 131).â•›143 Like names of divine assistance, names of divine protection are intimately bound to the individual sphere. The first subgroup of these names expresses experiences of God’s protecting a sufferer (see appendix B1.4.1) and includes the name ‫ ׁשמריהו‬Šĕmaryāhû and its Northern variant ‫ ׁשמריו‬Šĕmaryau with the meaning ‘Yhwh has protected [me]’, which have been found on 4 and 5 epigraphic artifacts, respectively. The Hebrew Bible contains 13 occurrences of 6 similar names, and names derived from this root have also been found in the Ammonite and Phoenician onomasticons. In cases in which the common verb ‫ ׁשמר‬is used with the deity as the subject, specific individual experiences are again being connoted. This verb does not appear in the collective laments but appears 12 times in the individual laments and individual psalms of trust and thanksgiving.â•›144 Occasionally, god’s protection of a sufferer may be expanded to embrace a larger group of pious believers,â•›145 but Psalms only reveals 1 case in which divine protection refers to the entirety of Israel (Ps 121:4). The intimately individual context of divine protection is illustrated in Ps 17:8, where Yhwh is asked to protect the sufferer as he would his own eyeballs. There is only one name known to derive from the root ‫ זמר‬zāmar III ‘to protect’, which is the hypocoristicon ‫ זמר‬Zāmār; and in the Hebrew Bible, the name ‫ זמרי‬Zimrî appears 4 times. Both names probably carried the meaning ‘[DN] has protected [me]’. In the Ammonite and Aramaic cultures, the same experiences with the gods El, Nabû, and Hadad were expressed using different verbs. The Hebrew Bible also records the patriarchal name ‫ יעקב‬Yaʿăqob from the pre-Israelite period. It originally meant ‘[El] has protected’, but this meaning had been lost by the time of the writing of the Hebrew Bible (see Huffmon 1965: 203–4).â•›146 The second subgroup emphasizes God’s provision of shelter for a sufferer (see appendix B1.4.2). The most popular names in this group appear to have been those derived from the root ‫ צפן‬ṣāpan ‘to shelter’ (known from 39 instances of 3 names), such as ‫צפניהו‬ Ṣĕpanyāhû ‘Yhwh has sheltered me’. The Hebrew Bible contains 2 more names derived from this root but embellished with the theophoric elements ‘El’ and ‘my god’. The religious imagery behind these names is elucidated by Ps 27:5, where the hope is that Yhwh 143. The root ‫ סתר‬sātar ‘to hide’, which occurs among the Aramaic thanksgiving names, seems to constitute a name of confession in Hebrew. 144. Ps 16:1; 17:8; 25:20; 41:3; 86:2; 91:11; 121:3, 5, 7, 8; 140:5; 141:9. 145. Ps 34:21; 37:28; 97:10; 116:6; 145:20; 146:9. 146. In Gen 25:26, Jacob’s name is explained with the noun ‫ עקב‬ʿāqēb ‘heel’; in Gen 27:36 and Hos 12:4 with the verb ‫ עקב‬ʿāqab I ‘to deceive’.

Personal Names and Family Religion

309

will shelter the sufferer in his hut during days of misfortune. These concepts appear to express a transferral of the asylum offered by the temple to the world of individual beliefs. There were also names derived from a different root, ‫חבה‬/‫ חבא‬ḥābāh/ʾ, that had the same meaning of ‘to shelter’. In the second Servant Song, which is analogous to the oracle of salvation, the servant reveals that Yhwh sheltered him ‘in the shadow of his hand’ (Isa 49:2). Thus, a name such as ‫ חביהו‬Ḥābāyāhû ‘Yhwh has sheltered [me]’ would probably have alluded to the experience of an individual in hardship who was feeling himself to have been sheltered by Yhwh in the same way that a child might flee to his or her parents to find comfort, with the child’s face being sheltered in their hands. The family imagery of these names thus becomes apparent. There are 12 epigraphic records of 4 different names derived from this root, and the Hebrew Bible contains 2 different theophoric names and 1 hypocoristicon. The Bible also records the names ‫ יחמי‬Yaḥmay ‘DN has protected [me]’ (in 1 Chr 7:2) and ‫ יוׁשביה‬Yôšībyāh ‘Yhwh has let [me] dwell safely’ (in 1 Chr 4:35). Thus, names of thanksgiving reveal that there was an astonishing richness of belief in the family religion of ancient Israelites. Aside from the exceptional allusions to concepts of official religion (such as the divine shepherd) or their institutions (such as the asylum offered by the Temple), family beliefs had their own symbolism, which generally alluded to individual, family, or local referents. Names of thanksgiving reveal a high degree of correspondence with the individual gattungen of the Psalms and vividly portray the prayer practices of Israelite families in their domestic cults and beyond. However, the family religions of ancient Israel were also inextricably intertwined with the practices of neighboring cultures and, although only 58% of epigraphically attested Hebrew thanksgiving names were also used by Israel’s neighbors, we have shown here that there was not a single concept expressed by these names—whether concepts of divine attention, salvation, assistance, or protection—that was not also expressed by other names in the neighboring cultures.

5.2.3.2.╇ Family beliefs as represented by names of confession Names of confession compose the second-largest group of prayer names and the thirdlargest of all the name groups. It contains 17.6% of all epigraphic names, and 14% of all recorded instances. The 119 personal names in this group are derived from 53 different roots; 15 of these roots do not appear in personal names recorded in the Hebrew Bible.â•›147 Conversely, there are only 5 roots used in the confession names of the Hebrew Bible that have not been found to date in epigraphic records.â•›148 There are thus 58 different roots used in these names of confession. These confession names are grammatically distinct from thanksgiving names because they do not contain verbal statements but instead consist of nominal sentences, construct 147. These are the following nouns and prepositions: ‫ אביר‬ʾabbîr ‘strength’, ‫ און‬ʾôn ‘strength’, ‫ אלוף‬ʾallûp ‘friend’, ‫ אפלו‬ʾaplû ‘inheriting son’, ‫ בעד‬baʿad ‘for’, ‫ חיל‬ḥayil ‘strength’, ‫ טור‬ṭûr ‘defensive wall’, ‫ כסל‬késel ‘trust’, ‫ מבטח‬mibṭāḥ ‘trust’, ‫ מגדל‬migdāl ‘tower’, ‫ מן‬min ‘from’, ‫ מׁשען‬mišʿān ‘support’, ‫ נוה‬nāweh ‘pasture’, ‫ נתיב‬nātîb ‘path’, and ‫ עגל‬ʿégel ‘young steer’. Theophoric elements used in oneword names are not included. 148. These are the following nouns, verbs, and expressions: ‫־‬â•”‫ל‬â•›+â•›‫ יחל‬yāḥalâ•›+â•›lĕâ•”Ö¾ ‘to place hope in’, ‫ עד‬ʿēd ‘witness’, ‫ עין אל‬ʿayin ʾĕl ‘eye on’, ‫ ׁשבע‬šébaʿ ‘richness’, and ‫ ׁשור‬šûr I ‘wall’.

310

Chapter 5

phrases, and single words. There is, however, quite a bit of overlap between the two groups of prayer names. Nine of the nouns used in the names of confession are derived from roots that also appear in the names of thanksgiving but in verbal form.â•›149 (Of course, one must continue to bear in mind the difficulties involved in sorting the unvocalized epigraphic names into appropriate categories, as I’ve already mentioned above.â•›150) Similar to the names of thanksgiving, the names of confession have a structural counterpart in the confessions of confidence in the individual laments and the nominal reason clause of “Do not fear” in the oracles of salvation. They also have close analogues in the psalms of confidence, which developed from the confessions of confidence of the individual laments. In all of these sections of prayers and expressions of divine response, the experiences of salvation through intervention that are conveyed by the thanksgiving names are transformed into confessional statements of confidence and trust. Thus, analogous to the names of thanksgiving, the names of confession can be subdivided into the four categories of divine attention, salvation, assistance, and protection. However, in the present case, these subdivisions must be expanded by introducing two more subgroups in which religious confidence is brought to the fore. The fifth and sixth groups are thus the names that express direct trust in god and allude to a relationship of personal trust in god. Categorizing this sixth group as a subgroup of the prayer names is somewhat problematic, because many nouns used in these names do not appear in the individual prayers; however, since the nominal elements of the most common names in this group, ‫ עבד‬ʿébed ‘servant’ and ‫ גר‬gēr ‘sojourner’ of a deity, have counterparts in the confessions of confidence in individual laments (Ps 143:12; 39:13), the group does show demonstrable connections to actual prayers. The sixth group is an expansion of the fifth group in that the trust in god expressed in a name becomes a statement about one’s onÂ� going trusting relationship to a particular deity expressed in a name. The relative uniqueness of this sixth group is reflected in a slightly lower correspondence between the names of confession and those of individual prayers than between the names of confession and those of thanksgiving. Of the 53 roots used in epigraphic names, slightly over half (27) also appear in individual laments, psalms of thanksgiving, and psalms of confidence. Including more-general analogues and other related gattungen increases the correspondence to 33 instances (or 62%). Without this somewhat anomalous sixth group, the correspondence would increase to 66% of names and 82% of instanes. Thus, names of confession also reveal a remarkable correspondence with the individual prayers. 5.2.3.2.1.╇ Divine attention in names of confession Names of confession referring to divine attention are rather rare (see appendix B2.1), but 2 names with 1 attestation each may be assigned to this group, both considered to be 149. These are ‫ אור‬ʾôr ‘light’ and ‫ אור‬ʾûr ‘to shine’; ‫ חזק‬ḥézeq ‘strength’ and ‫ חזק‬ḥāzaq ‘to turn out to be strong’; ‫ חן‬ḥēn ‘mercy’ and ‫ חנן‬ḥānan ‘to be gracious’; ‫ עז‬ʿōz ‘[strong] protection’ and ‫ עזז‬ʿāzaz ‘to turn out to be strong’; ‫ עזר‬ʿézer ‘help’ and ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’; ‫ פלט‬péleṭ ‘rescue’ and ‫ פלט‬pālaṭ ‘to rescue’; ‫ צדק‬ṣédeq ‘justice’ and ‫ צדק‬ṣādaq ‘to be just’; ‫ ׁשוע‬šûăʿ ‘salvation’ and ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ ‘to save’; and ‫ ׁשפט‬šépeṭ ‘legal assistance’ and ‫ ׁשפט‬šāpaṭ ‘to give justice’. 150. See above, p. 254.

Personal Names and Family Religion

311

derived from the root ‫ חנן‬ḥanan. The names are ‫ חנמלך‬Ḥannīmelek ‘The [divine] king is [my] mercy’ and ‫ חניהו‬Ḥannīyāhû ‘Yhwh is my mercy’. However, it is also possible that these rare names should be categorized with the multitude of thanksgiving names derived from this same root, a possibility rendered even more likely because the parallel root ‫חנן‬ is absent in the confessions of confidence in the Psalms. On the other hand, because the names are written with only one nun, and because the Hebrew Bible records the name ‫ חניאל‬Ḥannîʾel twice (Num 34:23; 1 Chr 7:39), the nominal construction of which is indicated by the suffix, it seems more likely that the above names should be derived from the noun ‫ חן‬ḥēn (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.219, 406) instead of the root ‫חנן‬, and thus they do fit the category of confession names. Names containing the noun ‫ ׁשחר‬šáḥar ‘dawning’ are more common (with 12 instances) and, although only the hypocoristicon is epigraphically attested, the Hebrew Bible transmits full theophoric forms such as ‫ אחיׁשחר‬ʾAḥîšaḥar ‘my [divine] brother is [my] dawning’,â•›151 suggesting that the accurate interpretation of the shortened epigraphic name is ‘[DN] is [my] dawning’. The name directly alludes to the fact that phenomena of divine attention and salvation have taken place or been experienced in the morning (Janowski 1989: 1–18).â•›152 The Ammonite onomasticon also provides the name ‫ׁשחר‬, which expresses an intention similar to that of Aramaic names containing the noun ‫ נגה‬nĕgah ‘brightness [of dawn]’ (DNWSI 714; Dan 6:20), such as ‫ נסחנגהי‬Nasuḥnaghî ‘Nasuḥ/Nusku is my morning light’. All names of this sort are a clear, personal reference to a sufferer. 5.2.3.2.2.╇ Divine salvation in names of confession In confession names, the individuals who are confessing that the deity granted salvation to a sufferer appear to have been more common than names confessing divine attention (see appendix B2.2.1). Eight names derived from 4 different roots are attested 26 times. The first subgroup of these names confess god to be the savior of the sufferer, the most common of which is the famous name ‫ יהוׁשע‬Yĕhôšūăʿ ‘Yhwh is [my] salvation’, which is known from 12 epigraphic records and 14 biblical references in all of its variants. Similar names appear in all the cultures of Israel’s neighbors, such as ‫ כמׁשוע‬Kamōššūăʿ ‘Chemosh is [my] salvation’ in Moab and ‫ הדיסעי‬Haddyisʿî ‘Hadad is my salvation’ in Syria. Haddyisʿî clearly shows the reference to the name bearer that was implicit in all of these names, a fact that is also supported by comparison with the corresponding prayers of confession (Ps 140:8). These names do not relate to every sort of divine salvation, such as salvation on the family, local, and national levels, contrary to J. D. Fowler’s supposition (1988: 89); rather, they express the personal sentiments of the name bearer and his or her family. This is similarly demonstrated by the name ‫ אלפלט‬ʾElīpeleṭ ‘[my] god is [my] rescue’, which reflects an analogous expression in the personal confession of Ps 40:18. One Ammonite name is also known to be derived from this root. As in the category of thanksgiving names, the confession names’ second subgroup uses local judicial imagery to express that it is god who intervenes to provide justice for a sufferer (see appendix B2.2.2). This group consists of 10 names derived from 2 roots, among which the most common name is ‫ צדקיהו‬Ṣidqīyāhû ‘my justice is Yhwh’, known from 7 151. Names of this type are also attested at Ugarit; see Ges18 38. 152. See also the names of thanksgiving in the appendix B1.1.6.; and above, pp. 301–302.

312

Chapter 5

epigraphic records and mentioned 6 times in the Bible. This name also has parallels in the Ammonite, Moabite, and Aramean cultures—for example, in the Aramaic name ‫צדקרמן‬ Ṣidqīramān ‘Rimmon is [my] justice’. From the root ‫ ׁשפט‬šāpaṭ ‘to judge’, only one name is derived that we know of, which is ‫ ׁשפטן‬Šipṭān: it is attested once epigraphically and once biblically. Now, although Noth (1928: 187) and Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/1.86) considered it to be the hypocoristicon of a thanksgiving name, Stamm (1980: 170) considered it to be derived from a nominal. Derivation from a nominal is also supported by the existence of names in the Edomite onomasticon derived from the noun ‫ מׁשפט‬mišpāṭ, such as the full theophoric form ‫ מׁשפטאל‬Mišpaṭʾel, which is then plausibly interpreted as a construct name meaning ‘[the] legal assistance of El’. If we consider the name ‫ ׁשפטן‬to share a similar derivation and interpret the ending â•‚ān not as a diminutive (Noth 1928: 38) but as a shortened suffix of the first-person plural,â•›153 the name may then be rendered ‘our legal assistance [by DN]’. If this is an accurate interpretation, the name was probably intended to testify on behalf of the parents that their child served as living proof that god’s decision of salvation had been granted to their family. The Hebrew Bible embellishes this judicial imagery with the name, ‫ יועד‬Yôʿēd ‘Yhwh is [my] witness’ (Neh 11:7), which is parallel to Job’s famous confession of confidence (Job 16:19). All concepts of this sort are meaningful only with reference to an individual. 5.2.3.2.3.╇ Divine assistance in names of confession Notions of divine assistance form the most prominent topic expressed in names of confession (see appendix B2.3), much more so than in names of thanksgiving. There are no less than 37 epigraphic names derived from 11 different roots, recorded 149 times altogether (representing 34% of all occurrences of confession names). As discussed above, the prominence of this topic reflects individual experiences of danger or peril during which a person feels a much keener need for divine support than he or she feels simply as one member of the collective social group.â•›154 We also discussed above, from the traditionhistorical perspective, many expressions of need for divine assistance derive from experiences directly encountered in individual or family environments.â•›155 The first subgroup of names that plead for divine assistance consists of names that declare God to be a support for the sufferer (see appendix B2.3.1). A number of names are derived from the noun ‫ עזר‬ʿézer, in which god is conceived to be the personal source of aid to the sufferer, including, ‫ אחיעזר‬ʾAḥîʿezer ‘my [divine] brother is [my] help’. Five of these names appear 7 times epigraphically (and 5 biblical names appear 18 times). Verbal thanksgiving names derived from the root ‫ עזר‬appear to have been much more common (87 epigraphic instances), although the very frequently recorded hypocoristicon ‫עזר‬ ʿAzzūr or ʿEzer (35 references) may have been intended to some extent in a nominal sense, in which case these names would be more appropriately considered names of confession. The full theophoric form of this name appears often in the Aramaic onomasticon. There, names such as ‫ עתרעזרי‬ʿAttarʿizrî ‘Ashtar is my help’ reveal that divine aid was understood as relating directly to the name bearer and his or her family. Similar conclusions may be 153. For these plural suffixes on personal names, see other examples below, p. 332. 154. See above, p. 305. 155. See above, pp. 300–301, 305, 306.

Personal Names and Family Religion

313

drawn from the biblically recorded name ‫ עזריאל‬ʿAzrîʾel ‘my help is El/god’ (Jer 36:26), as well as the confession of confidence in the individual lament, Ps 54:6. A number of names from several different roots express the similar concept that Yhwh is the strength of the sufferer, such as, ‫ חזקיהו‬Ḥizqīyāhû ‘my strength is Yhwh’ (recorded 6 times), ‫ חליו‬Ḥelyau ‘[my] strength is Yhwh’ (KAgr[9]:5; in 5 variants, recorded 10 times), ‫ אבריהו‬ʾAbbiryāhû ‘[my] strength is Yhwh’ (recorded twice), and ‫ אניהו‬ʾOnîyāhû ‘my power is Yhwh’ (also recorded twice). Although names derived from the nouns ‫ חזק‬ḥézeq and ‫ חיל‬ḥayil, both of which denote ‘strength’, have parallels in the personal confessions of confidence in prayers (Ps 18:2; Hab 3:19), no such counterparts are found for names derived from the other two nouns. A name with the noun ‫ אביר‬ʾabbîr ‘strength, the strong one’ may represent one of the very few instances in which an official epithet of Yhwh was adopted in family religion—in the form of the title ‫ אביר יעקב‬ʾabbîr Yaʿăqōb ‘the strong one of Jacob’ (Gen 49:24; Ps 132:2, 5; Isa 49:26; 60:16) and its variant ‫אביר יׂשראל‬ ʾabbîr Yiśrāʾel (Isa 1:24). However, several parallels to this name also appear in the Phoenician onomasticon (Benz 1972: 55, 259), such as ‫ אברבעל‬ʾAbbirbaʿal ‘[my] strength is Baal’, so this correspondence may just be a coincidence. Apart from ‫חזק‬, all nouns in this group also appear in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighboring environment. The Aramaic name ‫ ביתאלעׁשני‬Baytʾelʿušnî ‘Bethel is my strength’ again reflects the conception of divine strength as being personally related to the name bearer. These names of confessions thus testify to the concurrence of god’s strength and his support for suffering individuals, as already shown above in the corresponding names of thanksgiving.â•›156 Another subgroup of names alluding to divine assistance granted to a sufferer contains names that conceive of god as personally accompanying the sufferer (see appendix B2.3.2). Of particular interest are the names derived from the preposition ‫ עם‬ʿim ‘with’, such as ‫ עמדיהו‬ʿImmadīyāhû ‘Yhwh is with me’, ‫ עמנויהו‬ʿImmānûyāhû ‘Yhwh is with us’, and ‫ עמד‬ʿImmadi ‘[DN] is with me’. Although the Hebrew Bible only contains the symbolic name ‫ עמנואל‬ʿImmānûʾel (in Isa 7:14), there are 5 names of this sort known to date in 13 different epigraphic records, as well as 1 Edomite name that may have been derived from the same preposition. In the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons, names conveying the same meaning were derived from the preposition ‫ את‬ʾet ‘with’ and include ‫אתאל‬ ʾIttīʾēl ‘El is with me’ (NTA 14.1:3) and ‫ ]א[תבעל‬ʾIttobaʿal ‘Baal is with [him]’ (Benz 73; see also 1 Kgs 16:31). In most of these cases, divine assistance was conceived as relating to an individual, whether formulated as the personal confession of the name bearer (Ittiʾel) or as a confession by the parents on behalf of him/her (Ittobaal). There were also some cases in which divine assistance was granted to a group (Immanuyahu), generally a small familial group. There is only one exception: in naming his child, the prophet Isaiah used this name to symbolize trust in God by the entire Judean community. Parallels of these names appear in the confessions of confidence in prayers (Ps 23:4 and Jer 20:11) and in the nominal clauses in the oracles of salvation (Isa 41:10; 43:2, 5; Jer 30:11 = 46:28; see also Jer 1:8, 19; 15:20). The concept of god’s manifest presence appears repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Bible—particularly often, for example, in the patriarchal stories (Gen 21:20, 22; 26:3, 24; 156. See above, pp. 305–306.

314

Chapter 5

28:15, 20; 31:3, 5; 35:3; 39:2, 3, 21, 23; 48:21). However, expressions of god’s manifest presence reflect neither nomadic nor military social traditions (Albertz 1978a: 81–87), and two-third of all instances of these names specifically conceive of divine assistance as being bestowed on the individual, with occasional extension to include a small group (Gen 48:21; Jer 42:11; Ruth 2:4) and a few rare cases in which the concept is expanded to encompass an entire people (Deut 20:1; Judg 6:13; Ps 46:8, 12; among others). This concept thus seems to reflect origins almost entirely centered in family religion. The analogous concept of Yhwh’s presence with his people in granting them collective support is an extension of individuals’ experience of the efficacy of intimate support by a close companion, an experience that can banish fear during dangerous situations. In stark contrast to these notions, Yhwh’s proximity is typically conceived as being threatening or dangerous in official religious expressions (Exod 24:11; 33:3, 5; Isa 6:5). Yhwh’s relation to the collective entity of Israel is typified by the image of his preceding his people (‫ הלך לפני‬hālak lipnê) as the chief commander (Exod 13:21; Num 14:14; Deut 1:30, 33; 31:8).â•›157 God’s manifest company as a friend or family member who is present in order to assist someone was the concept that typified family religion. There are related names of confession derived from the preposition ‫ בעד‬baʿad ‘for’ that are known from epigraphic evidence. Although they do not occur in the Hebrew Bible, they appear to have been common names used by Israel’s neighbors. These names include ‫ בעדאל‬Baʿadīʾēl ‘El is for [me]’ (2 variants, 4 instances). Reference to an Aramaic name again elucidates an intended personal reference to the name bearer, in the form of, ‫ אלבעדי‬ʾElbaʿadî ‘El is for me’. The preposition used in this name does not appear in Hebrew prayers, although a similar confession uses the related preposition ‫־‬â•”‫ל‬â•” lĕ- ‘for’ in the individual lament of Ps 56:10–11: “This I know: god is for me! .€.€. What can a mere mortal do to me?” as well as in the psalm of thanksgiving, 118:6: “Yhwh is for me; I do not fear!” There is also evidence that Aramaic names used this latter preposition (in ‫ אלהלי‬ʾIlahlî ‘God is for me’), suggesting also that the ‫־‬â•”‫ בעד‬names are closely affiliated with prayer confessions. These names are once again an impressive witness to the preoccupation in family religion of god’s power to ward off, prevent, or protect against perceived threats, dangers, and adversaries. A single name of the present subgroup derives from a nominal form of the root ‫ׁשען‬ šāʿan ‘to support oneself with’ in the form of ‫ מׁשען‬Mišʿān ‘[my] buttress [is DN]’. The same metaphor for god’s personal assistance is used in Ps 18:19 (see also Ps 23:4). Aramaic names that convey a similar meaning employ nominal derivations from the root ‫סמך‬ sĕmak ‘to support’ and include ‫ עתרסמכי‬ʿAttarsumkî ‘Ashtar is my support’, again demonstrating the personal focus of divine assistance. One Hebrew name that has no parallel to date is ‫ נתביהו‬Nĕtībyāhû ‘[my] path is Yhwh’, which expresses Yhwh’s granting of support to a sufferer by providing direction or orientation. A third and final subgroup of the confession names consists of names that maintain that god is the source of light for a sufferer (see appendix B2.3.3). These names may also 157. In Akkadian, the chief commander was called ālik pāni ‘the one who goes in front’; see also expressions similar to ‫ יצא לפני‬yāṣāʾ lipnê ‘to go out in front’ in Judg 4:14; 2 Sam 5:24; and see also Ps 44:10; 60:12; as well as ‫ עבר לפני‬ʿābar lipnê ‘to pass in front’ in Deut 9:3; 31:3.

Personal Names and Family Religion

315

reflect the provision or at least the facilitating of direction or orientation (see Ps 119:105). They derive from only two nouns: ‫ אור‬ʾûr ‘light’ and ‫ נר‬ner ‘lamp, light’, although they are the most numerous of all confession names about divine assistance. From each of the 2 noun stems, 7 epigraphic names are derived that appear 45 and 58 times, respectively. The most common of these names are ‫ אריהו‬ʾUrīyāhû and ‫ נריהו‬Nērīyāhû, both of which mean ‘my light is Yhwh’. The first has a parallel in the confession of confidence in an individual lament, Ps 27:1; the second, in a confessional statement of the psalm of thanksgiving in 2€Sam 22:29. Directly personal references are verified not only by these confessions but also by the first-person-singular suffix explicit in several Aramaic parallels, such as ‫ננורי‬ Nannûrî ‘Nanna is my light’. Names derived from both of these nouns were also common in the cultures of Israel’s neighbors. All these names conceive of light as being provided for a sufferer, and many gods—not just astral deities—are capable of providing this light, including Baal, El, Hadad, Chemosh, Milkom, Nanna, Shamash, and Sin. Thus, Yhwh names are subsumed in the confessional statements made with reference to a pantheon of gods venerated by families throughout the Levant. 5.2.3.2.4.╇ Divine protection in names of confession Names of confession that express the deity as being protection for a sufferer are the third most-common of all names of confession. There are 28 different names known that appear a total of 74 times (see appendix B2.4). The names are derived from the largest number of distinct roots: 12 roots are epigraphic attestations, and a 13th appears in the Hebrew Bible. More than 80% of all of these roots also occur in the prayer confessions, which is the highest degree of correspondence of all types of names. Thus, although the names of this group convey a wide variety of different concepts, they are all deeply rooted in the prayer culture of family religion. The first subgroup of these names confesses that god is a protector for a sufferer (see appendix B2.4.1). In this group, the most common names contain the noun ‫ עז‬ʿoz ‘strength’, derived from the root ‫ עזז‬ʿāzaz. This noun is often used in conjunction with a noun derived from the root ‫ עוז‬ʿûz ‘to seek or find refuge’, however, as exemplified by the compound noun ‫ מעוז‬māʿôz ‘refuge’ (Ges18 941–42). It is particularly common in the confessions of confidence for ʿoz to be accompanied by nouns such as ‘shield’ (Ps 28:7), ‘refuge’, or ‘stronghold’ (Jer 16:19; Ps 59:18). Thus, the names derived from ʿoz should be rendered ‘[DN] is my [strong] protection’. Seven of these names are epigraphic and appear a total of 37 times (along with 5 biblical names, 19 instances), the most common of which is ‫ יהועז‬Yĕhôʿaz ‘Yhwh is [my] protection’. Similar names were also very common among Israel’s neighbors. One Ammonite name is of particular interest, ‫ אלעזן‬ʾIlʿuzzān (BPPS 162). Interpreting this name’s ending â•‚ān as a diminutive (GKC §86g; Noth 1928: 38) seems less plausible than as a shortened form of the first-person-plural suffix â•‚ānū (Deutsch and Lemaire 2000: 218). An unambiguous example of this plural suffix is the name ʿImmānūyāhû.â•›158 Accordingly, the name ʾIlʿuzzān should be rendered ‘El is our protection’ and taken to refer to divine protection for an entire family.

158. See above, pp. 312 and 313.

316

Chapter 5

This subgroup includes other, somewhat rare names, such as ‫ זמריהו‬Zimrīyāhû ‘my protection is Yhwh’, which is known from a single epigraphic artifact and alludes to Ps 118:14, which declares, “My refuge and my protection is Yhwh.”â•›159 The name ‫ יוסתר‬Yauseter ‘Yhwh is [my] hiding place’ is also attested only once and alludes to the confessional statement in the individual thanksgiving psalm, Ps 32:7: “You are my hiding place; you protect me from distress.” Other more-personal metaphors of a deity’s being a protector, shepherd, guardian, or watchman have been found in Aramaic and Phoenician names. There are 2 epigraphic names derived from the noun ‫ צל‬ṣēl ‘shadow’ (in 3 instances, along with 4 biblical names, 4 instances), one of which is very interesting because it deviates from the typical pattern of Northwest Semitic names by appearing to be the abbreviation for an existing prayer confession in the form of ‫ בצל‬bĕṣēl, which may be rendered ‘in the shadow [of DN]’. An expanded confession of this type is offered in Ps 57:2, “In the shadow of your wings I seek [my] refuge.”â•›160 There are 2 probable theophoric forms of this name in the Hebrew Bible, one of which is ‫ בצלאל‬Bĕṣalʾel ‘in the shadow of El’. It is possible that this sort of name was intended to reflect imagery typical of a temple (compare, for example, the throne of cherubs in Jerusalem). It also may have alluded to the frequently found epigraphic representations of “winged sun-discs.” The fact that this sort of name also appeared in Babylonia (in the form of Ina-ṣilli-Nabû ‘in the shadow of Nabû’, for example)â•›161 suggests that the interpretation probably is a more-generalized metaphor, in which the deity is perceived as a mother bird who shelters her children beneath her wings. Another form of adverbial name was derived from the expression ‫ יד‬+ ‫ ב‬bĕ + yād ‘in the hand’ and was commonly used in Phoenicia, for example, in the form of ‫בדבעל‬ Bōdbaʿal ‘in the hand of Baal’ (Benz 75; WSS 726). It also appears in the Ammonite and Aramaic onomasticons. However, this type is rather rare in the Hebrew onomasticon, appearing in only 4 epigraphic instances of 3 different names (1 time in the Hebrew Bible). An example of these names is ‫ בדיהו‬Bēdyāhû ‘in the hand of Yhwh’, an expression of religious belief that the hand of god offered refuge to a suffering individual in his/her state of fear. This kind of metaphorical sentiment is again likely to have been evoked by typical family imagery, such as a frightened child running to his or her mother, who lifts the child into her arms to be comforted and caressed by her hands. The concept also expresses the broader metaphor of trust that the destiny of all individuals is always in the hands of god. A slightly different metaphorical slant appears in variants of these names in the Aramaic onomasticon, for example, ‫ כלבידׁשמׁש‬Kolbayadšamaš ‘all is in the hand of Shamash’. And the confession of confidence in Ps 31:5, “Into your hand I commit my spirit,” conveys a sentiment that is a hybrid of these two types of sentiment. Another subgroup consists of names that explicitly express belief that God is a refuge for the suffering (see appendix B2.4.2). Most metaphors used in the 9 names of this group are well known from the confessions of confidence in the Psalms, such as the name ‫[ ]א[למעז‬ʾE]lmaʿaz ‘El is my refuge’, which corresponds to the confession of the individual lament in Ps 31:5, “because you are my refuge” (‫ מעוזי‬māʿûzzî). Only two names 159. Reading ‫ זמרתי‬zimrātî ‘my protection’ with one Hebrew ms and the versions. 160. Compare Ps 17:8; 36:8; 63:8; and 61:5; 91:4. 161. See Stamm 1968: 276.

Personal Names and Family Religion

317

of this sort have been found in epigraphic material, each recorded only once, and the Hebrew Bible contributes another name, ‫ מעזיהו‬Maʿazyāhû ‘my refuge is Yhwh’. Aramaic names of this kind appear to have been a little more common (with 3 names known with 1 instance each) and included ‫ אדמעזי‬ʾAddumaʿuzzî ‘Adad is my refuge’; this name is again a personal reference to the name bearer. Names derived from the similar noun ‫מחסה‬ maḥăsēh were more common (3 names, 16 instances), and this noun is also well known from the confessions of confidence—for example, in the Ps 61:4 declaration, “You became a refuge for me.” The same sentiment is expressed in the name ‫ מחסיהו‬Maḥsēyāhû ‘[my] refuge is Yhwh’, which is known from 13 epigraphic records, while there is 1 biblical appearance of a slightly shortened form of this name (in Jer 32:12). No names of this sort are known yet to have been used by Israel’s neighbors. Names deriving from the noun ‫ צור‬ṣûr ‘rock’, used to portray a typical place of refuge, have appeared in both Israel and Syria. The Hebrew name ‫ אליצר‬ʾElîṣūr ‘my god is [my] rock’ has a counterpart in the confession of confidence in Ps 62:3, “He alone is my rock and my salvation.” The reference to Yhwh in this name is similar to an Aramaic name with reference to Hadad: ‫ צוריהדד‬Ṣûrîhadad ‘my rock is Hadad’. This name also is an explicitly personal reference. One name confesses Yhwh to be a tower for the individual who is suffering (‫ מגדליהו‬Migdalyāhû), and even this very concrete metaphor is similarly used in the confessions of confidence (in Ps 61:4). A similar construction compares the deity with a wall provided to support a suffering individual. An ostracon obtained on the antiquities market (NEE 92.79:4) provides the unique name ‫ יהוטר‬Yĕhôṭūr, for which the editors Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer (1995: 98) suggested that a nun is missing and the word is related to the root ‫ נטר‬nāṭar ‘to watch, to guard’. However, the noun ‫טור‬ ṭûr, which denotes a kind of wall, appears in Biblical Hebrew (in 1 Kgs 6:36; Ezek 46:23), and the Bible provides another parallel name, ‫ אביׁשור‬ʾAbîšûr, which is derived from the Aramaic or Hebrew noun ‫ ׁשור‬šûr ‘wall’ (used in poetic contexts in Gen 49:22; 2 Sam 22:30). Thus this name clearly can be rendered ‘my [divine] father is [my defensive] wall’. There are also several Aramaic parallels to this biblical name, such as ‫ נבוׁשרי‬Nabûšūrî ‘Nabu is my defensive wall’, that further strengthen the argument that ‫ יהוטר‬should be interpreted ‘Yhwh is my defensive wall’. It is important to note that these names make no reference to offensive weapons or installations; only defensive functions are metaphorically ascribed to the deity. Although many metaphors may not immediately appear to be related to family religion, rocks, towers, fortifications, and explicit places of refuge were all places to which individuals or families might flee when they or their larger communities came under attack by an enemy (Jer 4:5–6, 29). Thus, these defensive attributions arise directly from typical village experiences and do not necessarily connote a dedicated military function. Such military metaphors in the belief system of family religion again reflect the keenly felt vulnerability of the individual. In this case, fear was allayed by confessing that god himself provided defense against enemies for the name bearer and rendered all enemies powerless, whether worldly or otherwise. The final subgroup of protection names consists of names that express much more peaceful sentiments, that God himself is the sheltering place of residence for the suffering (see appendix B2.4.3). This group comprises only 5 known instances of 5 different names

318

Chapter 5

derived from 2 roots. One of these roots, from which 3 names are derived, is the noun ‫נוה‬ nāwēh ‘pasture’, which is parallel to the shepherd metaphor in the psalm of confidence Ps 23:2.â•›162 The names ‫ נויה‬Nawīyāh and its Northern variant ‫ נויו‬Nawīyau both mean ‘my pasture is Yhwh’ and express Yhwh’s ability to guarantee nourishment and security of abode for the suffering. The second root of this group also describes typical pastoral scenery, ‫ חמיאהל‬Ḥammîʾōhel ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] tent’. Although no names containing ‫ נוה‬have been found to date outside Israel, names formed from ‫ אהל‬appear in Phoenicia, as in the example ‫ אהלבעל‬ʾOhelbaʿal ‘[my] tent is Baal’. Names formed from the two roots in this subgroup testified not so much to a defense against possible enemies but a desire for the peaceful existence of being actively sheltered by the deity. 5.2.3.2.5.╇ Trust in god in names of confession Although all of the names of confession considered thus far express various forms of trust in God, there is one group of names that focuses directly on religious trust in its own right (see appendix B2.5). The existence of these names is remarkable considering the general patterns of Northwest Semitic personal names, in which mortals were apparently not permitted to be the subject of theophoric names. The rightful subject of these names would normally have been the deity, whether the names formed verbal or nominal sentences. Although there are several known cases in which the deity is the predicate of a nominal sentence, the deity was not used as the object of a verbal sentence or an adverbial expression (in contrast to the constructions of Akkadian names). Thus, a confession of trust such as ‘I trust in you, Yhwh’, which is frequently attested in the individual laments (Ps 13:6; 25:2; 26:1; 31:7, 15; 56:5, 12; 143:8), would normally not have appeared in a Hebrew personal name. What makes the present names remarkable is that they attest a variety of strategies used to overcome the “regulations” and thus to make these sorts of declarations anyway. Given the lexical difficulties, this group of names naturally remains rather restricted and consists of 18 names derived from 9 different roots. The names have, however, been recorded 84 times, making them slightly more common than confession names of divine protection. There are 2 epigraphic roots known so far that do not appear in the Hebrew Bible, but it provides 3 additional verbal or nominal expressions. Thus there are 12 different roots known to date. The first subgroup of these names comprises 3 names containing the noun ‫ חלק‬ḥéleq ‘portion, share’, with 31 individual instances (see appendix B2.5.1). This noun denotes a share of land that had been inherited and consequently was possessed by a family (Ruth 2:3; 4:3–4; Hos 5:7). Thus, the name ‫ חלקיהו‬Ḥilqīyāhû ‘my portion is Yhwh’ signified that 162. These names have proven difficult to explain (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.303). Deutsch and Heltzer (1997: 43) assumed that the name ‫ נויו‬nwyw, which was found inscribed on a fancy silver signet, derived from the root ‫ נאה‬nāʾāh ‘to ornate’, which takes a waw ending in its adjectival conjugation (see Cant 1:10). Thus they read Nōiyāw and rendered the name ‘My prettiness [grace] is Yāū’. The ʾalep, however, which is never omitted in the texts, would not have been included on the signet, if this were the correct reading. In a 2nd edition, Deutsch and Lemaire (2000: 14, 220) altered the actual reading (to Naveyau) but retained the same explanation. Zadok (1988: 98) plausibly interpreted the short form ‫ נוי‬nwy as a Gentile name derived from the noun nāwēh ‘pasture’.

Personal Names and Family Religion

319

Yhwh was considered one’s very subsistence, exactly as a family’s tenured land would have been. A special priestly decree stated that Levites could not possess shares of Israel’s land, because Yhwh himself was their share and patrimony (Num 18:20; Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1–2; among others). Thus one could conjecture that these names were notionally derived from this levitical law (Albertz 1978a: 70). However, because the earliest known names of this sort appeared in the 8th century—a time prior to the Deuteronomic reform that gave rise to the oldest formulations of levitical rule—this derivation seems doubtful. The confessions of confidence that declare Yhwh to be one’s personal portion (Ps 16:5; 73:26; 142:6; Lam 3:24) do not reflect levitic influence either (with the possible exception of Psalm 73). These names are thus more likely to have emerged conceptually from the familial sphere. Possession of a share of land on which a family was completely dependent economically was symbolically being transferred to god in order to express that he himself was regarded as one’s true portion of life “in the land of the living” (Ps 142:6). By identifying Yhwh as the basis of all life, these confession names aimed to express the essence of relationship between a particular individual and his/her god, and this relationship was characterized by trust and dependence. There has been a curious absence of names derived from this root located so far in Israel’s environment. One seal written in Aramaic script contained the name ‫ חלקיו‬Ḥelqīyau (WSS 818), indicating that it belonged to a North Israelite who lived in Syria. However, there are similar names (with different deities) known from Mesopotamia that derived from the noun zittu ‘share of land’, such as Ea-zittišu ‘Ea is his share’ (CAD Z 141b). The second subgroup of these names explicitly states that Yhwh is the basis of trust (see appendix B2.5.2). In the names ‫ מבטחיהו‬Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘My trust is Yhwh’, known from 6 epigraphic instances, and ‫ כסליהו‬Kislīyāhû ‘My trust is Yhwh’, known from 8, the deity is simply and directly equated with the Hebrew nouns for trust. These are, of course, inexact expressions, because Yhwh cannot actually be trust itself; he can only be the object of human trust. It is nevertheless in this same fashion that these nouns are used when they appear in the corresponding confessions of confidence (Ps 22:10; 71:5; Job 4:6). Thus the apparent regulations underlying the construction of Northwest Semitic personal names led to an ambiguity in these statements that does not apply to most other classes of names, and yet the very existence of these ambiguous statements must reflect the singular importance of the sentiment that personal trust could or should be placed in god. There are other examples in which the underlying “rules” for forming Northwest Semitic names appear to have been neglected in favor of grammatical constructions more typical of Akkadian names, including 3 names requiring that one place one’s hope in god. The name ‫ חכליהו‬Ḥakalyāhû, in which the verb is the imperative of ‫ חכה‬ḥākāh ‘to hope’ used in connection with the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫ ל‬lĕâ•”Ö¾ ‘for, on, in’ (also associated with this verb in Hab 2:3; Ps 106:13), thus uses the divine name as an object, again in contradiction of apparent regulations. The verb in this case would normally be a Piel. However, other personal names also use stems in which the Qal has often been substituted. Thus, the name should be rendered ‘Place your hope in Yhwh!’ A similar command is expressed in shortened form, ‫ חכל‬Ḥakal ‘Place your hope in [DN]!’ and also ‫ קוה‬Qawwēh, which derives the same meaning from the root qāwāh used in the Piel. The Hebrew Bible also contains 1 name constructed similarly. It is derived from the root ‫ יחל‬yāḥal ‘to wait’ in the form

320

Chapter 5

‫ יחלאל‬Yaḥlĕʾel ‘Wait for El!’ (Gen 46:14; see also Ps 38:16).â•›163 All of these imperative names command not only the name bearers to place their trust in god but also all those whom they encounter, who must call them by this name. Bearers of these names could hardly have avoid personifying persistent commands for their families to comply with this religious attitude. The single-word name ‫ תקוה‬Tiqwāh ‘[my] hope [is DN]’ (see Ps 62:6) expresses a similar sentiment. Finally, the biblical name ‫ אליהועיני‬ʾElyĕhôʿênay ‘To Yhwh my eyes [are directed]’ (1 Chr 26:3; Ezra 8:4; see also Ps 141:8) accords entirely with patterns of Akkadian confession names. Although names of this type are admittedly rare because they deviate from conventions guiding the construction of Northwest Semitic names, they nevertheless demonstrate more immediately than the names of any other group the centrality for Israelite family religion of placing one’s trust in god. Moreover, although these names appear to have been used even more rarely by Israel’s neighbors, they do appear in a few examples, such as ‫ יחלבעל‬Yaḥellĕbaʿal (?) ‘wait for Baal!’ (Benz 127; KAI 49.15).â•›164 The final subgroup of confession names consists of names that declare that God is the joy of life (see appendix B2.5.3). This group includes 8 names derived from 4 different nouns, most of which are rare: ‫[ ׂשראל‬ʾA]śriʾel ‘[my] joy is El’ (appears once), which was probably derived from the noun ‫ אׂשר‬ʾéśer ‘joy’; ‫ אבגיל‬ʾAbīgayl ‘[my divine] father is [my] rejoicing’ (appears twice); and ‫ חמיעדן‬Ḥammîʿeden ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] bliss’ (in 2 variants recorded once each). Only the names derived from the noun ‫גד‬ gad ‘luck’ seem to have been more common (25 instances of 4 names). Examples include the name ‫ גדיהו‬Gaddīyāhû ‘my luck is Yhwh’, which in itself appears 9 times. Names containing the nouns ‫ עדן‬ʿéden ‘bliss’, ‫ גד‬gad ‘luck’, and ‫ ׁשבע‬šébaʿ ‘richness’ also were used in the Ammonite, Aramaic, and Phoenician cultures (although the last of these is known only from biblical references,â•›165 with no epigraphic evidence to dateâ•›166). Many names derived from these roots were specifically female names, and it thus seems that, in contrast to the patriarchal structures that dominated most aspects of ancient Israelite society, it was exclusively the birth of daughters that reminded parents of the joyful, fortunate aspects of their trusting relationship to god. 5.2.3.2.6.╇ Relationships of personal trust in god alluded to in names of confession Israelite families’ trusting relationship with god that was born out of experiencing recurring crises nurtured broader expression of enduring, stable relationships between family members and their deity (see appendix B2.6). Although names in this group testify to 163. The verbal form should be interpreted as the imperative Piel yaḥel; the preposition ‫־‬â•”‫ ל‬lĕ is intermingled with the last letter of the root, which has correctly been interpreted by Zadok (1988: 42); Noth (1928: 204) tried to derive the name from the root ‫ חלה‬ḥālāh II ‘to be sweet’, but this does not make good sense. 164. This is in accordance with the biblical name derived from this root. The name has previously been unexplained; Donner and Röllig (1979: 66, no. 49) suggested a consonantal shift in correspondence with the name ‫יחנבעל‬, which is attested in KAI 80.2. 165. See the specifically female names ‫ אליׁשבע‬ʾElîšebaʿ ‘my god is richness’ (Exod 6:23), and ‫ יהוׁשבע‬Yĕhōšebaʿ ‘Yhwh is richness’ (2 Kgs 11:2) 166. But see the Phoenician name ‫ תנתׁשבע‬Tannitšebaʿ ‘Tannit is richness’, which denotes a goddess.

Personal Names and Family Religion

321

personal transcendence of hardship or danger, they still bear distinct connections with the confessions of confidence in the prayers. In their individual laments, suffering people might remind god that they were his servants or were aliens to whom he should show responsibility. For example, Ps 143:12 states, “In your faithfulness, ruin my enemies; destroy all those who oppress me, for I am your servant [‫ עבד‬ʿébed]!” and Ps 39:13 adds, “Hear my prayer; listen to my cry; do not disregard my tears; for I am a sojourner [‫ גר‬gēr], a client like all my fathers.” What is confessed here in a time of urgent need, partially including the horizon of family descent, is made a prolonged statement in the names in which the name bearer declares himself to be a servant (‫ )עבד‬or a sojourner (‫ )גר‬of a particular deity. Including references to all the individual deities, the group consists of 25 names that are derived from 14 different nominal elements (see appendix B2.6) and that altogether appear a total of 87 times. These names were common in the cultures surrounding Israel, particularly in the Phoenician onomasticon. However, they were appreciably less common in the Hebrew onomasticon, where only the names that contain the above-mentioned nouns are more frequently represented (‫ עבד‬46 times, ‫ גר‬12 times). The first subgroup of these names declares the name bearer to be a servant of god (see appendix B2.6.1). In most Hebrew versions of these names that appear in epigraphic records, the name emphasizes its bearer’s personal relationship to Yhwh, as in ‫עבדיהו‬ ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’, which appears 18 times, as well as 3 other variants. Isolated cases in Israel also mentioned other gods, as in ‫ עבדירח‬ʿAbdiyēraḥ ‘servant of Yeraḥ’, who was the Canaanite moon-god (HAE 2.25). The seal on which this name appears comes from the 7th century b.c.e., and—although the iconographic forms share Mesopotamian characteristics (see WSS 34)â•›167 and thus may be presumed to reflect foreign (possibly Ammonite) influence—the script is distinctly Hebrew. Thus the seal probably reflects the process of astralization or lunarization in Israelite religion during the Assyrians’ domination, which is also reflected in biblical texts (Deut 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 8:2). The inscription of the name ‫ עבדׂשהר‬ʿAbdiśāhār on a seal from the late 8th or 7th century, which is rightly interpreted not as a title but as a name meaning ‘servant of Sahar’, also contains astral symbols (see WSS 1075). Because Sahar was a moon-god well known from Syria (for example, see KAI 202.B24) and South Arabia (WM 225–26), and because the script reflects a degree of Aramaic influence, Renz and Röllig (HAE 21.77) considered the name bearer to be Aramean and excluded this name from the Hebrew onomasticon.â•›168 However, the fact that amulets called ‫ ׂשהרנים‬śĕhărōnîm ‘little moons’ were in use in 8th-century Jerusalem (Isa 3:18) reveals that astral or lunar symbols did not necessarily reflect foreign elements, and this name may be considered among Hebrew names. There is also one name in which the name of a deity is replaced by a generic divine quality: ‫ עבדחיל‬ʿAbdiḥayil ‘servant of the [divine] strength’. ʿÉbed-names were also very common in Phoenicia and referred to many different gods (including Baal, Hadad, Melqart, Shalem, Shamash, Amun, Osiris, and Ptah), as well as several goddesses (Anat, Ashtarte, Tannit, Bastet, and Isis). These names also appeared in female variants, such 167. On its side, the seal has a winged ibex-man, an ankh-shaped cult stand in front, and a crescent above. 168. The name is lacking in Renz and Röllig’s list (HAE 2/2.455).

322

Chapter 5

as ‫ אמתׁשמן‬ʾAmotešmun ‘maidservant of Eshmun’, although they do not show up in the Hebrew onomasticon. Although submission to the deity as expressed in the proliferation of ʿÉbed-names is also conceptualized in the rare name ‫ נעריהו‬Naʿaryāhû ‘servant boy of Yhwh’, a more equitable relationship is conceived solely in the name ‫ אלף‬ʾAllūp ‘friend [of DN]’; the name is considered a hypocoristicon of the theophoric name and not merely the secular name ʾélep ‘ox’. Theophoric intention is beyond doubt in names that use the 2 zoomorphic elements ‫ כלב‬and ‫עגל‬. The name ‫ כלב‬Kālēb, which is derived from kéleb ‘dog’, could not have been a secular name because this term generally had pejorative connotations in the Israelite culture (1 Sam 17:43; Prov 26:11, 17; Qoh 9:4). Moreover, a full theophoric form is known to have existed in Phoenicia: ‫ כלבאלם‬Kalbʾēlîm ‘dog of the gods’. These names would thus have been declaring the name bearer to be a loyal follower of the deity, as a dog is faithful to its master or mistress. A similar sentiment is intended with the name ‫ עגליו‬ʿEgelyau ‘young steer of Yhwh’. In the same way that a calf or young steer will follow its mother wherever she goes, the name bearer will faithfully follow Yhwh. I argued above that this name did not derive from the cult symbol of the Bethel sanctuary,â•›169 partly because names of this kind also appeared in Phoenicia and Syria. Furthermore, there is one Aramaic seal (WSS 835) that belonged to a person named ‫ עגלהדד‬ʿEgelhadad ‘young steer of Hadad’, but it depicts a goddess. These names are in no way connected to the SyroPalestinian iconography that depicts the weather-god standing on a bull. The zoomorphic metaphors thus represent broader generalizations of sentiment that originated in family and household contexts. This assertion is further supported by the fact that more-professional attributions, such as the Aramaic name ‫ כמראלה‬Kumrʾilah ‘priest of god’, are absent in the Israelite onomasticon.â•›170 The second subgroup consists of names that variously declare a certain individual to belong to a deity (see appendix B2.6.2), for which one mode of expression was to use the noun ‫ גר‬gēr, denoting a ‘resident alien’. The religious understanding of this word referred not to the foreign origin of a person but to a well-defined relationship with a particular native citizen for whom the person worked and from whom he or she gained sustenance and protection. Thus arises the name ‫ גריהו‬Gēryāhû ‘sojourner of Yhwh’, which appears in only 6 epigraphic records, and maintains that the name bearer belongs to Yhwh, whom the bearer in turn would have regarded as being responsible for him/her. Again, Phoenician names of this sort were much more common and also included female variants, such as ‫ גרתבעל‬Geretbaʿal ‘she-sojourner of Baal’. Another way of expressing this sentiment of belonging was by using the nisbe (‫־י‬╔╂ay), which generally denoted a person’s affiliation with a particular people or being in a certain category. In the Hebrew onomasticon, this form of theophoric name is restricted to reference to the Egyptian god Bes, in ‫ בסי‬Besay ‘who belongs to Bes’, which is known from 4 epigraphic sources and appears once in the Bible (in Ezra 2:49). Noth (1928: 152) assumed that the biblical name was a shortened form of ‫ בסודיה‬Bĕsôdyāh ‘in the council of Yhwh’, which appeared once in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:6). However, this interpretation 169. See above, p. 265. 170. See below, pp. 344–348.

Personal Names and Family Religion

323

is now contradicted by subsequently unearthed epigraphic material from the preexilic period (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.175). The god Bes played a role in ancient Israel, especially in relation to apotropaic rituals and devices.â•›171 These sorts of name are more common in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons, for example, ‫ אלתי‬ʾIlatay ‘who belongs to the goddess’ and ‫ בעלי‬Baʿalay ‘who belongs to Baal’. If we agree that all such names reflect nisbe constructions, then perhaps all personal names that consist of a deity’s name alone are the shortened form of the same class of names that merely omitted the nisbe. Although these names only rarely appear in the Ammonite and Moabite onomasticons, they are considerably more common in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons. Five divine names appear in Hebrew epigraphic material: ‫ אב‬ʾāb ‘[divine] father’; ‫ עם‬ʿam ‘[divine] uncle’; ‫ בעל‬Baʿal ‘Baal’; ‫ חר‬Ḥōr ‘Horus’; and ‫ מת‬Maut ‘Mot’, two of which (Baal and Horus) also appear in the Hebrew Bible. All of these names should thus be rendered ‘[the one who belongs to] DN’. Zadok (1988: 175) also proposed that the name ‫ מאס‬Mēʾis (?), known from 6 appearances, represents a hybrid form of the Hebrew preposition ‫מן‬ min ‘from’ and the name of the Egyptian goddess Isis. If this is true, this type of name then also testifies to the close relationship between an individual and his or her goddess. If we accept this interpretation, then this name is one of very few cases in which a goddess appears in the Hebrew onomasticon. The final subgroup consists of names that declare the name bearer to be the son or daughter of a particular deity (see appendix B2.6.3). This was a very common notion in the ancient Levant and beyond, that the relationship between an individual and his or her god was analogous with the socially and physically intimate relationship that typically exists between children and their parents. Names expressing this concept were especially popular among the Arameans and Phoenicians, from which many names arise, such as ‫ ברהדד‬Barhadad ‘Son of Hadad’ and [‫ בנענ]ת‬Binʿanat ‘son of Lady Anat’. A female variant of the latter name appears once in the Ammonite onomasticon as ‫ בתאל‬Batʾil ‘daughter of El’ and several times in the Phoenician onomasticon as ‫ בתׁשחר‬Batšaḥar ‘daughter of Shaḥar’. These occurrences make the relative paucity of names of this sort in the Hebrew onomasticon all the more conspicuous. The few examples include ‫ אפלי‬ʾAplāya, which is probably best understood as representing a hypocoristic loan name from Mesopotamia of the type apil-DN ‘inheriting son of DN’ (see Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/2.159), which is known from a single inscription on a seal from the 7th–6th centuries (WSS 86); and a name adopted from Egypt in the form of ‫ פׁשחר‬Pašḥūr with the accepted meaning ‘son of Horus’. It appears to have been quite popular in Judah, where it has been found in 9 epigraphic records, and it also appears 4 times in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, insofar as interpretations of the names adopted from foreign cultures are accurate, Israelite family religion can be concluded to have conveyed through names its conception of a child as the son or daughter of a deity. However, it appears that these sentiments did not gain sufficient popularity among Israelite families that they devised equivalent names in their own language. The official religious traditions of Israel and Judah during the monarchic period certainly drew on imagery of divine fatherhood, and this sentiment was central to the kingship theology of the Southern (Ps 2:7) and Northern 171. See below, pp. 381, 391–393, 440.

Chapter 5

324

kingdoms (Ps 80:18), in both of which the king was proclaimed to be a son of Yhwh. The prophet Hosea and his followers even regarded the entirety of Israel to be a singular or collective son of Yhwh (Hos 11:1; Isa 1:2; Deut 14:1; 32:5). However, traditions of family religion seem to have had reservations about this paternal concept, even though Jeremiah asserted (in Jer 2:27) that the people of Judah had trustfully addressed the gods and goddesses of their local cults as they would the fathers and mothers who had borne them. Most Israelite families apparently regarded paternal symbolism to be less appropriate for expressing their personal relationship to god in a sufficiently intimate and faithful manner. These reservations reflect the similar reservations noted above with regard to expressing physical or sexual concepts in birth names.â•›172 Thus, the family religion of ancient Israel seems to have been a little more literally in awe of the distance and transcendence of the deity than Israel’s northern neighbors, in spite of the myriad of ways in which the deity might draw nigh. This sort of distinction was already noted by J. D. Fowler (1988: 314), but she did not indicate that it forms only one element in the extended spectrum of beliefs enshrined in the Hebrew names of confession. In this chapter, we have discovered no significant difference between the family religions of Israel and its neighbors in 13 of the 15 subgroups of confession names. Rather, there appears to have been a remarkably high degree of correspondence between the various Levantine cultures on this level of religion. Major differences are apparent in only two subgroups, the first of which (2.6.1) is the distribution of ʿébed-names. These names constitute a considerable portion of the Phoenician names of confession, and, to a lesser extent, of the equivalent Aramaic names, at the expense of more concrete expressions of confidence. This difference leads to the discovery that Hebrew confession names with more concrete expressions of confidence are somewhat more expressive and diverse. Nevertheless, the differences are very slight throughout, and it is only the second and final subgroup above (§2.6.3) that reveals any substantial difference in conceptions of belief. Overall, discernible differences are very few. As with names of thanksgiving, Hebrew names of confession reveal an astonishing richness of family belief. Furthermore, the various crises that provoked the desires for divine attention, protection, assistance, or salvation alluded to in the thanksgiving names actually enhanced the intimate personal relationships that individual family members had with their gods, as we discovered during our examination of the confession names. The direct correspondence between names of confession and the confessions of confidence in the individual laments reveals that the amazing conceptual richness of these names was directly related to the actual experiences faced by individuals in times of crisis. These names provided a base on which an individual might rekindle his or her hope in god’s protection, aid, or salvation. The names of confession thus reveal the center of family religion to have consisted of a close personal relationship with the divine. It was determined by the mutual aspects of trust and dependence at its foundation. The importance of trust in personal relationships with the divine is explicitly attested in the personal names of trust that were given despite apparent Northwest Semitic traditions against the construction of such names (see appendix B2.5). The aspect of dependence is most clearly expressed by 172. See above, p. 289.

Personal Names and Family Religion

325

the names that denote the name bearer as a servant or sojourner of the deity (see appendix B2.6.1–2). In subsequent sections of this book, we will add more detail to this understanding of personal relationship with the divine by examining its interrelatedness with the belief in individual creation.â•›173 In the meantime, it is abundantly clear that the trusting relationships expressed in the names of confession were not derived from the beliefs or concepts of official Israelite religion—despite the fact that they shared a few idioms and metaphorsâ•›174—but derived from intimate individual and family perspectives.

5.2.3.3.╇ Familial beliefs as represented by names of praise Names of praise constitute the smallest group of prayer names and in fact manifest fewer epigraphic appearances than any other Hebrew name group. The group consists of 48 names known from 135 occurrences, which amount to 7.1% and 4.6%, respectively, of all known names. In comparison with thanksgiving names (consisting of 24% of all names and 34% of all instances) and confession names (consisting of 17.6% of all names and 14.9% of all instances), praise names apparently reflected phenomena that were peripheral to the central issues of Israelite family religion. Expressions of praise found their primary outlet in the singing of hymns in temples and regional or central sanctuaries during annual pilgrimage festivals, such as Maṣṣot, Shavuot, and Sukkot. The singing was led by priests and professional singers. The sentiments of praise thus belonged largely to the domain of official religion. Nevertheless, the presence of families in larger pilgrimage festivals would have ensured that they were familiar with the statements of hymnic praise offered to god in these official domains, and these sentiments occasionally found parallel expression in the more private realms of family religion. Names of praise constituted a minor portion of all individual names of prayer (14%), and an even lower proportion of actual instances (8.6%), demonstrating the limited extent to which the domains of official and family religion affected or overlapped with each other. Names of praise can be classified into four subgroups of (1) names praising the greatness of god; (2) names praising the goodness of god; (3) names praising the vitality of god; and (4) names calling for the praise and worship of god. The first two groups reflect to the essential structure of Israelite hymns, which has been detailed by Claus Westermann (1963: 87–97). He wrote that the corpus of Israelite hymns is not merely an accumulation of generic praise statements but a more structured accumulation of statements about two opposing notions: praise for god’s majesty and praise for his mercy. The fourth group consists of sentiments closely allied with the calls to praise that generally introduce Israelite hymns (Crüsemann 1969: 19–80).â•›175 These three subgroups (1, 2, and 4) thus directly reflect the typical structure of the hymn genre. The fact that these structures were a much less conspicuous phenomenon in Israel’s neighboring cultures and that some names adopt 173. See below, pp. 331–336; and already above, pp. 277–281. 174. The following terms are discussed above in this respect: ʾabbîr ‘the strong one’, ṣēl ‘shadow’, and ʿegel ‘young steer’. 175. Regardless of criticisms that may be leveled at Crüsemann’s (1969: 126–54) consideration that the imperative form of hymns was specifically Israelite while the participial forms were attributable to foreign influences, he nevertheless emphasizes what was a characteristic trait of Israelite hymns.

326

Chapter 5

calls to praise in their original plural forms (which are otherwise not exactly appropriate as family sentiments) suggests that praise names were strongly influenced by Israelite hymns. Thus, these names were at least influenced structurally by the official religion. There are, however, two notable differences between praise names and hymns that indicate the limits on these influences. The first of these differences is found in the third of the above four subgroups, in which the vitality of god is praised, which had no clear counterpart in hymnal expressions. The second difference arises from a comparison of the rates of occurrence of etymological roots: praise names and hymnic statements share fewer than 40%, a notably lower percentage than equivalent values for thanksgiving names and confession names.â•›176 (Inclusion of roots shared with the related genres and other lessdirect parallels increases the amount shared to just over 60%.) Although there seems to have been little conjunction between the semantic context of praise names and the semantic contexts of thanksgiving and confession names,â•›177 there is some continuity that may be traced, simply because any experience of god’s protection, aid, or salvation can by extension be cause for praise. 5.2.3.3.1.╇ Praise for the greatness of god The first subgroup of praise names contains names that praise the greatness of god (see appendix B3.1). In this group are 12 epigraphic names derived from 4 different roots culled out of a total of 34 occurrences. The Hebrew Bible records more of these names (21), although they are derived from only 3 roots, with only 29 total instances. Among the most popular epigraphic names are those derived from the roots ‫ עלה‬ʿālāh ‘to ascend’ and ‫ רום‬rūm ‘to be exalted’. Five names are derived from ‫עלה‬, including ‫ עליהו‬ʿAlīyāhû and its Northern variant ‫ עליו‬ʿAlīyau, both of which mean ‘Yhwh is exalted’; they appear altogether 11 times. Four names are derived from ‫רום‬, including ‫ אלירם‬ʾElîrām ‘my god is exalted’, which is known from 13 records. The name ‫ בערא‬Baʿarāʾ, which was found on 4 Samarian ostraca, probably also belongs in this subgroup and was probably intended as a shortened form of ‫ בעלרם‬Baʿalrām (Renz and Röllig, HAE 2/1.62). We know from Phoenicia that it meant ‘Baal is exalted’. The Judean and Israelite regal names ‫ יהורם‬Yĕhôrām and ‫ יורם‬Yôrām ‘Yhwh is exalted’ (1 Kgs 22:51; 2 Kgs 3:1; 8:16, 21) certainly belong in this subgroup. Even though the only Israelite epigraphic evidence for these names to date comes from the fragmentary Dan inscription (line 7),â•›178 names derived from both of these roots appear several times in the Ammonite, Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomas176. Roots used in thanksgiving names correspond with roots in hymns 67% of the time in the strictest sense, 82.5% in a wider sense. Roots in confession names correspond 51% with roots in hymns in the strictest sense, and 62% in a wider sense, although if we include names that extendbeyond confessions of prayer (the 6th subgroup), these correspondences increase considerably, to 66% and 81.5%, respectively. 177. See the praise names based on the roots ‫ נור‬nûr Hiphil ‘to lighten’ and ‫ אמן‬ʾāmen ‘to be faithful’, in comparison with thanksgiving names from ‫( אמן‬see above, p.€301) and confession names from ‫ נר‬nēr ‘light’ (see above, pp.€315–315). In contrast to praise names derived from the roots ‫ רום‬rûm ‘to be exalted’ and ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ ‘to recognize’, thanksgiving names derived from these roots have different meanings. 178. See the reconstruction of Kottsieper (1998: 478), in which only . . . ]rm br [ . . . ‘xx is exalted son of xx’ is readable.

Personal Names and Family Religion

327

ticons. In contrast, the rare name ‫ רביהו‬Rabyāhû, derived from the root ‫ רבב‬rābab ‘to be frequent, to be great’, has only been found one time so far, in spite of its common meaning ‘Yhwh is great’. This sentiment could also have been intended as a declaration of thanksgiving and classified as a thanksgiving name, indicating that the deity had proven himself to be great, strong, or mighty in his saving intervention; however, in those sentiments, various roots were typically used, such as ‫ גדל‬gādal, ‫ אמץ‬ʾāmaṣ, and ‫ יכל‬yākol, all of which had their counterparts in private prayers or divine answers.â•›179 What the present names do is to render what would otherwise be statements issued in response to divine acts or intervention as more general statements of praise for the immanent qualities of the deity. The general nature of these statements is reflected in their semantic correspondence to statements that are made in the hymns (Ps 97:9; 99:2; 89:8). Two other names derived from the roots ‫ׂשרר‬/‫ ׂשרה‬śārar/śārāh ‘to rule’ appear to have been somewhat rarer, but these roots do not appear at all in the hymns and are rather rare in biblical texts in general. The statement made in the name ‫ ׂשריהו‬Śĕrāyāhû, that ‘Yhwh rules’, is a conventional expression of Yhwh’s majesty found in Israelite hymns that declare him to be the ruler of history and to override and overrule the power of mortal rulers (Ps 33:10–12; 65:8–9; 113:4; 135:8–12; 146:3–5), although again, sentiments of this sort are made in hymns using different terms and metaphors. The name ‫ אלמׁשל‬ʾIlmašal ‘El rules’ is epigraphically known in only 3 occurrences in the Ammonite onomasticon, although the root from which it is derived, ‫ מׁשל‬māšal, is more frequent in the Hebrew Bible, and also appears in the hymns (Ps 66:7; 103:19). In Israel, however, names expressing this sentiment were preferentially derived from the roots ‫ׂשרר‬/‫ׂשרה‬,â•›180 which probably reflects the influence of official religion in Israel, especially because the important, influential ancient tribal name ‫ יׂשראל‬Yiśrāʾel was probably derived from the same root. Although this personal name may appear to have been political in nature by suggesting that ‘El/God rules’ or ‘should rule’ (Noth 1928: 207–9; Albertz 1994: 76–79), names of praise derived from this root diminished the political impact by focusing solely on the control by the deity over the potential enemies of the individual so named. The fact that one name derived from this root has been found in the Phoenician onomasticon in the form of ‫ ׂשררמן‬Śarramōn ‘[Baal] Rimmon rules’ (WSS 1101)â•›181 shows that any potential influence by the official religion was simply influence on the form of the word. 5.2.3.3.2.╇ Praise for the goodness of god The obverse side of god’s greatness was his goodness, and there are 14 names known that express this quality derived from 6 roots in 32 epigraphic appearances (see appendix B3.2). Praise for god’s greatness and kindness appeared equally as often, which is also true of the distribution of these sentiments in Israelite hymns. Most of these names derive from the root ‫ טוב‬ṭôb ‘to be good, goodness’, from which no less than 7 different names are derived, attested 22 times epigraphically (along with 4 biblical names in 8 instances). The most frequent of these names are ‫ טבׁשלם‬Ṭōbšalem ‘Shalem is good’ and ‫ טביהו‬Ṭōbyāhû 179. See above, p. 301 and p. 303. 180. Two names are known epigraphically from 9 occurrences, along with 2 biblical names from 10 instances. 181. For a plausible interpretation of this seal, see Avigad and Sass 1997: 538.

328

Chapter 5

‘Yhwh is good’, each of which is known from 7 instances. These names express divine attention and mercy as directly experienced by families (see Ps 100:5), and the names were used to refer to both Shalem, the old city-god of Jerusalem, and Yhwh. Shalem, who accompanied sunset (DDD 1995: 1428–31), was likewise mentioned in the equivalent name in Aramaic. There are also similar names derived from the root ‫ נעם‬nāʿam ‘to be pleasant, kindness’, which is known in 6 attestations of 3 individual names, including ‫אבנעם‬ ʾAbinōʿam ‘[my divine] father is kind’ and, ‫ אחנעם‬ʾAḥīnōʿam ‘[my divine] brother is kind’. These 2 names are feminine and in the Hebrew Bible are the names of Saul’s wife (1 Sam 14:50) and David’s second wife (1 Sam 25:43). Another use of this root in a woman’s name is attested in Phoenicia: ‫ נעמלכת‬Nōʿammilkat ‘kindness of Milkat’. These names probably reflect joy experienced at the birth of daughters that especially called for praise with regard to the deity’s grace. Two names praise the deity’s perfection or purity, each of which is known from 1 inscription: ‫ יהותם‬Yĕhôtam ‘Yhwh is perfect’ and ‫ זכא‬Zakāʾ ‘[DN] is pure’. The former also appears 3 times in the Hebrew Bible in a shorter variant, ‫ יותם‬Yôtam (Judg 9:5; 2 Kgs 15:5; 1 Chr 2:47) and has several parallels in the Ammonite, Phoenician, and Aramaic onomasticons. The latter is also known from 1 Aramean or Ammonite seal (WSS 792), as well as in Ammonite and Aramaic names that use the root ‫ ברר‬bārar ‘to be pure’ instead of ‫זכה‬ zākāh, as in ‫ נׁשכבר‬Nuškubar ‘Nusku is pure’. These did not refer to imminent impurity or imperfection; the roots ‫ תמם‬tāmam, ‫זכה‬, and ‫ ברר‬denoted moral rather than ritual qualities, and these names ascribed purity and perfection to the deity, who was always beyond blame or reproach in spite of doubts that may have been expressed or experienced by fallible mortals in times of hardship. Thus, the names Yĕhôtam and Yôtam should be rendered ‘Yhwh is beyond reproach’, while Zakāʾ meant ‘[DN] is blameless’.â•›182 The beauty of Yhwh is praised in 1 name found on two 7th-century seal impressions from Lachish—‫ יפיהו‬Yĕpāyāhû ‘Yhwh is beautiful’—a statement that never appears in the Hebrew Bible. Although this name may have reflected an encounter with a physical statue of Yhwh himself, it is more likely that it was intended as a metaphorical expression about the radiance of his grace. The final name in this subgroup praises the guiding or directing function of the deity: ‫ מנר‬Mēnīr ‘[DN] is enlightening’. The sort of statement frequently made by confession names, that the deity is light (‫ נר‬nēr) incarnate for a suffering person, is transformed here into a general laudatory statement using the Hiphil participle of the root ‫ נור‬nûr. These names also appear in the Ammonite onomasticon (WSS 948). However, the last 4 names have no parallels in hymnic statements of praise, probably because they refer more directly to existential crises. 5.2.3.3.3.╇ Praise for the vitality of god A third, rather small subgroup of praise names stands outside the hymnic poles of divine majesty and mercy and consists of only 4 names, which are mostly derived from the single root ‫ חיה‬ḥāyāh ‘to live, to be alive’ (see appendix B3.3). Corresponding expressions appear in the individual prayers (Ps 18:47; 41:3; 84:3), and the names might be more 182. The biblical name ‫ זכי‬Zakkay (Ezra 2:9) should be understood in the same way, despite the fact that Noth (1928: 187) interpreted it as a shortened form of names derived from the root ‫זכר‬ zākar ‘to remember’.

Personal Names and Family Religion

329

appropriately considered names of thanksgiving.â•›183 However, because declarations about Yhwh’s vitality also appear in a variety of other contexts that are unambiguously associated with official religious practices or beliefs (including Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Jer 23:36; Hos 2:1; see Kreuzer 1983: 259–98), they cannot be restricted to use in family religion alone. It thus seems more plausible that names such as ‫ אדניחי‬ʾAdōnîḥay ‘my lord is alive’ and ‫ יהוחי‬Yĕhôḥay ‘Yhwh is alive’ adopted official epithetsâ•›184 but were adapted to emphasize the more-general, abiding vitality of the deity as experienced during moments of personal salvation. These sentiments of praise were in no way restricted to Israel, however, as illustrated by similar names that were used in Ammon and Moab, such as ‫ אביחי‬ʾAbîḥay ‘my [divine] father is alive’. The rare name ‫בלתה‬ Biltāh, which Renz and Röllig (HAE 2/2.171) considered a hypocoristicon based on the particle (‫ בלת)י‬bilt(î) ‘without’, probably also belongs in this group in accordance with their interpretation, ‘without [DN, there is no life]’, which is analogous to the Amurrite name Manna-balti-el ‘who would be without god?’ (Huffmon 1965: 175). 5.2.3.3.4.╇ Calls to praise and worship god As mentioned above, this last group of praise names (see appendix B3.4) directly corresponds to calls to praise found in Israelite hymns. This is especially true of the names with imperatives derived from the roots ‫ ידה‬yādāh Hiphil ‘to praise’ and ‫ הלל‬hālal Piel ‘to praise’, both of which appear frequently in hymnic calls to praise (Ps 136:1; 135:1). A number of names derived from ‫ ידה‬even explicitly incorporate the imperative plural used in hymnic calls to corporate worship, for example, ‫ הודויהו‬Haudûyāhû ‘praise Yhwh!’ (recorded 6 times), and thus imitate their use in the public forum.â•›185 Four names from this root are epigraphically attested in different spellings, with 11 instances (along with 7 biblical appearances of 3 names). Imperative names derived from the root ‫ הלל‬appear to have been less common (2 names, 1 appearance each) and were not explicitly plural; instead, they were imperative singular in meaning, as in ‫ הללאל‬Hallelʾēl ‘praise El/god!’ There are 2 similar names, however, that commanded worship of god that may again have been imperative plural: ‫ יראויהו‬Yĕrʾûyāhû ‘worship Yhwh!’ derived from the root ‫ ירא‬yārēʾ ‘to fear’ (4 instances) and ‫ דעואל‬Dĕʿûʾel ‘recognize god!’ taken from the root ‫ ידע‬yādaʿ ‘to know’ (recorded once). These names of praise demonstrate that Israelite families’ religious duties occasionally transcended their collective borders. The bearer of this sort of name and his family would have been inviting all neighbors and anyone else encountered to participate in the shared joy and devotion offered in response to experiences of god’s direct intervention. There are also a scant few names of this sort that have been found among names used by Israel’s neighbors—for example, the plural imperative Aramaic name ‫הודו‬ Haudû ‘praise [DN]!’ and the singular imperative Phoenician name ‫ יגראׁשמן‬Yĕgor↜ʾešmun ‘fear/worship Eshmun!’ 183. Names from the same root but derived from the Piel stem also appear in the birth names; they refer to the divine support granted to a newborn (see appendix B5.5.3.; and p. 284 above). 184. The plausible interpretation of ‫ אל חי‬ʾel ḥay ‘living god’ (Josh 3:10; Ps 42:3; 84:3; Hos 2:1; see also Dan 6:21, 27) suggests the predicative element ‫ חי‬ḥay as the verbal adjective ‘alive’ and not the perfect form of the verb. 185. These names also deviate from the grammatical tradition in Northwest Semitic naming that avoided placing the deity in the position of a grammatical object.

330

Chapter 5

Less direct ways in which members of the larger community were included in collective utterances of praise to god are alluded to in the names in this subgroup that raise laudatory rhetorical questions, as in 2 names that have been found in inscriptions. The most popular was ‫ מכיהו‬Mīkāyāhû ‘Who is like Yhwh?’ This name appears 35 times distributed in 7 variants, and is the most common of all individual names of praise. Similar names were also very common among Israel’s neighbors, including the name ‫ מכאל‬Mīkāʾel or its fuller form, ‫ מכמאל‬Mīkamōʾel ‘Who is like El?’, found in the Ammonite, Edomite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons. Both names also appear in the Hebrew Bible, spelled either (‫ מיכיה)ו‬or ‫( מיכאל‬9 and 6 instances, respectively). This rhetorical question was intended to place the incomparability of a particular deity as the grammatical object of agreement; a grammatical device that was also used in hymnal praise (Ps 113:5). These questions, as used in the domain of personal or familial religious experience would have been intended to convince family members that what they had experienced through the direct and personal intervention of their god was beyond all comparison. The second name that was formed as a question appears in 9 epigraphic contexts, in 2 orthographic variants of ‫ מיאמן‬Mîʾāmēn ‘Who is faithful [if not DN]?’ This name has no counterpart in the hymns and seems to have arisen exclusively in the realms of family religion, because its closest parallels are names of thanksgiving. Among the names described above that expressed divine attention was ‫ יואמן‬Yauʾāmān ‘Yhwh has remained faithful’ (see appendix B1.1.4).â•›186 In the present context, ‫ מיאמן‬transforms that former statement of gratitude into a question of astonishment. By using it, the members of a family might convince themselves and others that the faithful and dependable attention of their god was incomparable. Thus, although when considered together, these praise names appear to reflect to some extent the influence of Israel’s official religion, especially in regard to hymnic structures, the beliefs conveyed by these names are in most cases still firmly rooted in the same sorts of family religious experience as the thanksgiving and confession names. The only exceptions to this general dissociation between official religion and the social and religious milieux of names seems to have been with regard to names that alluded to the vitality of the deity or the deity’s ineluctable rule. However, there was still not one topic of Israel’s official religious hymnic praise—whether the creation of the world, the exodus, Sinai, Zion, or divine kingship—that was referred to by the names in this group.â•›187 Rather than expressing these hymnal topics, the names seem to have been more-general allusions to divine greatness or kindness that were not restricted to Israel’s national identity or existence. They were more likely to reflect divine greatness or kindness in relation to the families’ and individuals’ everyday lives and unique needs. Although our recognition of this adoption and incorporation requires that we admit to broadening the scope of potential religious influence on religious practices and beliefs typical of Israelite families, we insist that the family was the essential core toward which all religious experiences were directly focused.

186. See also above, p. 301. 187. Reaffirming the absence of Israel’s official traditions in family religion, as already demonstrated above, pp. 262–269.

Personal Names and Family Religion

331

5.2.3.4.╇ The structure of familial piety related to experiences of crisis Following the above analyses of the beliefs of family religion as expressed in birthexperience, thanksgiving, confession, and praise names, the present section describes the essential structure and function of practices and beliefs pertaining to family piety. The personal names do not encompass the entire range of beliefs of family religion (contra previous assertions in Albertz 1978a) but only one important segment of it. Since they are all directly or indirectly connected to the dramatic events of the birth process, they reflect various experiences of crisis. This sort of connection is reflected in the strong correspondences between the extended group of prayer names and the individual psalms of lament, thanksgiving, and confidence: sentiments expressed by all such names and psalms reveal a fundamental relationship to crises typical of individual and family life. The nature of piety as shown by the prayer names thus reflects the segment of family religion that provided ways for individuals and families to deal with crises both emotionally and spiritually. Although practices and beliefs surrounding family religion naturally extended beyond these experiences of crisis and ways of coping with their implications (as demonstrated in the following paragraph), these experiences and mechanisms nevertheless reflect the central focus and function of all religion, in helping the individual and community to overcome the trials and travails of life. Personal names reveal the strong influence of beliefs about personal relationships with the divine on the structure and function of Israelite family religion. The god referred to in theophoric names is often ‘my god’ (‫ אלי‬ʾēlî↜渀屮), meaning that this god is the sort of “personal god” that is considered to be in an intimate relationship with the name bearer. Although epigraphic material from the 9th to the 6th centuries b.c.e. often eschewed the inscription of personal suffixes or else intermingled them with other name elements such as the first letter of the name Yhwh, there are plenty of cases that do allow us to determine unambiguously that the divine appellative carries the first-person-singular suffix. Examples are: ‫ אליסמך‬ʾElîsāmāk ‘my god has supported [me]’ (in addition to ‫)אלסמך‬, ‫ אליצר‬ʾElîṣūr ‘my god is [my] rock’ (next to ‫)אלצר‬, and ‫ אליעז‬ʾElîʿoz ‘my god is [my strong] protection’ (next to ‫)אלעז‬. Sometimes divinized designations of kinship are explicitly personal, such as ‫ אחיעזר‬ʾAḥîʿezer ‘my [divine] brother is [my help]’ (next to ‫ יהועזר‬Yĕhôʿezer), ‫אחיקם‬ ʾAḥîqām ‘my [divine] brother has arisen’ (next to ‫)אחקם‬, and ‫ חמיאהל‬Ḥammîʾohel ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] tent’. Notions of the divine other as being personally related to an individual are witnessed by an apotheosis of god’s intervention and the use of the firstperson-singular suffix, as in ‫ עזריקם‬ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine] help has arisen’ (next to ‫)עזרקם‬. These grammatical interpretations of epigraphic material are supported by numerous names found in the Hebrew Bible, often written plene and explicitly revealing the yod of the personal suffix, as in ‫ אחיׁשחר‬ʾAḥîšaḥar ‘my [divine] brother is [my] dawning’. Conceptions of a personal god are especially manifest in the appeals of the individual lament psalms in which Yhwh is addressed as “my god” no less than 29 times in the 39 texts of this type.â•›188 The personal nature of the address is emphasized in expressions of trust such 188. Five times as ‫ אלי‬ʾelî in Ps 22:2, 11; 63:2; 102:25; 140:7; and 24 times as ‫ אלהי‬ʾĕlōhay in Ps 3:8; 5:3; 7:2, 4; 13:4; 22:3; 25:2; 31:15; 35:23, 24; 38:16, 22; 40:18; 42:7; 42:12; 43:4–5; 59:2; 69:4; 71:4, 12, 22; 86:2, 12; 109:26; and 143:10; with both forms conveying the same meaning.

332

Chapter 5

as “god of my salvation,” “god of my protection,” “my god of mercy,” “god of my justice,” and “god of my praise,”â•›189 all of which are similar to expressions typical of the confessions of confidence. Finally, Yhwh could be addressed as “my lord” (Ps 16:2; 38:16; 86:12), “my shepherd” (23:1), “my king” (5:3), or “my rock” (28:1), rendering an individual’s close relationship to his or her god immediate and evident. This sort of personal relationship with the divinity was the fundamental characteristic of family religion.â•›190 Many aspects of the intimate personal relationships between individuals and their gods were expressed in names of confession, and these names shared strong parallels with the confessions of confidence in the individual laments. These names acknowledge that a personal god was clearly the provider of protection, aid, or salvation to an individual, and thus they assert one’s solid, indispensable trust in god. In the defective epigraphic Hebrew spelling of these names, personal references to the bearers of the names were generally not indicated explicitly, although there is ample evidence from the formation of Aramaic names to suggest that the confessions were intended as personal references, as in the examples ‫ ׁשמׁשעדרי‬Šamašʿidrî ‘Shamash is my help’ and ‫ אדמעזי‬ʾAddumaʿuzî ‘Adad is my refuge’. These sorts of personal intention are also reflected in the corresponding confessions in the Psalms, which employ personal formulations, such as: Ps 54:6, “See, god is my helper; the lord is among the supporters of my life!” and Ps 31:5, “Set me free from the net men have hidden for me, because you are my refuge!” Moreover, the epigraphic Hebrew names ‫ עמנויהו‬and ‫ עמניהו‬ʿImmānûyāhû ‘Yhwh is with us’ not only explicitly intend a personal referenceâ•›191 but also verify that an entire family could be considered in direct relationship to the personal (family) god.â•›192 The existence and function of personal relationships with a deity characterized by trustfulness thus must be seen as having been a defining characteristic of family religion. 189. ‘God of my salvation’ ‫ אלהי יׁשעי‬ʾĕlōhê yišʿî in Ps 25:5; 27:9; ‫ אלהי יׁשועתי‬ʾĕlōhê yĕšûʿātî in Ps 88:2; and ‫ אלהי תׁשועתי‬ʾĕlōhê tĕšûʿātî in Ps 51:16, all of which have the same meaning. ‘God of my protection’ ‫ אלהי מעזי‬ʾĕlōhê māʿuzzî in Ps 43:2, in a confession of confidence. ‘My God of mercy’ ‫ אלהי חסדי‬ʾĕlōhê ḥasdî in Ps 59:18, a final address after a confession of confidence. ‘God of my justice’ ‫ אלהי צדקי‬ʾĕlōhê ṣidqî in Ps 4:2, as an opening address. ‘God of my praise’ ‫ אלהי תהלתי‬ʾĕlōhê tĕhillātî in Ps 109:1, as an opening address; see also the confession of confidence in Ps 71:6. 190. The Psalms further support the above interpretation of personal names, contrary to Noth’s (1928: 33–36) doubt about interpreting the letter yod in names to signify a first-person-singular suffix. His argument that the same name could be spelled with or without the interlocutory vocal î merely reflects the ambiguity of older written Hebrew as used in the epigraphic names, an ambiguity only partly ameliorated by the time of the later biblical scribes. This letter did, however, actually represent the first-person-singular suffix of the in many cases (Zadok 1988: 51–55), and the old constructus ending was intended only in the cases where the element appears between the two nominal elements of a construct name; only in these cases can the survival of an old constructus ending be suggested. 191. The spellings ‫ עמדיהו‬ʿImmādīyāhû and ‫ עמדיו‬ʿImmādīyau ‘Yhwh is with me’ also presuppose the first-person-singular suffix, because the preposition ‫ עם‬ʿim ‘with’ uses this fuller form only in connection with that suffix (see GKC §103c). 192. Similar interpretation of the Hebrew name ‫ ׁשפטן‬Šipṭān ‘our legal assistance’ (see above, p.€312) and the Ammonite name ‫ אלעזן‬ʾIlʿuzzān ‘El is our protection’ (see above, p.€315), however, remains uncertain.

Personal Names and Family Religion

333

The names themselves, however, are not sufficient evidence for elucidating the origins or foundations of these personal relationships with god. From the fact that the confession names mentioned above were bestowed by parents on their children, we can conclude that the intimate relationship with the divine was imparted from one generation to the next and was not a matter of individual decision.â•›193 From the very beginning of a child’s life, his or her identity and self-perceptions were imposed based on the religious experiences and beliefs of the parents. But these considerations reveal the social reasons rather than the religious. The religious foundation underlying the personal relationship with the divine is illustrated more directly by the formal analogy between the names that express lifelong personal relationships to a deity (such as ‫ עבדיהו‬ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’) and equivalent names of creation (such as ‫ מעׂשיהו‬Maʿaśēyāhû ‘work of Yhwh’ or ‫ מקניהו‬Miqnēyāhû ‘creature of Yhwh’). The former formulate from a human perspective what is conceived by the latter from a divine perspective: one is related to god for one’s entire life because god has created every individual and thus has entered into a relationship with each one. Birth names, especially the extended group of creation names (39 names from 11 roots, 148 occurrences),â•›194 reveal the religious foundations of these personal relationships with god that are so vividly attested in the prayer names. Direct evidence for the religious origin of personal relationships with god is further provided by the Psalms. In two prominent confessions of confidence found in two different psalms of individual lament, the two topics of one’s creation by god and one’s ongoing personal relationship with god (which are closely connected in Psalm 22) appear: But you are he who drew me from the womb, â•… who instilled confidence in me in my mother’s womb. 11 On you I was cast from the day of my birth; â•… from my mother’s womb you have been my god. 10

The emergence of the suffering individual’s confidence is here traced back to his or her birth, which is conceptualized as the personal creation of god. God draws one from the womb of one’s mother as a midwife. The intended meaning of the participle of the root ‫גחה‬ gāḥāh is the same as the intended meaning of creation names derived from other roots such as ‫ דליהו‬Dĕlāyāhû ‘Yhwh has drawn out’, ‫ הצליהו‬Hiṣṣīlyāhû ‘Yhwh has delivered’, or ‫ איץ‬ʾIṣ ‘[DN] has accelerated [the birth]’. The petitioner of Psalm 22 declares this divine creative act to have instilled him with confidence (the Hiphil participle of the root ‫בטח‬ bāṭaḥ), and the resulting sentiment is similar to the confession names derived from the noun of the same root, such as ‫ מבטחיהו‬Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘my trust is Yhwh’. Thus, the trusting relationship between the person who is suffering and his or her personal god was the direct result of the person’s creation by god. This trustful relationship began at the very first instant of life and was predestined to prevail throughout this life, regardless of the individual’s intention, volition, or deeds. Moreover, the middle two phrases of 22:10–11 193. That the personal relationship to god was inherited in Israelite families is also clear in expressions such as “god of my father,” which occur often in the patriarchal narratives (Gen 31:5, 29, 42; 32:10; 43:23; 46:1, 3; 50:17). This expression indicates that the god venerated by the children was identical to the god of the father. This familial divine appellative is also attested outside Israel; see Albertz 1994: 1.27–30. 194. See above, pp. 277–281.

334

Chapter 5

reveal a lasting personal relationship with god that consists of both a strong confidence in him and a strong dependence on him. Similar sentiments are expressed in the confession of confidence in Psalm 71: You are my hope, O Lord, Yhwh, â•… my trust since my youth. 6 From birth I have leaned on you; â•… you are he who cut me from the womb of my mother; â•… my praise was ever about you. 7 I became a frightening sign for many, â•… but you are my strong refuge. 5

In the needs of old age (Ps 71:18), an old man traces his lifelong trust in Yhwh back to his youth and locates the beginning of this intimate relationship with god to his birth, when Yhwh (once again acting as midwife) severed his umbilical cord. The expression of v.€6 derived from the participle of the root ‫ גזה‬gāzāh ‘to cut’ is probably directly analogous to the hypocoristic creation name ‫ גזא‬Gāzāʾ ‘[DN] has severed [me from the umbilical cord]’.â•›195 Furthermore, the designation ‘my hope’ (‫ תקותי‬tiqwātî) in v.€5 has a parallel in the Hebrew personal name ‫ תקוה‬Tiqwāh ‘[my] hope [is in DN]’; and the similar confession of confidence in v.€6, ‘I have leaned on you’ (‫ סמך‬sāmak Niphal), is expressed in the Aramaic name ‫ אלסמכי‬ʾElsumkî ‘El is my support’. Psalm 71 also testifies that an individual’s personal relationship with god, which is initiated during his or her creation and birth, endures through the individual’s lifetime. This relationship may be revitalized time and again in the face of actual danger or hardship. Because the psalmist’s confessions in Ps 22:10–11 and 71:5–7 show such a high degree of verbal and material correspondence with the personal names, they can be considered additional evidence for family religion. Thus, the hypothesis that the central feature of Israelite family religion, a personal relationship with god, was rooted in each individual’s creation has been proven. In being so directly rooted in the creation of humankind, the central beliefs of Israelite family religion differed markedly from the central beliefs of the official religion of Israel and Judah. Psalms 22 and 71 reveal that suffering individuals could attempt to gain the attention of god by reminding him of the intimate, enduring relationship that he himself had established at the very instant of their creation. The collective laments represent similar attempts by entire communities to remind Yhwh of his foundational actions for his people, whether during the exodus from Egypt and the occupation of the promised land (Ps 80:9–12; see also 44:2–4), the election of the Jerusalem Temple (74:2), or the establishment of the Davidic Kingdom (89:20–38). Although Israel’s relationship to Yhwh was also structured personallyâ•›196—a feature that stands in marked contrast to all other official religions of the ancient Near Eastâ•›197—this relationship was deeply rooted in Israel’s political history. In contrast, Israelite family religion was not based on political history but on 195. Thus no correction of the text based on the Septuagint or Jerome is necessary. 196. Consider Yhwh’s most frequent epithet, ‫ אלהי יׂשראל‬ʾĔlōhê Yiśrāʾel ‘god of Israel’ (Judg 5:3, 5; 1€Sam 14:41; 1 Kgs 1:30, among others), which appears 198 times in the Hebrew Bible. By it, Yhwh is defined as a god who is in personal relationship with a large group. 197. Here the relationship between the gods and their cities or countries comes to the fore; therefore, the deities commissioned kings to keep their property in order (see Albertz 1978a: 152– 63, in reference to the Old Babylonian state religion). Notably, the Moabite King Mesha wrote in his

Personal Names and Family Religion

335

biological grounds, as were the family religions of all of Israel’s neighbors. The complete absence of official religious traditions in personal namesâ•›198 testifies that family religion existed and functioned independently of Israel’s history of national salvation and was uninfluenced by it.â•›199 Instead, family religion was in essence focused on the personal creation of every individual. Thus, the essential traits of premonarchic family religion in Israel can be summarized based on the evidence drawn from epigraphic personal names and the prayers of the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible. The intimate personal relationship between each family member and his or her god primarily reflected and was determined by two contrasting feelings: (1) trust in god and (2) dependence on god. By being based on every moment of individual conception and creation, these relationships were predetermined for all, and they prevailed independently of individual whim or volition. These relationships with the divine remained as indisputable as one’s very existence and were not conditional on any acts or instances of ritual or ethical behavior. These relationships could, however, be revitalized by individuals in moments of crisis as they sought to garner god’s attention and aid. In these moments, individuals could remind their god that he had personally created them and therefore should act to protect and preserve them, rather than allowing them to die (Job 10). Personal relationships with god were indestructible. These characteristics of familial belief are not only observable from the individual prayers of the Hebrew Bible (Albertz 1978a: 23–49) but are also reflected in the confession names that were bestowed on Israelite children for life. Even for people whose trust in god may have faltered or failed in times of crisis or who may have temporarily neglected or forgotten their obligation to serve their god, the names bestowed on them by their families, whether in the form of Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘Yhwh is [my] confidence’ or ʿAbdiyāhû ‘Servant of Yhwh’, continued to define them and encourage them to renew their personal religious relationship. The religious concepts revealed by the birth-experience, thanksgiving, and confession names were derived in many cases from typical family experiences. The names discussed here make clear that personal relationships with god as expressed by birth-experience and prayer names were perceived similarly to the intimate personal relationships that family members had with one another (Albertz 1978a: 94). The relationships between children and parents reveal particularly strong analogies. Whether divine or earthly, these relationships were generally unconditional, indissoluble, and indestructible, even in times of crisis. The sentiments of personal names in relation to god regarding confidence, protection, and security also describe the conditions that were ideally experienced by every infant in relation to his or her mother or father.â•›200 This “very specifically declared relationship” that, inscription that the national god Chemosh was angry about his land, rather than about his people (KAI 181.5; ANET 320). 198. See above, pp. 262–269. 199. Ps 22:4–6, which reminds Yhwh of his relationship to Israel and its forefathers, who trusted in him, is a redaction imposed on the psalm during its reuse in the community of the poor in the postexilic period (see vv. 24–27, the later eschatological outlook of vv. 28–32, and Albertz 1978a: 30–31; and Gerstenberger 1988: 108–13). 200. See, for example, the verb ‫ חסה‬ḥāsāh ‘to seek shelter’ in the psalmist’s confessions of confidence (such as Ps 7:2; 11:1; 25:20; 31:2), which clearly reflect childhood experiences, as does the reflection in Ps 27:10.

336

Chapter 5

according to the sociologist Rosemarie Nave-Herz (2002: 149), “distinguished the family from any other relation of social interaction in a given society”â•›201 was also the very relationship that determined and defined the typical features of family religion. Thus the central beliefs of family religion were predominantly influenced and formed by fundamental social relations and the essential experiences typical of family groups.

5.3.╇ Family beliefs related to the conduct of everyday life I have already mentioned that personal names do not express the whole compass of family religion, primarily because their references are in many ways constrained to the dangerous and dramatic events that were typical of birth processes. However, although the lives of typical Israelites, especially women and children, may have been much more frequently in grave peril than is the case for many people in modern societies, family religion was not entirely forged in times of crisis. Life would have had its times of relative peace and equanimity, and it is only reasonable to presume that even these times were experiences with their own religious dimensions. Although the religious dimensions of quotidian life not in crisis were generally not reflected in personal names, there was a genre that aimed to counsel individuals and enable them to make good decisions in their everyday conduct: the proverbs. There is, however, no epigraphic evidence for the existence of proverbs in ancient Israel, and the biblical proverbs are thus considered here merely as an excursus in order to provide a more complete picture of familial beliefs. Like the personal names considered above, the older wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible also makes no reference to Israel’s official religious traditions or national history.â•›202 While this conspicuous absence has often been excused by referring to the international character of the wisdom tradition (Fichtner 1965: 13; H. D. Preuss 1987: 59–60), B. Lang (1972: 73–75) was the first to associate this absence with the difference between personal piety and official religion. In his doctoral thesis, Tae-Kyung Kim (2008) then studied forms of piety expressed in the wisdom literature and related these expressions to my previous (1978a) reconstruction of personal piety in Israelite religion, which did not include evidence from proverbs. The historical period of concern in the present book overlaps only with the oldest piece of wisdom literature, the book of Proverbs. Although the present form of the book derives from the postexilic period, chaps. 10–29 contain several collections of proverbs that extend in origin back in the monarchic period. Prov 25:1 says that the “men of Hezekiah, king of Judah” collated the subsequent material. However, although the older parts of the book of Proverbs may constitute the collections of the wisdom teachers of the Judean court in Jerusalem, the essence of these expressions would have originated in individual proverbs and smaller collections as used and orally transmitted by ordinary people. Proverbs in general served both to express the experiences of adult men and women during the conduct of their daily lives and to provide others with a sense of moral orientation (Westermann 1974; Golka 1994). Thus, the biblical proverbs provide immediate insight into 201. See above, pp. 21–22. 202. A synthesis of the Wisdom, Torah, and Zion traditions was only explicitly created by Ben Sira at the end of the 3rd century b.c.e. (see Ben Sira 1 and 24).

Personal Names and Family Religion

337

the lives of Israelite families on the village level. From the more recent chapters of Proverbs under consideration here (chaps. 1–9), which may have arisen in the court school, only one passage—the instructive speech on the religious education of individuals, Prov 3:1–12—will be included. Religion does not play a central role in biblical proverbs. By retelling experiences and providing counsel, Proverbs tends to address individuals’ rationality rather than their piety. In fact, only 12% of all proverbs show any religious dimension,â•›203 a percentage that is almost precisely opposite the percentage of names in the epigraphic onomasticon that express theophoric (84.4%) rather than secular concepts (15.6%). There is, nevertheless, a degree of overlap between the primary religious notions expressed in names and prayers and those expressed in the proverbs. The divine creation of individuals that is witnessed in many birth names (appendix B5.5.1) and private prayers (Ps 22:10–11; 71:5–7; Job 10:3, 8–12) is also mentioned in Prov 14:31; 17:5; 20:12; 22:2; 29:13; the divine provision of protection and shelter witnessed by many confession names (appendix B2.4) and the confessions of confidence in the individual laments (Ps 43:2; 71:5; 61:4) is also addressed in Prov 10:29; 14:26; 15:29; 18:10 (and see also 16:3); and the trust in god alluded to in names in the same group (see appendix B2.5) as well as prayers (Ps 13:6; 28:7; 31:7) is also a subject in Proverbs (Prov 3:5; 16:20; 22:19; 28:25; 29:25). Although all notions expressed by names are modified to some extent based on context or function, the piety expressed in Proverbs may still be considered to belong to the realm of family religion. There are a number of religious motifs used in Proverbs either to provide encouragement or to warn a person. Encouragement is provided particularly for those afraid to take appropriate or necessary action. Thus the faithful are told not to fear human beings, because those who trust in Yhwh will be sheltered (Prov 29:25); and those who submit all motives to Yhwh will find their plans fulfilled (16:3). One may at all times place confidence in the perceptions of one’s eyes and ears and one’s analytical skills, because all were created by Yhwh (20:12). The disheartened are informed by Prov 14:26 that their close relationship to god—fear of Yhwh (‫ יראת יהוה‬yirʾat Yhwh)—constitutes a firm foundation for trust (‫ מבטח‬mibṭaḥ), a foundation that is even capable of providing divine shelter (‫ מחסה‬maḥăseh) for one’s children. The family was thus regarded as the nexus through which piety was passed from one generation to the next—which is directly parallel to the above conclusions drawn from our consideration of personal names.â•›204 God’s pleasure might lead him to grant unexpected success (16:7), and this success might be especially due to the presence of a woman who is a helper in the founding of a family (18:22; 19:14). Like wisdom, piety guarantees a successful life (14:27; 19:23; 22:4; and see 13:14). Moreover, piety is required before one can be instructed by wisdom (15:33). In all cases, the practices and beliefs of personal piety provide individuals with the essential confidence that is necessary for making rational decisions. 203. Attribution of the religious sayings to the times of the older proverbs rather than the later interpretations is supported by the existence of the Aramean collection ascribed to the wise Aḥiqar (TUAT 2.320–47), which according to the editor, I. Kottsieper, comes from the south Syrian Levant of the 8th century b.c.e. 204. See above, pp. 334–336.

338

Chapter 5

Proverbs that serve as warnings are more numerous and remind individuals of their relationship with god in demarcating human endeavor, ingenuity, and wisdom and not overestimating themselves or their abilities. In spite of plans and efforts that one might make, the success of one’s work is entirely dependent on god’s blessing and decision and remains at all times beyond one’s disposal (Prov 10:22; 16:9, 33; 19:21; 21:31). God also decides the limits of human wisdom (21:30; 22:12); one may fail in spite of all one’s cleverness and must never blame God for one’s failure (19:3). Young men are warned during their religious education not to place excess trust in their own wisdom but to place all trust in Yhwh (3:5). All people should remain aware that Yhwh will examine their most intimate thoughts and deeds (15:3, 11; 17:3; 20:27) and will uncover any self-deception (16:2; 21:2). Yhwh does not accept lying, deceit, arrogance (11:20; 12:22; 15:26; 16:5), deceptive commerce (11:1; 20:10, 23), or unjust judgments in trials (17:15). He punishes evildoers and defends their victims (10:3; 12:2; 15:25; 22:22–23). Personal piety in Proverbs is thus strongly ethical in orientation. Divine protection is not presumed to be automatically granted to all but is only reserved for the pious (10:29; 15:29; 18:10). The evildoer may not claim to be a beloved creature of god as others may. Furthermore, although Prov 16:4 admits that an evildoer may be one of Yhwh’s creatures, it sardonically declares that he was only created for the day of doom. Proverbs no longer considers a trusting relationship with god to be unconditional; it is dependent on volitional acts such as avoiding evil (16:6), deceitfulness (14:2), greed (28:25), jealousy (23:17), and revenge (20:22; 25:21–22) and giving support to the needy (19:17). Hope placed in god thus replaces any need to take revenge (20:22), and trusting in riches (11:28) is replaced by confidence in god. Piety naturally restricts aspirations for personal profit (15:16). Proverbs even reveals a social dimension to the creation motif that we saw was so central to family piety. The belief that Yhwh created each and every individual can only mean that no human being, no matter how poor or unfortunate, should be despised and that all social stratification must be restricted and limited as much as possible (14:31; 17:5; 22:2; 29:13).â•›205 Thus, Proverbs considers Yhwh to be not only the creator, supporter, and protector of all individuals but also their examiner, their judge, and the person who will retaliate on their behalf. This sort of piety, as expressed in Proverbs, differs markedly from the piety attested in the personal names and private prayers. Tae-Kyung Kim (2008: 15–17, 242–44) argues that this difference reflects the different sociohistorical contexts in which these texts were written and to which they were directed. Personal names and (especially) laments derived from instances of personal crisis, whether illness or jeopardy during birth or times when social relationships were contracted. Thus, individuals sought shelter in god as a small child flees to its mother. Dominating all these statements were god’s unconditional protection of the individual and the fundamental indissolubility of an individual’s relationship with God. In contrast, Proverbs was directed at the daily life of adults who were capable of taking responsibility for their own deeds in their particular social environment. In these situations, god cannot be conceived purely as the creator and supporter of the individual; 205. P. Doll (1985: 15–29) showed that in the older proverbs only the creation of man is present, similar to the thinking of the individual laments (Albertz 1974: 33–44). The creation of the world, which is a topic of hymns (Psalms 33; 65; 95; 104; 136; 146; 147; 148) and belongs to the stratum of official religion, appears in Proverbs only in later wisdom poems (Prov 3:19–20; chap. 8).

Personal Names and Family Religion

339

rather, lest one forget one’s relationship with the divine, god was also considered to be both examiner and judge of all actions throughout life. Personal piety was thus an attitude required of all individuals throughout their lives; moreover, it was an attitude that required specific social behavior and forbade egotism at the expense of others. Thus, personal piety as expressed in personal names and Psalms, on the one hand, and in Proverbs, on the other hand, can be seen to reflect two different dimensions of the same underlying family religion but also two fundamentally different situations of family life. In being concerned with the everyday existence of typical villagers, Proverbs was not especially addressed to the typical locus of the family cult. Sacrifices offered by evildoers are criticized (Prov 15:8), righteous social conduct is considered more important than sacrifices (21:3), and divine attention granted in response to prayers is restricted to the pious (15:8, 29). The religious education of young men, however, emphasizes the importance of the sacrifice of firstlings (3:9–10), and these typical family sacrifices directly connected the household economy to the veneration of the deity that took place in local or regional sanctuaries.â•›206 Thus, young men who would assume responsibility for the family cult were reminded to honor god for his blessings in order to safeguard themselves and their future. The religious education of young men also addresses appropriate behavior in situations of distress (Prov 3:11–12). The teacher pleads for the pupils to accept distress as a manifestation of Yhwh’s education. The teacher attempts to render divine reprimands acceptable by reference to family relationships: God acts as a father who reprimands his son, because he loves and favors him. This, admittedly, is a rational interpretation of general situations of distress, which often must have been incomprehensible to those who were afflicted. Nevertheless, it identified the indissoluble relationship between parents and children as the formative essence of relationships with the divine in family religion.

5.4.╇ The deities venerated in family religion Following the above descriptions of familial religious beliefs, predominately elucidated by the predicative statements of theophoric personal names, the present section examines the actual deities mentioned in those names. Personal names contain a number of theophoric elements that have been used in the past to construct religious histories. For example, J. H. Tigay’s (1987) study aimed to determine the polytheistic and monotheistic traits of preexilic Israelite religion and concluded that “the evidence currently available makes it very difficult to suppose that many Israelites worshiped gods other than Yhwh” (1987: 180) during the period of the Divided Monarchy. However, can observations about the prevailing characteristics of family religion be used to support these general conclusions? Are we free to presuppose that the deities venerated by Israelite families shared similar areas of responsibility as their official religious equivalents? An improved understanding of the nature of familial deities requires a new investigation that compares and contrasts the differing cultural realms of ancient Israelite society. In this context, a treatment of the last group of personal names, the “equating names,” is crucial. 206. See below, pp. 402–403.

340

Chapter 5

5.4.1.╇ General observations about West Semitic deities By omitting secular names and hypocorisms, we tally 404 Hebrew theophoric personal names from the 1,978 epigraphic records (see table 5.7, p. 508). Twenty-eight different theophoric elements can be distinguished in these names, which we further divide into seven units based on their structures. The first unit contains five divinized designations of kinship, including ʾāb ‘father’, ʾāḥ ‘brother’, ʿam ‘uncle’, ḥam ‘father-in-law’, and probably also ʾēm ‘mother’.â•›207 Names containing these units amount to 13.1% of all theophoric namesâ•›208 and 12.1% of all instances. The second unit uses the theophoric elements ʾēl and ʾēlī, which are not clearly distinguishable because the suffix that is pronounced in ʾēlī is almost never written. The word ʾēl may denote either the high god El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon in the 2nd millennium b.c.e. (DDD 1995: 522–32), or the appellative ‘god’; ʾēlī may denote the tutelary or personal god of a family member (‘my god’). The El-names constitute a similar 13.1% of all Hebrew theophoric names and 11.1% of all occurrences. The third and largest unit refers to the Israelite national god, Yhwh; 59.4% of all names in the present sample contain this reference, which are 67.6% of all inÂ�stances.â•›209 The names in the fourth unit include a reference to the god Baal; it is a small unit of only 11 names represented in 20 instances (or 2.8 and 1.0% of the total, respectively). Nevertheless, this unit appears in each of the four groups of theophoric names. Hebrew names also refer to or use epithets for other West Semitic deities, including the gods Mot, Yerach, Sahar,â•›210 Shalem, Asher, and Qos; and goddesses such as Anat; and other generic divine female titles such as queen and lady. The old Canaanite epithets melek ‘king’ and ʾadōn ‘lord’ are also common and, if we include 1 name that refers to the Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash, these names together compose a fifth unit, which constitutes 8.2% of all names and 6.1% of instances. There are also 3 Egyptian gods whose names arise in the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon: Horus, Isis, and Bes. These form a sixth unit that includes 1.7% of all theophoric names and 1.2% of all instances. The seventh unit comprises names with five sorts of reference to the divine: šem ‘name’, ʿezrī ‘my help’, ʾûr ‘light’, ḥayil ‘strength’, and ʿalay ‘exalted’. Although these elements in this unit are used in predicative statements

207. For discussion of which, see below, pp. 350–351 and 363–364. 208. Each equating name consisting of 2 theophoric elements is counted twice in the present calculations, and thus this group of names represents a higher portion of names here than the percentages given in previous calculations. 209. On the basis of the Hebrew Bible, J. D. Fowler (1988: 366–67) calculated that 36% of names during the period of the United Monarchy contained Yhwh-elements, and 74.3% during the period of the Divided Monarchy. On the basis of 738 preexilic epigraphic names, Tigay (1987: 161–62) concluded that 47.6% of all names contained Yhwh-elements. My conclusion in this chapter, taken from evidence spanning the 9th–6th centuries, is a midpoint between these estimates but is distinctly lower than Fowler’s estimate for the later period. Because most epigraphic material comes from the second part of the 8th–7th century, and because dating is often uncertain, any diachronic perspective is relinquished here. Proving that Yhwh was the family god would have taken some time, and any detailed study of the process of adoption and assimilation would require the inclusion of a great deal more epigraphic material from the 10th and 9th centuries. 210. Sahar is an Armaean name for the moon-god.

Personal Names and Family Religion

341

in other theophoric names,â•›211 in a few rare cases (here) they are used as substitutes for the names of deities (1.7% of all names, 0.9% of instances).â•›212 There is a high degree of similarity in predicative statements used in the various SyrianLevantine onomasticons, but the theophoric elements contain a much greater diversity of expression. The element Yhwh, for example, is found in two-thirds of all epigraphic Hebrew names yet is only rarely attested in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors. No instances have been found in Moabite names, and it appears in only 1.1% of all Ammonite names, 0.8% of Phoenician names, and 4.1% of all Aramean names.â•›213 There are nevertheless a number of striking similarities in the theophoric elements used in the different Levantine onomasticons. Table 5.8 (p. 509) reveals that there were quite a few divinized kinship terms in every onomasticon: 13.1% of all names and 12.1% of instances in the Hebrew onomasticon; 15.6% and 9.6%, respectively, in the Ammonite onomasticon; and 15.5% and 14.9% in the Aramaic. These names arise more frequently in the Moabite onomasticon (27.0% of names and 28.6% of instances), while they are less frequent in the Phoenician onomasticon (7.9% of names and 5.2% of instances). However, in all Levantine cultures—as demonstrated by Noth (1928: 66–82) across the spectrum of Semitic cultures—these kinship terms constituted a fundamental element of theophoric personal names. All selected Levantine onomasticons show a considerable portion of El-names: 13.1% of all names in Hebrew, and 11.1% of all instances, with similar percentages in the Moabite onomasticon of 13.5% and 11.9%. The percentages are slightly higher in the Aramaic onomasticon (19.1% and 20.4%, respectively), and again somewhat lower in the Phoenician (7.2% and 5.6%, respectively). The Ammonite onomasticon presents a special case; the element El is contained in 67.8% of all names and 81.8% of all the instances. Thus, the god El or Il was clearly the primary god of family religions in this region. Even if we disregard the different possible meanings, the theophoric element El—whether used to denote a specific deity, an appellative, or a personal god—featured prominently in all Levantine onomasticons. All of the selected Levantine onomasticons considered here were used in cultures that projected central religious beliefs onto a primary deity. The percentages of names given that referred to these deities reveal interesting cultural differences. The Ammonite onomasticon had the highest percentage of references to the god El (mentioned in 67.8% of all names and 81.8% of all instances). This percentage is even higher than references to the national god Yhwh as represented in the Hebrew onomasticon (59.4% and 67.6%, respectively). The national god of the Moabites, Chemosh, appears in 37.9% of all theophoric names in that region and 40.5% of all occurrences, in contrast to the considerably lower 211. See appendixes B5.6. (šem), 2.3.1. (ʿezrī, ḥayil), 2.3.3. (ʾûr), and 3.1. (ʿalay). 212. Including the names ‫ ׁשמידע‬Šemyādāʿ ‘the [divine] name has taken care’, ‫ עזריקם‬ʿAzrîqām ‘my [divine] help has arisen’, ‫ עבדחיל‬ʿAbdiḥayil ‘servant of the [divine] strength’, ‫ קרבאור‬Qĕrabʾûr ‘the [divine] light has come close [to me]’, and ‫ יחועלי‬Yĕḥawwīʿalay ‘the Exalted brought [the child] to life’. 213. This phenomenon is often explained by conjecturing that some Israelites lived outside the borders of their homeland, yet even the Hebrew Bible suggests the possible veneration of Yhwh by indigenous peoples outside Israel (2 Kgs 5:17–19).

342

Chapter 5

percentages for the primary gods of the Aramaic and Phoenician cultures. Conflating the largely indistinguishable and undistinguished gods Baal and Hadad, both of whom largely shared the singular status of national god in their cultures, names alluding to this compound deity amount to 23.5% of known names and instances in Phoenicia, and 18.7% and 18.1%, respectively, of all names and instances in the Aramaic onomasticon. The inclusion of other weather-gods and related epithets in the group increases these percentages somewhat, to 24.3% and 24.0% in Phoenicia, and 21.5% and 21.4% in the Aramaic onomasticon. These “weather-gods” seem to have been unique to the Aramean and Phoenician family religions, because their names made up only a small percentage of the theophoric elements used in the Ammonite, Hebrew, and Moabite onomasticons (varying between 2.2% and 10.8%). Thus, apparently familial religious practices and beliefs made little distinction between the purportedly “monotheistic” position exemplified by the primary god of Israel and the more “polytheistic” practices prevailing in neighboring cultures. Only slight differences appear in terms of preferences given to the primary gods’ names; Yhwh held only second position in the region in terms of frequency of reference. The main difference among the five Levantine cultures is in the number and percentage of references to secondary deities. The Moabite onomasticon (see table 5.9, p. 509) attests the lowest portion of references to deities other than the primary god, Chemosh, and the weather-gods Baal and Hadad. There are only 3 known secondary deities who were referred to or who had epithets that were used in theophoric names (Malk, Hauron, and Rachban). It should be noted, however, that the sample of Moabite theophoric names is small (only 37 names and 42 instances) and consists of 10.8% of all names and 9.5% of instances. References to secondary deities are somewhat more common in the Ammonite onomasticon (see table 5.10, p. 510) where, aside from the primary god El and the weathergods Baal and Hadad, the names of another 6 West Semitic deities or epithets for them appear (Malk, Milkom, Adon, Mareʾ, Mot, and Yhwh), as well 1 name referring to the Mesopotamian deity Bel. A total of 13.3% of all known Ammonite names refer to secondary gods, 7.2% of all instances, and the figures in this case are drawn from a much larger sample (90 names, 209 instances). Names of secondary deities are similarly infrequent in the Hebrew onomasticon (see table 5.7). Aside from the names of Yhwh and Baal, the names of 11 other West Semitic deities or epithets for them are mentioned (Adon, Adatt, Anat, Asher, Yerach, Melek, Malkah, Mot, Qos, Sahar, and Shalem), plus 3 Egyptian deities (Bes, Horus, and Isis) and 1 Mesopotamian deity, Shamash. These names are 9.9% of all known names and 7.3% of all instances in the Hebrew sample. The larger number of individual deities probably arises in this case from the relatively comprehensive epigraphic sample of Hebrew theophoric names found, with 1,978 attestations of 404 different names. The percentage of names that refer to secondary deities in this large sample may thus be presumed to reflect more accurately the underlying cultural distribution of names and in this case notably amounts to the lowest observed percentage in all the West Semitic cultures. Analysis of theophoric names referring to secondary deities in the Aramaic onomasticon reveals a strikingly different picture (see table 5.11, pp. 510–511). Aside from the primary deities Hadad, Baal, and the other weather-gods, recorded names refer to 15 other

Personal Names and Family Religion

343

West Semitic deities, as well as 9 Mesopotamian and 3 Egyptian deities. They amount to 43.1% of all names and 42.6% of all references to secondary deities in names. Even if not all Aramean names have been considered, the sample considered here of 246 names taken from 275 instances is large enough to make the difference between the Aramaic and the Hebrew onomasticons significant. The only gods used relatively frequently in this pantheon are Nabu, Shamash, Sin, and Yhwh, along with the epithet Mareʾ (‘lord’). The Phoenician onomasticon reveals an even more striking diversity (see table 5.12, pp.  512–513). Excluding references to the primary deities Baal, Hadad, and the other weather-gods, we find that names refer to or employ epithets for another 30 West Semitic deities, along with 8 Egyptian and 4 Mesopotamian deities. These names constitute 57.4% of all theophoric names and 62.4% of all instances. This is the highest percentage observed across all West Semitic lands, with more than three times as many names alluding to secondary gods as alluding to primary gods. Most common among these numerous gods are Eshmun, Ashtarte, and Milk. These analyses demonstrate the artificiality of any distinction between “monotheism” and “polytheism,” at least in the practices and beliefs of family religion, and suggest that it would be better to distinguish between different sorts of polytheism. The most immediately apparent distinction is between the southern Levantine cultures of Israel, Ammon, and Moab, where polytheistic tendencies were relatively restricted, and the cultures of Syria and Phoenicia. The onomasticons of the southern cultures have a limited number of theophoric elements (28 in the Hebrew, 15 in the Ammonite, and 11 in the Moabite). Most families seem to have venerated only a rare few gods in addition to El and the main god, and the veneration of secondary gods does not appear to have been especially popular. In Syria and Phoenicia, in contrast, families selected names for their children from an array of different gods in addition to El and the primary gods. This diversity represents a much more expansive polytheistic culture, and the onomasticons of Syria and Phoenicia reveal considerably larger numbers of theophoric elements, with 44 and 60 different elements known in names from these cultures, respectively. Differences in the diversity and popularity of secondary gods would naturally have reflected contemporary cultural, economic, and political circumstances. For example, Phoenicia used access to the Mediterranean Sea to develop extensive trade with Egypt, and Egyptian deities were quite popular. Thus, the names of 8 Egyptian gods or goddesses appear in the theophoric names of Phoenicia (Amun, Bastet, Isis, Osiris, Apis, Horus, Min, and Ptah); no less than 6.8% of all different Phoenician names and 8.0% of all occurrences refer to Egyptian gods. Conversely, the far greater distance between Phoenicia and Mesopotamia meant that deities from Mesopotamia were only rarely referred to (the names mention only the 4 gods Assur, Bel, Nabu [?], and Shamash) and appear in only 3.2% of different names and 2.6% of all instances. The opposite conditions prevailed in Syria, where close geographic, cultural, and political connections to Mesopotamia ensured that its deities held prominent positions in the Aramaic onomasticon, in which names mention 9 different Mesopotamian deities (Assur, Bel, Enlil, Haldi [from Urartu], Nabu, Nanaya, Nusku, Shamash, and Sin). These amount to 20.0% of all theophoric names and 18.9% of instances. References to Egyptian deities are contrastingly few, with mention made only of Horus and Osiris and occurring in only

344

Chapter 5

1.6% of names and 1.5% of all instances.â•›214 On a much lower level, the local factor can be observed in the Hebrew onomasticon. It contains the names of 3 Egyptian deities (Bes, Horus, Isis) from their southern neighbors, which equal 1.7% of the theophoric names and 1.2% of their occurrences, but only 1 reference to a Babylonian god (Shamash).â•›215 The almost complete absence of foreign gods from the Moabite and Ammonite onomasticons—with the latter including 1 name that refers to Bel—probably reflects the comparatively remote locations of these peoples. In terms of Egyptian and Mesopotamian influence, Israelite family religion seems to have been situated somewhere in between their Moabite/Ammonite and Phoenician/Aramean counterparts. In sympathy with the family religions of Moab and Ammon, Israelite family religion manifests a small amount of polytheism. The primary god assumed the dominant position, and secondary gods were only adopted by families from among a limited number of gods considered sufficiently dependable and trustworthy. There are two final important patterns that must be noted. The first is referring to divine characteristics as substitutes for the actual names of deities. This practice is observable in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons, but it appears to have been relatively uncommon in the Hebrew (a mere 0.8% of names and 0.7% of instances). It was considerably more common in the Aramaic and Phoenician cultures (3.2% of names and 2.8% of all instances). The second important pattern appears in references to goddesses. A few specific goddesses are mentioned in the Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons, ranging between 2.0% and 4.5% of names. This striking underrepresentation of female deities used in names was thus not a phenomenon restricted to the Hebrew culture, and only in the Phoenician onomasticon did names mentioning goddesses compose a notably higher portion: 13.4% of all theophoric names and 11.0% of their occurrences. References to female deities in personal names are considered in more detail below.â•›216 The foregoing comparisons of theophoric elements used in personal names across the various Levantine cultures have shown that the form of each family religion was determined by its immediate religious environment, with particularly pronounced differences between the cultures being due to the extent of polytheism. However, even considering these difficulties, most cultures shared a number of common features in addition to those that have already been observed with regard to the predicative statements.

5.4.2.╇ The interchangeability of theophoric elements In considering the relative degree of influence that various deities mentioned in the personal names of the Levantine onomasticons appear to have had on the beliefs of the 214. Including the Idumean-Arabian goddess Ada in the seal WSS 790. 215. See WSS 1075 and HAE 21.77; epigraphically, the script shows some Aramaic influence. Renz and Röllig (2005: 404) considered the name bearer potentially to have been Syrian, because the father’s name contained the moon-god Śāhār, showing Aramean influence. But since the predicate of the name Šamašʿizrī ‘Shamash is my help’ is clearly Hebrew, and the Aramean moon-god seems also to have had some influence on the Judean culture (Isa 3:18), there is no reason to exclude the name from the Hebrew onomasticon. Even if the name bearer did come from Syria, he seems to have been entirely integrated into Israelite society. 216. See below, pp. 363–366.

Personal Names and Family Religion

345

family religions, we find one curious phenomenon. While a variety of theophoric elements were used in the theophoric names throughout these different cultures, the predicative statements remained strikingly similar in all of them.â•›217 This similarity can be observed both by comparing the variety of deities in each individual onomasticon and by comparing the different onomasticons. These sorts of similarities and differences may be demonstrated by presenting just a few striking examples taken from different groups of names established above. In the names of thanksgiving, divine attention is often expressed by the predicate ‫ ׁשמע‬šāmaʿ, indicating that a deity heard the complaint of the sufferer (see appendix B1.1.1). The Hebrew onomasticon contains examples of these statements made with reference to El, Yhwh, and Baal; the Ammonite and Edomite onomasticons refer in this fashion to El; and the Aramean and Phoenician onomasticons, to Baal. Thus, all three of these deities were believed to be able to respond in this same way. An even larger diversity of deities were associated with the fundamental belief of divine salvation as expressed by the verb ‫ יׁשע‬yāšaʿ ‘to save’ (see appendix B1.2.1). Identical statements are made in the Hebrew onomasticon in association with the names El and Yhwh as in the Moabite for the divine brother and Chemosh; in the Ammonite for El and Baal; in the Aramean for the divine lord (māreʾ↜); and in the Phoenician for Milk. In names of confession, belief that a certain deity had served as the aid (‫ עזר‬ʿēzer; in Aramaic ‫ עדר‬ʿidr) of the name bearer was commonly attested (see appendix B2.3.1). In the Hebrew onomasticon, this aid could be attributed to the divine father, the divine brother, Yhwh, and probably also Shamash; El was considered able to aid in the Edomite onomasticon; Baal in the Phoenician; and any or all of the gods Baal, Hadad, Ashtar, Shalman, Shamash, and Sin in the Aramaic onomasticon. Regardless of differences in name and nature, all gods were believed able to serve this same function. Similar concurrences arise in regard to the fundamental confession that a particular deity had provided protection (‫ עז‬ʿoz) for the name bearer (see appendix B2.4.1). This sentiment is expressed in Hebrew names with regard to El, Adon (the divine lord), and Yhwh; in Moabite names with regard to the divine father and Chemosh; in Ammonite names with regard to El and Adon; in Aramean names with regard to Milkom, El, and Baal; and in Phoenician names with regard to Baal, Ashtarte, and Milk. Again, this familial belief remains invariant throughout regardless of differences in the divine natures of these gods. A central tenet expressed in names of praise is belief in the goodness of a particular deity (‫ טב‬ṭōb or ṭūb; see appendix B3.2). Hebrew names considered the divine brother, uncle, El, Yhwh, and Shalem to be equally praiseworthy for their goodness; Aramaic names considered the divine brother and Shalem to manifest the same goodness; as did Baal in Phoenician names. Birth names are of particular interest in potentially revealing affinities with specific gods or goddesses in relation to fertility and birth. Divine responses granted to the prayers and vows of women during the birth process could be especially formative for the later experiences of mother and child (see appendix B5.2). The verb ‫ ענה‬ʿānāh ‘to respond’ is incorporated into statements in the Hebrew onomasticon made in connection with the deities Yhwh, Baal, and Qos; while in the Edomite onomasticon, these statements are 217. A similar observation was previously made about biblical names (Albertz 1978a: 71–74).

346

Chapter 5

associated with Qos; in the Aramean with El and Mot; and in the Phoenician with Baal. The reference to Baal in this context may arise from the special relevance of this god to fertility in general, as an extension of his association with soil fertility in the Ugaritic mythological texts (DDD 1995: 249–56). Indeed, initial consideration of the distribution of Baal names in the Hebrew onomasticon seems to support this assumption (table 5.7, p.€508), in that 5 of the 11 known names are birth names, represented in 5 of the 20 known instances. Although these figures reveal a considerable percentage of birth names among the Baal names (45.4% and 25%, respectively), which would partly exceed the average portion of all the birth names in the Hebrew onomasticon (28.4% of different names and 29.9% of all instances; see table 5.2, p.€505), the number of known Baal names and instances is relatively low, and these percentages should to be considered provisional at best. The names Baal, Hadad, and other weather-gods appear much more often in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons, and in these cases no particular preference for these gods can be discerned in the birth names. In the Aramaic onomasticon, 22.6% of different names (12 out of 53) or 20.3% of all instances (12 of 59) that refer to these gods belong to the birth-experience name group (see table 5.11, p.€510). These figures just correspond to the average portion of Aramean birth names (22.2% of all names, 23.2% of all instances; see table 5.3, p.€506) and do not exceed it. In the Phoenician onomasticon, only 14.8% of the names (9 of 61) or 19.8% of the instances (22 of 111) that refer to the weather-gods can be assigned to the birth-experience name group (see table 5.12, p.€512). These figures fall below even the average portion of Phoenician birth names, making 26.9% or 27.9% of the total sample (see table 5.3, p.€506). Thus the higher affinity of the god Baal with the birth process that might be inferred from the Hebrew personal names is not supported by names in the neighboring cultures, where the god was much more prominent. Instead, it must be considered to be a random result. Another interesting fact, aside from these references to Baal is the appearance of the god Mot in the Ammonite onomasticon and in Hebrew birth names. In Hebrew, the name ‫ מרימות‬Mĕrêmaut ‘Mot has blessed’ appears 3 times, and ‫ ירימות‬Yerîmaut, plausibly rendered ‘founded by Mot’, appears once.â•›218 The Ugaritic mythological texts posit Mot as the enemy of Baal who represents death and all that is opposed to the life-giving fecundity of Baal (DDD 1995: 1122–28). However, because Mot was used in personal names, apparently all the negative attributes that were once associated with Mot had been nullified. One very important belief expressed in birth names that was central to all family religions was the divine creation of each individual. Different cultures used different verbs and nouns to express this divine creation, but all these statements may easily be considered together in one group. The divine creator of a child could, in the Hebrew onomasticon, be considered El, Yhwh, Anat, Melek (or the divine king), Mot, or Bes; while only El was so mentioned in the Edomite onomasticon; both El and Malk in the Ammonite; El and Hadad in the Aramean; and in the Phoenician onomasticon, the divine father, El, Ashtarte, Milk, Shalem, or Bastet could be considered divine creators. Among these gods and goddesses, only El or Yhwh was considered a divine creator of humankind in 218. This is astonishing, considering the 12 references in Hebrew biblical names.

Personal Names and Family Religion

347

its entirety.â•›219 Although none of the other gods was ever regarded a god of creation in the associated official religions, all of them clearly assumed creation roles in the family religions—even, astonishingly, the god of death, Mot.â•›220 Finally, among the most frequent birth names were the names that stated that a certain deity had presented (‫ נתן‬nātan, in Phoenician ‫ יתן‬yaton) a child to his or her parents. In Hebrew names, this presentation could be attributed to El, Yhwh, Baal, or Melek (or the divine king); in Moabite names, to Chemosh or Baal; in Ammonite names, to El, Baal, or Bel (Marduk); in Aramaic names, to the divine father, El, Baal, or Hadad; and in Phoenician names, to Baal, Eshmun, Ashtarte, Milk, Sid (the city-god of Sidon), Resheph, Bel, or Apis. Again, there is a manifold diversity of gods, each of whom was considered both able and willing to grant the same benevolent gift to a family. In this pantheon, the name of Resheph in the Phoenician onomasticon is conspicuous. Resheph was conceived in Ugaritic ritual texts as a “chthonic deity, gatekeeper of the Netherworld .€.€. the lord of battle and diseases” (DDD 1995: 1325). In Phoenician family religion, however, he seems to have been divested of these negative attributes and was praised freely as the benefactor of a newborn child. All of these examples reflect the central finding of the present section: that the predicative statements in names that reflected and conveyed the beliefs of family religion were used almost completely independently from the theophoric elements. The nature of the deities referred to in names had relatively little influence on what these deities were considered able to offer in their divine capacities to families. The functions of deities were largely immutable, and their identities were freely interchanged. Moreover, the cases of Baal/Hadad, Mot, and Resheph demonstrate that specific characteristics that were attributed to deities in the official religious realms were very commonly neglected or negated in their incorporation into the realm of family religion. Rather, gods were given attributes that reflected the immediate needs of families, and family religion as a whole often conceived of gods in ways that fundamentally contrasted with the views of official theologies and state cults. Rather than deities’ being defined according to specific characteristics developed throughout the long history of nations or their cultic practices and places, they were defined in family religion predominantly by specific functions. There was even a small subgroup of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician theophoric elements that replaced the names of deities with their functions (see table 5.8 [p. 509], “divine characteristics”). These functions were at all times intimately related to the essential needs of individuals and their families. These needs are relatively universal and change very little even during long periods of time, while the identities of and characteristics ascribed to deities underwent more dynamic transformations. Thus, the religious beliefs and practices of Levantine families exhibited an essential tension between an apparent tendency toward an enriched polytheism and a degree of redundancy and interchangeability of divinities. Families were intimately dependent on 219. El was considered, based on his Ugaritic title, the ʾab ʾadam ‘father of mankind’; see the Epic of Keret, KTU 1.14 I 36–37 (and TUAT 3.1219); El also cared for Keret’s wife during her confinement and delivery (KTU 1.15 II 16–28; TUAT 3.1235). For Yhwh, see Gen 1:26–28; 2:7; Job 10:8–12. 220. For the participation of goddesses, see pp. 363–366 below.

348

Chapter 5

and influenced by their immediate religious environment and generally chose family deities based on whether they were regarded as efficacious or were otherwise venerated in their particular region or land. These regional tendencies no doubt produced the different assemblages of deities observed in the Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Aramaic, and Phoenician onomasticons. However, differences among actual deities or in the number of deities who were commonly venerated by families were apparently only of minor importance. Because deities were adopted by families in response to the very specific needs and beliefs of the family religion, deities were commonly divested of different characteristics with which they might otherwise or previously have been associated. They literally were assimilated into the essence of family religion. Regardless of their names, nature, or number, deities were believed to act similarly for all families. Thus, the family religions in relatively less-polytheistic environments such as Israel, Ammon, and Moab find many direct parallels with family religions in the more markedly polytheistic environments of Syria and Phoenicia. Thus, consideration of the family religious practices and beliefs in any or all of these cultures may aid our reconstruction of Israelite family religion. In being assimilated as family deities, Yhwh, El, Baal, Anat, Mot, and other deities shed their individual attributes and were believed to act or function in largely identical ways. The question posed by Tigay (1987: 162–67) and J. D. Fowler (1988: 29–69) regarding the extent to which the use of divine names or epithets other than direct references to Yhwh might be considered implicit references to a national god is thus uninformative, because Israelite families would probably not have distinguished between these various gods, whether they were implicitly or explicitly associated with Yhwh or not. Israelite families might have regarded Yhwh as the primary divine figure, but a very important and generic function of all divine names and appellations was simply to represent the essence of divinity.â•›221 Thus, rather than reflecting a confusion about deities (which Jeremiah accused Judah of in the late 7th century b.c.e., Jer 2:27), these names reveal the profound absence of competition among the various deities. Up to the time of Jeremiah, Yhwh was not considered by the Israelite and Judean family religions as having any particularly unique attributes; rather, he was divested at this level of characteristics that he otherwise had on the national level of both Israelite kingdomsâ•›222 and was generically assimilated into the beliefs typical of family religions. It was only after the Josianic reforms that the characteristics ascribed to Yhwh on the national level began to be reflected in the practices and beliefs of Judean family religion.

5.4.3.╇ The equating names The tendency for family religion to assimilate various gods also appears in the group of names that I am referring to here as equating names. These names are formed as nominal sentences, as are the names of confession, but they differ from those names in that they contain two theophoric elements that are intimately related in the construction of the 221. As exemplified by the existence of the subgroup in which generic divine characteristics are substituted for the names of deities (table 5.8). 222. Compare the observation made above (pp. 262–269) that Hebrew personal names make no reference whatsoever to national religious traditions.

Personal Names and Family Religion

349

name. Equating names are a relatively impoverished group compared with other Levantine onomasticons, containing only 7% of the names in the Hebrew onomasticon and 8% of all attestations (see table 5.3). However, these names offer important insights about the ways that family religion dealt with the divine. As previously indicated by Noth (1928: 141–43), the names in this group were primarily intended to identify various divine designations that had emerged during different stages in the histories of the ancient Near Eastern religions (see also Albertz 1978a: 73–74). This assertion was subsequently questioned by Rechenmacher (1997: 18, 24), who classified only a few names this way, such as ‫ אלהוא‬ʾElihûʾ, which he rendered ‘Il is he’ (that is, the gracious and powerful god). He considered most of these names to be a means by which a named god—in most cases, Yhwh—was classified as “god,” “father,” “lord,” or “king” (1997: 11–24).â•›223 However, these divine designations often did not remain mere appellatives throughout religious history but became divine names in their own right (for example, El and Baal) or else became epithets that were intimately associated with particular deities, such as Milk ‘king’ for the Tyrian god Melqart, and Malkāh ‘queen’ for the Queen of Heaven, as we know from the book of Jeremiah (Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25). These are clear cases in which epithets replaced divine names, with the epithets assuming specificity to the divine names. Moreover, there are several examples from Israel’s neighbors in which two named deities are unambiguously equated in a name, such as Šalmānrimmān in the Aramaic onomasticon, which can only be translated ‘Shalman is (Hadad-)Rimmon’. Although some equating names may have served partially to qualify the divine nature, their primary function was identification. Interpretation of equating names demands accurate determination of the subject and predicate of the nominal statements, even though they generally lack clear grammatical distinctions. Although a strict progression from subject to predicate was assumed in previous works (such as GKC §141,l; Noth 1927: 17–20), extensive consideration of nominal clauses during the past few decades has revealed a more nuanced and intricate picture.â•›224 For example, the more modern grammar of Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 130) suggests that, “Roughly speaking, an identifying clause has the order S–Pred and a classifying clause has the reverse.” This general pattern is confirmed in some ways by the nominal sentences found in epigraphic Hebrew names of confession, which clearly contain classifying clauses and reveal a slight bias toward predicate-subject orderâ•›225 (51.5% of the time). However, subject-predicate ordering remains more prominent even in qualifying nominal clauses in personal names than in the literary Hebrew of the Bible, as well as in the nominal sentences of Hebrew texts found in epigraphic records (Gogel 1998: 276). This reflects the generally lower literary standards of epigraphic inscriptions. Because equating 223. Other than in personal names, Yhwh is rarely qualified as father and never as brother or uncle (see p. 351 below), leading Rechenmacher (1997: 22) to believe that identification with different deities was intended. 224. For a broad overview of this discussion, which remains inconclusive to date, see Joüon and Muraoka, 2nd ed. (2006: 508–43); and Michel 2004: 23–46. 225. This order seems to be normative in the confession names in which the predicate consists of a prepositional phrase, as in ʿImmadīyāhû ‘with me is Yhwh’ or Baʿadīyāhû ‘for me is Yhwh’. This rule also holds true for nominal sentences in epigraphic inscriptions; see Gogel 1998: 277.

350

Chapter 5

names emphasize the identifying function of the nominal clause,â•›226 a subject-predicate order would be expected to dominate, and it is no surprise that this order is even more dominant here than in identifying nominal clauses found in the Hebrew Bible.

5.4.3.1.╇ The divinized kinship designations Divinized kinship designations feature prominently in equating names, which constitute 43.5% of all theophoric elements in the Hebrew onomasticon and even 47.2% of all instances recorded (see table 5.7). They greatly exceed even the percentage of names and instances that contain the theophoric element Yhwh (24.4% and 24.6%, respectively). Moreover, similarly high portions of divinized kinship terms in equating names have also been observed in the Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons (see tables 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11). Only the Phoenician onomasticon attests lower percentages (28.3% of names and 17.8% of all instances; see table 5.12). If one takes into consideration the distribution of divinized kinship terms among all the different name groups, the equating names have the highest percentage in all the selected Levantine onomasticons; in the Hebrew onomasticon, no less than 64.2% of different equating names are divinized kinship names, which is 82.9% of all appearances of equating names. Thus, both the occurrence of these divinized kinship terms and their particular concentration in equating names were common to all Levantine onomasticons. These names seem to have satisfied the families’ desire to identify their deities appropriately. Moreover, Noth (1927: 43–45; 1928: 68–82) pointed out that the kinship terms ʾāb ‘father’, ʾāḥ ‘brother’, and ʿam ‘father’s brother, uncle’ were in most cases intended as divine designations not only in the Hebrew onomasticon but also in all the other Semitic onomasticons. Since Noth, the idea that these names were intended primarily as statements of divine identity has been widely accepted (DDD 1995: 616–19, 338–42, 41–44).â•›227 However, the actual identities of the deities referred to are by now largely unknown or uncertain. Noth himself, who still believed that the Semitic peoples had nomadic origins, considered them to have been tribal deities (1928: 73–75). However, he was unable to explain the use of familial terminology.â•›228 I proposed that the kinship terms reflected early designations of personal gods (Albertz 1978a: 74–75); in contrast, Karel van der Toorn (1996a: 1–11) considered these kinship terms to have been intended as designations of ancestors. This idea that some form of “ancestor cult” was a feature of family religion (investigated in detail by van der Toorn in 1996b: 206–35) is now widely accepted. Whether or not these gods were deceased and subsequently divinized ancestors, the activities of the alleged ancestors as described by van der Toorn on the basis of biblical personal names 226. The strict criterion for distinguishing the two types of functions on the basis of the definiteness of the subject or the predicate is of little aid in interpreting equating names, because articles are not used in personal names, and many divine designations may be understood as both divine names and appellatives. 227. The alternative explanation by Stamm (1968: 279–84), that most of the Akkadian names containing kinship terms were correctly interpreted as substitute names for deceased human relatives, was restricted to a few cases by Di Vito (1993: 90–92, 254, 264). 228. The term ʿam, which denotes not only a father’s brother but also kin and related people in a wider sense, was never used as an epithet for Yhwh.

Personal Names and Family Religion

351

differed only slightly from activities that families typically believed their gods were capable of undertaking. Thus, all divinized kinship terms may be considered semantically equivalent to designations of family gods. These terms characterized the god of a family, to whom the members felt themselves personally related; this notion was directly analogous to the “very specifically declared relationship” that existed between family members and that was considered so unique by the sociologist Nave-Herz (2002: 149). The foregoing discussion demonstrates that the structures and beliefs of family religion were shaped and defined to a very great extent by the character of intrafamilial social relationships,â•›229 and it should thus not be surprising that a family deity would be referred to by terms that were otherwise employed to denote specific family relationships.â•›230 Ancient Near Eastern societies were predominantly patriarchal. The father at least symbolized (or assumed, in practice) all responsibility, care, and protection for his entire familial group, and thus family gods were naturally commonly referred to as “father.” Gods were also often named “brother,” which reflected the practice of an older brother’s assuming responsibility for the family after the unavoidable absence or death of the father (see, for example, Genesis 44). References to the father’s brothers appear for similar reasons.â•›231 The issue of whether or not equivalent feminine terms such as “mother” and “sister” were actually intended as divinized designations will be discussed below.â•›232 The roles of father, mother, and brother also had social connotations and symbolism beyond the mere family domain, as illustrated in a 9th-century b.c.e. inscription dedicated by King Kilamuwa of Samʾal (KAI 24.10–11, 13) that declared: “Before the former kings, the mškbm went [cowed] like dogs. I, however, to some was a father, to some a mother, to some a brother. . . . I took the mškbm by the hand. They were disposed [toward me] as an orphan is to his mother.”â•›233 References made to family gods by using similar kinship terms were intended to evoke exactly this sort of idealized image. In regard to the designations for gods, Israelite family religion again manifests a degree of disjunction with the official religions of Judah and Israel. There are only a few known cases from official religious realms in which Yhwh was referred to as or compared with a father, suggesting that official theologians had reservations about using this familial title for him during most of the monarchic period.â•›234 Moreover, Yhwh was never referred to as or compared with either a brother or an uncle. 229. See above, p. 335. 230. The suggestion that divinized kinship terms (which go back to Sumerian and Old Akkadian name giving in the 3rd millennium), represent particular manifestations or expressions of “personal gods” was also supported by Di Vito 1993. 231. The rare term ḥam ‘father-in-law’ could also mean being responsible for someone’s care and protection, especially for married women who had to leave their own families, as illustrated in the names Ḥammî↜ʿeden ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] bliss’ and Ḥammî↜ʾohel ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] tent’; this kinship term does not appear in any equating names, however. 232. See below, pp. 353 and 363–365. 233.╇ Cited according to ANET 654. The mškbm was apparently “an oppressed sedentary element of the population.” 234. See Deut 32:6, 18; Isa 63:16; 64:7; Jer 3:4, 19; Mal 1:6; 2:10; and compare Ps 103:13; Prov 3:12. The epithet seems to have been established at an earlier stage only in Judean kingship theology; see 2 Sam 7:14; Isa 9:5; Ps 2:7; 89:27–28.

352

Chapter 5

Presuming that all divinized kinship terms were intended to denote family gods enables unambiguous translation of all equating names that were formed with the initial elements ʾāb, ʾāḥ, or ʿam and followed by the name of a deity (see appendix B4.1). For example, ‫ אבבעל‬ʾAbībaʿal would be translated ‘[my divine] father is Baal’, ‫ אביו‬ʾAbīyau as ‘my [divine] father is Yhwh’, ‫ אחיאל‬ʾAḥîʾēl as ‘my [divine] brother is El’, ‫ אחחר‬ʾAḥīḥūr as ‘[my divine] brother is Horus’, and ‫ עמׁשלם‬ʿAmmīšālēm as ‘[my divine] uncle is Shalem’. In all of these names, the family god, who is the subject of the nominal sentence, is predicated by the higher god being named. These names thus allowed families to integrate higher gods—who could have been adopted from their wider religious and social environments, whether El, Yhwh, Baal, Shalem, or Horus—into their own symbolic world of familial beliefs and traditions. By inheriting aspects of these higher deities, family gods could be rendered more powerful or efficacious. At the same time, this sort of assimilation would have required a certain redefining of these higher deities as they were adopted to suit familial purposes and considered to offer the benefits of a protective father or brother. A parent’s intention of integrating personally the gods identified by the names is clear in cases in which the divinized kinship term is written with a first-person-singular suffix, as in the example ‫ אחיאל‬ʾAḥîʾēl ‘my [divine] brother is El’. A family god could also be regarded as personally related to an entire family group, as was probably intended by the Phoenician name ‫ אבנׁשמׁש‬ʾAbinušamaš ‘our [divine] father is Shamash’. The Hebrew name mentioned above, ʾAḥīḥūr, the Aramean name ‫ אבחלדי‬ʾAbīḥaldî ‘[my divine] father is Haldi’ (a deity from Urartu), and the Phoenician name ‫ אחמן‬ʾAḥīmin ‘[my divine] brother is Min’ (a deity from Egypt) attest that even deities from distant areas could be personally integrated into the intimate environments of individual families in this fashion.â•›235 It is also likely that names in which the second position expressed a divine epithet rather than a named deity had the same purpose. Thus the very popular name ‫אחמלך‬ ʾAḥīmelek should be rendered ‘[my divine] brother is king’ or ‘the king’, and the probably feminine pendant with the name ‫ אחמלכה‬ʾAḥīmalkāh meant ‘[my divine] brother is queen’ or ‘the queen’. While equivalent counterparts from the Aramaic and the Phoenician onomasticons probably intended explicit references to actual deities (Malik or Milk/ Melqart), the Hebrew names were more likely meant to be implicit references to major deities, most likely Yhwh or El, but also Asherah. The third way of constructing these names employed kinship terms in both the first and second positions of the nominal sentence. These forms are more difficult to interpret than the above two. In spite of the divinized interpretation that he had established, Noth (1928: 222) interpreted the popular name ‫ אחאב‬ʾAḥʾāb (34 instances) as being secular and meaning ‘brother of the father’, alluding to the physical similarities of the newborn to his father. Stamm (1980: 76) also read this name as a construct clause but considered it a substitute name indicating that the newborn was felt to be the restored deceased brother of the father. In contrast, Zadok (1988: 47) proposed that the name meant the same as all other names containing divinized kinship designations, and thus he interpreted it as ‘The [divine] brother is [my] father’. This view subsequently gained additional support 235. See also the name ‫ אבלחי‬ʾAbīluḥay in the Samaria papyri of the 4th century, in which the remote Arabian deity Luḥay was integrated into the world of a Samarian family (see Cross 2006: 76).

Personal Names and Family Religion

353

by the discovery of three instances of the name spelled ‫ אחיאב‬ʾAḥîʾāb, in which the plene spelling suggests a first-person-singular suffix instead of a construct.â•›236 The name is thus interpreted here as ‘My [divine] brother is father’, in which case it would not have been intended to integrate a national or regional deity into the realm of the family but to be a statement of trust that the god of the family is a faithful, reliable god. Acceptance of this interpretation, however, raises the question whether the name ‫אחאם‬ ʾAḥʾēm, which also has the plene-written variant ‫ אחיאם‬ʾAḥîʾēm, should be understood in a similar way as ‘My [divine] brother is mother’. Because of the vocalization in 2 Sam 23:33 and 1 Chr 11:35 of the similar name Aḥîʾām, Renz and Röllig (1995: 57–58; 2005: 131) followed Noth in proposing the interpretation ‘My brother has ruled’ (derived from the Arabian root ʾāma), while Zadok (1988: 55) considered it more likely to be a shortened form of ʾAḥîyamm ‘My brother is Yamm’ (the sea-god). But both explanations remain contentious. Stamm (1980: 76) proposed the reading ʾAḥîʾem but conjectured that again it was intended as a substitute name and should be translated ‘brother of the mother’. Defectively spelled versions of this same name also appear in the Moabite and Philistine onomasticons. But since we now also know names from Phoenicia that express the opposite sequence of kinship terms, as in ‫ אמיאח‬ʾImmîʾāḥ, which is analogous to ‫אמעׁשתרת‬ ʾImmīʿaštart ‘[My divine] mother is Ashtarte’,â•›237 it is highly plausible that all of these names, including the Hebrew names, should be interpreted along the lines of ‘My [divine] mother is brother’ or ‘My [divine] brother is mother’. The appearance of females in both kinship terms presents no obstacle to this interpretation, because there are other known examples of cross-sex combination.â•›238 If we accept these interpretations, the name ‫אחאמה‬ ʾAḥīʾimmōh would also need to be interpreted, not as a substitute name (Renz and Röllig 2005: 121: ‘the [divine] brother of his mother’),â•›239 but as a nominal-sentence name, ‘The [divine] brother is his mother’, with the predicate designating the mother of the child. Although these interpretations must remain speculative to a certain extent, the existence of names of this sort would reflect the belief that the family god had the qualities of a divine mother. Even Yhwh was able to be compared with a mother (Num 11:12; Isa 49:14–15; 66:13), and thus no objections may be raised against this direct equating of God with a mother figure at the level of Israelite family religion. Regardless, in all cases in which two kinship terms are equated, the names were intended as declarations of trust: the family god cared as a father, brother, or mother cared, and thus was acting as a true family god for the benefit of his or her particular family. 236. Peculiarly, Zadok (1988: 59) considers the name ʾAḥʾāb to be a genitive construction. 237. Considering it to be the construct expression ‘the mother of [my] brother’ seems unreasonable, because such a person would also be one’s own mother. 238. See the female Aramaic name ʾAḥatmalik ‘[My divine] sister is Malik’; the previously mentioned male Hebrew name, ʾAḥīmalkāh ‘[my divine] brother is the queen’; the female Phoenician name, Milkatbaʿal ‘The queen is Baal’; and the Edomite name Qausʾimmī ‘Qos [?] is [my] mother’ (WSS 1056; although the reading of the divine name in this case is uncertain). See also the Punic name, ʾImmi(ʿ)ešmun ‘My mother is Eshmun’ (Benz 57), for which Noth’s (1928: 71) explanation of the first element as having been a poorly written version of ʾamot ‘maid or servant of ’,remains far from convincing. 239. See also the parallels collected by Mähner 1992: 68–81.

354

Chapter 5

5.4.3.2.╇ El, god, or tutelary god As mentioned above, the theophoric element ʾēl featured prominently in the four selected Levantine onomasticons. ʾĒl-names constituted a considerable percentage of each onomasticon and the largest percentage of names in the Ammonite onomasticon. The term ʾēl is ambiguous, however, because it could denote the god El; the appellative ‘god’; or, by the inclusion of the first-person-singular suffix (ʾēlî), the tutelary or personal god of an individual (‘my god’). Which of these three distinct sentiments was intended in individual names is particularly difficult to determine, because suffixes were generally omitted in epigraphic personal names. Thus, we can only roughly establish whether a tutelary god was intended by comparing ʾēl-names with identical or similar plene-written names in the Hebrew Bible. Accurate discrimination between the deity’s proper name and an appellative can be made only in the Aramaic onomasticon, because the Aramaic language expressed a clear morphological distinction between the two forms: that is, ʾēl, at least when used in the singular and without any suffix, generally denoted the god El, while the appellative was expressed by using the noun ʾilāh ‘god’. Since the the male form of the latter has only been found in four inscriptions, and only one of the female form (ʾilat) has been found in the Aramaic material known to date (see table 5.11), the majority of the 42 names containing ʾēl probably intended to refer to the god El. Intentions in the Phoenician and Hebrew onomasticons can only be construed by using more-general religious-historical considerations. Ugaritic texts from the late 2nd millennium b.c.e. portrayed El as the king and head of the Ugaritic pantheon (see DDD 1995: 523–26). El was no longer automatically inscribed in first position in Aramaic and Phoenician inscriptions from Samʾal, Sfire, and Karatepe in 8th-century Syria, and thus Rolf Rendtorff (1975: 177–82) assumed that El had lost his position of supremacy in the 1st millennium. This conclusion was extended by Herbert Niehr (1990: 3–6, 17–22) to El’s having lost most of his former significance in the Northwest Semitic religions, including Israel, and having been almost entirely supplanted by Baal-Shamem. Ingo Kottsieper (1997: 25–50), however, pointed out that El still played a significant role in the Levant of the 1st millennium and, next to Shamsh, he was the most often-mentioned god in the Aramean Aḥiqar proverbs from around 700 b.c.e. (TUAT 3.320–46). He was conceived in these proverbs as being a god of mercy, who accompanied and supported an individual, whereas Shamsh was thought to be more of an examiner and judge. But El was not merely an intimate, protective deity. In an inscription from Deir ʿAlla dating to around 800 b.c.e., he was still regarded as the head of the assembly of deities.â•›240 Thus, Kottsieper concludes that during the 1st millennium El was still regarded as a high god, but his activity was seen to be particularly focused on the protection of individuals, whereas Hadad, Baal, and other deities gained more prominence in political realms. The Hebrew Bible presents a similar picture, in that El or Elyon could still be considered the head of the divine assembly (Deut 32:8–9; Psalm 82), but he was also described as being particularly intimately involved in familial realms in the patriarchal stories (Gen 16:13; 240. See Kottsieper (1997: 41 n. 57) and the newly restored line 2 of combination 1 in the reconstruction of Blum (2008: 377), which should be rendered ‘To him [Bileam] the gods came in the night . . . his [vision] according to the saying of El’.

Personal Names and Family Religion

355

21:33), while Yhwh predominated in the political sphere. Thus, El seems to have held a special affinity with family religion in the 1st millennium, and his presence and function in the Levantine onomasticons of this period must be taken into consideration. The volitional activity of ʾēl in the designations of the Levantine onomasticons is reflected in the high percentage of thanksgiving names that include this element and also refer to specific activities of the divine. These names constitute 16.3% of all thanksgiving names in the Hebrew onomasticon and 17.2% of all instances, compared with averages (out of all names) of 13.1% and 11.1%, respectively (see table 5.7). Although these proportions are not especially high, they are the most frequently occurring type of thanksgiving names after those containing the theophoric element Yhwh. In the Aramaic onomasticon, designations containing ʾēl are found in 34.9% of all thanksgiving names and 38.7% of all their instances, compared with percentages from all name groups of 19.1% and 20.4%, respectively (containing either ʾēl or ʾilāh; see table 5.11). The portion of thanksgiving names in the Ammonite onomasticon that contain ʾil is extremely high, 88.9% of all names and 96.1% of all instances, in comparison with respective amounts across all name groups of 67.8 and 81.8% (see table 5.10). The Moabite sample is insufficiently large to permit any statements of this kind. However, in the Phoenician onomasticon, the theophoric element ʾēl is clearly underrepresented in the group of thanksgiving names and appears in only 5.6% of all such names and 4.0% of instances (see table 5.12). Percentages across all name groups are in this case only slightly larger, at 7.2% and 5.6%, respectively. It thus appears that it was not only the morphologically unambiguous references in the Aramaic onomasticon that intended explicit references to the god El but also most of the theophoric elements in the Ammonite onomasticon. The Hebrew epigraphic onomasticon probably also reflects the lingering significance of the god El because, even if reference to his name developed into the more appellative sense, the Hebrew Bible still attests his name in about one-third of all theophoric personal names during the 10th century (see J. D. Fowler 1988: 367–68). It was only in Phoenicia that El seems to have lost his significance. It is thus apparent that El assumed the position of the most important family god in the Ammonite culture where, like Yhwh in the Israelite onomasticon, personal names that referred to him formed the highest percentage in all name groups except the equating names. With averages of 67.8% of all names and 81.8% of all instances, his popularity exceeded even that of Yhwh (59.4% and 67.6%, respectively; see table 5.10). Remarkably, the Ammonite national god Milkom has appeared only twice to date in the Ammonite onomasticon, in the names ‫ מלכמאור‬Milkomʾûr ‘Milkom is [my] light’ (WSS 860), and ‫מלכמגד‬ Milkomgad ‘Milkom is [my] luck’ (WSS 940; see appendixes B2.3.3 and B2.5.3). This is the same number of instances referring to this deity known in the Aramaic onomasticon (WSS 792, 853; see appendix B2.4.1). Even if we assume that the 3 Ammonite names containing the theophoric element malk ‘Malk’ or ‘king’ were intentionally associated with Milkom, these percentages only increase from 2.2% to 5.5% of all Ammonite names and from 0.9 to 2.4% of all occurrences. Thus, the choices of family gods manifest a profound discontinuity between family and state religions in the Ammonite culture. In contrast to divinized designations of kinship, the theophoric element ʾēl appears in only a small percentage of equating names, ranging across the cultures between 5% and 11%. It is only noticeably higher in the Ammonite onomasticon. This element or name

356

Chapter 5

thus appears to have been less important in distinguishing among the various gods in family religion than divinized designations of kinship. Most if not all of the cases in which the element ʾēl stands in the first position of the nominal statement and a named god appears in the second (see appendix B4.2) should be interpreted—as illustrated by the biblical parallels—as designations for the tutelary or personal god, even though the first-person-singular suffix is not explicitly written. Thus, the famous example of the Hebrew name ‫אליהו‬ ʾElīyāhû ‘my god is Yhwh’, which is attested in 13 inscriptions, can now be seen to have been an ordinary personal name, as can the Phoenician name ‫ אלבעל‬ʾElībaʿal ‘my god is Baal’, and probably also the Ammonite name ‫ אלמלך‬ʾElīmalk ‘my god is king/Milkom’.â•›241 Similar to gods in the names that contain divinized kinship terms, the personal god of the family is predicated by a higher god; the former inherits the power of the latter, while the latter is integrated into the personal, symbolic world of family religion. There are a few different cases in which the tutelary god was equated with a divinized kinship term, as in the Phoenician name ‫ אלעם‬and the Aramean or Ammonite counterpart ‫ אליעם‬ʾElîʿam ‘my god is [my] uncle’ (which may also have included a written suffix; see WSS 1105). As for the names that included two divinized kinship terms, a trusting, intimate relationship is being acknowledged with the family god, who acted as a true family god by caring for the family as an uncle (father’s brother) would. In the cases in which the theophoric element ʾēl, written without a suffix, holds the second position of the nominal sentence, with the first position designating the family god, it is likely that the god El was meant, as clearly exemplified in the Ammonite name ‫מראל‬ Māreʾil ‘[My] lord is El’, which appears 4 times (see appendix B4.5.1). This is also probably the case with the Hebrew name ‫ אחיאל‬ʾAḥîʾēl and its shortened form ‫ חיאל‬Ḥîʾēl, both of which may be translated ‘My [divine] brother is El’ (see appendix B4.1.2). The family god is predicated in these cases by El, from whom he gains his power; again, such constructions indicate the ongoing integration and assimilation of El into the religious world of the family. These sorts of integrative and assimilative process are especially noticeable in the Ammonite culture, where El became the favored family god,â•›242 as did Yhwh in the Israelite culture. Thus, to a certain extent, these equating names mirror the more-general aspects of religious historical development.

5.4.3.3.╇Yhwh and other primary deities References to primary deities in the theophoric elements of personal names vary greatly between the different Levantine onomasticons. As mentioned above, Yhwh was the predominant god in the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon (present in 59.4% of all names and 67.6% of instances), but he only rarely appears in the onomasticons of the neighboring lands.â•›243 The distribution of his name across the different name groups broadly reflects the 241. It remains uncertain whether the identically written Aramean name would also have been intended in the same sense, as ‘My god is Malik’, or as an identification with the two gods El and Malik. For the god Malik, who seems to have had a funeral and underworld character, see DDD 1995: 1005–12. 242. In the few cases where it is likely that the shortened form of the word ʾēl with a suffix was being written, such as ‫ אחלי‬ʾAḥlay ‘[My divine] brother is my god’ in Hebrew and ‫ ססלי‬Sāsilî ‘Shamash is my god’ in Aramaic, the tutelary god would again have been intended. 243. See above, p. 341.

Personal Names and Family Religion

357

general distribution across all Hebrew personal names. His name is especially prevalent in names of thanksgiving (72.3% of names and 77.0% of all instances) and birth names (73.4% of names and 83.5% of all instances) but also appears to have been common in names of confession (82.6% of all instances; see table 5.7). It is only in equating names that the number that refer to Yhwh is far below average—attested in only 24.4% of names and 24.6% of instances. The name Yhwh was nevertheless a frequent theophoric element in Hebrew equating names, occurring in 19 different names, 104 instances. In 14 names and 86 instances, his name assumes the second (predicate) position, while in 5 names and 18 instances, it appears in the first (subject) position in nominal statements. Thus in most cases, the family or the personal god was predicated by Yhwh. This accords with the process discussed above in which Yhwh, the national god of Israel, was becoming integrated and assimilated into the personal, symbolic world of Israelite families. There are, however, a few cases in which Yhwh was predicated by other gods (see appendix B4.4), who could of course have been family gods, for example, the names ‫יהואב‬ Yĕhôʾāb or ‫ יואב‬Yauʾāb ‘Yhwh is [divine] father’ and ‫ יהואח‬Yĕhôʾāḥ ‘Yhwh is [divine] brother’. These sorts of name expressed other aspects of identity. In being adopted by families, Yhwh inherited family characteristics in sympathy with family gods, and he was thus subject to expectations that he would act as a father or brother in being responsible for the care and protection of a family. The same processes led to his being divested of the military and political characteristics that had been so important for the state religion. Yhwh thus became a typical family god, who was believed to act for the benefit of (his) families precisely as other family gods had always done and would continue to do. The present epigraphic sample also suggests that Yhwh was only predicated by one other primary god, El, in the equating name ‫ יהואל‬Yĕhôʾēl or ‫ יואל‬Yauʾēl (Joel) ‘Yhwh is El’. The spelling of this name in the Hebrew Bible proves that it was not referring to a tutelary god. Of course, ʾēl could be regarded as an appellative in the sense ‘Yhwh is god’,â•›244 but since we know from the Hebrew Bible that Yhwh was in fact equated with the older god, El—the former king of the gods—during the preexilic period,â•›245 it is more likely that this name, at least as originally formulated, would have been intended in the more concrete sense that Yhwh inherited the power and position of El. Presuming this interpretation, the name Joel would then mirror these general religious-historical processes on the family level. The Hebrew Bible records almost the same percentage (around 30%) of Yhwh-containing names from the 10th century as El-containing names, with Yhwh later assuming dominance (see J. D. Fowler 1988: 366–67). Therefore, by choosing the name Joel, the families who had formerly venerated El as their family god confessed that Yhwh, after taking over the position, acted exactly as El previously had. By these means, families were able to express their confidence that the gods they chose to venerate remained essentially identical, regardless of changing religious-historical conditions. 244. This wider understanding is evident in, for example, the postexilic name from Samaria ‫ יהובגה‬Yĕhôbaga, which according to Cross (2006: 79) uses the Iranian word baga ‘god’ to declare that ‘Yhwh is god’; by being correlated with a foreign appellative, Yhwh inherits a degree of Iranian flavor and is defined as a god who fits into the international culture of the Persian Empire. 245. See Albertz 1994: 1.77–78, 132–35, 137–38, 144.

358

Chapter 5

The epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon includes only one name known to date in which the god Baal is equated with another god (see appendix B4.3), ‫ בעלא‬Baʿalāʾ ‘Baal is [DN]’, although this is a hypocoristicon and does not unambiguously indicate by which god Baal should be predicated. The shortened form of the same name is also attested in the Moabite and Ammonite onomasticons, while the Hebrew Bible records the name ‫ בעליה‬Baʿalyāh (one of David’s warriors, 1 Chr 12:6). This name is rightly rendered ‘Baal is Yhwh’. The rendering supposed by some scholars (such as J. D. Fowler 1988: 55), ‘Yhwh is the Lord’, would require the opposite sequence of elements. In my interpretation, ‘Baal is Yhwh’ reflects a similar process, in which Yhwh was substituted by Baal as the god of the family, and the name attests that Baal is identical to Yhwh. The foundation of this name posited here is also supported textually by the accusations of the prophets that the people preferred to venerate Baal at the expense of Yhwh (2€Kgs 1:3; Hos 11:2; 13:1; Zeph 1:4; Jer 2:23; 7:9; 12:16). Similar patterns, in which a primary or major god holds the subject position in the nominal statement and is predicated either by a family or a personal god or some other important god, can also be observed in the onomasticons of Israel’s neighbors (see appendix B4.4). The Moabite onomasticon contains the name ‫ כמׁשעם‬Kamōšʿam ‘Chemosh is [divine] uncle’, in which the Moabite national god is defined based on the family god’s qualities; and the name ‫ כמׁשאל‬Kamōšʾēl ‘Chemosh is El’, in which he inherits El’s position.â•›246 The Aramaic onomasticon includes the name ‫ׁשמׁשיב‬, plausibly interpreted as Šamšîʾāb (Lemaire 2001: 45) and conveying the meaning ‘My Shamash is [my divine] father’. Here the Babylonian sun-god is qualified based on the family god and even inherits from him the personal connotation. The personal god becomes the qualifier for high gods in the names ‫ ססלי‬Sāsilî ‘Shamash is my god’, ‫ סיראדני‬Sîrʾadōnî ‘Osiris is my lord’, and ‫ׁשאדני‬ Šēʾadōnî ‘Sin is my lord’, where suffixes are explicitly written. In these cases, ʾadōn clearly designates a personal god, thereby suggesting that names in which the specific Aramaic term ‫ מרא‬māreʾ ‘lord’ was written without the suffix might also have intended a connection with a personal god—for example, ‫ נבמרא‬Nabūmāreʾ ‘Nabû is lord’, read in the sense of ‘my lord’. The identity of two different major deities is clearly attested in the names ‫ׁשידד‬ Šēdad ‘Sin is Adad’ and ‫ ׁשלמנרמן‬Šalmānrimmān ‘Shalman is [Hadad-]Rimmon’. In the first of these, the Aramean weather-god Hadad is substituted by the Babylonian moongod Sin; while in the second, the same deity, here called by his epithet ‘the thunderer’ (see 2 Kgs 5:18) is substituted by the horseman’s deity Shalman (see DDD 1995: 1431–33). In both cases, the deities who were adopted in this way by these two families were considered to have inherited the powers of the prominent Aramean god. No such clear patterns of association arise in the Phoenician onomasticon. There are clear identifications of major deities with divinized kinship terms and with personalized divine epithets, as in ‫ מלקרתאב‬Melqartʾāb ‘Melqart is [my divine] father’, by means of which the city-god of Tyre was being assimilated to and modified in accordance with the family god. The same would have occurred with the Phoenician god Eshmun in relation 246. The Edomite onomasticon possibly contains two names of this sort; both of their readings remain uncertain. One name refers to a family god (‫ קוסאם‬Qausʾimmī ‘Qos [?] is [my] mother’; WSS 1056); the other refers to a personal god (‫ קוסאדני‬Qaus[?]ʾadōnî ‘Qos [?] is my lord’; WSS 1057).

Personal Names and Family Religion

359

to a personal god in the name ‫ אׁשמנאדני‬ʾEšmunʾadōnî ‘Eshmun is my lord’. There are four known records with this name written with the first-person-singular suffix, and five appearances without it, but it is unlikely that the two variants had different meanings. By means of this equation, Eshmun was being divested of his attributes as a healing god (see DDD 1995: 583–87) and was becoming a conventional personal god responsible for particular individuals and families.â•›247 There is, however, no clear equating of two different major deities. There are three different deities—the national god Baal; the city-god of Sidon, Sid; and the little known deity Doʿam—who are all ambiguously equated by use of the element ‫ מלך‬milk. According to Benz (1972: 344), this element should be interpreted as a nontheophoric title denoting these gods as ‘king’. Provided with a first-person-singular suffix, however, milkî or malkî ‘my king’ could also be a designation for one’s personal god, as with ʾadōnî ‘my lord’ in the Hebrew onomasticon.â•›248 In the Phoenician onomasticon, however, the term often seems to denote the specific deity called Milk, who was probably identical to the Tyrian city-god Melqart (see Benz 1972: 344–45). Thus, these names should perhaps be interpreted alone the lines of ‘Baal is Milk’, ‘Sid is Milk’, ‘Doʿam is Milk’ or ‘Melqart’. The substitution of the city-god of Sidon for the city-god of Tyre would plausibly happen whenever families moved from one city to the other. The equating of national, city, and other major deities thus seems to follow a similar pattern throughout the different Levantine cultures. Differences arose primarily in the cultures that manifested relatively low degrees of polytheism, such as Israel, Moab, and Edom; they referred to—and explicitly equated—a reduced number and variety of deities. Conversely, more-polytheistic cultures such as Aram and Phoenicia, contrasted, compared, and equated a greater diversity of divinities.

5.4.3.4.╇ Old epithets The final theophoric elements to be discussed here are old Canaanite epithets found in the Levantine onomasticons, the most frequent of which are mélek/malk/milk, meaning ‘king’; and the Canaanite ʾadōn and Aramaic māreʾ or shortened mar, both of which mean ‘lord’. The epithet mélek appears in 13 names in the Hebrew onomasticon, used in 78 instances, amounting to 3.2% and 3.9%, respectively. Percentages are similar in the Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons, and only in the Phoenician onomasticon is the proportion of these names higher, constituting 11.2% of known names and 13.4% of all instances. The higher proportion in this latter case reflects Milk’s having been considered an actual deity in Phoenicia, and many names probably used a shortened form of the name Melqart (see Benz 1972: 344–45). Furthermore, in Aramaic names, the god Malik seems to have been intended in 2 or 3 cases. The epithet ʾadōn is attested in 7 names known from 21 instances in the Hebrew onomasticon, with proportions amounting to 1.7% of different names and 1.1% of all instances. The epithets ʾadōn and māreʾ were used synonymously in the Ammonite, Aramaic, and 247. The predicate statements of the names that contain Eshmun are not specifically affiliated with healing; for example, none of the names is derived from the root rāpāʾ ‘to heal’. 248. See p. 360.

360

Chapter 5

Phoenician onomasticons and together amount to 5.5% and 3.8% of Ammonite, 5.7% and 5.1% of Aramaic, and 4.0% and 5.0% of Phoenician names and instances, respectively. These two epithets are absent only from the small Moabite onomasticon. But with this small exception of Moabite names, all of these old epithets were clearly common features in the Levantine onomasticons. Naturally, they appeared in the forms of the local variants. Like the divinized kinship designations, the epithets ʾadōn and māreʾ appear especially frequently in the equating names group. In the Hebrew onomasticon, ʾadōn is present in 71.4% of all names and 85.7% of instances. I demonstrated above that ʾadōn in the predicate position of equating names and when provided with a first-person-singular suffix probably designated the tutelary god in the Aramaic and the Phoenician onomasticons. Similar designations were probably also intended in the Hebrew onomasticon, where ʾadōn took the first position (see appendix B4.5.1). Parallels in the Hebrew Bible suggest that the name ‫ אדניהו‬ʾAdōnīyāhû and its variants were considered to have the first-personsingular suffix and thus should be rendered ‘my lord is Yhwh’. Just as the theophoric element ʾēlī ‘my god’ represented the integration of the national god Yhwh in an individual’s personal relationship with his or her deity, the Phoenician name ‫ אדנבעל‬ʾAdōnībaʿal ‘[my] lord is Baal’ represented the same process with regard to Baal. The appearance in the Ammonite onomasticon of the name ‫ אדנאב‬ʾAdōnīʾāb ‘[my] lord is the [divine] father’, in which the personal god is predicated by the family god, is not evidence against this argument, because combinations of this sort also appear with ʾēlî, as in the Aramean or possibly Ammonite name ‫ אליעם‬ʾElîʿam ‘my god is the [divine] uncle’. In Aramean names, the epithet māreʾ ‘lord’ seems to have been intended in some cases (particularly in thanksgiving and birth names) to represent a primary god, possibly Hadad. But the equating names group reveals a different association. Because the name ‫ מריחלד‬Mārayḥaldi ‘my lord is Haldi’ is explicitly written with the first-person-singular suffix, all other equating names containing māreʾ or māre in first position may plausibly be interpreted in the same way. Take, for example, the name ‫ מראהד‬Māreʾhadd ‘[my] lord is Hadad’, which is evidence that the primary god in the Aramaic onomasticon, Hadad, had been integrated into the familial sphere of personal gods, just as Yhwh was in Israel and Baal was in Phoenicia. Thus the theophoric elements māreʾ, ʾadōn, and ʾēl, which take first position in nominal statements, along with the similarly positioned divinized kinship terms, whether or not they contained the first-person-singular suffix, probably all had very similar functions in these equating names. The second of these old epithets, ‘king’, seems to have been used a little bit more diversely in the Levantine onomasticons. It was relatively less frequent in equating names and also appears in all the other groups. The Hebrew onomasticon reveals this epithet in only 5 of 13 personal equating names (or 39%), but these names are 88.5% of all recorded instances. The Hebrew, Edomite, Moabite, and Ammonite onomasticons seem to reflect the tradition or rule that, when an epithet was used as the second element in verbal- or nominal-sentence names, it was always a substitute for the name of a major deity, whether Yhwh, El, Milkom, or someone else.â•›249 When it was used in the first position, the epithet 249. See the Hebrew names Yĕkolmelek ‘the [divine] king has proven himself to be mighty’ (thanksgiving), Śĕrāmelek ‘the divine kings rules’ (praise), ʾAḥīmelek ‘[my divine] brother is king’

Personal Names and Family Religion

361

always seems to have designated a personal god. This rule even appears to have guided the construction of the Moabite name of thanksgiving ‫ מלכיעזר‬Malkî↜ʿazar ‘my king has helped’, in which the first-person-singular suffix is explicitly written,â•›250 and the Hebrew name of confession ‫ מלכיצדק‬Malkîṣedeq ‘my [divine] king is [my] justice’, with a similarly explicit first-person-singular suffix. This rule probably also led to the formation of the name ‫ מלכנר‬Malkīnēr ‘[my divine] king is [my] light’, although the suffix is not written in this case. We may therefore assume that equating names in which the epithet is in first position were meant in the same sense. The very common name ‫( מלכיהו‬recorded 32 times) and its rare Northern counterpart ‫ מלכיו‬can with certainty be transcribed Malkīyāhû and Malkīyau and be rendered ‘my [divine] king is Yhwh’, although the first-person-singular suffix is concealed by the first letter of the divine name. This interpretation is also supported by the Masoretic punctation (Jer 38:6). The last two names have the same grammatical and logical structure as the name ‫ אליהו‬ʾEliyāhû ‘my god is Yhwh’, in that the personal god is predicated by Yhwh, from whom he draws his power, and Yhwh is integrated into the personal sphere of family religion. The only difference is that the personal god in the present case is referred to as ‘my king’. Thus, just like ʾelî and ʾadōnî, whenever the theophoric element melek—which was probably always intended to be read as containing the first-person-singular suffix—appears in the first position in Hebrew personal names, it designates the tutelary or personal god of the family. The “rule” discerned above does not appear to have applied in the Aramaic and Phoenician onomasticons because, in these cultures, the element MLK was used in either first or second position to denote the specific deity Malik or Milk/Melqart. There are only a few instances in which the element in the first position appears with a first-person-singular suffix.â•›251 It is thus unclear whether the Phoenician equating name ‫ מלכׁשמׁש‬Milkšamaš meant that the god Milk or the personal god was supposed to be equated with Shamash. The first of these possibilities seems more plausible and would thus have been equating two major or primary gods. In conclusion, the hypothesis that equating names primarily served to identify various deities and achieved this through the structured ordering of subject and predicate leads to clear and coherent results. The equating names evidence four distinct possibilities for correlating two deities, which are analogous to observations previously made in regard to the predicates of theophoric personal names (see table 5.13, p. 514). (equating); Miqnēmelek ‘creature of the [divine] king’ (birth); and Bōmelek/milk ‘in the hand of the [divine] king/Milk’ (confession). Only in the last case are we uncertain whether the name was meant to refer to an epithet or to the god Milk/Melqart, because the form of this name is typically Phoenician. These names may be compared with the Ammonite names Yĕrīmmalk ‘the [divine] king has exalted’ (thanksgiving), ʾIlīmalk ‘[my] god is the [divine] king’ (equating), and Miqnēmalk ‘creature of the [divine] king’ (birth), and the Edomite and Moabite names Padamalk ‘the [divine] king has ransomed’ (thanksgiving). 250. See WSS 1039; here the editors interpreted the yod as a prefix of the verb, but since there is no other instance in which a name containing the verb ‫ עזר‬ʿāzar ‘to help’ is constructed with a prefix conjugation, this interpretation is much less plausible. 251. The clearest of these is the Phoenician name ‫מלכיעזר‬, traditionally transcribed Milkyaʿzor ‘Milk has or will help’, which could also be read Milkîʿazor ‘my king has helped’.

362

Chapter 5

In the first case, either the family god (Type 1a) or the personal god (Type 1b) is predicated by a major deity, from whom it inherits its power. Through this equating, the major deity becomes integrated into the personal sphere of the family and the symbolic world of its religion. This process corresponds to the observation made aboveâ•›252 that all deities assimilated into family religion were given personalized characteristics and assumed very similar functions, which were of direct benefit to families. In the second case, a major deity was predicated either by the family god (Type 2a) or the personal god (Type 2b). Through this equating, the major deity became shaped by the characteristics of the personal family god and was largely divested of the characteristics that had been ascribed to it in the sphere of official religion. This process reflects various observations of deities’ losing specific characteristics when integrated into familial realms. Even the deities with largely negative connotations in spheres of official religion, such as Mot and Resheph, could act for the benefit of individuals on the level of family religion.â•›253 Moreover, the activities that so clearly characterized Yhwh on the national level are absent from the predicative elements used in Hebrew personal names.â•›254 In the third case, different types of deities from the same family level are predicated by one another, whether the personal god by the family god (Type 3a), the family god by the personal god (Type 3b), or the family god by the family god (Type 3c). These names are confessions of trust that the chosen god of a family is a true family or personal god. They reflect the strong influence of the intimate social and emotional relationships of family members on family religion.â•›255 In the fourth and final case, a major god is predicated by a major god (Type 4). During the changing conditions of the polytheistic religious environments, these names allowed families to adhere to the identity of the gods they had chosen. Thus this type of equating name corresponded to the observations made above that on the level of family religion all the deities were furnished with the same functions. Because family religion placed primary emphasis on personal relationships with the divine, it manifested a tendency toward monolatry, in which all gods, however they might be named, were expected to act in the same way for the benefit of a family. Each god would have represented the complete divinity for each family, and the only possible debate might have been over which of the various divine representations was the most effective. Thus this last subgroup of equating names can be regarded as reflecting the response of family religion to its encounter with the larger, variously polytheistic environment. By making these various gods identical, family religion effectively pled for an inclusive sort of monolatry.â•›256 252. See above, pp. 332–333 and 341–344. 253. See above, pp. 346–347. 254. See above, pp. 262–269. 255. See above, pp. 331–333. 256. This tendency toward monolatry can also be observed in the names in which the second theophoric element is simply the pronoun ‫ הוא‬hûʾ ‘he’, such as in the Phoenician name ‫אבהא‬ ʾAbīhūʾ ‘[my divine] father is the one [who is god]’, which also appears in the Hebrew Bible (Exod 6:23), and in the epigraphic and biblically attested Hebrew names ‫ אלהוא‬ʾElīhûʾ ‘[my] god is the one [who is god]’ and ‫ יהוא‬Yēhûʾ ‘Yhwh is the one [who is god]’. In the case of Abihu and Elihu, the pronoun refers to major deities; and in the case of Yehu, it refers to the family gods, who are confessed to be true gods.

Personal Names and Family Religion

363

A final look at the theophoric element Yhwh in the Hebrew equating names reveals that polytheism as encountered by Israelite families was apparently rather limited. The vast majority of the Yhwh-names belong to the above Types 1a (31.6% of names and 21.2% of instances) and 1b (41.1% of names and 61.5% of instances), in which the family or personal god is predicated by Yhwh. Taken together, these two groups comprise 73.7% of all names and 82.7% of all instances. Type 2a, in which Yhwh is predicated by the family god, contains a smaller number (15.8% of names and 15.4% of instances), but in only 10.5% of names and 1.9% of instances is Yhwh predicated by the god El (Type 4). Even through the presence of the name Baʿalyāh in the Hebrew Bible suggests the possibility of more names of this type than have been found to date in epigraphic material, it is nevertheless apparent that under the relatively restricted polytheistic conditions of Israel, the overwhelming function of the equating names was to integrate Yhwh into the sphere of family religion and not to identify him with other major deities.

5.4.4.╇ Goddesses and female personal names The almost complete absence of goddesses in the Hebrew onomasticon has already been noted and has been considered one of the ways in which Israel differed from its environment (Tigay 1987: 168–71); however, this assertion is not entirely accurate. The epigraphic material does in fact reveal a few female deities among the theophoric elements in Hebrew names; moreover, the very small portion of personal names referring to goddesses—as mentioned aboveâ•›257—is true of not only the Hebrew onomasticon but also the Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons of the 1st millennium b.c.e. Only in the Phoenician onomasticon is the percentage higher (see table 5.8).â•›258 Many potential references to female deities remain ambiguous, however, and while the goddesses referred to by definite names or female titles can be readily acknowledged, possible female designations of kinship remain a matter of dispute. According to Noth (1927: 42–43), the female kinship terms ʾem ‘mother’ and ʾaḥat ‘sister’ do not reflect the same sorts of common Semitic divinized designations as ‘father’, ‘brother’, and ‘uncle’. In spite of the relatively small number of clearly theophoric ummuâ•‚ and aḫatâ•‚ names in the Akkadian onomasticon, Noth saw no real parallels in the Levantine onomasticons. He did accept a few in his 1928 book but regarded them as secondary formations (1928: 71–72). However, more material has been accumulated in the meantime and, as discussed above, there is now evidence from the Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite, and Hebrew onomasticons that the element ʾēm can rightly be regarded as theophoric in many if not all cases.â•›259 The most convincing examples are the Aramean confession name ‫ אמעזר‬ʾImmīʿizrī ‘[my divine] mother is [my] help’ and the Phoenician equating name ‫ אמעׁשתרת‬ʾImmīʿaštart ‘[my divine] mother is Ashtarte’.â•›260 The clearest example among the Levantine personal names for the divinized character of the kinship term ʾaḫat ‘sister’ is the Ammonite name ‫חתעזת‬ 257. See above, p. 340. 258. Tigay (1987: 170–71) draws his parallels not only from the contemporary Phoenician onomasticon but also from the Old Babylonian and Ugaritic onomasticons of the 2nd millennium b.c.e. 259. See above, pp. 353–353. 260. Noth (1928: 71 n. 1) regarded this Aramean name, which appears on a tablet from Nineveh (CIS 2/1 43), as having been influenced by the Akkadian ummu-names. However, even if the

364

Chapter 5

[ʾA]ḥatʿazzāt, which may be plausibly rendered ‘[divine] sister, you have proven yourself to be strong’. Assuming that female kinship terms were used as theophoric elements not only in Akkadian but also in Levantine personal names allows similar interpretations of the Hebrew names ‫ אחיאם‬and ‫ אחאם‬ʾAḥîʾem as ‘my [divine] brother is mother’ and ‫אחאמה‬ ʾAḥīʾimmōh ‘[my divine] brother is his mother’.â•›261 The second name is also attested in the Moabite and Phoenician onomasticons. A number of families acknowledged in these names that the family god addressed as the brother (who was responsible for fostering and protecting the family) also acted as an ideal divine mother (see appendix B4.1.2). In two cases from the Hebrew onomasticon, goddesses are named by their titles. In the name ‫ אחמלכה‬ʾAḥīmalkāh ‘my brother is queen’ or ‘the Queen’ (see appendix B4.1.2), the title seems to refer to a major goddess such as Asherah, Ashtarte, or Ishtar. The Hebrew Bible refers to one of these goddesses (or a mixture of them) as ‘Queen of Heaven’ (‫)מלכת הׁשמים‬â•›262 (in Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25). Since the ostracon that has this name (NEE 79.92–102) can probably be dated on epigraphic grounds to the late 7th or early 6th centuries, it would have been contemporary with Jeremiah’s polemic against this goddess. The editors Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer hesitated to accept the feminine ending, because the text denotes the name bearer as male. They therefore suggested a scribal error, based which the final he should be replaced by a yod, and the name should be read ʾAḥīmalkî ‘[My] brother is my king’ (NEE 79.93). But this conjecture is unconvincing, because the name ʾAḥimelek is common both epigraphically and biblically, yet it is never spelled with the first-person-singular suffix. Moreover, in the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon, the theophoric element melek appears with this suffix only in the first position of a nominal sentence and not in the second. Thus, the final he of the name most likely actually refers to a female ending. The fact that a man is denoted as a worshiper of the Queen of Heaven presents no contradiction for two reasons. First, there are many examples in the Phoenician and Aramaic onomasticons where men appear as servants of goddesses such as ʿAbdimilkat ‘servant of the [divine] queen’ or ʿAbdbaʿalat ‘servant of the [divine] lady’.â•›263 Second, Jer 7:18 describes the Queen of Heaven as being eagerly worshiped by all family members, including husbands. There would thus have been no reason that a Judean family might not have called their newborn son ‘[my divine] brother is the Queen’, by which statement they would have been identifying their own family god with the goddess. Other examples of cross-sexual identifications in Levantine equating names have been discussed above.â•›264 In the hypocoristicon ‫ אדתא‬ʾAdattāʾ ‘[my] mistress is [DN]’, attributed to a woman, the female title would probably have referred to the personal goddess, as in the equating names in which the male counterpart ʾadōnî ‘my lord’ was used in the first position of the divinized female kinship terms came to the Levant from Mesopotamia, they still demonstrate an incontrovertible reality. 261. For similar supporting arguments, see p. 353 above. 262. As LXX Jer 44:17 shows, the divine title was originally read malkat haššamayim, and the reading mĕleket or mĕleʾket in the sense of ‘hosts of heaven’ in later Hebrew manuscripts is a deliberate distortion. 263. See below, p. 366. 264. See above, p. 353.

Personal Names and Family Religion

365

nominal-sentence names. The name verifies that, in individual cases, female deities could also be chosen as the personal gods of Israelite families, which we know was done by some of Israel’s neighbors (see appendix B4.1.–2.). A named female deity is clearly attested in the name ‫בנענת‬, which has two plausible interpretations. The first of these derives from the noun ‫ בן‬ben ‘son’, producing the transliteration Benʿānat, which is translated ‘son of Anat’. This name also seems to have been present in the Phoenician onomasticon (see appendix B2.6.3).â•›265 However, because this type of name is extremely rare in the Hebrew onomasticon, the name is perhaps more likely to have derived from the verb ‫ בנה‬bānāh ‘to build, to create’ and thus transliterated Bĕnāʿānat and rendered ‘Anat has created’.â•›266 The goddess Anat is depicted in Ugaritic texts as the consort and sister of Baal and is not known as a creator. She seems to have been affiliated more with warriors than with sexuality (see DDD 1995: 63–66). These characteristics, however, do not mean that she was not adopted for use in the present context because, in family religions, the characteristics of all deities were altered in accordance with family needs. In the Hebrew onomasticon, the second and final female deity called by name is the Egyptian goddess Isis (see appendix B2.6.2). There are no less than six appearances of the name ‫ מאס‬known to date. With Zadok (1988: 175), I propose that this name be read Mēʾis ‘from Isis’. This interpretation is debatable, however. There may be a formal parallel in a personal name that was formed by combining the preposition ‫ מן‬min ‘from’ and a theophoric element: the Phoenician name ‫ מחדׁש‬Mēḥōdeš ‘from the new moon’. Because this name was recorded in this form too many times to be a scribal error, and because negative statements would have been implied if the name were derived from the verb ‫ מאס‬māʾas ‘to reject’ and would not have been used in personal names,â•›267 Zadok’s explanation remains the only plausible suggestion to date. Accepting this interpretation, I think that the name meant that the child who came from Isis would belong to Isis for his or her entire life.â•›268 Even though there are a few uncertainties regarding potential references to female deities in the Hebrew onomasticon, the discussion above seems to provide irrefutable evidence of their incorporation into personal names. Five different female theophoric elements presented here were used in the Hebrew onomasticon; they appeared in 7 names culled from 17 instances. These represent only 1.7% of all epigraphically attested names and 0.9% of their occurrences. In terms of numbers of goddesses, the epigraphic Hebrew onomasticon is similar to the Aramaic onomasticon, and while the number of goddesses in the Moabite and Ammonite onomasticons was even smaller, their overall percentages were similar. The only onomasticon in which the number and percentage of goddesses were considerably higher was the Phoenician (see table 5.14, p. 514). 265. This name in the Ugaritic onomasticon is interpreted by Gröndahl (1967: 321) in this direction. 266. This interpretation is supported by Renz and Röllig 2005: 376, 172–74. 267. Moreover, rejection by Yhwh of a person, king, or his people seems more likely to have been a concept of the official religion; see, e.g., māʾas in Jer 14:19; Ps 89:39; and Lam 5:22; and zānaḥ in Ps 44:10; 60:3, 12; 74:1; 89:39; and Lam 2:7. 268. See also the birth name ‫ אסיתן‬ʾIsiyaton ‘Isis has given’, which appears in Samarian papyri from the 4th century b.c.e.; and Cross 2006: 76.

366

Chapter 5

No immediate reasons can be offered for the paucity of references to goddesses in the Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and Aramaic onomasticons. The societies of both Phoenicia and Mesopotamia, where the proportions of female deities mentioned in names were considerably higher, were relatively more developed and urbanized. Women in these societies occupied more important, prominent positions in public life. In contrast, in other Levantine areas, where societies were less developed and were defined by more-rural traditional values, women were often marginalized. Under such conditions, male deities may also have been presumed to be more powerful or efficacious. The prominent position of Ashtarte among the female deities of the Phoenician onomasticon would certainly have been due to the fact that she enjoyed the rank of a national deity with her own temples in Sidon and other Phoenician cities (1 Kgs 11:5). The sex of a divinity seems, however, to have been of limited consequence in family religion, and what was true for male deities seems also to have been true for female equivalents. There were no specific functions for which goddesses would have been thought to have special responsibility, as exemplified most clearly in the fact that they in no way assumed more prominent roles in birth names. There is only 1 birth name in the Hebrew onomasticon that refers to a goddess, while there are 6 names in the Phoenician onomasticon that refer to goddesses (Ashtarte, Bastet, or Isis), known from a total of 8 references (see table 5.12). In this latter case, the names are 17.4% of 34 total names and 15.6% of 51 instances (see table 5.14). Among these goddesses, Ashtarte is the only goddess who gains any noticeable prominence, by appearing in 5 records with 4 different Phoenician birth names. These are 23.5% of all names that refer to Ashtarte and 20.8% of all instances. Although this proportion may seem impressive initially, compared with the number of general Phoenician birth names, however, which constitute 26.9% of names and 27.9% of instances (see table 5.3), the Phoenician goddesses, including Ashtarte, are actually relatively underrepresented. The goddess Anat is the only female deity referred to in a Hebrew birth name who can be demonstrated to have lost all of her typical warrior characteristics, which also happened to all male deities.â•›269 There were thus no perceptible differences in the roles played by goddesses and the roles of their male counterparts in the Levantine onomasticons. One might expect that a goddess would be more likely to be mentioned when parents were naming a newborn daughter, yet this does not appear to have been a common practice either. There were only a few women with a name that referred to a female deity: ‫ נעמלכת‬Noʿammilkat ‘kindness of the Queen’ and ‫ חנעׁשתרת‬Ḥannaʿaštart ‘Ashtarte was gracious’ in the Phoenician onomasticon; ‫ אחתאב‬ʾAḥatʾab ‘my sister is father’ in the Ammonite; ‫ אחתמלך‬ʾAḥatmalik ‘my sister is Malik/king’ in the Aramaic; and ‫ אדתא‬ʾAdattāʾ ‘[my] mistress is [DN]’ in the Hebrew onomasticon. However, these cases, especially the names in the Phoenician onomasticon constitute only a minor percentage throughout. In fact, there are a number of just the opposite: boys were given a name that referred to a goddess—for example, ‫ עבדלבאת‬ʿAbdlabiʾt ‘servant of the lioness’ (Anat) and ‫גרעׁשתרת‬ Gerʿaštart ‘sojourner of Ashtarte’ in the Phoenician onomasticon; ‫ עבדבעלת‬ʿAbdbaʿalat ‘servant of the Lady’ in the Aramaic; and ‫ אחמלכה‬ʾAḥīmalkāh ‘[my divine] brother is the 269. See pp. 346–348.

Personal Names and Family Religion

367

Queen’ in the Hebrew onomasticon. This reflects the fact that, in the majority of cases in which a woman can be identified as having a theophoric name, the deity referred to is male: ‫ אמתׁשמן‬ʾAmotʾešmun ‘maidservant of Eshmun’ and ‫ ארׁשתבעל‬ʾArūštbaʿal ‘[she who] was desired from Baal’ in the Phoenician onomasticon; ‫ בתאל‬Batʾil ‘daughter of El’ in the Ammonite; and ‫ אחנעם‬ʾAḥīnōʿam ‘[my divine] brother is kindness’ in the Hebrew onomasticon. It seems that it was only in when divinized kinship terms were used for a female infant that the rare term ḥam ‘father-in-law’ was preferred, as in ‫חמיאהל‬ Ḥammîʾohel ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] tent’ and ‫ חמיעדן‬Ḥammî↜ʿeden ‘my [divine] father-in-law is [my] bliss’ in the Hebrew onomasticon; and ‫ חמדן‬Ḥammīdan ‘my [divine] father-in-law has given [me] justice’ in the Ammonite onomasticon. It may be that the choice of a male or female deity in the name of a newborn reflected to a much greater extent the religious experiences of the mother than the sex of name bearer, although for the moment, we must content ourselves with saying that more investigation is needed. A significant methodological problem is that the indeterminate sex of many name bearers as recorded in epigraphic material and our uncertainty about the (presumably limited) extent to which women were allowed public roles in most Levantine societies affect our determination of the extent of female names in the epigraphic material. In the meantime, it is difficult to quantify accurately the frequency of occurrence of female names and of references to female divinities. Although further investigation is needed, the above investigations have shown the benefits of a detailed comparison of the Hebrew epigraphic onomasticon with other Levantine onomasticons. It not only provides insight into the beliefs of the family religions of Israel and its neighbors but also into the various intriguing strategies that the family religions used to confront the challenges presented by their variously polytheistic environments.

5.5.╇ Iconographic evidence for iconic stamp seals serving personal piety and family religion (R. Schmitt) 5.5.1.╇ The significance of stamp seals for the reconstruction of personal piety and family religion Iron Age name seals are of great importance for the reconstruction of family and personal piety, not only because of epigraphic evidence but also because of the iconography of the seals themselves. According to Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §4), the iconography of stamp impressions reflects the variety of symbolic systems in a culture. Motifs were chosen based on personal beliefs and preferences. Moreover, the repertoire of iconic seals, especially unique seals, reflects personal beliefs in relation to, for example, personal deities, guarding deities, and needs for numinous protection. Members of Iron Age societies were not defined as individuals so much as part of the greater entity that was the family; consequently, personal seals may be interpreted not only in terms of personal piety but also in terms of the beliefs of families as a whole. The iconographic repertoire, however, reflects not only the more-general religious trends but also the traditions and fashions of stone carving, the engraver’s personal tastes, and the personal choices of the owners (Uehlinger 1993: 274–75). But the customer’s choice was not simply random, as Uehlinger

368

Chapter 5

(1993: 275) remarks: “A customer’s choice, even when facing a limited offer, is as much a choice as that of the manufacturer, and we may understand any owner of a name-seal to have adopted a certain motif, be it local or foreign, as his own, personal sealing object.” There can be no doubt that the iconography of seals witnesses elements of personal beliefs and piety as well as more-general, supraregional religious trends. Nevertheless, analyses of iconographic repertoires are also limited in a number of potentially important ways. It must be understood at the outset that the iconography of seals does not necessarily reflect an entire religious, symbolic system. Figurines of naked females holding their breasts, for example, although represented in more than 2,000 JPFs, are almost entirely absent in the Iron Age IIC glyptic repertoire; there are also no motifs that can be directly identified with Yhwh or Asherah (except, perhaps, WSS no. 173).â•›270 Nevertheless, there are symbols that are common in the West Asian glyptic repertoire, such as the winged sun-disc and winged scarab, which may represent Yhwh (see Schmitt 2001: 171–83). Yhwh is virtually absent in the iconographic evidence considered in isolation, and the Iron IIC–period Judeans appear to have been dedicated followers of the moon-god of Haran (see GGG figs. 296–310). Furthermore, although glyptic material may represent an entire symbolic system, it may also represent a self-contained symbolic system committed to its own traditions of craftsmanship and its own repertoire of motifs. Two glyptic traditions are found in Iron Age glyptic repertoires, both expressing parallel but unique symbolic systems. One was the Egyptianized Phoenician koiné style (dominant during Iron IIB but still well represented up to Iron III and even later) that was both imported and locally produced; the other was a style dominated by Aramean and Assyrian influences (dominant during Iron Age IIC). These traditions raise the question of the extent to which a largely imported iconography can be interpreted as evidence for local beliefs. Patterns of belief expressed in motifs found in glyptic material concur surprisingly well with biblical evidence for the astralization of the cult in the Assyrian period. It is possible to identify celestial beings mentioned in the Old Testament, such as the seraphim, although it is not always possible to clarify understandings of adapted motifs. Finally, interpreting iconographic repertoires with regard to larger symbolic systems is also limited when we are considering unique seals, because firm conclusions can only be drawn from repeated series of motifs (on this methodological fundamental, see Parayre 1993: 28–29; and Uehlinger 1993: 260, 277). Another challenge is to relate the often ambiguous evidence presented by glyptic material to the existence and function of internal religious pluralism; this challenge is exacerbated by the existence of elements in the seals that represent aspects of both personal piety and official religion (especially the official religion of Judah). In Keel and Uehlinger’s (1998: §152) conception of symbolic systems, any differentiation between these religious spheres is difficult. Even though the authors occasionally consider the concepts of private or family religion when dealing with particular groups of objects such as terra-cotta figurines (§376), they do not generally distinguish between different religious strata. One possibility is that the glyptic material should be considered, in line with Dever (1990: 162; cf. 2005: 5–31), within a paradigm of folk religion that presupposes “unsophisticated folk . . . always inclined with syncretism.” Alternatively, the symbolism of the seals could be 270. See below, p. 380.

Personal Names and Family Religion

369

considered in accordance with Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §152), who rejected the popular religion paradigm (1998: §376, n. 345) and thought that glyptic icons reflected their adaptation by the elite of society. In §5.5.2, I will demonstrate that the problems and discrepancies that arise in attempts to interpret the symbolic system of 1st-millennium Israel—or its internal subsystems—are best understood in the broader context of internal religious pluralism.

5.5.2.╇ The material basis The material examined here comprises the Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (WSS) compiled by Avigad and Sass (1997), additional material from uninscribed seals taken mostly from Keel and Uehlinger’s GGG (1998) and from the Transjordanian material collected by Eggler and Keel (2006). While it is not my goal in this book to present the complete collection of published and unpublished specimens, I will provide a survey of motifs in tables 5.15. and 5.16. Full details would require the publication of Keel’s complete corpus, which at present extends only to three volumes covering place-names that begin with the letters A through F. In the absence of a complete survey, the material basis for the present work is a significant series of objects. 5.5.3.╇ Astral symbolism in Iron Age stamp seals 5.5.3.1.╇Introduction Its mostly polemic character notwithstanding, evidence from the Hebrew Bible provides several lines of information pertaining to the worship of astral deities, particularly in the late monarchic period. These deities include the sun, the moon, the constellations, the host of heaven (2 Kgs 23:5: laššemeš wĕlayyārēaḥ wĕlammazzālôt ûlĕkōl ṣĕbāʾ haššāmāyim; cf. Deut 4:19), and the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7:18; 44:17–19, 25: malkat haššāmāyim), often described as the “Assyrian crisis” of Israelite religion. The precise meaning and implications of this supposed Assyrian crisis of Israelite (or, more precisely, Judahite) religion have been subjects of ongoing discussion since 1970. McKay (1973) argued that, rather than arising from religious pressure by the hegemonial power, this crisis of national religious self-confidence was due to a Syrian-Canaanite syncretism rooted in older traditions. Similarly, Donner (1986: 332) described the “Assyrian crisis” as nothing more than a Canaanization of the Yhwh-religion. According to Cogan (1993), Judah as an Assyrian vassal was never confronted with pressure to participate in the Assyrian imperial cult; rather, assimilation took place in a less-defined manner in the cosmopolitan atmosphere. Spieckermann (1982: 371) presented the alternative argument that there was at least a degree of Assyrian pressure placed on the official religion of Judah but that the main impact of Assyrian religion was due to official religious compromise. Furthermore, Albertz observed (1994: 188–89) that aspects of Assyrian influence led to official syncretism but only due to the much stronger impact of Assyrian cultic elements, especially practices of divination on family religion that was the result of a general fascination for and attraction to the religion of the victorious Assyrians. In considering the iconographic evidence, Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §§166–215, esp. §211) denied the entire argument of Canaanite “survival” and emphasized both the Assyrian and Aramean influence on the Judahite

370

Chapter 5

symbolic system and the retreat of the role of protection by deities. In addition to the character and origin of these foreign elements, we should discuss the identity of the Queen of Heaven. Was she a local or regional deity akin to Asherah or Ashtarte who underwent an astral transformation? Or is she more accurately identified with the Assyrian Ishtar (in line with Spieckermann 1982: 221)? The iconography of Iron Age II private seals was dominated by motifs from the Egyptianizing Syro-Phoenician koiné repertoire, such as griffins, winged uraeii and scarabs, and winged deities for human protection. With the exception of the winged sun-disc from the older LB tradition, astral symbolism was almost entirely absent. This pattern underwent considerable change, however, in the period of Assyrian hegemony in Iron IIC. Despite the persistence of Egyptianizing Phoenician motifs, the Aramean and Assyrian influence, which had already penetrated the official glyptic repertoire in Iron IIB (see Schmitt 2001: 100–102), became dominant by the time of the Iron Age IIC personal seals. Some of the novel features that appeared in the iconographic repertoire of this time were heavenly bodies, mainly the symbols of the astral deities Sin (a crescent), Ishtar (a star), and the Pleiades, as well as anthropomorphic representations of deities.

5.5.3.2.╇ Lunar symbols and representations Lunar motifs appear most commonly on West Semitic seals and are also the most common motif to appear on inscribed seals. They appear in three basic forms: as an anthropomorphic representation of a lunar deity, as a crescent on a standard, and as a crescent alone. The anthropomorphic representations are mostly of a man seated in a boat in front of the crescent, which again resembles the moon on the Judean seal in fig. 5.1 (GGG 305b, from the Jerusalem antiquities market). A common motif is a worshiper, with or without an altar, under a crescent and star (figs. 5.2., 5.3., and 5.4.; GGG 312a from Akko; 317c and 312b = WSS 1080; here classified as inconclusive in origin, probably Moabite). Another prominent group of seals bears a crescent on a standard (fig. 5.5 from Jerusalem and fig. 5.6 from Nachshonim in the Plain of Sharon; GGG 297a and b), sometimes together with worshipers, exemplified by a seal from Tell Ğemme (fig. 5.7.; GGG 301a = Petrie 1928: pl. 17.19) and another specimen from Šiqmona (fig. 5.8; GGG 301b). As Keel and Uehlinger have shown (1998: §§173–79), the crescent on the standard may be identified with the moon-god of Haran, demonstrating the influence of this god, who was the most popular god in Assyrian personal and family piety in the Iron IIC period.

5.5.3.3.╇ The star and the goddess Ishtar The star as an astral symbol first appears clearly on seals from the Iron IIC period. Of particular interest is a two-sided scaraboid from Megiddo, which showing a female worshiper on one side and the symbol of a star on the other side (fig. 5.9: GGG fig. 289 = SchuÂ� macher 1908: fig. 72d). The iconography of this seal provides clear evidence for the veneration of the goddess by women. The goddess Ishtar herself is the only Assyrian deity who is given an anthropomorphic appearance in representations on Iron Age stamp seals from Israel/Judah (figs. 5.10–13; GGG 286 = Wright 1965: fig. 82.6; GGG 287 = Parker 1949: no. 6; GGG 288b from the region of Beth-shean [see also GGG §171, n. 295; GGG 288c =

Personal Names and Family Religion

Fig. 5.1.

Fig. 5.4.

Fig. 5.2.

Fig. 5.5.

371

Fig. 5.3.

Fig. 5.6.

Stern 1987: 69]). While the identification of Ishtar is clear, the identification of the nude winged goddess depicted in Phoenician style in fig 5.14 (WSS no. 112 = GGG fig. 331a) is contentious (see Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §197). In my view, there is hardly any evidence for identifying it with the Phoenician Ashtarte or a syncretistic form of Ishtar and Ashtarte (Olyan 1988; Ackerman 1992: 34), because the iconography of the nude goddess differs greatly from the seals that depict Ishtar. It therefore seems more plausible that she was associated with the local deity Asherah, who was also represented in epigraphic sources. In any event, this material provides no definite additional iconographic evidence for this goddess. Both Asherah and Ishtar were referred to in Mesopotamia as šarrat šamē, but whether the same referent is intended by malkat haššamayîm is uncertain. Both goddesses were venerated alongside one another and were referred to with this epithet, and there is thus no need to construct a syncretistic form of Asherah/Ishtar (see Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §197). The fact that the local goddess Asherah is depicted with the star alludes to the more general tendency toward astralization, although not necessarily to a direct identification with Ishtar. However, the iconographic evidence clearly shows the impact of both Assyrian iconography and religion on the local symbolic system in the Iron IIC period.

Chapter 5

372

Fig. 5.7.

Fig. 5.8.

Fig. 5.9.

Fig. 5.11.

Fig. 5.10.

Fig. 5.12.

Fig. 5.13.

5.5.3.4.╇ Solar symbols The most prominent solar symbol found on Israelite and Judahite seals is the winged sun-disc. Though only nine inscribed private seals carry the motif, hundreds of type III lmlk-stamps with the winged sun-disc are known. The winged sun-disc is a common motif in Palestine and Syria from the Late Bronze Age on; its outer appearance had assimi-

Personal Names and Family Religion

373

Fig. 5.15.

Fig. 5.14.

Fig. 5.16.

lated with Egyptian prototypes. The Egyptian type of sun-disc was still dominant in the Egyptianizing Phoenician glyptic style of Iron Age IIB. The Iron IIC seals, including the type III lmlk-stamps (for the typology of which, see Welten 1969; a survey of the lmlkstamps found up to 1999 is given by Vaughn 1999), show another type of winged sun-disc. Its uplifted wing tips, tail, and upper volutes are clearly Assyrian in design (fig. 5.15. and 5.16.; Welten 1969: 40, Z II B 2; S II A 1). The same adaptation of the Assyrian winged sun-disc can be seen in contemporary Phoenician and Aramean glyptic art, as well as on reliefs from northern Syria (see Parayre 1993). The Assyrian-style sun-disc as a sole motif on the official lmlk-stamps fits particularly well with the trend toward the astralization of the national god. This trend was still encountered in postexilic texts such as Mal 3:20, where it was said that the “sun of righteousness” would rise with healing in his wings (see Arneth 2000). The lmlk-stamps also manifest the trend of associating the king with solar qualities, as in Ps 72:5, 17. This is a development that was encountered in Assyria as early as the 9th century, when the king was given epithets such as the ‘Sun-god of all mankind’ (dšamšu kiššat nišemeš; see Podella 1996: 151–54). It is therefore quite likely that not only were Assyrian motifs assimilated but also solar elements of the Assyrian kingship ideology (see Schmitt 2001: 174–76). The Assyrianizing winged sun-disc thus clearly shows the Assyrian impact on the symbolic system of the official religion. The Assyrian type of winged sun-disc is not only represented on official seals but also on private seals such as a stamp seal from Gezer that shows a worshiper in front of a griffin beneath a winged sun-disc and

Chapter 5

374

Fig. 5.17.

Fig. 5.18.

Fig. 5.19.

crescent (fig. 5.17; GGG 293a), the seal of Gemalyahu [ben] Adonyeḥi (fig. 5.18; WSS 122) and others (WSS 3b; 267, 284, 343, 349, 373, 685; GGG 293a, 293b). After the winged sun-disc, the most frequently occurring solar symbol is the winged beetle, which appears on a wide range of private seals, the seals of officials (fig. 5.19: WSS 16; 662; fig. after Sass 1993: fig. 85), and even on the seals of the king himself (Hezekiah; fig. 5.20: Cross 1999: 43). It also appears on several hundred lmlk-stamps (fig. 5.21: Type 1 naturalistic; fig. 5.22: Type 2 stylized; fig. 5.23: Type 3 mixed; after Welten 1969: 36; on their typology, see Schmitt 2001: 172). The scarab, which first appeared in Egyptian iconography of the Middle Kingdom, found its way to Palestine during the Middle Bronze Age and—becoming winged during and after the Late Bronze Age—became an important motif of the Syro-Phoenician koiné style of the Iron Age (Schmitt 1990). The twoâ•‚ and four-winged scarabs on Iron II Israelite/Judahite seals therefore have no direct Egyptian connection. It is noteÂ�worthy that the scarab associated with solar symbology is one of a number of motifs of the Syro-Phoenician koiné style that were not superseded by Assyrian motifs but flourished throughout the West Semitic realm during Iron Age IIC. The immense popularity of the motif in Judah is apparent both in official iconography and private glyptic representations. This popularity may have occurred because the symbol amalgamates both aspects of the twoâ•‚ and four-winged protective spirits and the more universal aspects of solar symbolism (Schmitt 2001: 174; Keel and Uehlinger [1998: §§151; 164] tend to interpret the winged scarab as the sun-god himself). The presence of both the winged sun-disc and the winged beetle on private and official seals shows the strong interdependence of the realms of official religion and private piety.

5.5.3.5.╇Constellations Only one constellation that appears on Iron Age stamp seals from Israel can be identified with certainty: that is, the Pleiades or (in Akkadian) the Šibitti (fig. 5.24–26; GGG 282c; 315b; 316; with no occurrence in the corpus of inscribed seals). Though we do not have many examples of the Pleiades icon on seals (see table 5.15), the local reception of this motif (which was also common in Assyrian glyptic representations) shows that the

Personal Names and Family Religion

Fig. 5.20.

Fig. 5.21.

375

Fig. 5.22.

Fig. 5.24. Fig. 5.23.

impact of this even-more-abstracted astral symbol was similar to the impact of the better-known great astral deities Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar, each of whom was also depicted anthropomorphically. At least 10 seals displayed a rhombus (WSS 86, 152, 338; GGG 284a, 300, 302c, 308, 315a, 315b, 317a), which always appeared together with a star or crescent (fig. 5.27: GGG 315a). Because this figure cannot be identified or interpreted with reference to any particular heavenly body, and because it always occurs along with a star and crescent, it seems likely that it symbolizes a constellation (Sass 1993: 240). There is no evidence for Uehlinger’s (1990: 328) interpretation of this rhombus as a more general symbol of holiness. The motif seems to have appeared first in Kassite glyptic art, often in association with a star, cross, and dog (see Moortgat 1940: 554, 556, 558; Porada 1948: 583, 584), and was still common on Neo-Assyrian seals (Collon 1988: 344, 345, 783). It is likely that the rhombus symbolizes a constellation of four stars, such as the cup in the southern hemisphere. The rhombus was generally positioned vertically rather than horizontally, making it also unlikely to have been intended as symbolizing an eye (Moortgat 1940: 57; Brentjes 1983; Bordreuil 1993: 96 n. 28).

Chapter 5

376

Fig. 5.25.

Fig. 5.26.

Fig. 5.27.

The meaning of the astral symbol of a fish as represented on more than 10 Hebrew seals (figs. 5.28 and 5.29; Sass 1993: figs. 96, 97) remains uncertain. Sass interpreted the fish as a symbol for plenty and fertility. A fish also appears together with a scorpion on an imported Assyrian cylinder with astral symbols from Megiddo (fig. 5.30; GGG 290), although we are uncertain whether the appearance and symbolism of the fish on Hebrew seals was connected with the Assyrian symbolic systems, since the fish generally appears only as an isolated motif.

5.5.3.6.╇ Comparisons with other West Semitic glyptic repertoires The iconographic repertoire of West Semitic inscribed seals from the 8th to the 6th centuries b.c.e. reveals many shared motifs and, in spite of local variations in style and repertoire (see Gubel 1993; Hübner 1993; and Timm 1993), it also reveals several cases of uniformity of expression. Thus an artistic koiné seems to have developed (see Uehlinger 1993: 268; 271) along with a symbolic system shared in Israel/Judah, Phoenicia, the Aramean states, Moab, Edom, Ammon, and, of course, Philistia.â•›271 While the iconographic repertoire in Phoenicia during the 8th and 7th centuries exhibited a great deal of continuity in terms of Egyptianizing style elements, in the equivalent Aramean, Moabite, Edomite, Ammonite, and Philistine repertoires, Aramean and Assyrian elements dominated from the 8th century onward. This was especially true for Assyrian-style representations of the winged sun-disc in late 7th- to 6th-century seals from the West Semitic realms (see Parayre 1993) and also for the crescent and half-moon standard of Sin of Haran, the star, and the Šibitti. Anthropomorphic representations of astral deities are limited to Sin and Ishtar, in agreement with the overall West Semitic tendency to avoid anthropomorphic representations of deities (see Ornan 1993: 71). The male human figure represented in sun-discs, who is identified as Shamash, was well represented in Aramean seals but was apparently avoided in Israelite/Judahite glyptic representations, where the sun-disc alone was preferred. However, the frequent appearance of symbols representing the great astral deities suggests the important—if not predominant—role of the astral deities Shamash 271. The material evidence for Philistia is small but distinctive. For instance, the royal iconography of Philistine seals is very much the same as the contemporary Judahite; cf. Schmitt 2001: 27–28.

Personal Names and Family Religion

Fig. 5.28.

Fig. 5.29.

377

Fig. 5.30.

(who was more likely to be the solarized Yhwh in Israel/Judah), Sin, Ishtar, and the Šibitti in realms of personal piety, and therefore also of family religion, in the West Semitic region. Besides the canon of Aramean/Assyrian motifs, a few Egyptionizing Phoenician motifs found their way into the general West Semitic repertoire, including the twoâ•‚ and four-winged beetles, with 9 Israelite specimens found (not including lmlk-stamps), 5 Ammonite specimens, 1 unambiguously Phoenician, 8 Aramean, and 17 of indeterminable Phoenician, Aramean, or Hebrew origin (see table 5.15). The winged beetle was also a common astral motif in the whole West Semitic realm.

5.5.3.7.╇ The influence of astral cult elements on Iron Age Judahite religion The iconographic evidence clearly shows the strong impact of astral elements on the symbolic system of Iron IIC Judah, which itself reveals a change in the belief system toward the veneration of astral powers, particularly in the religious stratum of personal and family piety. Other West Semitic material further demonstrates that Judah and the Assyrian-occupied North were participants in a broader trend affecting the entire West Semitic realm. However, the reason for the flourishing of astral cults in Iron IIC Judah remains unknown at this point. Theories of either Canaanite “survival” or foreign influence would not seem to be applicable to the entire iconographic canon, in which the roles of both tradition and innovation must be considered. There were, of course, pre-Yahwistic astral cults in Palestine (see Keel 1998: 104), as reflected in place-names such as Beth-shemesh, Jericho and, of course, Jerusalem (City of Shalem, the evening star). Furthermore, textual evidence clearly shows that celebrations related to celestial bodies, such as the new moon, were traditionally held in familial contexts (in 1 Sam 20:5, 18, 24, 27, 34, a meal was held; while in 2 Kgs 4:23, a man of God was visited), as well as in more-public environments (Hos 2:13; Isa 1:13–14; see Keel 1998: 104–5). It therefore seems likely, as Keel (1998: 106) has argued, that the cult of the moon-god underwent a revival inspired by AssyrianAramean influence. Solarization of the national god was another trend affecting the entire West Semitic realm in the 1st millennium. Archaeological evidence suggests that it preceded the Assyrian-Aramean influence. Note, for example, the sun-disc that was used to symbolize

378

Chapter 5

the highest god on Iron Age IIA Taanach cult stand no. 2 (contra Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §98) and the winged beetles found on Iron Age IIB seals from the Northern Kingdom (see Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §151; Schmitt 2001: 130–31). In this case, Assyrian influence appears to have been more iconographic, finding expression in the Assyrian-style winged sun-disc. In contrast, the veneration of constellations (such as the Šibitti/Pleiades and the constellation represented by the rhombus) is a phenomenon that was novel in Iron Age IIC. The iconography of Iron IIC private seals follows Assyrian models, which is firm evidence that the veneration of constellations was the result of Assyrian-Aramean influence. As indicated by the appearance of combined astral symbols on seals (such as a star and crescent; a crescent and star or the Pleiades; or any of these together with the anthropomorphic Ishtar), there was widespread communal assimilation of astral symbols from the Aramean-Assyrian models, particularly the symbols of the night (see Keel 1998: 100– 101), and these were reproduced by local carvers. Thus, there appears to have been a kind of collective veneration of celestial bodies, as indicated in the enumerations of Deut 4:19 and 2 Kgs 23:5. The veneration of Ishtar was also an imported phenomenon during Iron Age IIC and existed alongside continuing traditions of a local goddess (Asherah) represented by different iconography. It seems especially likely that Ishtar—as the war-goddess of the victorious Assyrians—proved quite attractive to the inhabitants of Assyrian vassal states or occupied provinces. Because both goddesses were represented by astral symbolism, the epithet ‫ מלכת הׁשמים‬malkat haššamayîm might be attributable to both of them. Besides the fact that the powerful Assyrians enhanced her appeal, she also seems to have been an intimate and personal goddess, based on all the seals that depict male and female worshipers of her. Trade opportunities furthered through the expansion of the Assyrian Empire would also have played a role in the transport and wider dissemination not only of goods, but also of ideas and beliefs in those realms subject to Assyrian control (see Theuer 2000: 442). This must have strongly affected all levels of religion. The visibility, accessibility, and consequent plausibility of the astral gods were all aspects that were popularly enhanced through the apparent success of the Assyrians (2000: 440). Such processes, however, did not detract from the relevance of the national god Yhwh, as evinced in the Judean onomasticon of the Iron IIC age, which is clearly dominated by yahwistic names. Moreover, the large number of Iron IIC seals depicting astral symbols was not reflected in an increased occurrence of personal names carrying the element Sin or Shamash. In neither Judah, nor in the Aramaic onomasticon did the frequency of such names increase (WSS lists justs one for the former, ʿabdyrḥ: no. 34). Aramaic names containing elements such as sn or šn were mostly Mesopotamian (WSS 537; 542), but were too few in number to determine whether the carrier groups of the cult were predominantly Mesopotamian or not. Finally, the astralization of the symbolic system was a development shared among all peoples of the west semitic realm, further demonstrating the international character of family religion. Not only did family religion fulfill the basic religious needs of individuals and collective families, but the astralization of the symbolic system attests to reciprocal relations between family and official religion, both of which exhibited the general tendencies described above.

Personal Names and Family Religion

379

5.5.4.╇ Deities, protective deities and mixed creatures on Iron Age stamp seals 5.5.4.1.╇ Seated and standing deities Only one Hebrew Seal from the Iron IIC period contains a potentially anthropomorphic representation of Yhwh, as well of his consort. The much discussed seal shown in fig. 5.31 (WSS 173 = Sass 1993: 143; GGG 331b) depicts an Assyrian-style male deity with horned polos and two wings standing on an aladlammû, and a four-winged female deity on a volute tree. Because the owner of the seal has a Yahwistic name (↜渀屮y[X]hw š[l]m), the representations most likely corresponded to Yhwh and his consort Asherah in Ishtar-like appearance (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §197), although this identification is tentative. Figures that can be associated with particular deities with some certainty are largely absent from the Israelite and Judean glyptic repertoire of Iron Age II—despite the seals discussed above that have motifs of astral deities, including the seals that evince Mesopotamian influence and the solitary seal WSS 173. The figure standing face forward who appears on one Hebrew name seal (fig. 5.32, after Sass 1993: 144 = WSS 226) is not comparable with the JPFs, because both the gesture and the gender of the figure are unclear. Nevertheless, nude figures clutching breasts are known from the Ammonite repertoire, although they are rare (fig. 5.33, after Hübner 1993: no. 11; WSS 861, 921; cf. 950 with arms held aloft). One case (861) is also suspect as a forgery. However, this absence of deities does not necessarily reflect biblical iconoclasm (see Uehlinger 1993: 278–86, with discussion) but accords with the broader trend in West Semitic glyptic arts. Depictions of major deities from local panthea are also extremely rare in the repertoires of Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Philistia, as well as in the Phoenician and the Aramean glyptic arts (table 5.16). Only solitary objects with depictions of local major deities are known, such as the Ammonite seal WSS 1057, possibly depicting Qauš, and the Phoenician seal WSS 736, of an enthroned deity on a sphinx. Other seals from Transjordan that depict deities (see, for example, Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 5 and 88, depicting Nabu and Gula) were most likely Assyrian imports. Thus there appears to have been a definite aversion to anthropomorphic representations of major deities in national panthea, including Israelite/Judean Yhwh, Moabite Chemosh, Ammonite Milkom, and Edomite Qauš, as well as the major deities of Philistia, Phoenicia, and the Aramean states (see also Ornan 1993: 71; Sass 1993: 245). There were thus two coinciding trends in the West Semitic religion of the 1st millenium. The first was the concentration in the pantheon on a select few major gods, accompanied by the predominance of the national god, who possessed universal characteristics (see Niehr 1990). The second trend was a strong aversion to anthropomorphic images of major deities in general, even though they were quite well represented in the onomasticon, as they appear on seals. As the major gods became more universal and were no longer limited to their original spheres of activity, they simultaneously became more transcendent and more broadly accessible. It is possible that the aversion to divine imagery was reflected in both the close association between the owner of a seal and his or her god or goddess, as expressed in personal names, and in the universal character of the major or national gods. The tendency of the major gods toward increasing transcendence may also explain the enormous popularity of protective-spirits, as detailed further below.

380

Chapter 5

5.5.4.2.╇Anthropomorphic protective spirits The apparent aversion to depicting major deities on West Semitic seals stands in stark contrast to the relatively large number of seals that depict anthropomorphic protective spirits. The twoâ•‚ and fourwinged genies of Phoenician iconography appear on Hebrew seals, occasionally with a partially debased doublecrown, and usually carrying lotus-flowers (fig. 5.34 = GGG 211c = WSS 1165; cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 211a, Fig. 5.31. 211b = WSS 1149 [probably Moabite], 212 a, 212b). The winged male genius also appears on Ammonite seals (Eggler and Keel 2006: Safut 4), Moabite seals (WSS 1020; 1030), Phoenician (WSS 715, 729 [?], and 730), as well as on Aramaic (WSS 844) and other undefined seals (WSS 1087; 1092; 1114; 1119; 1134; 1147; 1149; 1154; 1155). The motif was also found on a bone handle from Hazor (Yadin 1958: pl. 151) and on the SaFig. 5.32. Fig. 5.33. maria Ivories (e.g., Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938: pl. 14.2). The four-winged figure was identified by Keel and Uehlinger (1998: §121) as being either the youthful Baal or one of the numinous beings from his realm. Grounds for this identification seem scant, however, because none of these seals contains the sorts of divine emblem typically associated with Baal, such as lightning or the bull, which were typical of the 1st-millenium iconography of the weather-god. A more plausible interpretation of the winged figures would therefore be as protective spirits, akin to the twoâ•‚ and four-winged Assyrian Apkallus, although they are clearly of Phoenician origin (Gubel 1993: 124). A variant of this type was the protective deity with the head of a bird, probably a falcon, who appears on one Hebrew name seal (WSS 320) and an uninscribed seal from Tell el-Farʿah South (fig. 5.35 = GGG 213) and on one Ammonite

Personal Names and Family Religion

Fig. 5.34.

Fig. 5.35.

381

Fig. 5.36.

specimen with the unwinged figure flanking the sacred tree (Eggler and Keel 2006: Mazar 23). Phoenician seals depicting a falcon-headed figure closely resemble the Egyptian iconography of Horus/Re-Harachte (WSS 728, 735) rather than the typical iconography of protective spirits. In one case of unclear origin (WSS 198; possibly Hebrew), an Assyrian lahmu is depicted. Images of lahmu and il bīti are also found on Ammonite (Keel and Eggler 2006: Safut 4) and Aramaic seals (WSS 763; 802; 845). However, it would have been unlikely for the lahmu to have been seen as anything other than some kind of protective figure, because the motif was not particularly popular in West Semitic glyptic arts.

5.5.4.3.╇ Horus as child and falcon The infant Horus appears on both uninscribed seals from Israel and Judah (fig. 5.36 = GGG 241b; also 241a; 241c) and several Hebrew name seals (WSS 4; 126; 316). The motif also appears on some of the Samaria ivories (Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938: pls. 1.2–3), and the falcon of Horus appears on Hebrew seals with wings spread wide, similar to a protective spirit of the kind depicted in fig. 5.37 (Sass 1993: fig. 99 = WSS 243; also 108; 267). Both the infant Horus and the associated falcon, which are also known from Transjordan and Phoenicia (table 5.16), belong to the Egyptinizing Phoenician repertoire and were interpreted by Keel and Uehlinger in the context of solar symbolism (1998: §148; cf. Uehlinger 1993: 277). In their West Semitic reception, however, it seems that the falcon was reduced to a merely protective function, while the interpretatio semitica of the Horus child is unclear, since extensive knowledge of the sophisticated Egyptian mythology that was associated with the Horus child cannot be presupposed in the West Semitic realm. 5.5.4.4.╇Bes The Egyptian god Bes appears occasionally on seals from ancient Israel (fig.  5.38 = GGG 226b; also 226a; 226c; 227; 228; Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 62; WSS 769; 786; 829). It appears more frequently, however, on amulets. Herrmann (1994: 319; 2002: 20)

Chapter 5

382

Fig. 5.37.

Fig. 5.38.

Fig. 5.39.

lists a total of 54 Iron IIB–C Bes amulets, of which up to 14 belong to Iron Age IIC. The function of Bes in this West Semitic environment remains unknown, however, and one can only speculate about some sort of protective or apotropaic function that was ascribed to the grotesque appearance of his face (also Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §131).

5.5.4.5.╇ Mixed creatures 5.5.4.5.1.╇ The winged Uraeus Twoâ•‚ and four-winged forms of Uraeus (see figs. 5.39–40: GGG 247b, 274d, respectively) are depicted on many inscribed and uninscribed Hebrew seals of the 8th–7th century b.c.e., as well as on a few Transjordanian seals, 1 Aramean seal, and 2 seals of undefined origin (see table 5.16). The prominence of the four-winged form in Judah probably reflects Keel’s suggestion (1977: 70–115; cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §161) that this creature is identical with the biblical seraphim of Isa 6:2, 6 (Hebrew śārāp ‘scorcher’, denoting both the zoological species and the mythological creature; see Num 21:6–9; Deut 8:15; Isa 14:29; 30:6), which was perceived in the late 8th and 7th centuries to be a protective, apotropaic spirit associated with Yhwh. The appearance of seraphim on private seals reveals a rather remarkable coincidence between the symbolic systems of official Jerusalem and the symbolic systems of personal piety, with the latter incorporating the seraphim by virtue of their protective and apotropaic functions. 5.5.4.5.2.╇ The sphinx Although sphinxes are not found very frequently on Iron II Hebrew name seals (see Sass 1993: 226), they nevertheless appear to have been quite popular in the West Semitic glyptic repertoire (see table 5.16), in both standing (fig. 5.41: GGG 249, from the Lachish region; see WSS 369; 2 seals notably owned by two women) and crouching forms (fig. 5.42: GGG 246, from Megiddo = WSS 1124, rendered as undefined). The motif previously appeared in the Middle Bronze Age on scarabs from Palestine (Tufnell 1984: 134; pl. 41), as well as in the Old Syrian glyptic repertoire (for example, Collon 1988: 206, 213). Sphinxes were also a popular motif on ancient Near Eastern ivories of the 1st millenium b.c.e.

Personal Names and Family Religion

Fig. 5.40.

Fig. 5.41.

383

Fig. 5.42.

from places such as Nimrud and Arslan Taš (see Barnett 1982: pls. 47a, 49e, 50a, 51, 53). In Israel, they appear on the Samaria ivories (for example, Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938: pls. 5–7, 14.5–7; see also Schmitt 2001: 129–30) and on the fragment of an ivory pyxis from Hazor (Barnett 1982: pl. 45e). In the Iron age, sphinxes also occasionally appeared as Egyptian-type object amulets (Herrmann 1994: cat. nos. 277, 278; Herrmann 2002: cat. no. 40). One terracotta-figurine of a sphinx was found in Beersheba (fig. 3.9; see Kletter and Herzog 2003). As convincingly argued by Keel (1977: 15–45) and widely accepted, the sphinx was almost certainly associated with biblical cherubim (kĕrûbîm; also Akkadian kāribu ‘protective spirit’). Biblical sources portray a special relationship between the cherubim and Yhwh, who was described as sitting on a cherubim-throne according to the traditions about the sanctuaries at Shiloh (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2) and Jerusalem (Isa 37:16). These cherubim were therefore an integral part of the symbolic system of official Judean religion. Although there are not enough sphinxes on Hebrew name seals for us to observe a significant series (further suggesting that these symbols were not as popular as other symbols such as the winged Uraei), this may merely reflect the random nature of the discoveries, especially since the motif is well represented in other media. 5.5.4.5.3.╇ The griffin The winged griffin is by far one of the most frequently occurring motifs on Iron Age seals from Israel and Judah (fig. 5.43 and 5.44: GGG 250a–b), as well as from Philistia, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Phoenicia, and Aram, as well as on an even larger number of seals of indeterminate origin (table 5.16). The motif appeared in Syria in the 2nd millenium b.c.e. and was popular both in the ancient Near East and in the Levant. As a symbolically mixed creature, the griffin may have had both apotropaic and protective functions, although its mythological associations and precise functions (and even the name by which it was referred at the time) are unknown (see Black and Green 2004: 99–101). 5.5.4.5.4.╇Lamassu/aladlammû In the corpus of Iron Age II Judean stamp seals, a Lamassu-like creature appears on one seal (fig. 5.31: GGG 331b = WSS no. 173). The creature was depicted in accordance

Chapter 5

384

Fig. 5.43.

Fig. 5.44.

Fig. 5.45.

with Assyrian conventions as a male bull with bearded face and a horned polos, crowned with a sun-disc. A similar creature but lacking the horned crown was depicted on an Ammonite seal that has been dated to the second half of the 8th or early 7th century (WSS no. 925). This latter creature is generally considered to have been a sphinx (Hübner 1993: 144; WSS 344). The motif is clearly borrowed from the contemporary Assyrian repertoire, where the winged-bull creature was often represented either as a singular motif (see, for example, Porada 1948: 633; although these sorts of representations are sometimes difficult to distinguish from similar sphinx-like creatures with leonine bodies) or as part of larger contest scenes (for example, Porada 1948: 611–15). It was also present on Syrian seals that imitated the Assyrian style (Collon 1988: 385–86). The use of winged-bull creatures as pedestals for higher deities, although not represented in contemporary Mesopotamian iconography, may suggest local association between the aladlammû and cherub (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §197). 5.5.4.5.5.╇ The scorpion-man The scorpion-man was found on only 1 Hebrew seal, inscribed lḥmlk (fig. 5.45: Sass 1993: 226, fig.  125 = WSS no. 159). It is considered to be either Moabite (Timm 1989: no. 14) or Phoenician in origin. The motif is also known from 1 Aramean seal (WSS no.  758). The style of the lḥmlk-seal is Phoenician, while the Aramaic seal is of purely Assyrian iconography, showing an ugallu-demon on its obverse side. In Mesopotamia, the scorpion-man, or girtablullû, appeared in representations of the late 3rd millenium and is well represented in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian glyptic art, where it appears either as a protective spirit or as holding the sun-disc (e.g., Porada 1948: 712, 783–84, 801; Collon 1988: 883). The creature also appears as a prophylactic figurine in Neo-Assyrian times (Rittig 1977: 78–79, figs. 24–26). As with many other symbols occasionally borrowed from Assyrian iconography, the presence of the scorpion-man shows the influence of Assyrian iconography rather than Assyrian beliefs, even though the figure may have been revered as an apotropaic figure.

Personal Names and Family Religion

385

5.5.4.5.6.╇ Other mixed creatures The West Semitic glyptic repertoire adopted a variety of mixed creatures from contemporary Mesopotamia, such as the ugallu-demon (WSS 858; Keel and Eggler 2006: Amman no. 5, Ammonite; WSS nos. 758, 802, 845, Aramean), the winged bull (WSS nos. 759, 844, 973; Keel and Eggler 2006: ʿUmeiri no. 77, Ammonite), bull men supporting a sun-disc (WSS no. 783, Aramean), a winged horse (WSS no. 1113, of unclear origin), and a winged lion (WSS no. 1159). As above, the adoption of Assyrian iconography in these cases probably reflects general cultural influences more than the direct influence of religious beliefs.

5.5.5.╇Conclusions The material discussed above reveals that anthropomorphic representations of major deities—with the exception of the astral deities of Assyrian or Syrian origin—did not play an important role as motifs and even seem to have been entirely avoided on personal seals in both Israel and Judah, as well as by their West Semitic neighbors. The major deities probably were not considered to require anthropomorphic representation because of the prevailing trend toward universalizing the major gods in 1st-millenium West Semitic religions, by which means these gods also became iconographically transcendent. These trends toward both transcendence and universality as well as an aversion to anthropomorphic representations coincided in Judah with the usage of both the winged sun-disc and the winged beetle as more-abstract symbols for Yhwh. Similar conditions seem to have influenced solar representations of major gods in other West Semitic religions (see table 5.15). The presence of both winged sun-discs and winged beetles on private and official Judean seals reveals the strong relation between official and private religion in using identical symbols—at least in glyptic media. In contrast, the symbolic system pertaining to personal piety reveals perceived needs for protection in a more general sense, as represented by the various motifs of protective spirits and apotropaic monsters. An interesting phenomenon that again reflects the coincidence of the symbolic systems of official and personal religion is the frequent presence of winged Uraei in Israelite iconography. Particularly in Judean iconography, this stands in stark contrast to the very few occurrences on other West Semitic seals (table 5.16). The winged Uraei, which have generally been associated with biblical seraphim, along with the sphinxes, who were in turn associated with cherubim, may together be considered protective lower deities who would have been of some importance for personal piety and possibly also as mediators of Yhwh. The popularity of the seraphim in particular reveals that elements of the official symbolic system, especially aspects of an apotropaic or protective nature, were eminently able to be assimilated in realms of personal piety. There is a notable absence of impact by Mesopotamian protective spirits on the Judean repertoire of symbolic motifs, even though they seem to have influenced both Ammon and the Aramaic states, although this latter influence occurred again through adoption of more-general cultural norms rather than of directly religious functions. Iconographic evidence in total is nevertheless of no great use in considering personal and familial piety, because by far the greatest number of motifs were the general apotropaic symbols that seem either to have followed broader trends in West Semitic glyptic arts

386

Chapter 5

or to have been adopted due to the cultural influence of the great powers of Assyria and Babylonia. Nevertheless, a number of observations may be made to connect the official symbolic system of the Judean state and practices of personal piety. Both of these religious realms shared the motif of the winged sun-disc as a representation of Yhwh and the motif of seraphim as protective spirits (even though distinctions among the various religious strata must be acknowledged; see Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §4). Moreover, although symbolic systems seem to have converged as far as the glyptic arts are concerned, different media that served different purposes often evolved their own distinct symbolic patterns. This was true, for example, in the coroplastic arts and their predominant symbolism of fertility. The fact that the various media fostered unique symbolic systems is also attested by biblical texts, especially for the Jerusalemite theology of Zion, which seems not to have been represented in any concrete medium used on smaller objects. The coincidences between general, official symbolism and private religious preferences must also be understood with regard to distinctions between the public and private characteristics of glyptic media. Notions of internal religious pluralism are helpful to resolve ambiguities that might otherwise arise in attempting to understand the symbolism of iconic seals, because they permit the existence of different spheres of coincidence and interaction between religious strata in spite of their differences and contradictions. In contrast, the model of folk versus official religion used by Dever (2005: 5–31) is far less flexible and tends to foster antagonism between the two realms. In short, the official Judean religion and the personal-and-family-religion complex coincide in their use of Yhwh symbols such as the winged sun-disc and beetle as well as in the use of symbols representing protective spirits such as the seraphim. However, they differ in that private seals were dominated more by general apotropaic and protective symbols, while official (or royal) Judean iconography tended to employ either solar symbolism or symbols expressing power and strength (see Schmitt 2001: 161–83), both of which accorded with Assyrian and Babylonian conventions. The overlapping of symbols in both of these realms represented two fundamental needs: (1) the divine support of the national god associated with the power and strength of the state; and (2) divine protection for individuals and their families, as reflected by the symbols of winged sun-discs and scarab beetles. In addition, certain symbols, depending on the private or public character of the seals on which they were placed, were probably signs of loyalty (see Keel 1995: §722; Schmitt 2001: 117–20, 166–88)—especially on seals used in official realms.

Chapter 6

Rites of Family and Household Religion 6.1.╇Introduction The Old Testament describes familial rites relating to processes from birth to burial or, in the words of K. van der Toorn (1994), from cradle to grave. These rites, rituals, beliefs, and observances of family religion were the manifestations of families’ religious and spiritual needs and values, and they also provided a means by which families could internalize their primary religious experiences (Sundermeier 1992; 1999). Both annual cycles and the various phases of human life itself were accompanied by a variety of rites and rituals with a variety of functions for both individuals and families. Rituals fixed by the annual calendar were associated with the Sabbath, the new moon, the giving of firstlings, Passover, and Maṣṣot. Other rites of passage and rituals were associated with circumcision, marriage (for which, there are no accounts describing the nature of the ritual performances), blessings, and complex rites for the dead, including burial, which will be discussed in chap. 7.â•›1 Other rites were performed to address situations such as infertility, distress, and danger or to bestow blessings or curses, with these occasional rites taking the form of vows or ceremonies of petition or thanksgiving. There were also prohibitions that were ritualistically adhered to within family contexts, some of which were associated with agriculture and livestock, others with aspects of sexuality or gender. Anthropological records provide firm evidence for the use of apotropaic magical rites in family contexts. Such apotropaic rites played especially important roles in the greater Near Eastern environment of ancient Israel in protecting families from sickness and from mischievous acts or threats by gods, demons, or human witchcraft. There is both textual and archaeological support for the use of apotropaic practices. Examination of the role of ritual performances in the familial realms requires consideration of the relationship between magic and religion. The term magic traditionally denotes ritual practices that mobilize supernatural forces or use hidden causes (Ratschow 1947: unio magica) to achieve certain outcomes. There is no denying that the Hebrew Bible contains passages that could clearly be considered to describe magic, even though the practices described would have been inherited either from Canaanite practices or from Assyria and Babylon, especially, by intrusions into the originally “pure” religion of ancient Israel (for instance, Fohrer 1969: 19). Relationships between religion and magic have been 1.╇ See below, pp. 429–473.

387

388

Chapter 6

considered in enormous depth through all ages and places of human social development; in the modern European context, notable contributions have been made by Edward Burnett Tylor (1873), William Robertson Smith (1967), James George Frazer (1989), Emile Durkheim (1981), and Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss (1989). In considering trajectories of human social development from the 19th century onward, many people (including those associated with the so-called phenomenological school and the German “ReligionsÂ� geschichtliche Schule” of the first half of the 20th century) assumed an evolutionist paradigm and were misguided into thinking that human progress had followed a path from “savagery, through barbarism, to civilization” (Morgan 1877). According to this evolutionist paradigm, magic was an expression of the first and most-primitive forms of human religion, born of belief in the hidden powers of nature (as in manaism or dynamism) or of spirits (as in animism). Up to the second half of the 20th century, many exegetes and scholars of religious studies believed that monotheistic religion had supplanted beliefs in magic with conceptions of the absolute dependence of man on the one true God, and thus this dependence was in no way amenable to manipulation through magic. For von Rad (1962: 1.47–48), for example, Israel’s conception of Yhwh was therefore utterly incompatible with magical practices and beliefs. Moreover, religion was defined as a collective phenomenon in which rituals and prayers were esteemed because of their contributions to collective betterment, while magic was thought to be an individual practice designed for one’s own benefit. According to Durkheim (1981), a magician had clients but no church. The Old Testament as a document of monotheistic religion was then read as opposing any form of magical thought or practice. This perception of magic can be seen to have influenced more-recent discourses on magic somewhat (see, for example, Douglas 2004: 194). Over the last decade, however, as anthropology has turned more directly toward cultural phenomena, the perception of “magical” practices in Old Testament studies has changed (Cryer 1991; Jeffers 1996; Schmitt 2004), as it has also in studies of the ancient Near East (for example, Thomsen 1987; Abusch 2002; and Schwemer 2007) and Egypt (for example, Assmann 1991 and Ritner 1993). Magic and divination have come to be seen more as performative acts and comprising the more integral part of religion and the entire symbolic system of a culture. Accordingly, magic in the Old Testament, as in the ancient Near Eastern world, was not so much a manipulation of matter and beings through the use of dynamistic or animistic powers as it was the result of a belief in the absolute power of the divine. The absolute divinity was the final or sole authority able to intervene by supernatural force in the human realm. Magic as a descriptive term denotes ritual practices that were intended to effect particular results through rituals or acts performed in anticipation of divine intervention (see Schmitt 2004: 92–93). Thus, the rites and rituals of family religion—as well as the rituals of official cults—were strategies of ritual behavior that must be seen as genuine expressions of religion, regardless of differences in socioreligious settings.

6.2.╇ Rites and rituals associated with the cycle of human life 6.2.1.╇Birth The investigation of epigraphic Hebrew personal names in chap. 5 revealed that the birth process was accompanied by various ritual activities in ancient Israelite family reli-

Rites of Family and Household Religion

389

gion.â•›2 Although, in contrast to Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt,â•›3 no direct sources for birth incantations with ritual instructions have been found for ancient Israel, the evidence provided by the personal names and the evidence scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible make it possible to describe roughly the main ritual elements connected with typical birth processes. Of all of the typical rites de passage of human life, birth seems to have been universally the most preoccupied with religious rituals. In the ancient world, childlessness was an economic threat for families and a social humiliation for afflicted women; therefore, the lament of an infertile woman uttered either at home (Gen 30:1–2) or at a local sanctuary (1 Sam 1:4–8) was a semiritual reality in the environment of birth. The sorrow of childless women found ritual expression in prayers to the deity for a child, especially a son (1 Sam 1:10–11), and prayers were provided with even more urgency when accompanied by promissory vows (1:11; Prov 31:2: “son of my vows”).â•›4 The prayers of barren women could also be supported by the ritual intercessions of their husbands (Gen 25:21). The inclusion of animal sacrifices in ritualistic family prayers and vows for infertile women overlapped with the symbolic and ritualistic worlds of the priestly sphere of local and regional sanctuaries. Either spontaneously or in response to laments, birth oracles could be given to barren women (Gen 17; Judg 13:3, 5; 1 Sam 1:17; 2 Kgs 4:16) or to pregnant women whose lives were endangered (Gen 16:11; 25:23). In encountering difficulties, a pregnant woman could make a request to god (dāraš ʾet-Yhwh) for the provision of a divine prognosis (25:22). In cases where these divine oracles were mediated by priests (1 Sam 1:17) or “men of God” (2 Kgs 4:16), male religious functionaries were included in the rituals that accompanied the birth process. In some cases, however, the Bible indicates that unknown visitors, who were later revealed to have been divine messengers (malʾak Yhwh), delivered birth oracles to infertile women (Gen 18:10, 14; Judg 13:3, 5). Thus, the birth oracles represent a specifically female religious experience that was not completely subject to the control of men. All such birth oracles are considered to be the intuitive mantic type. Some personal names, however, suggest instrumental mantic practices such as the casting of lots.â•›5 According to the Hebrew Bible, priests administered oracular instruments (1 Sam 14:41; 23:2, 6), but the presence of equipment for oracles in private dwellings suggests that birth oracles could also be given in the domestic cult. Because every conception was conceived as a divine work (Ruth 4:13), especially conceptions that followed periods of apparent infertility (Gen 20:17–18; 21:1–2; 29:31–32; 30:17, 22; 1 Sam 1:19–20)—whether by God’s healing (rāpāʾ↜) the barren woman (Gen 20:17) or opening (↜pātaḥ) her womb (29:31; 30:22)—it also seems likely that the situation of procreation and conception was accompanied in ancient Israel by specific rites within the domestic cult. Ritual objects found in dwellings suggest that these rites may have 2.╇ See above, pp. 252–253, 269–293 3.╇ For ancient Mesopotamia, see Krebernik 1984: 36–47; Farber 1989; van der Toorn 1994: 77–110; 1999: 139–47; Stol 2000: 49–89; and earlier on, Albertz 1978a: 51–55; for Anatolia, see Beckman 1983; for Egypt, see, for example, Borghouts 1971: 28–32. 4.╇ For more details on vows, see below, pp. 403–410. 5.╇ See, for example, the Aramaic name ʾAḥlakad ‘[my divine] brother has picked [me by drawing lots]’ or the Hebrew Baʿalnāḥāš ‘Baal has predicted [a good omen]’; see above, pp. 274–275; and appendix B5.3.

390

Chapter 6

included the offering of libations and incense, and prayers offered at portable cultic installations placed next to sleeping chambers. It is also possible that the Judean pillar-figurines depicting women with prominent breasts played important roles in these rituals in the later monarchic period. Because there are no signs of their being goddesses, these figurines would have functioned instead as mediators, transferring the prayers for a child to the deity, and the fertility and divine support from the deity to the women.â•›6 The personal name Šĕkanyāhû ‘Yhwh was present’, which is epigraphically attested nine times between the 9th and 6th centuries, suggests that the divine presence was experienced during these domestic ceremonies and later confirmed by the woman’s pregnancy and fortuitous birth. The period of pregnancy—that is, the time when the deity created a child in the womb of the mother (Jer 1:5; Ps 139:13; Job 10:8–11; 31:15)—could be accompanied by various rites in case of difficulty. The Hebrew Bible refers to laments and requests to god (Gen 25:21). Specific incantations and “magic” practices were found in Mesopotamia that served to protect pregnant women from the nefarious influences of sorcery to ensure that the fetus would not be lost (Farber 1989: 111–13). Pillar-figurines may also have played a role in these cases. During the confinement itself, the pregnant woman was separated from her family (Jer 20:15). The birth took place either in the inner room of the dwelling (Cant 3:4) or somewhere outside the village (Cant 8:5). Only women were permitted access to women in the final stages of pregnancy (Ruth 4:14–17).â•›7 Parturition took place under primitive conditions: a woman in labor knelt on the two birth stones (ʾabnáyîm) mentioned in Exod 1:16 and was assisted by a midwife (mĕyallédet), at least in difficult cases (Gen 35:17; 38:28; Exod 1:15). These midwives were particularly important, and even Yhwh was metaphorically represented in their role (Ps 22:10; 71:6). As wise women, they are plausible candidates for transmitting the knowledge and practices of birth rites and incantations that they would have performed to control a delivery. In Gen 35:17, the midwife uttered a form of a salvation oracle to Rebecca, whose vitality had faded. Evidence from Mesopotamia suggests that midwives activated the mythological background of birth in order to ensure a safe and happy end to the confinement for the mother and child. Birth was extremely dangerous under the medical and hygienic conditions of the ancient world. For example, an Old Babylonian incantation states: In the waters of intercourse, the bone was created; in the flesh of muscles, the baby was created. In the ocean waters, fearsome, raging, in the far-off waters of the sea: where the little one is—his arms are bound!—, inside which the eye of the sun does not bring light. Asalluḫi, the son of Enki, saw him. 6.╇ See, for example, an Egyptian birth ritual (Papyrus Leiden I 348:369–72), where the healing spell in which the goddess Hator and the god Horus are promising their help is spoken over a Besfigurine placed on the brow of the woman (Borghouts 1971: 29). 7.╇ Even in the Hittite birth rituals, in which a purificatory priest (lúpatili) played an important role, this male priest was never directly involved with the delivery: “this function seems to be the preserve of the midwife in the Hittite texts” (see Beckman 1983: 238).

Rites of Family and Household Religion

391

He loosed his tight-bound bonds, he made him a path, he opened him a way: “Opened are the paths for you, the ways are . . . for you. The [mother goddess] is sitting for you, she who creates, [Mami], who creates us all, she has spoken to the doorbolt: ‘You are released!’” Removed are the locks, the doors are thrown aside. Let him strike . . . ; like a fish (?), bring yourself out!â•›8

This incantation refers back to the divine creation of a baby in its mother’s womb (see Job 10:8–11), the waters of which, during labor, are compared to a raging ocean. The baby had been bound in the dark, but Asalluḫi (later equated with Marduk), the god of magic and son of Enki the creator of mankind, liberated him and opened a path for him from the inside, while the mother-goddess who has created every individual acts as a midwife and opens the closed cervix from the outside by her command. At the end, the baby is encouraged to find his way out. Because the concepts of divine creation and midwifery in ancient Israel are not very unlike the concepts of Mesopotamia, it is likely that Israelite midwives recited comparable but perhaps simpler incantations that served to activate Yhwh’s creative power. The absence of allusions to these sorts of text in the Hebrew Bible reflects the fact that they were transmitted in Israel exclusively by midwives and thus were not part of the professional knowledge of male priests or scribes. Ezek 16:4 provides evidence that the umbilical cord of a newborn was severed following delivery; the infant was bathed in water and was rubbed with salt. The latter seems to have been an apotropaic rite to protect the newborn from demonic attack (Zimmerli 1979: 349). A woman in childbed was deemed impure for 7 days following the birth of a son and for 14 days after the birth of a daughter (Lev 12:2, 5). This status of impurity was associated not only with the mother’s bleeding during parturition but also with her close encounter with the divine during the birth process. During this period of impurity, a woman who had given birth was isolated from her family, and a messenger had to be sent to inform the husband of the birth of his child (Jer 20:15). At the same time, the period protected the woman in childbed and enabled her to recover from her exhaustion, to begin lactation, and to begin her intimate relationship with her child. Additional prayers and rites would naturally have been performed in case of difficulty with an infant or with lactation. Pillarfigurines showing prominent breasts again could have played mediating roles in cases of this sort. Following the end of the period of impurity, that is, on the 8th or 15th days after confinement, the feast of name giving would probably have taken place within the domestic area of the family. After her considerable period of absence, the mother along with her new child needed to be reintegrated into the family household. The father would typically have offered a joyful welcome, blessed his wife and her baby, and by doing so, would have accepted the newborn as his own child. He could refuse to accept the baby in exceptional cases, however (Hos 1:6). The mother probably would have told her family members of 8.╇ See van Dijk (1973: 503–5); the translation is almost the same as in Stol 2000: 10–11; for additional examples, see Stol 2000: 59–72; and earlier, Albertz 1978: 51–55.

392

Chapter 6

the physical and religious experiences she encountered during the birth and would have proudly presented her new child to them. The name of the newborn would have emerged during the conversations about these experiences. The naming of the baby, whether by mother, father, or both,â•›9 also served as a thanksgiving ceremony for the family group, who also may have invited the midwife, other relatives, and neighbors. It is likely that namegiving ceremonies would have included a meal, along with offerings of food and drink to the deity. For boys, the family name-giving feast later became the feast of circumcision, when this apotropaic rite, which was originally connected with a rite de passage for older boys (at maturity and before marriage), was transferred to the newborn stage. This feast is explicitly dated to the eighth day following birth (Gen 17:12; 21:4) and therefore would probably have overlapped with the older name-giving feast on this date, after the end of the period of impurity. According to new evidence provided by the personal name Malyāhû ‘Yhwh has circumcised’, this practice had already begun in the 7th century b.c.e. (see appendix B5.6). This rite served not only to integrate the newborn into the familial group but also to protect him from the dangers of demons and evil powers. During the period of exile, the circumcision of infants became a religious badge of integration into the people of Yhwh.â•›10 The survival of newborns was far from certain, given the medical and hygienic conditions of ancient times. Infant mortality rates were very high and, although precise numbers are difficult to determine for Cisâ•‚ and Transjordanian societies in the Iron Age, according to the recent calculations of Willett (2008: 2), “On average, 35 percent of all individuals died before age 5.” Protracted crying and screaming of infants could be warning signs of of lethal danger. Therefore, in ancient Mesopotamia, for example, special “baby incantations” existed that were used to calm crying infants (Farber 1989: 34–97), along with other rituals performed to protect an infant from being attacked by Lamashtu, the prominent she-demon of infant mortality, or the lilûâ•‚, or a bad alûâ•‚ demon.â•›11 We are uncertain whether comparable rites existed in ancient Israel,â•›12 but we know that the weaning of a child was celebrated in families by a “large banquet” (Gen 21:8). In Egypt, birth and birth rites were closely associated with the Egyptian god Bes (Ritner 2008: 179–81), and protective amulets representing the deity appear to have been common items. In Iron Age Israel and Judah, Bes appears 5 times in personal names (4 times in the confession name ‫בסי‬ Besay ‘who belongs to Bes’ and once in the birth name ‫ קדבׂש‬Qadbeś ‘Bes has formed’; see appendixes B2.6.2. and 5.5.1). Bes is also attested in the graffiti at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd (Beck 1982: fig.€5) and by more than 50 Iron IIB–C Bes-amulets, of which up to 14 came from Iron Age IIC (Herrmann 1994: 319; 2002: 20). According to Herrmann, this type was not particularly popular in Iron Age Palestine compared with other types. The function of Bes in his West Semitic reception is unknown. We can only speculate that some protective and apotropaic purpose was ascribed to the grotesque appearance of his face (see also Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §131). 9.╇ See above, pp. 247–248. 10.╇ See below, pp. 393–395. 11.╇ See, for example, Farber 1989: 103–6, 127–29. 12.╇ Willett (2008: 16–21) also ascribes a child-protecting role to the pillar-figurines.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

393

The period of breast-feeding was long in ancient Israel; according to 2 Macc 7:28, it ended after two–three years. The weaning feast was considered a family thanksgiving ceremony for the fact that the child had surmounted the perils of infancy and had grown up (see ‫ גדל‬gādal ‘to grow up’ in Gen 21:8). Thus, the rites and ceremonies that accompanied the protracted process of birth were central elements of the domestic cult of ancient Israel.

6.2.2.╇Circumcision One of the most important familial rituals both in antiquity and in modern Judaism is the rite of circumcision. The rite of circumcision was performed in accordance with Gen 17:12; 21:4; and Lev 12:3, on the eighth day following the birth of a male child. According to Jer 9:24, circumcision in the preexilic period was a practice shared by Judeans, Egyptians, Ammonites, Edomites, and Moabites and, according to Ezek 28:10, the Phoenicians as well. In Judg 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam 14:6; 17:26, 36; 18:25, 27; 31:4; 2 Sam 1:20; and 3:14, the Philistines were reported to be uncircumcised, in contrast to the common practices of the Judeans and their neighbors. Although it seems clear that circumcision was a common preexilic practice, its original meaning and context in the circle of life are still a matter of discussion. Many scholars share the opinion that Exod 4:24–26, the story of the ‘bridegroom of blood’ (‫חטן דמים‬ ḥaṭan dāmîm), attests the originally apotropaic character of this rite, based on the assumption that the numinous aggressor must originally have been a demon (e.g., Gunkel 1921; Beer and Galling 1939: 37–39; Noth 1961: 35–36; Coats 1999: 45–46; for discussion, see Schmidt 1985: 220–22). However, “Few texts contain more problems for the interpreter than these few verses which have continued to baffle throughout the centuries. The difficulties cover the entire spectrum of possible problems” (Childs 1974: 95). The apotropaic meaning, particularly of an allegedly older tradition—not to mention the general plausibility of this sort of reconstruction—has been refuted by a number of scholars (including Childs 1974: 100; and Durham 1987: 57–58). Most more-recent interpretations share the opinion that the text is not an etiology of circumcision (Childs 1974: 100; Schmidt 1985: 232–34; Houtman 1993: 447–48). Moreover, several scholars have opined that the story of the bloody bridegroom was composed for the contemporary context in order to prepare Moses for what was to come, the exodus (Weimar 1980: 284–90; compare with Houtman 1993: 447), and also, at the beginning of the exodus, to allude to the circumcision at the beginning of the conquest story in Josh 5:2–3. In spite of the problems with reconstructing an older tradition and the sometimesfanciful interpretations such as: the demon was claiming for himself the right to the first night (for example, Gressmann 1913: 58); it was an atonement rite (Gunkel 1910: 269); it was a rite of family solidarity on the eve of exodus (Propp 1999: 515); it expiated the blood guilt caused by the slain Egyptian (Propp 1999: 238); it was an apotropaic rite to prevent incestuous relations between mother and son (Lescow 1993); or it replaced an originally practiced circumcision of the groom before marriage (for example, Wellhausen 1927b: 175; van der Toorn 1994: 72)—despite these fanciful ideas, there nevertheless are several elements in the text that support the view that the story reflects an originally apotropaic

394

Chapter 6

meaning for the rite. First, the attack takes place in the wilderness and at night; second, the attack was unprovoked and endangered the life of Moses; and third, the attack was repelled by a rite that included the application of blood and the severed foreskin. Even without assuming the continuance of an older tradition or the substitution of an originally demonic being with Yhwh, the text in its final form is in essence an apotropaic act in which the blood and foreskin serve as ritual media to repulse the attack (Blum 1998: 1355; Gerstenberger 2001: 35). Mary Douglas (1999: 181) also notes that the rite had a prophylactic purpose: “Whatever the dangers that menace new male babies, the rite gives them some protection.” Moreover, Exod 4:24–26 was also read in later traditions as an attack by a numinous being and therefore as an apotropaic rite. Although the Septuagint replaced Yhwh with an angel that attacked Moses, probably because the encounter had become dogmatically problematic, the fact of warding off an attack by a numinous being nevertheless remains. In Jub. 48:2, the encounter with Yhwh is replaced by a demonic attack by the prince of demons, Mastema. This tradition, especially, shows that the rite of circumcision during the Hellenistic period was still understood apotropaic, in addition signifying the covenant of belonging to God’s people. An apotropaic reading is also attested by Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod 4:26, in which Zipporah says that is was the blood of circumcision that saved Moses from the hand of the Angel of Death. Thus, there is a great deal of support for the thesis that circumcision was essentially an apotropaic rite. Several biblical texts support the view that circumcision was originally practiced either as a rite of maturity or as preparation for marriage. Despite the above-mentioned difficulties, the term ḥaṭan dāmîm ‘bridegroom of blood’ in Exod 4:25 and the story in Genesis 34 about the circumcision required of the Shechemites prior to marriage also suggest that circumcision was originally associated with marriage. The circumcision of the thirteenyear-old Ishmael in Gen 17:25 and the circumcision of the generation who had grown up in the wilderness in Josh 5:2–9 may allude to a rite de passage performed on the cusp of adulthood. The Egyptian practice of circumcision was also performed in the second decade of life, and thus at the same point in the life cycle (see Ritner 2008: 178), as was the analogous Arabian practice. Nevertheless, the somewhat ambiguous picture of preexilic maturity rites probably reflects the fact that knowledge of its original context had faded, thereby opening space for speculation on the part of the exilic and postexilic writers. According to the epigraphic evidence of the personal name ‫( מליהו‬Malyāhû), which is attested four times,â•›13 the circumcision of infants as presupposed by the Priestly tradition of Gen 17:12; 21:4; and Lev 12:3 seems to have commenced during the 7th century b.c.e. The overlap between circumcision and the feast of name giving provided circumcision with an apotropaic function, with Yhwh integrating the newborn into the family and protecting the infant from demons and evil powers. In spite of the fact that the rite of circumcision bore a variety of meanings (many of which must now remain elusive) and that it was etiologized in various ways, it nevertheless remains clear that the common practice of circumcising male infants arose during the period of exile and was partly a cultural product of the need to define and defend 13.╇ See appendix B5.6; and above, pp. 292–293.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

395

the religious and national identity of the exilic community (Grünwaldt 1992: 222–24; Albertz 2003: 107). Because circumcision was not common in Mesopotamia, it became a confessional badge for the Babylonian golah by which the head of every family could declare his membership in the community of exiles and his fidelity to the ancestral religion. The father’s responsibility for the performance of circumcision again made the family the nucleus of national and religious identity. Circumcision eventually became the most important hallmark of the Jewish faith, a practice that was also required of converts (Albertz 1994: 407–8; 2003: 107). The possibility of integrating individually alien people into a family by circumcision (although not by general proselytizing) is reflected both in the story of the circumcision of Ishmael and the household slaves in Gen 17:23–27, and by the permission granted to circumcised foreign slaves in Exod 12:43–49 to participate in the Passover.â•›14 Although circumcision became a potent sign of Jewish national and religious identity, it was always intimately connected with characteristic family rites.

6.2.3.╇Marriage Surprisingly, there is a complete absence of Old Testament accounts about ritual actions associated with the institution of marriage. Marriage contracts such as were found at Elephantine are purely legal in character and do not mention ritualistic actions or elements. Moreover, the biblical rules for levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10 are essentially secular, despite their integration within a collection of divine law. This did not, of course, mean that marriage was an entirely profane institution. Although the essence of marriage may have lain in its legal status, it was associated with a variety of religiously motivated observances and performances.

6.2.3.1.╇ Monogamy and polygyny According to King and Stager (2001: 38; following Crüsemann 1978), the biblical family had six main characteristics: “It [was] endogamous, patrilineal, patriarchal, patrilocal, joint, and polygynous.” Scholars have often suggested that polygyny was the general—or at least a common—form of marriage in ancient Israel.â•›15 Others have argued conversely that polygyny was an exception that was practiced both in Israel and in Mesopotamia only when the first wife proved to be barren.â•›16 Royal polygyny was a special case, the main function of which was to ensure political alliances. It has also been argued that Israel’s society developed from a seminomadic, pastoral society that commonly practiced polygyny into a sedentary, agrarian society that favored monogamous marriages. However, arguments of this sort reflect erroneous hypotheses regarding the existence of general evolutionary trajectories from early polygyny to later monogamy (see, for example, Kronholm 1982) and accord with the now thoroughly discredited premises of Morgan, Tylor, Frazer, and their ilk. 14.╇See Wöhrle 2010. 15.╇ For example, by Gunkel 1910: 329, 332; Wolff 2002: 247–48; Scharbert 1982: 312; Brenner 1992: 92; Friedl 2000: 156–62; Douglas 2004: 76. 16.╇ For example, by Meyers 1988: 137; Albertz 1994: 33; van der Toorn 1996b: 20; Marsman 2003: 129, 141; Westbrook 2003–5: 600.

396

Chapter 6

The patriarchal narratives of the Bible seem at first to support rather strongly the notion that polygyny was a common phenomenon. Lamech was married to Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:23); Abraham was married to Sarah as well as to Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16; 25:1–6); Jacob’s primary wives were Leah and Rachel (chap. 29), and Bilhah and Zilpah were his “second wives” (Gen 30:1–13); Esau in Gen 26:34 was married to the Hittite women Judith and Basemath as well as to Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael in Gen 28:9; and, according to Gen 36:1–5, to Adah the Hittite, to Oholibamah the Hivite, and to Ishmael’s daughter Basemath. The patriarchal narratives, however, are suffused with archaic imagery such as nomadic wanderings, living in tents, and especially the archaic or pseudoarchaic imagery of religious practices and beliefs. Polygyny would have fitted quite well into such an imagined archaic patriarchal age. Note that the Deuteronomistic History does not mention polygyny except for the two wives of Elkanah in 1 Sam 1:2 (which also may have merely reflected an imagined archaic practice); the polygamy of the kings David (in 1 Sam 18:17– 30; 25:38–43; 2 Sam 3:2–5) and Solomon (in 1 Kgs 3:1; 11:3); and that of Gideon (in Judg 8:30). Royal polygyny was viewed by the Deuteronomists as the reason for Solomon’s veneration of foreign gods (1 Kgs 11:11–13), and in 2 Chr 11:21, it was mentioned in the context of Rehoboam’s failures. Rather than aiming to suppress polygynist practices, the Deuteronomistic writings and Chronicles were directed more toward practices that would ensure exogamy. Monogamy as the dominant form of marriage is explicitly evinced in stories such as Bathseba, the wife of Uriah, in 2 Samuel 11 and the Shunammite couple in 2 Kgs 4:8–37. Other biblical sources compiled both before and after the exile also show that monogamy generally prevailed, such as the description of Isaiah’s wife the “prophetess” in Isa 8:3, and Hosea’s wife Gomer in Hos 1:2–3. Accounts of women and their marital relationships in the Old Testament wisdom literature, especially Prov 31:10–31 and Ben Sira 26, also seem to presuppose monogamy (with the possible exception of Sir 25:14, the meaning of which is unclear). Although Old Testament legal codes do not explicitly refer to polygyny, it is nevertheless clear—particularly in Deut 21:15–17, which describes the rights of the firstborn—that it was generally legal. It has been suggested that polygyny flourished in the upper classes, although there is no epigraphic evidence to support this assertion. The 7th-century b.c.e. inscription from Silwan 1.B (Renz and Röllig 1995: 264–65, Jer [7]:2) mentions an ‫‘ אמה‬slave girl’ or ‘second wife’, merely indicating that the man’s wife—and only one wife is mentioned—was of (perhaps much) lower social status. The marriage contracts from Elephantine (Porten and Yardeni 1989: B 3.8:36–7; B 6.4:1) forbade a male partner to marry a second wife, lest he face divorce, loss of dowry, or the exclusion of certain heirs (Porten and Yardeni 1989: B€2.6:32–5). Thus, monogamy seems to have been the rule in the Persian period, and preexilic evidence also suggests that monogamous marriages reflected common practice. Polygyny was an exception and was generally practiced only when a woman was barren or had borne only girls. Both New Testament and talmudic sources also portray monogamy as the general rule. The social inclination toward monogamy in ancient Israel and its contemporary environment may have reflected an awareness that polygynous marriages were known to provoke considerable tensions among the women of a family (in Gen 30:1–24;

Rites of Family and Household Religion

397

see Gunkel 1910: 332; Friedl 2000: 275–85; Marsman 2003: 141) and also to raise serious legal problems (Deut 21:15–17).

6.2.3.2.╇ Endogamy and exogamy Although issues of polygamy versus monogamy may have been primarily legal issues for the biblical writers, those of endogamy versus exogamy were charged with religiously motivated prohibitions and arguments. The patriarchal narratives and the book of Tobit provide clear examples of encouraging endogamous marriages in family environments (Tob 4:12; cf. Numbers 36). Marriages between cousins appear to have been common (see, for example, Gen 24:15; 29:9; Tob 6:11–12; as well as Gerstenberger 2001: 32; Marsman 2003: 61–62). In the absence of preexilic voices addressing the religious implications of endogamy and exogamy, we may assume that family property was an important economic factor in encouraging endogamous marriages, as supported by the above-mentioned texts. Endogamy and exogamy became important topics in exilic and postexilic literature. The Priestly patriarchal narratives most likely reflect experiences of exile. They contain strong directives against exogamous marriages, with the marriages between Esau and his Hittite wives being viewed very negatively (Gen 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:6–9). Biblical sources prior to the exile showed no connection between religious practices and exogamy. Postexilic sources such as Deut 7:2–4 (see Achenbach 1991: 287–89) explicitly forbade intermarriage with the seven nations of the “Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” These “nations” were the generic foreign nations with which intermarriage might once have been possible; the statement also connects the directives against exogamy with the prevention of the veneration of the gods of those nations. The literature of the exile thus drew a connection between exogamy and cults of foreign gods. The two practices of endogamy and adherence to monotheistic Yahwism seem to have been of paramount importance in the maintenance of national identity during the time of the exile. Thus, after the exile, there arose the strict religious injunctions against exogamy in Ezra 9–10, which sanctioned divorce in cases of intermarriage, and in Neh 13:23–30, according to which individuals who practiced intermarriage might be subject to curses or bodily punishment, and officials who permitted intermÂ�arriage might potentially be ostracized. In practice, these injunctions would not have permeated the entire society, and the book of Ruth certainly manifests a different position (I. Fischer 2001: 86–91) in emphasizing that even Moabites—who had often been viewed as abominable, as in Num 25:1–5—could be faithful wives for Israelite men. Furthermore, Moses’ marriage to a Midianite in Exod 2:15–22 and 18:1–7 was not criticized, even though Israelites who intermarried with Moabites or Midianites were to be impaled according to the late Priestly regulations of Num 25:1–10. The Elephantine texts show that marriages between Jewish women and Egyptians were common (Porten and Yardeni 1989: B 2.6), at least in the late-5th-century Egyptian Diaspora. 6.2.3.3.╇ Levirate marriage The law regarding levirate marriage (Hebrew ‫ יבם‬yābām; for a discussion of which, see Marsman 2003: 212–18) in Deut 25:5–10 declares that a man—referred to as the ‘redeemer’, or in Hebrew, ‫ גואל‬gōʾēl—is obliged to marry the ‘widow’ (the ‫ יבמה‬yĕbāmāh) of

398

Chapter 6

his brother if she has no offspring, to ensure “that his brother’s name may not be blotted out in Israel” (Deut 25:6). The redeemer can also, according to Gen 38:6–26, be the fatherin-law (Judah) or even a man from the wider family, such as Boaz in the book of Ruth. If the gōʾēl refuses to marry the yĕbāmāh, a rite of public humiliation is performed before the elders at the city gate, in which she removes the sandals from the feet of the redeemer and spits in his face. The unwilling redeemer then must bear the shame of having refused to support and continue his brother’s house (Deut 25:9). The law is directed primarily at continuing the lineage,while also serving the secondary purpose of ensuring social and economical protection for the widow (Pressler 1993: 73–74). The rites described in Deuteronomy 25 are purely legal and entirely free of religious practices or connotations. The humiliation is not even accompanied by a curse that invokes Yhwh. In Ruth 4:11–12, the legal act is followed by a blessing performed by the witnesses, which in turn is merely an expression of joy. Levirate marriage in general is directed against exogamy and is therefore implicitly connected with the stereotype of foreign women as being likely to seduce men into alien cults. The book has often been interpreted within the broader context of postexilic discourses regarding exogamy (see I. Fischer 2001: 86–93), according to which the prohibition against exogamy in the so-called reforms of Ezra are based on explicitly religious arguments. The book of Ruth itself, however, does not use explicitly religious arguments; instead, it presents a legal framework that also calls for human compassion.

6.2.3.4.╇ Rites of marriage As noted above, there is almost no information about actual rites, ceremonies, or rituals for weddings. Everything that appears pertains solely to legal actions. The notion of marriage as a divine institution in Gen 2:24 seems to be merely sanctifying an otherwise entirely profane institution, and even this sanctification is not reflected in other biblical texts or extrabiblical sources that deal with marriage (contra van der Toorn 1994: 60–62; and Marsman 2003: 121). Nevertheless, although the act of marriage in ancient Israel may have been dictated by law rather than by religion, there are occasional suggestions in biblical texts that ritual elements were performed as a part of marriage ceremonies. According to Tob 7:13–14, a marriage ceremony consisted of a formal presentation of the bride by the groom’s father, a declaration by the father that she now belonged to her man “in accordance with the law and decree of the book of Moses” (7:13), a blessing, agreement on a marriage contract (‫ כתבה‬kĕttubāh in postbiblical Hebrew), and a festive meal. A dowry (‫ מהר‬mohar) had to be paid by the groom’s family (Gen 24:53; Gen 34:11–12; Exod 22:15–16; cf. Deut 22:29) in exchange for a dowry (‫ ׁשלוחים‬šillûḥîm) given with the daughter. A bride’s farewell could have been accompanied by a blessing, as in Gen 24:60, where Rebekah is blessed by her brothers; and the redemption of a yĕbāmāh by a redeemer could have been accompanied by a blessing from the witnesses (as in Ruth 4:11–12). The oath of Ruth, “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:15–16) was probably not stated as an example of a special oath taken in situations of intermarriage (as proposed by van der Toorn 1994: 69; and Marsman 2003: 113) but more likely just served some narrative purpose. Marriage celebrations certainly included meals (see Gen 29:22; Judg 14:10). Tobit 6 is not necessarily indicating that wedding nights were accompanied by various rituals that included apotropaic and exorcistic rituals (contra van der Toorn 1994:

Rites of Family and Household Religion

399

70–72; cf. Gerstenberger 2001: 43), because there is no further evidence from biblical or other sources for these sorts of practice. The same is true of a wider interpretation of the solitary remark in Mal 2:14–15 about the bĕrīt between the man and woman with Yhwh as witness. Thus, based on this admittedly meager evidence, we see that blessings were apparently the only rites of a religious nature performed during marriage ceremonies, while the form of the entire ceremony was entirely legal in nature, as was acknowledged as early as 1914 by Jahnow (1994: 34).

6.3.╇ Rites, rituals, and observances set by the calendar 6.3.1.╇ Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread Except for circumcision, Passover was the most important family ritual, as evinced by the numerous accounts in the Hebrew Bible about various ritual and communal observances.â•›17 Ongoing debates about the interpretation of textual descriptions of Passover reflect its importance, as do related debates about possible changes to the nature of the Passover celebrations (for discussion of which, see Dahm 2003; Prosic 2004; Schlund 2005). Thirty years ago, Childs (1974: 186) commented, “Few problems in the Old Testament have called forth such sustained scholarly research as has that of the Passover.” Previous hypotheses drawn from textual evidence that the Passover originated in nomadic traditions, while the Feast of Unleavened Bread originated in traditions associated with settled agrarianism (Wellhausen 1887: 80–94; Rost 1943) are now eschewed, as are phenomenological approaches that claim Passover originated with the common ancient Near Eastern New Year’s Festival (Engnell 1952). It is widely agreed that Exod 12:21–23* represents the most ancient preexilic core of the Passover ritual, later adopted by P in Exod 12:1–13 during the situation of exile (Grünwaldt 1992: 222–24; Dahm 2003: 162–65).â•›18 Although the Priestly Passover account represents a notably advanced stage of its development, elements of the older traditions as presented in Exod 12:21–23*, 12:8–11, and 12:3–4 reveal its original familial setting. The Passover ritual was celebrated in families and included the slaughter of a lamb and the application of blood on the doorpost and lintel to repel the mašḥīt demon.â•›19 Requisite elements of the family Passover meal, as explicated in Exod 12:1–3 and 8–11, included one lamb for each family roasted on the fire, to be eaten at night together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, with girded loins; it was to be eaten in haste, for none of it was to remain. It is noteworthy that all ritual actions described in Exod 12:1–3, 8–11, and 21–23* were conducted by laymen within a family setting, not by priests or Levites. According 17.╇ In Exod 12:1–13:16; Lev 23:4–8; Num 9:1–14; Num 28:16–25; Deut 16:1–8; Josh 5:10–12; 2 Kgs 23:21–23; Ezek 45:21–24; Ezra 6:19–22; and 2 Chronicles 30; 35:1–19. 18.╇ This is different from Veijola (1996: 63) and Prosic (2004: 70), who propose that Deut 16:1–8 is the oldest account. The theory of a development the other way around, from a seasonal, communal, Temple festival performed by the official cult to a commemorative festival performed by families and kinship groups is not likely to have many followers, because it is contrary to much of the textual evidence. 19.╇ See below, pp. 419–420.

400

Chapter 6

to Dahm (2003: 162–65), the festival served both to establish borders between the world of the family and the wider (non-Israelite) world beyond, and to secure the identity of lineages and households during the exile. The chronicling of the feast and its connection with the exodus may already have been part of its essence, regardless of its unverifiable age, or may have been introduced during the postexilic period to ensure national and religious identity by means of a commemorative rite (Dahm 2003: 165–66). In contrast to its original ritual setting in a family context, Deut 16:1–8 depicts a centralized Passover Festival in which the slaughter and consumption of Passover animals (here including bovines) needed to take place at the Temple. The character of the consumed animal had thus been transformed into a zebaḥ-offering, and the Passover as now associated with the agricultural Festival of Unleavened Bread (maṣṣot) was thus transformed into a pilgrimage festival. In its form as a pilgrimage festival, it could no longer be celebrated after the destruction of the Temple and the deportation to Babylon and wider regions of the (Neo-)Babylonian Empire. The Priestly adoption of the Passover in Exod 12:1–13 is thus a response to the needs of exilic communities for families living abroad to be permitted to celebrate Passover. Only the slaughtering of the Passover lambs takes place communally (Exod 12:6), but the Passover meal proper is explicitly held in family contexts (12:8–11). Following the exile, the Holiness Code (Lev 23:4–8) again promoted the character of the Passover as a pilgrimage feast, analogous to the maṣṣot Festival (Exod 12:14–17). Moreover, access to the festival was restricted to participants who were circumcised (Exod 12:43–50). In an even later stage of the feast’s postexilic development, the maṣṣot rite was also opened to the Diaspora (Exod 12:18–20) and was thus transformed once again into a familial rite. The accounts of Passover in 2 Chr 30:1–31:1; 35:1–19; and Ezra 6:19–22 reflect the strict centralization of this rite and emphasize its sacred character, in that the Levites are doing the slaughtering, while the priests pour the blood on the altar (2 Chr 35:11). Thus, all ritual actions were performed by priests and not by laymen, and even the animals used for offerings were officially sanctioned. The strict claim regarding the centralization of Passover is also reflected in Jubilees 49. In spite of these attempts at centralization and the “ritual expropriation” of laypersons by the priests, the familial character of the feast and even the active role of laypeople ultimately prevailed. According to Philo (Questiones in Exodum 1.10), the sacrifices were commonly performed at the sanctuary by laymen who had been endowed with priestly authority for one day (Schlund 2005: 55–76). A hybrid form prevailing during the 1st century a.d. consisted of a public slaughter performed at the Temple and a family celebration of the Passover meal itself (Mark 14:12–25; Matt 26:17–19; Luke 22:7–23). This hybrid form also appears in m. Pesaḥim, with public slaughter (m. Pesaḥ. 5:5–9) and domestic preparation and consumption (m. Pesaḥ. 10:8). Thus, centralization of this ritual did not ultimately prevail during the Second Temple period. The impassioned Old Testament discourse over the familial versus centralized setting of the Passover feast and the familial character that ultimately prevailed following the destruction of the Second Temple reveal the central importance of the familial nature of this feast throughout its entire history until the present day.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

401

6.3.2.╇ The Sabbath and the New Moon The origins of and possible ancient Near Eastern parallels to the biblical Sabbath have been subject to ongoing discussion for more than a century, as has the etymology of the Hebrew word ‫ ׁשבת‬šabbāt. It is not the aim of this chapter to offer a complete discussion about this controversial issue (for which, see Robinson 1988; Hasel 1992). Instead, I will give a brief overview of arguments that have been presented at greater length elsewhere (Albertz 1994: 408–11; 2003: 108–9). According to preexilic sources, the Sabbath was not a family religious observance during Iron Age I–IIC, except that the Sabbath day was considered a favorable day to seek omens from religious devotees (2 Kgs 4:23). According to 2€Kgs 4:23; Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13, and Amos 8:5, the preexilic Feast of the Sabbath seems to have been held on days with a full moon and to have been connected with the Israelite Festival of the New Moon (ḥōdeš) as its calendrical opposite.â•›20 Its presence in realms of official religion was reflected in its celebration by Temple priests (in Isa 1:13; Hos 2:13; 2€Kgs 16:17–18; and Lam 2:6). Preexilic texts mention the Sabbath as being associated with a sequence of new moons, similar to the Babylonian sequence from arḥum to šapattu, or from the new moon to the full moon (Robinson 1988). In addition to Temple celebrations of the Sabbath, family traditions had deigned to interrupt agricultural work every seventh day (Exod 23:12; 34:21: šābat), although this practice had no direct cult connotations. These breaks in the weekly rhythm of work may have reflected prohibitions intended to prevent the exhaustion of overworked humans and animals. It seems likely that this originally noncultic, seventh day of rest became combined with traditions of the full moon festival during the period of exile, especially because the original cult celebration ceased with the destruction of the Temple (Lam 2:6). Thus, the former Sabbath Festival was detached from the lunar cycle and became the day of the Sabbath (yōm haššabbāt). In this way, the former festival that had been centered around the Temple shifted toward a familial setting that could then be celebrated throughout the Diaspora, with the respite from work on this seventh day then assuming a sense of religious and cult dignity (Deut 5:12–15; Exod 20:8–11). During the exile, the Sabbath became a token of religious and ethnic identity along with other observances and served to maintain the precarious entity of the exiled community and its religious traditions (see Grünwaldt 1992: 222–23). The Sabbath did not, however, entirely lose its previous connotations with the Temple cult following the exile because, according to Lev 23:1–3; Num 28:9–10; and Ezek 46:1, 3, holy convocations took place at the rebuilt Temple alongside the celebration of the festival within families.

6.3.3.╇ Sabbatical Year The Book of the Covenant, Exod 23:10–11, dictates that the seventh year be an agricultural year of rest, during which the land, vineyards, and olive trees must be allowed to rest and lie fallow, and all fruit must be left to the poor, and everything else to the animals. These verses do not use the term šabbāt but use verbal forms of the roots ‫ ׁשמט‬šamaṭ ‘to let drop’ and ‫ נטׁש‬nāṭaš ‘to abandon’. Deut 15:1–3, 7–11 transfers the fallow year to the financial realm and proclaims the year of relief from debt (‫ ׁשנטה‬šĕmiṭṭāh). The much more 20.╇ On the ḥōdeš, see below, pp. 457–458.

402

Chapter 6

detailed legislation of the early postexilic Holiness Code, Lev 25:1–7, uses the term šabbāt (or ‫ ׁשבת ׁשבתון‬šabbāt šabbātōn ‘great Sabbath’), where it explicitly calls it a ‫ׁשבת ליהוה‬ šabbāt laYhwh (‘Sabbath for Yhwh’). In the Holiness Code, the agrarian fallow year is rehabilitated, and debt relief is transformed into the year of jubilee (Lev 25:8–55). It seems likely that the regulation that appears in the Book of the Covenant refers to an individual observance by single families and that different fallow periods were prescribed for different agricultural products (see Gross 2000: 7–11). It therefore seems unlikely that Exod 23:10–11 promoted a sabbatical year as a common observance of all people. The Holiness Code adopted older preexilic observances governing the agricultural lives of families and proclaimed a divinely sanctioned sabbatical year to be adhered to by the whole community. Although Neh 10:32 might be taken to suggest that these descriptions were provided merely for theological reasons, the sabbatical year in actual practice is attested in both biblical (1 Macc 6:49, 53) and extrabiblical sources (Josephus, Ant. 8.8.1; 14.10.6; 16.2). This regulation about a sabbatical year both reflected and alleviated social problems. The observance as described in the Book of the Covenant was designed both to encourage compassion for society’s poor (Childs 1974: 482) and to prevent exploitation of fields, which would only have diminished future agricultural returns (Albertz 1994: 102). There is no textual evidence to support contrived theological interpretations, such as the theory that the sabbatical year marked the temporary restitution of a primeval peace (Noth 1961: 153–54).

6.3.4.╇ The offering of firstlings at the festivals of harvest and gathering Families in Iron Age Israel subsisted mostly through direct agricultural production, including the farming of livestock, and all families would have shared the same essential needs for good harvests and bountiful progeny from their livestock. Rites and rituals associated with acts of harvesting and herding thus would have provided the basis for the primary religious experiences of Israelite families. The Old Testament describes two distinct offerings of firstlings: (1) firstfruits and vegetables (Hebrew ‫ראׁשית‬/‫ בכורים‬bikkûrîm/reʾšīt) in Exod 23:19a; 34:26; Deut 26:1–11; and (2)€firstborn animals (Hebrew ‫ בכור ]רחם[ פטר‬peṭer [reḥem] bĕkōr ‘what [first] breaks through the womb’) in Exod 22:28–29; 34:19–20; and Deut 15:19–23. The offering of the firstfruits and vegetables was performed according to Exod 34:22 on two feasts of the agricultural year—the festival of the wheat harvest (‫ בכורים‬bikkûrîm) and the festival of gathering (‫ חג הסיף‬ḥag hāsīp) that marked the turn of each year (in preexilic feast calendars; see Körting 1999: 8–90). The regulations for the offering of firstlings in Deuteronomy 26 do not explicitly indicate a date on which these offerings were to be made. The offering of firstborn animals was not originally bound to the annual festive cycle but was merely an occasional practice. According to Exod 22:29, animals were offered on the eighth day after birth. In the Law Code, Deut 15:19–23, however, the offering of firstborn animals was integrated into the annual festival cycle. In spite of the fact that this festival had been centralized and thereby became subject to priestly control, it did not lose its character as a family celebration, because legislation established a common meal for the family to be held at the sanctuary. The Feast of Unleavened Bread, maṣṣot (Exod 23:15; 34:18–20), which spanned seven days, was also originally independent from Passover and was a festival of

Rites of Family and Household Religion

403

the agricultural cycle that signified the beginning of the grain harvest in the month of Abib (March/April). The most important characteristic of the festival was the unleavened bread that was baked from freshly harvested grain. The prohibition against using leaven in the maṣṣot-bread most likely served to distinguish it from everyday food. Offerings were not explicitly mentioned in Exod 23:15 and 34:18–20, although it must be assumed that firstfruits would also have been offered to Yhwh based on the practices of other festivals throughout the agricultural year. Before the exile, rituals associated with these offerings, although related to local or regional sanctuaries, were essentially performed independently by each family. The latemonarchic Deuteronomistic reform movement sought to incorporate the rites and rituals of family religion into those of the official cult. The regulations of Deut 26:1–11 provided a liturgy for this ritual, made it compulsory to offer the firstfruits at the centralized sanctuary, and introduced a rite of confession to be performed by the head of the family in order to acknowledge Yhwh as the deity who had liberated the people from Egypt and had given them the land (see Albertz 1994: 103). Yhwh’s claim on the human firstborn (bĕkōr; see Exod 22:28; 34:20; and Num 8:17; 18:15) did not refer to an actual human sacrifice (for discussion of which, see Milgrom 2000: 1586–91) but (as already noted by de Wette 1842: §206; and W. R. Smith 1899: 189) ascribed to him/her a special, sacred dignity (see Douglas 2004: 170). The claim on the firstborn in Exod 13:11–16 was derived from narratives about the killing of the firstborn in Egypt. Claims on human firstborns were thus theologically motivated, and each claim needed to be redeemed (Exod 34:20), according to Num 3:50, with a prescribed amount of silver. Num 3:12, 40–41; and 8:17–18 proclaimed that Levites were a substitute for all human firstlings (see Noth 1964: 33). It is unlikely, however, that these descriptions reflect the supplanting of ancient forms of human sacrifice with offerings of animals or other substitutes. As concluded by Milgrom (2000: 1590), “There is no evidence that the firstborn, except in crisis situations (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:27), were sacrificed; there is no indication that Israel’s God ever demanded or even sanctioned this practice.” The demand that the firstborn be offered therefore represents thanksgiving to Yhwh for granting the first child and for enabling the mother and child to survive the birth.

6.4.╇ Occasional rituals 6.4.1.╇Vows 6.4.1.1.╇ Biblical evidence In Old Testament narrative texts, ‫ נדר‬nēder ‘vow[s]’ were offered mostly in response to cases of extreme distress, crisis, or danger. Vows were made in situations of war, as demonstrated by the fight with the king of Arad in Num 21:2 and by Jephthah’s vow in Judg 11:30–31; they were also made during situations of critical personal or political importance, which is evidenced by Absalom’s vow to return to Jerusalem in 2 Sam 15:7–8. Oaths were sworn not only to Yhwh but, as indicated in Jer 44:15–19, 25, to other deities, such as the Queen of Heaven. In family contexts, vows originated in situations that threatened the continuance of a family, such as infertility. In 1 Sam 1:11, Hannah made a vow in exchange

404

Chapter 6

for a male child, who would in turn be promised as a nazirite for Yhwh. The vow was offered at the local sanctuary in Shiloh although, rather than being spoken publicly, the words of the vow were offered in silence. As emphasized by Berlinerblau (1996: 66–82), the making of vows was primarily a private affair, and it required no cult apparatus. The making of vows by females in return for (particularly male) children is also reflected in the teaching of King Lemuel’s mother in Prov 31:2, in which Lemuel is addressed as the ‘son of my womb’ (‫־בטני‬â•”‫ בר‬bar-biṭnī) and the ‘son of my vow’ (‫־נדרי‬â•”‫ בר‬bar-nĕdāray). Vows made in situations of personal distress, sickness, or hostility are recorded in the individual thanksgiving psalms (Ps 22:26; 56:13; 66:13–15; and 116:18–19) and in Jonah 2:10 and the individual complaint psalms, as in Ps 61:6–9. Vows were also made to ensure divine protection and the general welfare of individuals or families (the latter through the provision of such things as bread and clothing), as demonstrated by Jacob’s dream in Gen 28:20–22. There is biblical evidence for the making of promissory vows to secure progeny, to prevent or alleviate sickness or social distress, and to ensure general welfare. The general welfare requested in the vow of offerings to be made to the Queen of Heaven in Jer 44:17–18 was especially for ensuring abundance of food and absence of misfortune. Vows were not necessarily as simple as direct exchanges of offering and promise, however. Numbers 30 regulated that vows made by women could be nullified by the father or husband to prevent economic problems that might arise by making too many vows or by promising too much to the deity. Typical offerings of vows were calves, cows, rams, and lambs (Num 15:1–11), all of which would have been of considerable value. Some biblical texts even recommended the exercise of restraint in regard to vows, including Num 30:3; Deut 23:22–24; Qoh 5:3–6; and Prov 20:25. Although Deut 12:5–7 and 11–12 stipulated that vows in postexilic times had to be made at the central sanctuary, these stipulations included explicit descriptions of the family contexts expected of such vows, with Deut 12:7 commanding the presence of “you and your households” and Deut 12:12 the presence of “you and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants and your maidservants.” The public fulfillment of vows at the temple is also indicated by Ps 22:26; 66:13; and 116:14–18. The usual type of offering according to Ps 116:17 and 107:22 was the ‫ זבח תודה‬zebaḥ tōdāh ‘thanksgiving offering’, while in the priestly offering regulations of Lev 7:11–17, the zebaḥ hattōdāh was classified as the ‫ זבח ׁשלמים‬zebaḥ šĕlāmîm ‘offering of well-being’ of a cow, sheep, or goat (see also Lev 22:19; Num 15:1–11) and was to be accompanied by offerings of bread and cakes. Additional libation offerings were mentioned in Num 15:5, 7, and 10, while Lev 22:18 and Num 15:1–11 also mentioned that an offering made for the fulfillment of a vow could take the form of an ‫ עלה‬ʿolāh-offering. According to Jer 44:17, the offerings vowed to the Queen of Heaven included libations, cakes, and burnt incense. These items could also be offered in domestic environments or in profane public locations, such as a street (Jer 44:21). Prior to the exile, vows would most likely have been made at a local or regional sanctuary, as occurred in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom (2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31–32; 19:6, 11–14). The making of vows thus represented a point of intersection between the realms of familial religion and official religion. Vows were made in both private contexts (as presupposed in Numbers 30) and public contexts (in the sanctuary in 1 Sam 1:9–11), while rituals following their fulfillment were performed in communal sanctuaries.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

405

The existence of both legislative and biblical texts recommending restraint in the making of vows provides strong evidence that vows were not only entered into in response to severe danger or distress but also frequently to address situations of perceived need (Berlinerblau 1991: 555).

6.4.1.2.╇ Survey of extrabiblical evidence Extrabiblical sources from the West Semitic realm between the Late Bronze Age and the Hellenistic period reveal a broad similarity to vows made by families or in familial contexts. The Ugaritic epics of Keret and Aqhat describe vows made in exchange for the promise of a male heir. In the Keret Epic, King Keret, having lost seven wives in succession through childbirth, illness, and demonic forces, made a vow to the goddess Athirat asking for a new wife to bear him a male descendant. KTU 1.14 IV 31–43â•›21 They went 32a day and a second; at 33sunset on the third day, 34they arrived at the sanctuary of 35Athirat of Tyrus and the Goddess36of Sidon. There 37the noble Keret made a vow: 38‘As surely as Athirat of Tyre exists—39yes, the Goddess of Sidon—40if I take Huriya into my house, 41make the girl 42enter my residence, I will give twice her (weight) in silver, 43and three times her (weight) in gold! 31

In KTU 1.22 II, Danil made a vow to the deified ancestors of his royal house, the rapiuma, and invited them to a sacrificial meal, if his son would sit on his throne (although it is unclear whether the text meant Aqhat or a second son after Aqhat). KTU 1.22 IIâ•›22 [Danil] 16made [a vow]: If [my son becomes ki]ng 17over Amurru, gras[ps the throne of his kingship,] 18the seat of the throne of his [dominion], 19then I will call the Rapiuma [of my house]; I will invite the divine 20into my palace. 15

Although the vows made by Keret and Danil were motivated to ensure the continuation of their dynasty, the practice of males undertaking vows in exchange for children or for the protection of an existing child may have been commonplace, as indicated by Phoenician dedicatory inscriptions, such as stele P 11.38 (TUAT 2.620), which declare that, TUAT 2.620 Guddbaal, son of Hannibaal, 2set up the stele for his daughter 3and has redeemed his vow. 1

The Phoenician epigraphic material also evinces that vows were made to prevent or alleviate illness, as in KAI 66 (2nd century b.c.e.):

21.╇ Translation after TUAT 3.1229. 22.╇ Translation after TUAT 3.1315.

406

Chapter 6

KAI 66 1. lʾdn lʾšmn mʾrḥ mzbḥ nḥšt mšql lṭrm mʾ 100 ʾš ndr ʾklyn šḥsgm ʾš bmmlht šm[ʿ 2. [q]lʾ rpyʾ bšt špṭm ḥmlkt wʿbdʾšmn bn ḥmlk To the Lord Ešmun-Mʾrḥ: An altar of copper of 100-litra weight,â•›23 which has been vowed by Kleon, the (servant) of Šḥsgm, who is over the saltworks. He has hear[d] 2his ca]ll (and) has healed him. In the year of the špṭm Ḥmlkt and ʿBdʾšmn, the sons of Ḥmlk. 1

Most private inscriptions do not, however, mention the circumstances of or occasions for the vows, as in the unique votive inscription on one (presumably) Ammonite seal from the 7th century b.c.e. (WSS no. 876), which reads: Avigad and Sass 1997: no. 876 [.╯.╯.] 2ʾbndb š nd 3r lʾšt bṣdn 4tbrkh [PN, son of?] 2Abinadab, who vow-3ed to ʾšt (Ashtarte) in Sidon. 4May she bless him. 1 1

The Abinadab seal was made to be used repeatedly, most likely in conjunction with regular donations (Avigad 1966: 250; Berlinerblau 1991: 551–53), demonstrating that vows were made not only in response to individual situations of distress but also regularly. Many Phoenician dedicatory inscriptions also mention vows but do not mention any related occasion. Punic dedicatory inscriptions demonstrate that vows were made not only by men but also commonly by women, as in KAI 109:â•›24 KAI 109 lʾdn lbʿl ḥmn mlk 2ʾmr ndr ʾš ndr ʾ 3kbrt bt [.╯.╯.] To the Lord, Baal Hammon, a molk-2lamb. A vow, vowed by A3kborat, daughter of [.╯.╯.] 1 1

The erection of stelae to mark the fulfillment of vows is also described in Gen 28:20–22, although there is not yet any archaeological evidence from ancient Israel of dedicatory inscriptions that mention vows. The extrabiblical evidence, especially Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, demonstrates that these dedications also represented an intersection of familial and official cult practices, because the dedicatory inscriptions were installed in sanctuaries, thereby making both the undertaking and the redemption of vows a public affair.

6.4.1.3.╇ Epigraphic documents from the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim and their implications for family religion Some 400 dedicatory inscriptions were found during the excavations at the Samaritan sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim, most of which were dated to the Hellenistic period between the 3rd and 2nd centuries b.c.e., and some are up to 200 years older (Magen, 23.╇ A coin weighing ca. 330 grams (KAI 2.81). 24.╇See CIS 3323: 3–4; 3334: 2; 3356: 3; 3829: 3–4; 3456: 2; 3459: 2–3; 3460: 2.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

407

Misgav, and Tsfania 2004). Although these periods do no overlap with those of the present study, these inscriptions are nevertheless worthy of mention because of their demonstration of the ways that familial and official cult practices intersected and overlapped. The inscriptions were found upon building and pavement stones in the general area of the sacred precinct, although none of these stones appear to have been in their original positions, with a single exception (no. 223) being used a second time as part of a monumental staircase. The dedicatory inscriptions were made using two forms of the Aramaic script: lapidary Aramaic as commonly found in other inscriptions from the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, and proto-Jewish script. These two styles occurred alongside one another, although those inscriptions in the lapidary style perhaps originated somewhat earlier (Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 41). Two types of dedication formula are represented in the inscriptions. The first type opened with the expression zy (or dy) hqrb ‘that which [PN] offered’. A typical formula (from no. 1) reads: Document no. 1 from the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim zy hqrb ʾlzʿr [br . . . ʿl npšh] 2[w]ʿl ʾmh ʾntth wb[nwhy . . .] 1 That which Elʿazar [son of PN] offered [for himself] 2[and] for his wife Imma and [his]so[ns] 1

The second type of formula again began with zy/dy hqrb ‘that which [PN] offered’ but ended with the expression ldkrn ṭw ‘for good remembrance’. A typical version of this formula (from no. 147) reads: Document no. 147, Samaritan Temple, Mount Gerizim dy hqrb dlyh br šmʿn ʿlwhy wʿl bnwhy ʾbnʾ [dh l]dkrn ṭw qdm ʾlhʾ bʾtrʾ dnh Delayah, son of Šimʿon, offered [this] stone for himself and his sons for a good remembrance by God in this place Several inscriptions describe the dedications of women, whose names are either mentioned alone (as in nos. 17, 45) or together with their husbands’ names (in nos. 18, 19): Document no. 17, Samaritan Temple, Mount Gerizim zy hqrbt mrym ʿl npšh wʿl 2bnyh That which offered Miriam for herself and for her 2sons

1 1

Document no. 19, Samaritan Temple, Mount Gerizim [z]y hqr[bt . . .2. . .] ʾntt ʾl[. . . 3. . .] w/yh [. . . [That whi]ch offe[red PN . . . 2. . .] wife of ʾl [. . . 3. . .] w/yh [. . .

1 1

The female donor of no. 17 who was mentioned without her husband would most likely have been a widow occupying the role of pater familias after the death of her husband. This sort of change to women’s social roles also seems to have included their responsibility to undertake ritual activities, including donations to the temple. Inscription no. 19 further indicates, however, that women whose husbands were presumably still alive were also able to donate to the temple on their own behalf.

408

Chapter 6

Those who edited and compiled the records for these inscriptions assumed that the expression zy hqrb, or ‘that which [PN] offered’, referred to a monetary contribution, because the only inscription (no. 199) that mentions the sacrifice of animals (in the form of pryn ‘bulls’) used the sacrificial term dbḥ—equivalent to the Hebrew zbḥ—in a different formulation from the standard dedicatory inscription (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania 2004: 17). Inscription nos. 147 (cited above) and 148 suggest that the votive object was the actual stone that bore the inscription (ʾbnh/ʾbnʾ dh), although this does not exclude the likelihood that monetary contributions were also included. The general absence of explicit reasons or circumstances for these inscribed references to vows along with the high degree of stereotypy in the inscriptions prevent much speculation regarding the motivations and reasons for undertaking these vows. Most inscriptions merely express a wish for a good remembrance (ldkrn ṭw) by God and can thus be interpreted as being general petitions for welfare. It must naturally be assumed that donors were beholden to their vows. One case (no. 157) used the expression [.╯.╯.] ḥyy npšh ‘[for] his own life’ or, literally, ‘the life of his soul’, rather than the more customary ʿl npšh ‘for himself ’, suggesting a severe threat to the life of this donor should his vows not be fulfilled. Parallel formulas have been found on 5th- and 4th-century b.c.e. Aramaic inscriptions from Teima. For example, KAI 229 mytbʾ zy qr 2[b] mʿnn br ʿm 3[r]n lṣlm ʾlh 4ʾlḥyy npšh The pedestal that offer2ed mʿnn, son of ʿm 3[r]n, to Ṣalam, the go4 d, for the life of his soul.

1 1

Some scholars have proposed that these dedications reflected atonements being offered for misdeeds (Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 20), because of the alleged similarity between the formulas zy hqrb, ldkrn ṭw, and ʿl npšh; and Exod 30:16, which states, “You shall take the atonement money from the Israelites and shall designate it for the service of the tent of meeting. Before Yhwh it will be a reminder (lĕzikkārōn) to the Israelites of the ransom (lĕkappēr) given for your lives (ʿal-napšōtēkem).” Although this verse contains both lĕzikkārōn and ʿal-napšōtēkem, the key term used to refer to atonement rituals (kpr) does not appear in the Samaritan inscriptions. The Samaritan formulas, however, lack sufficient details for us to infer that the dedications were being made for atonement; furthermore, we do know from other formulas that ldkrn ṭw refers to the more general desire for welfare rather than the more severe ritual quest for atonement. These dedicatory inscriptions from the Gerizim sanctuary were generally intended to achieve a blessing or God’s good remembrance for the dedicator himself and for the members of his family, especially his wife and sons. Dedicators were, however, also women, who had most likely been widowed—as indicated by nos. 17 and 45—but also may have been married, as suggested by nos. 18 and 19. In all cases, the inscriptions followed the same formula used by male dedicators, including a reference to sons. Dedicatory inscriptions intending to ensure the welfare of a family provide strong evidence for the intersection of familial religion and official cults. Families as mentioned in the inscriptions seem to have been nuclear types, comprising parents and sons (daughters were not mentioned in

Rites of Family and Household Religion

409

any of the inscriptions). One case (no. 149) depicts an extended family by mentioning the father of the donor. These dedicatory inscriptions permitted concerns for family welfare to be voiced in the public realm, and public cults granted an official place for this expression. As observed in the records of these inscriptions, their uniformity and their placement on building and pavement stones indicates official involvement in their preparation. They would most likely have been composed by temple scribes and executed by dedicated craftsmen employed by the temple authorities (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania 2004: 14, 20). Thus, a family’s religious needs were granted a place in the official cult, but the expression of these needs was subject to the control of temple authorities. The large number of these inscriptions and the considerable size that would have rendered them clearly readable even when incorporated into walls of considerable height are firm evidence for the importance of this practice in the Samaritan Temple. This Samaritan evidence elucidates the cultural intersections between familial and official religious practices. The nature of these intersections accords with previous observations drawn from biblical evidence for Judaic practices following the exile (Albertz 1994: 508–11).

6.4.1.4.╇ The social settings of vows There has been much recent debate over whether (1) vows were primarily enacted in the private or popular religious realm, which nevertheless remained separate from official religion (Berlinerblau 1991; 1996; Cartledge 1992); or (2) the personal act of making a vow and the public rites performed once it was fulfilled were created and constrained by the realm of official religion (Tita 2001). I have taken the middle position that vows represented a mode of intersection between familial and official religion, the significance of which can be interpreted in the broader context of internal religious pluralism. Prior to the exile, vows were made both privately and publicly, and rites following fulfillment were performed at a local sanctuary (Albertz 1994: 101). After the exile (1994: 508–11), fulfillment rites were performed at the primary official sanctuary. The above discussions imply that there would not have been any general contradiction if fulfillment rites for vows made in private were performed publicly, as suggested by Albertz (Albertz 1996: 111). The Samaritan inscriptions demonstrate particularly well the coexistence of these private and public acts, and this sort of coexistence must reflect a degree of pluralism in the nature of both private and official religious practices and understandings. Although rites following the fulfillment of vows were regularly performed in sanctuaries, and although this performance must also have been a public act of thanksgiving, there is very little evidence that rites of fulfillment were also acts of confession (Tita 2001: 226–28). Vows were intended to ensure family welfare or to secure specific family promises, while directly praising the deity was merely an appropriate response to the deity’s granting of the desired outcome. Although votive inscriptions, including some from the Samaritan Temple, were solely dedicated to expressions of thanksgiving, these were not confessional. Vows and their associated performances were fundamental practices of family religion, and they remained familial rites even though the public enactment of a rite of fulfillment was dictated by official religious prescriptions. Thus, although official religion dictated some aspects of the public rites performed after the fulfillment of promissory vows—as reflected by the standardization of dedicatory formulas found in Samaritan, Phoenician,

410

Chapter 6

and Punic inscriptions—these official dictates had little impact on general practices associated with the offering of vows.

6.4.2.╇ Blessings and curses 6.4.2.1.╇ Terminology and modus operandi The essential difference between a blessing (or in Hebrew, ‫ ברוך‬bārūk) and a curse (in Hebrew, mostly ‫ ארר‬ʾārar, ‫ קלל‬qilēl, ‫ אל‬ʾālā; sometimes ‫נקב‬/‫ קבב‬qābab/nāqab or ‫זעם‬ zāʿam) may be said to be that “a blessing consists of a wish for someone to receive the good things: land, numerous progeny, sufficient food, clothing, safety etc. [while a] curse is the wish that someone be deprived of the same things” (Crawford 1992: 231). The significance of blessings and curses in the Old Testament has long been considered under the anthropological rubrics of animism and dynamism, in the footsteps of such pioneers of social anthropology as W.€R. Smith, E.€B. Tylor, and J.€G. Frazer. In the dynamistic paradigm, certain powers inhere within the spoken word, and these powers are immediately manifest upon pronouncement of the word (Pedersen 1914; Mowinckel 1966; Bertholet 1926; Westermann 1978a; for discussion, see Schmitt 2004: 124–28). This position was also taken up recently by Leuenberger (2008: 453–86). Modern linguistics (Austin 1975), anthropology (Tambiah 1968; 1990: 73–74), and Old Testament studies (Thiselton 1974; Mitchell 1983; Crawford 1992; Wagner 1997; Schmitt 2004) all emphasize that the word as a speech act has only a situative power, and this could not have been perceived by the “primitive mentality.” Thus, Thiselton (1974: 294) states that words “are effective, in most cases, only when performed by the appropriate person in the appropriate situation.” And Mitchell (1983: 174) states that “illocutionary speech acts are not based on magic, but on societal conventions.” The typical blessing formula in the model ‫ ברוך ליהוה‬bārūk PN laYhwh (see Judg 17:2; Ruth 2:20; 3:10) does not implicate a self-effecting magic act but presupposes both an adequate setting and an adequacy of belief that, in this setting, the wish expressed by the utterance of a blessing will be fulfilled by God. The authority to utter a blessing was not necessarily issued by a sociologically “stronger” sender (as Boaz was in Ruth 3:10) to a “weaker” receiver (such as Ruth) but could also be granted by a weaker or inferior sender when situations demanded it, as was the case for Ruth in Ruth 2:20. Blessing and curses were not magical acts that merely manifested the inherent power of words but were ritual acts of speech that mediated or anticipated God’s favor or disfavor and were performed by a person endowed with authority, even when that authority was merely situational. This authority in familial contexts would usually have resided in the pater familias. 6.4.2.2.╇ Biblical evidence One form of Old Testament blessing of special importance to families was the transfer of the authority of a pater familias to a male descendant, such as described in the story of Isaac’s blessing bestowed on Jacob in Gen 27:1–40. The narrative places particular emphasis on the authority of the pater familias to grant the blessing of the firstborn and also states that the granting of the blessing cannot be reversed, even if it was erroneously bestowed on the second born (27:37–38). This situation of course does not imply that the requests inherent in these blessings were immediately granted but instead that, once a blessing was

Rites of Family and Household Religion

411

requested in the presence of the family and god—who was, according to Gen 27:7 (‫ואברכה‬ ‫ לפני יהוה‬waʾabārekkā lipnĕ Yhwh ‘that I may bless you before Yhwh’), also the divine witness and guarantor of the blessing—the circumstances surrounding the blessing were part of irrevocable societal conventions, especially the conventions that served to prevent controversy over the line of succession. Moreover, the formula ‘that my soul may bless you’ (‫ תברכה נפׁשי‬tĕbārekkā napšī) in Gen 27:4, 19, 25, 31 was not an argument for an animistic transfer of power (Leuenberger 2008: 237–41) but pointed out the fact that it was the personal, emotional relationship between the father and son that made the situation appropriate for uttering a blessing. According to Gen 48:14–21 (and also implicitly, Gen 25:5), the pater familias had authority to determine which heir was granted the blessing of the firstborn. In Genesis 48, Ephraim is chosen over his older brother Manasseh, regardless of the custom of blessing the firstborn and thereby anointing him heir. This is also exemplified by Noah’s blessing of Shem and his subordinating of Canaan under him in Gen 9:25–27. For families with no pater familias, the widow was ceded authority to grant the blessing, as described in Judg 17:2: After Micah returned the 1,100 pieces of silver to his mother, she blessed him (‫ ברוך בני ליהוה‬bārūk bĕnī laYhwh) and endowed him with a newly founded sanctuary. Although the narrative does not directly address the succession of family authority, it does indicate that widows could act in the role of pater familias. The blessing of the pater familias was also sometimes accompanied by a laying on of hands, especially the right hand (Gen 48:14). A blessing was also uttered by the pater familias when members of his household, whether servants or sons, had to undertake journeys (Gen 24:7; Tob 5:17). A special occasion for blessing was the departure of a daughter from her father’s house to join her husband’s house. Laban blessed his daughters Leah and Rachel in Gen 32:1 before they left with Jacob; and, in Gen 24:60, Rebekah was blessed by her brothers before beginning her journey to marry Isaac. Another blessing is described in Tob 7:13, where Raguel bestows blessings on both his daughter, Sarah, and her groom, Tobias, on the occasion of their marriage. The public pronunciation of Boaz as redeemer and his acquisition of Ruth as wife in Ruth 4:9–12 were also followed by a blessing by the witnesses for a good marriage and many children. 1 Sam 1:17 also describes a blessing bestowed by the priest against female infertility when the barren Hannah makes a vow in front of Eli, who then utters a blessing for a male heir. In contrast to this evidence for blessings, there is considerably less evidence for the utterance of curses or for rituals associated with them. Biblical law (as expressed in Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deut 27:16) expressly forbids the cursing (here, qll↜) of one’s parents (see Albertz 1978b; Schmitt 2004: 347–50). In the Book of the Covenant, in Exod 21:17, the cursing of parents is mentioned along with other crimes deserving of the death penalty, because it violates the commandment to honor one’s parents and disturbs both societal and divine order. The regulation of the Holiness Code in Lev 20:9 was drawn from Exod 21:17 and reinterpreted as a violation of God’s claim of holiness for his people. Although Deut 27:16 (the so-called decalogue of curses) contains no judicial proscription; nevertheless, cursing one’s parents is seen as a violation of God’s covenant, and the ‫ ארור‬ʾārûr (‘forbidden’) formulation threatens violators of the law with divine reprobation. The blessing of Jacob by Isaac in Gen 27:29 includes a curse on those who curse Jacob (‫ ארריך ארור ומברכיך ברוך‬ʾōrĕrĕykā ʾārūr ûmĕbārăkeyka bārūk ‘Cursed [be he] who curses you and blessed [be he] who blesses you’), although the primary intention of the

412

Chapter 6

phrase would have been to ensure blessings rather than curses. The Noah curse on his son Canaan in Gen 9:25–27 serves more as an etiological synecdoche for Israel’s superiority over Canaan. The curses uttered by Jacob in Genesis 49 on his sons Ruben, Simeon, Levi, and Issachar reflect an artificial composition unrelated to actual practices of family religion. The curse of Micah’s mother in Judg 17:2 was not directed at her son but at an unknown thief. In situations of deep personal distress, one may curse the night of one’s conception (Job 3:8) or the day of one’s birth (Jer 20:14), although these curses reflect universal social practices more than they do contemporary religious rites or rituals. The religious practices of Israelite families during Old Testament times were primarily directed at ensuring their own welfare, and thus the utterance of curses would not have been a particularly prevalent practice, nor was it frequently recorded in texts.

6.4.2.3.╇ Epigraphic evidence There is scant epigraphic evidence for blessings that would have been performed in familial contexts, and most epigraphic blessings are addressed to a person rather than a collective group. Curses are addressed to potential evildoers. Nevertheless, there is some epigraphic evidence that can be interpreted in the wider context of familial piety. Grave inscriptions in particular served family religious purposes, and inscribed amulets were given to the deceased for their final journey. Inscriptions on graves could express either curses or blessings; blessings were probably stated in order to ensure the welfare of the deceased in the netherworld. Note, for example, the En-gedi cave inscription (Renz and Röllig 1995: 173–75, EGed [8]:2) that reads: EGed [8]:2 ʾrr ʾšr ymḥh (. . .) 4brk yhw[. .] (. . .) 6. brk bgy[.╯.╯.] mlk 7. brk ʾdn[.]yh[.] (. . .) cursed who erases (this) (. . .) 4blessed is Yeho[. .](. . .) 6blessed is BGY[.╯.╯.] MLK 7 blessed is ʾAdoniya 1 1

The Ketef Hinnom amulets (Renz and Röllig 1995: 447–56, Jer [x]:34–35) also contain blessings (similar to the priestly blessing in Num 6:24–26)—in this case addressed to the owners of the objects and serving to ensure the blessings of Yhwh in postmortem existence. The existence of this blessing, originally associated with ritual actions performed in the Temple, again reveals the convergence between family and official religion (Leuenberger 2008: 153, 155–77).â•›25 An even broader context is suggested by the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscription on pithos no. 2 (a school exercise), which contains a greeting formula along with a blessing that may be considered typical for written communication:

25.╇Nevertheless Leuenberger’s (2008: 175) assertion that the Ketef Hinnom amulets are to be interpreted in the context of secondary religious experience is without evidence: They belong to an individual or family context and have nothing to do with confession. Moreover it seems unlikely to me that such things as “theologies of blessings,” as reconstructed by Leuenberger, ever existed or that these “theologies” can be reconstructed from random inscriptions.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

413

Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscription, pithos no. 2 (Renz and Röllig 1995: 62, KAjr [9]:9) brktk ly 5hw[.╯.╯.] 6w lʾšrth yb 7rk wyšmrk 8wyhy ʿm ʾd[n] 9y [.╯.╯.] 4 I bless you by Y5hw[h] [of Teman?] 6and by his Ašerah. May he b7less you and protect you, 8and may he be with my lo[r]9d 4

Comparable blessings in everyday contexts are attested by the even-more-general blessings for the recipients of letters on some of the Arad Ostraca that read brktk lYhwh (Renz and Röllig 1995: 379 Arad [6]:16.3; 387 Arad [6]:21.3). The epigraphic evidence suggests that curses did play a role in the protection of family graves. An inscription from Ḥirbet Beit Layy (Renz and Röllig 1995: 249, BLay [7]:4) reads: BLay [7]:4 ʾrr 2↜ʾšr ymḥh cursed (is) 2whoever erases (this)

1 1

A similar formula was used in inscription 1B from Silwan (Renz and Röllig 1995: 264–65, Jer [7]:2): Silwan inscription 1B, Jer [7]:2 zʾt [krbt . .]yhw ʾšr ʿl hbyt : ʾyn [p]h ksp : wzhb 2[ky] ʾm [ʿṣmtw] wʿṣmt ʾmth ʾth : ʾrwr hʾdm ʾšr 3yptḥ ʾt zʾt 1

This is [the tomb of XY]yahu, who is over the house. [He]re is no silver or gold; [on]ly [his bones] and the bones of his slave-girl with him. Cursed (is) the man who opens this. 1 2

These inscriptions that served to protect graves belong to the realm of familial care for the dead, as will be discussed more comprehensively in chap. 7.â•›26 Suffice it to say here to say that curses on graves were similar in purpose to familial blessings: they were intended to protect a family from mischief and distress perpetrated from beyond and, if not securing welfare, then at least serving to ensure a peaceful rest. Blessings in the context of family religion had important functions, especially with regard to delegating a succeeding pater familias (Genesis 27; 48), or the widow who was acting in this role (Judg 17:2), and maintaining social cohesion and adherence to social conventions. The latter concern was especially prominent in curses.

6.4.3.╇ Domestic ceremonies of petition, lamentation, and thanksgiving Prescribed rituals governed responses to distress and sickness, to bad omens and other mischief, and to good fortune such as the restoration of health to family members. Although the Old Testament makes no explicit reference to these sorts of rituals in family contexts, many other biblical texts and analogous Mesopotamian incantations suggest the 26.╇ See pp. 429–473 below.

414

Chapter 6

importance of these sorts of domestic ritual. Both Gerstenberger (1980: 132–47; 1988: 30–34; 1996; 2001: 40–41) and I (Albertz 1978a: 23–49; 1994: 100–101; 2008: 102–3) argued that the psalms of individual complaint and thanksgiving originated in domestic ceremonies. Although those psalms were composed by religious professionals and officials, and although their recorded forms reflect the terminal point of an extended process of derivation, they nevertheless reflect the beliefs and religious experiences of families. The psalms of complaint in particular lack elements that would otherwise be expected if they merely reflected official religious traditions, because their forms were clearly based on the intimate relationship between the individual and the divine. Thus, the deity invoked in the psalms of individual complaint is addressed as “my god” 29 times,â•›27 and an additional 19 times in psalms of confidence and other related genres.â•›28 Such personal intimacy with the divine is also reflected in the use of phrases such as “my help,” “my protection,” “my trust,” and “my hope.”â•›29 In chap. 5 above, we noted the considerable correspondence between the semantic structures of these individual psalms of complaint or thanksgiving and Hebrew personal names that appear in both epigraphic and biblical sources.â•›30 Choices of personal names and these psalms of individual complaint and thanksgiving are all deeply rooted in the primary religious experiences of families. They convey similar desires for comfort, stability, and harmony (see Sundermeier 1992: 7–8; 1999: 34–36). The intimacy of a relationship with Yhwh and the practice of placing personal trust in him are expressed, for instance, in Ps 22:9–10 and 71:5–6, both of which refer to divine protection during gestation. Although the psalms of individual complaint present highly stylized formulas addressing a variety of distressing occasions, they provide insight into the sorts of situation in which they were used as ritual prayers. These include general experiences of divine absence,â•›31 facing the wrath of God,â•›32 sickness,â•›33 the fear of death,â•›34 social conflict, unusual hostility,â•›35 and perhaps also demonic threats (or at least the perception of demonic threats).â•›36 The situations presented in the psalms of individual complaint reflect existential experiences typical of individuals within their immediate social contexts. There thus appears to be strong evidence to support the thesis that this genre of psalms had its origin in rituals conducted in and for the benefit of the domestic environment. Domestic ceremonies of petition, lamentation, and thanksgiving may have involved the recitation of a psalm prayer that expressed the occasion for the ritual, as well as in27.╇ ʾĒlī: Ps 22:2, 11; 63:2; 102:25; 140:7. ʾĔlōhay: Ps 3:8; 5:3; 7:2, 4; 13:4; 22:3; 25:2; 31:15; 35:23– 24; 38:16, 22; 40:18; 42:7, 12; 43:4–5; 59:2; 69:4; 71:4, 12, 22; 86:2, 12; 109:26; 143:10. 28.╇ Such as in Ps 18:3; 30:13; 91:2. 29.╇ See, for example, Ps 18:3; 27:1; 31:4; 38:16; 40:18; 54:6; 59:17–18; 62:3, 7; 71:5–7; 94:22; 140:8. 30.╇ See above, p. 252. 31.╇ In Ps 13:2; 22:2–3; 42. 32.╇ In Ps 6:2; 38:2–3; 39:11–12, 14. 33.╇ In Ps 6:3; 22:15–16; 38; 41:4–5; 88; 102. 34.╇ In Ps 9:14b; 22:15–16; 88; 141:7–8. 35.╇ In Psalm 3; 6:6, 11; 7; 9:14a; 10; 13:2; 17; 25:19; 27:2; 31:12–14; 35; 43; 54; 55; 56; 57; 59; 64; 69; 70; 71; 86:14; 109; 140; 142; 143. 36.╇ In Ps 22:17; 91:5–6.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

415

volving the performance of specific ritual actions. Gerstenberger’s (2001: 40) speculative reconstruction of these domestic ceremonies included the ritual elements of cleansing, offerings, and petitional prayers. These were followed by public offerings of thanksÂ�giving (‫ זבח התדה‬zebaḥ hattōdāh) that were performed at local sanctuaries in preexilic times and at a central sanctuary in later times (see Gerstenberger 1996: 75–84). The forms of these ceremonies would likely have been influenced by the forms of other ceremonial rites of passage described in Old Testament sources such as Leviticus 12–14, which included acts of ritual separation, cleansing, and offering, as well as ritual reintegration into one’s broader social group. These sorts of ceremony were often conducted to aid the healing, recovery, and reintegration of sick members of a family (see Gerstenberger 1980: 168). The public celebration of the zebaḥ hattōdāh included a tribute given to the saving deity and both communicated and celebrated publicly the reintegration of an individual into his or her broader society. Domestic ceremonies of this sort could have been performed by the pater familias. Most common domestic ritual activities were performed by and within families themselves without external support or direction from priests or other religious devotees. Chapter 3 demonstrated the frequent archaeological presence of objects such as offering stands, libation vessels, incense burners, miniature altars, and votive figurines that were used as ritual media in domestic contexts. The abundance of these objects is good evidence that rituals associated with the offering of food and liquids and the burning of incense were often performed for purposes of petition and thanksgiving by families in their domestic environment. Although families themselves would generally have been the intended public recipients of these rites, the common presence within domestic ritual assemblages of the sorts of bowls and tripod incense cups that are also found at gate and local sanctuariesâ•›37 suggests that, for some occasions at least, these smaller-scale rituals were performed in a more public situation. The presence of burned animal bones at some neighborhood and local sanctuariesâ•›38 also suggests that sacrificial animals were offered in thanksgiving (zebaḥ hattōdāh) by individuals or families. Although it is unclear whether the performance of occasional ceremonies at local sanctuaries that included a zebaḥ required the assistance of a priest, as described in 1 Sam 1:21 and 2:13, ritual specialists were certainly needed for rituals that addressed cases of sickness or unusual distress.

6.4.4.╇ Rites and rituals involving religious specialists 6.4.4.1.╇ Men of god and prophets The Elijah and Elisha traditions in 1 and 2 Kings are our primary witnesses to the involvement of religious specialists in the religious activities of families. Most of these traditions, as recorded, are post-Deuteronomistic additions to the Deuteronomistic History (S. Otto 2001), although the traditions themselves reach back to the Northern Kingdom during the Omride period and reflect ritual practices performed by the religious phenoÂ�type ‫ איׁש האלהם‬ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm ‘man of God’ and the beliefs associated with this figure (Schmitt 2004: 209–302). The ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm responded to a variety of circumstances, 37.╇ See above, pp. 230–233. 38.╇ See above, pp. 238–240.

416

Chapter 6

especially those that required rituals that lay outside the usual family repertoire (Albertz 1994: 100; Gerstenberger 1996: 72–74; 2001: 40–41). In 2 Kgs 4:8–17, Elisha saw fit to intervene on behalf of a barren wife and promised her a son. The boy died but was raised to life again according to 2€Kgs 4:18–37 by the man of God through prayer and symbolic actions. The mother in this case had to go to Mount Carmel to consult the man of God. A similar miracle story appears in 1 Kgs 17:17–24, where Elijah revived the son of a widow in Sarepta. The primary activity of the ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm was this sort of ritual intervention, which also seems to have been the case for later prophets, such as Isaiah in 2 Kgs 20:1–11 and Isaiah 38. According to 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kgs 4:8–17, men of God were occasionally hosted by families, who were reimbursed by his performance of ritual services. However, the miraculous stories in 1 Kgs 17:8–16 and 2 Kgs 4:1–7 describing wondrous bounties of flour and oil also reflect the expectations of households that the presence of an ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm would bring material benefits. According to 2 Kgs 4:23, regular consultations with the ʾīš hāʾĕlōhîm outside the domestic environment did occasionally occur on new moons and Sabbaths. The men of God often represented the conjunction and communion of several religious realms by being directly affiliated with certain cult places or sanctuaries (such as Elisha and his community with Carmel and Gilgal, in 2 Kgs 4:25 and 4:38; and perhaps also Elijah with Carmel), performing rituals and uttering oracles on official occasions (see 2 Kgs 13:14–19) and being ritual practitioners for individuals and families in cases of infertility, death, sickness, loss of valuable goods, and other distressing situations. In these narratives, the men of God performed miracles in response to overt pleas or requests presented by supplicants, thereby demonstrating the benefits of overcoming passive submission or acceptance of circumstances (particularly in 2 Kgs 4:1–7; 5:1–19; and 6:1–7) and the need to have faith for salvation (see S. Otto 2001: 226; Schmitt 2004: 299–300). These tales of miracles thus encapsulate the one essential axiom, that god saves (Moore 1990: 151–52). Narratives about miracles in the Old Testament, especially 1 Kgs 17:17–24 and 2 Kgs 4:32–37, suggest that associated rituals required the separation of the sick person (thereby also marking their liminal status), the utterance of intercessory prayers by the man of God along with the performance of symbolic actions, and finally, the ritual reintegration of the healed person. This final act was also a public demonstration of the efficacy of the man of God. Another final action in the ritual process was sometimes the giving of thanks to the man of God or the ritual specialist (see 2 Kgs 5:16; Ezek 13:19). An additional zebaḥ hattōdāh may also have been performed occasionally at a local sanctuary, although there is no record of this associated with the prophetic miracle stories. Psalms of lament would probably have been recited as ritual prayers by the men of God, analogous to the Mesopotamian ašipu (Gerstenberger 1980: 168–69; 1988: 30; 2001: 40–41). Moreover, although the Psalms contain no actual oracles of salvation (Begrich 1964: “priesterliches Heilsorakel”; see Janowski 2003: 75–84), it is also possible that oracles were spoken as a part of these ritual proceedings (Albertz 2001: 101). The patriarchal selection of the Old Testament texts left little room for evidence of ritual authority held by women, and there is scant mention of female ritual specialists or their actions. The most important evidence appears in 1 Samuel 28 and Ezek 13:18–21. 1€Sam 28:3–25 describes Saul’s visit to the ‫ בעלת אב‬baʿalat ʾōb (‘mistress of a conjura-

Rites of Family and Household Religion

417

tion pit’, with Ebach and Rüterswörden 1977; 1980), which attests the presence of female necromancers in ancient Israel, similar to the Hittite SALŠU.GI or ḫaššawa (the ‘wise’ or ‘old woman’). Although this text may reflect other traditions, it presupposes the Deuteronomic injunction in Deut 18:11 against necromancers and thus may have been intentionally directed at female ritual specialists contemporary with the Deuteronomistic redactors. It is impossible, however, to ascertain how common or uncommon necromancy was during this period.â•›39 A ritual mask and a cult stand found at Hazor Locus 44 (fig.€3.27)â•›40 may be evidence that domestic necromantic consultations occurred prior to the exile. The polemics of Ezek 13:17–21 against the “daughters of Israel” were directed at female healers and ritual specialists acting under their own aegis who misused (according to the prophet) the name of Yhwh by performing “black” magic rituals such as the tying of knots or who may have constructed unauthorized instruments used in magic, performed unauthorized healing rituals, or engaged in deadly witchcraft (see Schmitt 2004: 283–87, 360–62). The profanation of Yhwh’s name in Ezek 13:19 reflects magic deeds that were performed in the name of Yhwh, both to mobilize him against a ritual enemy so that the enemy would be injured or killed (“putting to death persons who should not die”) and to heal (“keeping alive persons who should not live”). These biblical texts reveal that ritual specialists were consulted when rituals that a pater familias or other family member might have been able to perform were inadequate (or, perhaps, inappropriate). Infertility and severe sickness especially required consultation with men of God or female ritual specialists; but the female ritual specialists were usually consulted for their capacity to conjure love charms and perform various kinds of “black magic” rituals.

6.4.4.2.╇ Priestly ritual texts and the intersection of apotropaic rites with official religion and family religion Ritual specialists acting on behalf of individuals played important roles in the Priestly purification rituals of Leviticus 12–14. Although the Priestly ritual texts appear at least superficially to express the official religious concepts and beliefs of postexilic Israel, some of the rituals also demonstrate the reciprocal influences that family religious practices must have had with official practices. The ritual for purifying a leper’s house in Lev 14:33– 53 provides a particularly good example of these influences. Verse 34 suggests that the leprosy, or ‫ צרעת‬ṣāraʿat, was brought on by Yhwh himself. Other biblical references to ṣāraʿat also indicate that it could be caused by the wrath of God.â•›41 Yhwh often seems to have inflicted ṣāraʿat on a household in response to sins committed by one of its members. Similar purification rituals existed in the Hittite and Mesopotamian cultures. The Hittite ritual for “evoking the underwordly gods” (Otten 1961) explicitly connects affliction in a family with the sinful deeds of the household.

39.╇ See below, pp. 469–471. 40.╇ See above, p. 107. 41.╇ For example, 2 Sam 3:28–29; 2 Kgs 15:5; 2 Chr 26:16–21 (against Uzziah); 2 Kgs 5:27 (against Gehazi); and Num 12:10 (against Miriam).

418

Chapter 6

Why is this house coughing? 11Why does it look to heaven? 12Either someone has sworn wrongfully or performed a deed of blood 13and has thrown his coat over it; 14 or someone has been “cut off ” or spoken a curse; 15or someone afflicted with a deed of blood has come in; or someone who has sworn wrongfully; 16or someone has practiced black magic and gone in; 17or in the house itself, a deed of blood was done. 10

Mesopotamian Namburbi rituals against the domestic katarru fungus similarly demonstrate that omens regarding fungus on walls were interpreted as indicating guilt by a house’s owner, by its other inhabitants, or by visitors (Maul 1994: 354–66). Lev 14:33–53 describes a similar situation, in which Yhwh inflicted ṣāraʿat on a house to reflect or indicate the guilt of one of its inhabitants. The disease was often inflicted not only on individuals but also on the houses themselves, necessitating ritual purification of the afflicted house. Rabbinic sources also describe houses as being afflicted with the sins of their owners, and domestic fungus was understood as a punishment for unrepentant sinners (Pesiq. Rab. 17). There thus seems to have been a strong, direct association of sin with defilement (see Schmitt 2004: 307–34), contrary to previous assertions by Milgrom (see especially 1991: 864–65; and the studies compiled in Milgrom 1983), and in agreement with him, Wright (1987: 85) and Douglas (1999: 185). The apotropaic character of purification rituals has often been assumed to reflect the textual transformation of an originally exorcistic ritual (Elliger 1966: 186; Gerstenberger 1993: 161). The texts themselves, however, betray no underlying suggestions of exorcism or of demonic causes for the defilement. Instead, Lev 14:34 declares Yhwh to have been the direct cause of the defilement, acting in response to sin. These rituals were apotropaic simply because they prevented (or at least discouraged)further misfortune from befalling a house due to the sins of its inhabitants. All the inhabitants of a house probably would have had to undergo ritual purification for ṣāraʿat, as in Lev 14:1–33, because people considered ritually impure were prevented from participation in official cult activities and many other aspects of normal social life. Lev 14:33–53 clearly demonstrates one way that official cult offices and activities intersected with domestic religious practices by providing one of the few examples of priests’ officiating on behalf of people infected with disease by conducting rituals in domestic settings. Official priests considered ṣāraʿat to induce defilement of such severity that it could not be addressed by any domestic rites that a pater familias could perform; rather, it afforded priests an opportunity to perform the kipper ritual, for which they were the only sanctioned officials. A priest was necessary for the kipper ritual because it involved blood rites that were considered a ‫ חטאת‬ḥaṭṭāʾt ‘sin offering’ (in Lev 5:9, the offering of a bird was explicitly called a ḥaṭṭāʾt). The general authority that priests held for performing rituals was absolute in the case of purification rituals, particularly for family purification rituals that required blood rites. Priests probably would have been present throughout preexilic times in cases of severe defilement, as was the case in Mesopotamia. However, the control exercised by priests over all rites against defilement (from initial diagnosis through to final purification and reintegration) also reflects the broader practices of postexilic theologians who emphasized the importance of surveillance over domestic ritual activity. Priests also had sole authority for making purity decisions in cases of genital discharge or menstruation, or following the postnatal period of confinement discussed above.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

419

6.4.4.3.╇ Demonic threats to families; and domestic apotropaic rites, rituals, and objects Biblical texts make almost no reference to exorcisms or to demonic threats endangering families. The few exceptions appear in the Psalms of individual complaint. Note the ‫ עדת מרעם‬ʿădat mĕrēʿîm ‘pack of evildoers’ in Ps 22:17; the ‫ פחד לילה‬paḥad lāylāh ‘terror of the night’ in Ps 91:5; the ‫ קתב‬qeteb and ‫ דבר‬deber ‘destruction and plague’ in Ps 91:6, and the ‫ רׁשף‬rešep and ‫ קתב‬qeteb ‘pestilence and destruction’ in Ps 78:48 (see DDD²; Frey-Anthes 2007: 68–143); as well as the early tradition of the Passover ritual in Exod 12:21–23. There are also descriptions of Sarah’s being oppressed by the demon Asmodeus in Tob 3:7–9 and 6:1–9 (from the Septuagint). The application of blood to lintels and doorposts as described above also seems to have served an apotropaic purpose, because the Hebrew root ‫ פסח‬psḥ that is used in the description of the Passover ritual of Exod 12:7, 13, 21–24 means to ‘spring over’ or ‘repel’ (see E. Otto 1988: 664–68). The mark of blood indicated to the ‫ מׁשחת‬mašḥīt-demon sent by Yhwh that he should pass over the door and not smite the Israelites inside. The application of blood was part of a ritual power directed at the liminal realm between the family space protected by Yhwh and the external world of demonic threats to family existence. The annual performance of the rite thus reified Yhwh’s promised protection. The apotropaic interpretation of the blood-application ritual presented later, in the book of Jubilees, addressed the forces of Mastema that were sent by Yhwh (Jub. 49:3) to kill the firstborn of Egypt. This apotropaic function is echoed again later in Jubilees, where the offering is described as protecting Israel from the plague (Jub. 49:15). According to Josephus (Ant. 2.14.6), the Passover ritual could even atone (ἄγνίζω) for the sins of a house. The only biblical text to describe means by which demonic threats were eliminated is the book of Tobit (found in the Septuagint’s canon). Although this book was written sometime between the late-3rd and early-2nd centuries b.c.e. and thus during a period after the timeframe of this book, it is nevertheless valid with regard to family beliefs and values in this period. Note, however, that Tobit relies on motifs of miracles and myths that probably bore no direct relationship to actual ritual practices during these times (contra van der Toorn 1994: 71–72). According to Tob 3:7–9, Sarah was married to seven husbands, all of whom were killed by the demon Asmodeus before the marriages could be consummated. Sarah was accused of having killed her husbands (implying that witchcraft was involved) and prayed that Yhwh might let her die. In Tob 6:1–9, the angel Azariah or Raphael revealed to Tobias how to relieve her demonic affliction by burning the liver and heart of a fish inside the bridal chamber. This apotropaic ritual exorcised the demon, who then fled to Egypt, only to be bound there, hand and foot, by Raphael. Aside from the probable mythological motifs mentioned above, the story of Tobit represents the sorts of problems and fears that were common in contemporary marriages, such as sudden death of a spouse, fears about demonic attacks while engaged in procreative acts, and accusations of witchcraft. The text suggests that apotropaic rituals such as the burning of sacrificial animals were used to counter fears and resolve these problems. The elaborate narratives describing the threats, manifestations, and repelling of demons in the books of Enoch and Jubilees, in the writings from Qumran (in the spell against the prk-demon in 4Q560, for example), in the exorcisms described in the New Testament,

420

Chapter 6

and in the rich magical literature of late antique Judaism (see Naveh and Shaked 1985; 1993)—all reflect the importance of beliefs and traditions associated with demons in the daily religious lives of families throughout this entire period. The scarcity of demonic narratives in the Old Testament thus more likely reflects the selectiveness of their compilation rather than the lack of relevance of these themes during the more ancient times of the Old Testament books (Frey-Anthes 2007). This theory is corroborated by the wealth of archaeological evidence for apotropaic practices, especially the abundance of amulets that served to ward off various nefarious influences.

6.5.╇ Taboos and other observances 6.5.1.╇ Food observances Many religions prohibit certain foods and behaviors and forbid contact with certain classes of people. Taboos reflect broader aspects of the symbolic systems of the cultures that proscribe them (Douglas 1966; Lévi-Strauss 1966). The taboos regarding clean and unclean animals recorded in Exod 22:30; Leviticus 11; and Deut 14:3–21 dictated and constrained many aspects of family conduct in the daily preparation and consumption of food. Prohibitions have many profound consequences in daily life. The prohibitions on foods in the Old Testament have often been thought to reflectthe animistic or dynamistic tendencies that have been ascribed to Old Testament societies in accordance with the 19th-century beliefs reflected in W.  R. Smith’s totemistic interpretations (1899: 87–94, 114). Milgrom (1991: 718) stated regarding the variety of these interpretations that “there are as many theories as theorists.” In contrast to this plethora of misguided ideas, especially useful insights were offered by Mary Douglas in her famous book Purity and Danger (1966; for discussion and critique of which, see Grabbe 1993: 56–59). According to Douglas, biblical prohibitions against certain animals, especially against eating pigs and certain other animals, reflected the perceived unsuitability of these animals to accord with a larger classification system regarding the unity, sanctity, and order of the cosmos in general. All the things that found no place in this classification system were considered expressions of chaos and were therefore prohibited. Anomaly was equated with abomination (Douglas 1966: 60–78; see also 1972a, b).â•›42

42.╇ While not withdrawing from this original position, she later emphasized (1972a, b) the function of prohibitions in maintaining and unifying an otherwise precarious social identity and adopted yet another position in subsequent works (1999: 134–75; 2004: 159–60, 170–73), according to which the impurity of animals arose because of their analogical symbolism: “The animal that is taken into the body by eating corresponds to that which is offered on the altar by fire; what is disallowed for the one is disallowed for the other; what harms the one harms the other” (Douglas 1999: 134). Domestic ruminants belonged in the realms considered under Israel’s covenant, while all other animals (which symbolized the fertility of creation) were forbidden for human consumption and protected in Yhwh’s covenant after the flood. Thus, the food taboos are seen in the context of religious competition, in the process of which the writers of Leviticus promoted their views on animal welfare (1999: 171–74). Critics of this position emphasize that animal welfare is a modern concern, not a concern of ancient agrarian societies (Grabbe 2004: 159).

Rites of Family and Household Religion

421

Young goats were not to be cooked in their mother’s milk according to Exod 23:19b; 34:26b; and Deut 14:21b, although the reference to prohibited animals in Deut 14:21 is only incidental. This curious taboo has generally been interpreted as a verdict against a Canaanite fertility rite (see Noth 1961: 156; von Rad 1964: 73; Childs 1974: 485–86). Keel (1980), however, argued that this prohibition was more likely to have been both ethically and religiously motivated. It was rooted in respect for the aspect of divine creation that is present in the loving care of a mother. Milgrom (1991: 741) argued that the prohibition was the result of the simultaneous fusion of and confusion between the life expressed in the mother’s milk and the death embodied in the cooked kid. The mother’s milk was part of the essence of life and was therefore not to be associated with death. The prohibition originally only applied to official cult activities; however, Deuteronomy rendered it a dietary law to which every household must adhere (see Houtman 2000: 269). However, Exod 23:19 seems to extend a literary tradition designed to maintain the distinct, Israelite character of the feasts mentioned in Exod 23:14–17 (Dohmen 2004: 191, 372; with Knauf [1988: 166], who proposed that it was a festive meal of the nonurban populations of Palestine). In spite of a lack of consensus regarding the interpretation of this prohibition and the ritual that it implied, it certainly served to distinguish Israel from its neighboring nations. The maintenance of this distinction was also the aim of the privileges in Exod 34:10–26. Whatever the interpretation, it seems likely that the food taboos formulated in Exod 23:19b; 34:26b; Leviticus 11; and Deuteronomy 14 (which may already have been conventional in Israelite society) became increasingly important during the exile. In the general absence of official religious authority during the exile, the family would have been the only institution able to maintain national and religious identity by observing traditional customs. Food prohibitions thus would have become a means for exiled families to focus on their personal identity, their identity as members of the ethnic Judean community, and their adherence to their own religious traditions (Albertz 2003: 107–8).

6.5.2.╇ Harvesting and firstfruits taboos In addition to the prohibitions mentioned above, Priestly legislations also contain prohibitions against harvesting the very edges of fields (↜pĕ↜渀屮ʾah), stripping vineyards bare, and gleaning fallen grapes (Lev 19:9–10). These prohibitions seem to have been socially motivated, because the text states: “You shall leave them for the poor and the alien” (19:10). The Deuteronomic social legislations accordingly adopted this prohibition (Deut 24:19–22), requiring that the remains of any harvest be given to strangers, widows, and orphans, while also adding a theological incentive, “so that Yhwh may bless you in all your undertakings” (24:19). These legislations were also explicitly associated with the exodus (24:22; see Albertz 1994: 222). Although it is possible that these legislations reflected prior (preIsraelite) religious prohibitions in which harvest gleanings were consecrated to the gods associated with agricultural fertility (see Noth 1962: 121; von Rad 1964: 109; Gerstenberger 1994: 243), there is no biblical or extrabiblical evidence for this sort of interpretation, and the direct social functions of these legislations seem to be more plausible as motivations (Milgrom 2000: 1623–30). The prohibitions against harvesting the firstfruits

422

Chapter 6

of trees in Lev 19:23–25 are, however, not so readily explained. It was forbidden to pick the fruit off trees for three years after planting, and fourth-year fruits were to be consecrated to Yhwh. Only from the fifth year on were fruits permitted for human consumption. One suggestion has been that these practices were intended to ensure a blessing on future harvests, particularly in reflecting a reverent awareness that shorter-term exploitation of nature’s bounty endangers its future fecundity (Albertz 1994: 102–3; and see Milgrom 2000: 1684).

6.5.3.╇ Sexual taboos The Old Testament prohibitions against bestiality in Exod 22:18; Lev 18:23; 20:15–16; and Deut 27:21 have been interpreted to reflect differentiation from Canaanite and Mesopotamian cult practices, which allegedly included this sort of practice with the ritual meaning of enhancing sexual power and fertility (see Schmitt 2004: 355–56). Mesopotamian ritual texts such as the ŠÀ.ZI.GA potency incantations (Biggs 1967) may support this interpretation, as do the numerous animal fecundity motifs found in 1st-century b.c.e. glyptic arts from Mesopotamia.â•›43 Close examination of the mythological and ritual literature of ancient Israel’s neighbors, however, reveals no explicit reference to ritual intercourse with animals. Although no laws against bestiality have been found in Mesopotamia, there were Namburbi-rituals for protection from the wrath of god that descended on any man who had intercourse with a female goat (Maul 1994: 415–20). Hittite laws §199 demanded the death of anyone who had intercourse with pigs or dogs, while intercourse with horses or mules would result in exclusion from priestly office and excommunication from the royal court (§200). The Old Testament verdicts against bestiality are thus likely to have reflected broader cultural patterns in the ancient Near East, where sexual intercourse with animals was generally seen as an aberration and was often proscribed. Prohibitions against bestiality may have reflected a fear of the consequences of mixing divinely ordained categories of creation (Douglas 1966: 73; â•›44 also Ellens 2008: 275), and any blurring of boundaries between these categories might potentially have disturbed the social and cosmic order. In this case, perhaps there was also a fear of begetting monstrous creatures outside the categories and intentions of divine creation (see Gerstenberger 1996: 299). Of more direct bearing on family norms and practices would have been the incest taboos of Lev 18:6–18; 20:11–12, 14, 17. These prohibitions predate the pentateuchal law collections and their theistic foundations and probably originated from nontheological laws. The most extensive list in Lev 18:6–18 prohibited intercourse with one’s mother (18:7), stepmother (18:8), sister (18:9, 11), granddaughter (18:10), aunt (18:12–4), daughter-inlaw (18:15), or brother’s wife (18:16). It also prohibited intercourse with both a woman and her daughter (18:17) or a woman and her sister (18:18). All the people mentioned belonged to the nuclear, extended, or paternal joint family, and the list included direct blood relatives as well as individuals related by marriage only. The bloodlines of wives were designated as strictly as the husbands’, although incest with daughters was not ex43.╇See Schmitt 2004: fig. 9; after Frankfort 1939: pl. 36g. 44.╇ Later (1999: 235–39) Douglas took a different position and related the sexual taboos to the conservative mainstream as a demarcation of boundaries with foreign cults.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

423

plicitly proscribed. However, as Rattray (1987: 542) has argued, the key to understanding this omission is found in the opening verse of the incest prohibitions, Lev 18:6, which states that one may not marry close kin (šĕʾēr bĕśārō), which according to Lev 21:2 are one’s mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or maiden sisters. Thus, incest with daughters is explicitly forbidden by Lev 18:6. Lev 18:3–4 mentions incest as being an abomination of Egypt and Canaan, with the biblical interdictions again serving to distinguish Israel from its neighbors. However, legal traditions in Israel’s ancient Near Eastern environment reveal widespread prohibitions on incest, for example in §§189 (75) j; 190 (76) j; 195 A–C (81a–c) of the Hittite Laws; and §§154–58 of the Hammurapi Code, and breaking laws §155 (intercourse with the wife of one’s son) and §§157–58 (intercourse with a mother or stepmother) was punishable by death. A variety of anthropological explanations have been offered to explain the prohibition of incest. Early studies emphasized the function of sexual prohibitions (including incest) in preventing the mobilization of negative forces (W. R. Smith 1899; Frazer 1922), while functionalistic interpretations inspired by the works of Freud on totemism and taboos (1989 [1912–13]) have long dominated the discussion. Malinowski (1986 [1927]) described prohibitions on incest as the very foundation of culture. They ensured harmonious relationships between parents and children; but, more generally, the family was the nuclear source of social harmony, and incest thus had the potential to destroy the very foundation of society. Prohibitions on incest also immediately require and foster alliances with other, external social groups (Lévi-Strauss 1981) and serve to maintain both social and cosmic order (Douglas 1966: 53).â•›45 According to Sundermeier (1992: 7–8), smallscale societies can only survive when behavior is based on commonly accepted models of behavior that strengthen and stabilize its basic structures, as well as refusing and preventing the negation and deterioration of life. Prohibitions on incest also demarcate families, including extended families, from external social groups. The biblical regulations against incestuous practices almost certainly reflect these more-general purposes (Hartley 1992: 298–99; Milgrom 2000: 1530; Ellens 2008: 99, 147), especially in protecting families from the destructive consequences that are engendered by sexual relationships between close relatives. There was also probably the secondary social rationale of ensuring procreation within and in accordance with the predominating patriarchal form of family government (Milgrom 2000: 1530). Suggestions that verdicts against intercourse with one’s sister, who in cuneiform sources was referred to as “the daughter of one’s god,” were motivated by the perceived violation of a divine ancestor (van der Toorn 1996b: 58) rely on the widely refuted totemistic theories of Smith. Similarly harsh verdicts against homosexual intercourse are found in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, with 20:13 indicating that the appropriate punishment was death. This prohibition of homosexuality once again allegedly distinguished ancient Israel from its ancient Near Eastern neighbors (see, for example, Douglas 1999: 235–39). There are, however, no ancient Near Eastern sources that connect homosexuality with cult practices. Semitic 45.╇ Later (1999: 236–39), Douglas adopted a different position, explaining the laws as inescapably cultic and motivated by a demarcation against the practices of foreign religions.

424

Chapter 6

symbolic systems viewed homosexual behavior as a violation of both social and cosmic order, just as in intercourse with animals and other forms of sexual deviation. Reflecting the perceived severity of these violations, the Middle Assyrian Laws (§20) sentenced anyone engaged in homosexual conduct to rape and castration. Sexual liaisons with members of the same sex and with animals were perceived as dangerous transgressions of social and cosmic boundaries. “Perhaps the insertive partner was originally condemned as a boundary violator because his act ‘feminized’ his partner or because he did not conform to his class (male) when he chose another male as a partner in intercourse” (Olyan 1994: 206). Gender roles were rigidly prescriptive, and sexual penetration was strongly associated with—and indicative of—social submission (Stone 1996: 75–79). Transvestitism was also prohibited (Deut 22:5) because it blurred the boundary between genders and rendered the definition and social understanding of one’s own gender ambiguous. The proscriptions against homosexuality in the Holiness legislation similarly served to protect social distinctions, as noted by Olyan (1994: 205): “The primary concern of the H tradents responsible for framework materials in chapters 18 and 20 is preserving the purity of the land, which itself is threatened by the defiling sexual acts enumerated in Lev 18 and 20.”â•›46 Sexual prohibitions on incest and homosexuality reflected nontheocratic and nontheological laws designed to promote the integrity of families, to ensure their social functions, and to prevent internal conflicts that might otherwise have threatened the continued existence and functioning of families in a very general sense.

6.5.4.╇ Taboos regarding genital discharge The regulations and prohibitions regarding ritual cleansing after birth in Lev 12:1–8 represent an additional class of taboos that related to sexuality in a more general sense but nevertheless affected family conduct. In Leviticus 15, these decrees also dictated appropriate procedures following menstruation and the issuing of male bodily discharges, both of which were addressed by use of the Hebrew noun zōb. All household furnishings were declared impure in these cases, as well as any other people who had contact with the individual involved. Many cultures caution or prohibit contact with people who have bodily discharges, especially menstruating women. These regulations are often explained by anthropologists in terms of male dominance, which delineated the social realms of men and women (see Douglas 1966: 151–58, 176–77). These sorts of taboo that are supposedly pre-Yahwistic in origin have often been interpreted as manifestations of the fear of evil or demonic forces (e.g., W. R. Smith 1967: 113–14; Noth 1962: 81; Elliger 1966: 197; Gerstenberger 1994: 190). There is, however, no evidence to support these interpretations, either in the Priestly writings themselves or in associated writings. A more compelling argument is that menstrual blood was directly associated with death (Milgrom 1991: 766–68). The very nature of death was defilement, and the realm of death had to be kept 46.╇ The other assumption, that “the laws of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 in their final setting may well be part of a wider effort to prevent the mixing of semen and other defiling agents in the bodies of receptive women, men and animals, mixings that result in defilement of the individuals involved” (Olyan 1994: 205), seems less plausible because homosexual contact does not necessitate anal intercourse.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

425

separate from that of life. These Priestly regulations thus served both to ensure that ritual purity was upheld in the tabernacle and to ensure that the realm of death was kept at bay. These absolute and ineluctable priestly demands for the ritual purity of cult participants must have affected the ongoing business of domestic life to a great degree (see Albertz 1994: 464), especially activities related to the production and processing of food by women, who were required to stop during times of uncleanness. Although these prohibitions would have offered a certain degree of respite for women following childbirth and menstruation (see Gerstenberger 1994: 190; Douglas 1999: 181), they must also have forced a potentially unwelcome degree of social isolation and inactivity, particularly by imposing the regulations on the woman’s own home.

6.5.5.╇ Prohibitions against intermixing Not only was the sexual intermixing of divinely ordained categories prohibited, but the generic mixing of many categories was prohibited, even if the mixing did not have immediate religious or social implications. Lev 19:19 prohibited the crossbreeding of a variety of animals, the sowing of fields with particular seeds, and the wearing of garments made from two different materials; while Deut 22:9–11 forbade the sowing of a vineyard with two different kinds of seed, the ploughing of a field with an ox and ass together, and the wearing together of garments made of wool and linen. These restrictions have been interpreted in a variety of ways: from pre-Yahwistic customs that held apart the realms of different gods (Elliger 1966: 259), to original folkloric fears of demons that later became sanctioned by Yahwism (Gerstenberger 1993: 249–50), to relationships between these forbidden practices and contemporary magic practices (von Rad 1964: 101). There is no direct evidence to date, however, in biblical or extrabiblical sources to support these hypotheses. It is more likely that these taboos were related to symbolic systems and modes of thinking, which is an interpretation that Noth favored (1962: 123) but did not apply systematically. Douglas interpreted the verdict against mixing very uneven pairs as reflecting an essentially binary ordering of the world: “The pairs are not so much uneven as different; respecting their difference is symbolic of completion and totality” (Douglas 1999: 251). Even if this was true, the verdicts also may have reflected (1) explicit attempts by the exilic and postexilic writers to promote their particular views of the ordering of the cosmos (Douglas) or (2) simply a more generic and culturally widespread aversion to the symbolic imbalance of uneven mixings. Alternatively, the very act of mixing disparate things may have been considered sacred (Milgrom 2000: 1656–65), and the products of intermixing may have been reserved for the holy sphere. Priests wore mixed garments in the sacred sphere, while laypeople were only permitted ordinary garments made from one cloth. These suggestions, however, do not explain the agricultural regulations regarding mixing different kinds of seeds or crossbreeding animals. Many cultures manifest fundamentally binary perceptions of reality (see Lévi-Strauss 1958; 1962), and it seems more plausible to posit these generic tendencies with regard to the binary ordering of agricultural life and domestic production. The regulations differentiated and set apart the products of the flock in the form of wool from agricultural products in the form of linen; divided fields according to their produce, to enable more effective planting and

426

Chapter 6

harvesting; and used animals in regard to their primary function, which for asses was transport and for oxen was labor.

6.6.╇ Family rites and rituals and their significance for the symbolic system of the family The essential interests of families and the actions required to meet these interests largely determined the symbolic systems that were then used to express and manifest family religious beliefs and practices. Rites and rituals of familial religion thus directly expressed family values and were largely shaped by the personal relationships of the family members, especially the relationship between children and their parents. Idealized family and environmental qualities required during infancy, such as protection, security, and trust (by the parents), also described the general qualities attributed by families to their personal relationships with their gods.â•›47 The primary religious experience, according to Sundermeier (1992: 3), is intended “to strengthen, stabilize, multiply and preserve it as well as to refuse and prevent the negation and deterioration of life.” In a world that was often subject to intractable threats to family perpetuity—such as illness, death in childbirth, famine; or shortages of food or water; war, plunder, foreign rule, and burdensome taxes— the essential religious desires of the family microcosm for peace, stability, harmony, abundant progeny, and general welfare were mirrored by the divine order of the macrocosm. The rites and rituals that accompanied the cycles of life were directed at ensuring the safety and success of birth and infancy. The rite of circumcision served to protect male children from dangers encountered during childhood. Marriage rules and customs regarding endogamy tended to protect and enlarge a family’s property, often through marriages between cousins. Thus, family rites that governed progeny and the perpetuation of the patriarchal blood line were closely connected to ensuring material property. The various sexual taboos with regard to family life served to maintain its functionality as an essential unit of society, to prevent tensions between different members and generations of a family, and ultimately to ensure fecundity. The family truly was a synecdoche for cosmic order. What was destructive to the microcosmic order of the family also endangered the divine order of the world on the macrocosmic level. The maintenance of world order by avoiding the blurring of boundaries due to intermixing or sexual transgressions also served to maintain the harmony of families and the cosmos. The domestic patriarch strove to maintain his microcosmic order (in direct analogy with god’s strivings to maintain the macrocosmic world order) by strictly observing the rules, customs, and boundaries regarding family conduct. This general framework aids our understanding of many regulations and prohibitions, but for a number of dietary and agricultural prohibitions we can find no obvious explanation. These restrictions may reflect accumulated pragmatic knowledge regarding the effects of procedures such as the mixing of seeds, which became canonized and were later prohibited by divine order. Before the exile, the religious practices of families existed alongside religious practices performed on the local, regional, and official levels of society. All of these levels interacted 47.╇ See above, pp. 262–339.

Rites of Family and Household Religion

427

and intersected with one another. There was of course no single, definitive preexilic religion of ancient Israel; instead, there was a constantly evolving internal religious pluralism. During the exile and in the subsequent Diaspora, many observances, rites, and rituals of family religion became symbolic of national and religious identity and served to maintain an otherwise precarious existence. Particularly effective in this case were the rites and rituals of circumcision, Sabbath, and the dietary customs, which both strengthened the collective identity of exiled communities and marked them as distinct from the outside world. The Feast of Passover demonstrated a particularly dynamic evolution and transformation, from originally being a familial celebration, to later becoming a feast of the official cult in the Second Temple period, the whole time maintaining important elements gleaned from its family roots, before reverting once again to a primarily family celebration after the destruction of the Second Temple. The rites, rituals, and observances of a family not only communicate their identity on the family, national, and confessional levels; they also manifest and mediate the cultural memory of their larger society. The observance of rites, rituals, regulations, and prohibitions indoctrinates and internalizes the values of a society. Family religion, as a primary religious experience, therefore, “imparts knowledge and is conveyed by means of rite and word, i.e., it denominates and can be handed over from one generation to the other” (Sundermeier 1992: 2). Along with the changes to Passover, other family religious beliefs and practices were probably also affected by the transformation from preexilic Yahwism to postexilic early Jewish religion. In Douglas’s most recent books (1993; 1999; 2004), she emphasizes the roles of the Priestly writings in prohibiting not only magic and divination but also many other rites and rituals that were being performed in family settings. These prohibitions established a starkly revised religion that promoted a radically different symbolic system. Douglas wrote, “In defining the central doctrine of monotheism, the priestly editors thought out all its implications. They had to exclude blasphemy and vain superstitions” (2004: 193). Furthermore, “For that to be achieved the Bible religion had to be radically reconstructed: kings not to be mentioned, dead ignored, and diviners and seers excoriated; no magic, no images; mutual accusations to be ended, all potential divisive doctrines eliminated” (2004: 194). The position recently adopted by Douglas thus accords with widespread perceptions of family religion as consisting of peripheral, superstitious, or folkloric practices—a religion that was effectively supplanted by official rule during the exile. Douglas’s interpretation, however, makes no distinction between the various social levels of religion and assumes that the Priestly literature directly reflected the religious reality. All of her statements are therefore guided and determined by the Priestly positions. Similar positions have also been taken in recent anthropological discussions of primary and secondary religious experiences, in particular by Jan Assmann (1997; 2003; 2006; and see Schmitt 2006), who describes the transformational process from exilic to postexilic Yahwism as an assertion of the supremacy of secondary religious experience over the primary experiences of family religion. However, the primary religious experiences of families were not in fact overruled or eliminated but prevailed within their own social and domestic religious environments. Although novel aspects of religious belief and practice were introduced during their evolution toward their postexilic forms, the changes

428

Chapter 6

that occurred between the late monarchic period and the Second Temple period were primarily the integration of many preexilic official and family beliefs and practices and the integration of the preexilic and exilic reform movements. The final products of this transformation in many cases bore little resemblance to their original forms, but many of the family religious beliefs and practices persisted. Sabbath, Passover, and circumcision survived the destruction of the Second Temple but took on a completely new character as family rites that has survived to this very day. In spite of attempts by the Priestly and Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic schools to marginalize, control, and even abolish certain observances, rites, rituals, and feasts of family religion, the official religion of the Second Temple period was influenced by elements of family religion to a far greater extent than the preexilic cult in Jerusalem was. Due to the failure of state restoration and the continued influence of communities in the Diaspora, official and family religion drew closer together, producing a form of early Judaism in which family beliefs and practices were the essential elements of the postexilic symbolic system (see also Albertz 1994: 510; 2008: 105). This basic system, with its values of family harmony, welfare, and many progeny actually did not change very much, even though the religious “superstructure” was transformed.

Chapter 7

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family 7.1.╇Introduction For a long time, ritual communication with and care for the dead have been interpreted in the context of the evolutionary and animistic/dynamistic paradigm of late-19thcentury anthropological scholarship. One of the most influential concepts has been the notion that ancestor cults were the oldest form of human religion, as supported by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges’ Ancient City (English ed. 1873 [repr. 1963]), Edward Burnett Tylor’s theory of animism (1873), Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology (1874), and Robertson Smith’s (1967) notion of the development of Israelite religion from an ancient totemistic cult of the clan to a sacrificial meal. In the context of the evolutionary animistic/dynamistic paradigm, cults of the dead were often viewed as “survivors” of the older Canaanite religion that were overruled by Yahwism. Furthermore, in Gerhard von Rad’s thinking (1957: 290), Israel demythologized and desacralized death, its cult of the dead being fundamentally incompatible with the cult of Yhwh. However, social-anthropological concepts of the evolution of religion led to many erroneous assertions that culminated (in the present context) in the supposed antagonism between Canaan and Israel. Research conducted since the final two decades of the last century has greatly enriched understanding of ancient Israelite conceptions of death and the netherworld, as well as their care for and the communication with the dead.â•›1 Because the history of scholarly thinking up to the mid-1980s has been meticulously described by Spronk (1986: 3–85), only a few remarks on the state of research are necessary. There is general acknowledgment that pursuit of the animistic/dynamistic paradigm has not aided the reconstruction of the history of ancient Israelite religion in general or the development of thought about the dead and afterlife in particular (Spronk 1986: 84–85; Schmidt 1994: 1–3; Jeffers 1996: 4–16; Schmitt 2004: 5–12, 29–34). On the other hand, the development of modern social anthropology and cultural hermeneutics has raised new questions and revealed 1.╇ On beliefs about the dead and mortuary rites in general, see A. A. Fischer 2005; Janowski 2001; Kühn 2005; Olyan 2004; Pham 1999; Podella 1986; 1988; 1989: 100–116; 1998; 2002; Schmidt 1994; Spronk 1986; van der Toorn 1997. On necromancy, see Cryer 1994; Jeffers 1996; Lewis 1989; Podella 1997; Tropper 1989; 1999. On the archaeological evidence, see Bloch-Smith 1992a, b; Wenning and Zenger 1990; and Wenning 1991b; 1997; 1998; 2005.

429

430

Chapter 7

new modes of research on symbolic systems, cultural remembrance (Podella 2002), and ritual theory (Olyan 2004: 1–13)—issues that are still subject to a great deal of ongoing debate. The last decade has also seen attempts to integrate textual and archaeological evidence (Bloch-Smith 1992a; Wenning and Zenger 1990; Wenning 1997; 2005). However, there are still gaps between them, because the archaeological evidence is in many ways not reconcilable with the text (Bloch-Smith 1992a: 151–52; Podella 2002: 530). The relationship between typical household assemblages and burial assemblages, especially, remains unclear. Before examining the textual and archaeological evidence, we must clarify the terminology to be used in this context. The terms cult of the dead and ancestor cult are often used without distinguishing between veneration of the dead as quasi-divine beings and the honoring of ancestors. However, it is still an issue of discussion whether a cult of the dead (in the sense of venerating ancestors similarly to the divine) ever existed in ancient Israel or not.â•›2 We differentiate between (1) cults of the dead and ancestor cults in the sense of cultic veneration of the dead as divine beings, which is not attested in Old Testament sources; and (2) the beliefs and rites practiced by living kinsmen with regard to deceased ancestors. Modern anthropology is duly averse to referring to rites involving ancestors as “ancestor cults,” emphasizing instead the social functions of the associated practices (Fortes 1965; Thiel 1984: 138–42; Sundermeier 1988: 142–59). Rites addressed to ancestors may, on a purely descriptive level, look like cultic rites addressed to a god, but they are essentially different. They do not deal with an almighty divine being but solely with familial kinship. The phenomenological approach that conflates gods with ancestors neglects their different functions. Modern anthropology has acknowledged that ancestors played important roles in cases of family distress such as illness, death, or infertility, as well as in cases of important family enterprises, but not in larger issues such as national concerns (Thiel 1984: 143–44). Along with Fortes (1965: 124), we define the term ancestor as “a named dead forebear who has living descendants . . . representing his continued structural relevance.” Therefore, what makes a dead kinsmen an ancestor is described in modern anthropology not as a kind of apotheosis but as an ongoing social relationship between that ancestor and his or her living kin. An ancestor is defined therefore by his or her social function and status, not by his or her numinous qualities, which are secondary and of course culturally contingent. In this book, therefore, the neutral term care for the dead, in the sense of German Totenpflege, is preferred as a more-general term; thus we avoid the problems associated with expressions such as ancestor cult and cult of the dead. Moreover, certain differentiations are required with regard to various mortuary rites. Schmidt (1994: 13) distinguished primary, situationally observed rites (including the funerary rites of burial and mourning); secondary, regularly instituted cults (including mortuary rites of care, feeding, and commemoration; and rites of veneration and worship 2.╇ For the existence of a cult of the dead, see: Spronk 1986: 247–50; Ackerman 1987; Lewis 1989: 171–81; Loretz 1992; Bloch-Smith 1992a: 121–22, 146; 1992b: 787; van der Toorn 1996: 206– 35; 1997: 119; Niehr 2003. For disagreement that a cult of the dead existed, see: Schmidt 1994: 292; Podella 1998; 2002: 535; Schmitt 2006.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

431

of the dead or their ancestors); and tertiary, magical mortuary rites (particularly necromancy). Regarding mortuary rites in particular, Podella (2002) distinguished among mourning rites that address, for one thing, the social lacunae left by the dead among the remaining members of the family; rituals of care for and commemoration of the dead as expressions of cultural remembrance; and rituals performed directly on behalf of the dead or on the dead body.

7.2.╇ Status of the dead 7.2.1.╇ The post-mortem status in general With the notable exception of ancient Egypt, beliefs regarding post-mortem existence in the ancient Near East (including Israel) envisioned milieus that few would desire to attain. The dead (‫ מתם‬metîm; ‫ נפׁש‬nepeš was also used in P and H: Lev 19:28; 21:1; Num 5:2; 6:11; 9:10) are mere shadows living in a netherworld (‫ ׁשאל‬Šĕʾōl in late texts; also ‫אבדן‬ ʾăbbadōn ‘place of destruction’: Job 26:6; Prov 15:11; 27:20), a land of darkness, forgetfulness (Ps 88:12; Job 10:21–22), and silence (Ps 94:17; 115:17). As in Ugaritic, the Hebrew term ‫ ארץ‬ʾereṣ ‘earth’ could also apply to the netherworld (Job 26:7). As synonyms, the terms ‫ קבר‬qeber (Ps 88:5) ‘grave’, ‫ ׁשחטת‬šaḥṭat ‘pit’ or ‘grave’ (Ps 30:10; Isa 51:14; Job 33:22), and ‫ בר‬bōr ‘pit’ (Ps 88:5) were also used to refer to places of evident death and darkness. Šĕʾōl was located underneath the world of the living; one had to ‘go down, descend’ (‫ירד‬ yrd) to meet the deceased (Gen 37:35). Šĕʾōl could also be located underneath the waters (Job 26:5, with similar imagery appearing in Ps 88:18). There are different geographical locations for Šĕ↜渀屮ʾōl: to the north in Job 26:7, and to the west in 1 Enoch 22–25. The conceptual topography (or “mental map”) of the netherworld thus comprised four areas in which the realm of the dead could be located, none of which was necessarily distinct from another:â•›3 1.╇ Šĕʾōl as part of the visible world located in the far west or north; 2.╇ within the empirical realm of death: the grave and the necropolis; 3.╇ a liminal realm with ambiguous borders: for instance, caves, graves, the necropolis, the desert; but also the sea; 4.╇ a mythical realm of the netherworld, underneath the waters. Thus, the conceptual topography of the netherworld either distinguished between the world of the living and the world of the dead by positioning Šĕʾōl in distant regions inaccessible to the living; or imagined realms of conjunction between these two distinct worlds, mostly in realms of chaos and danger, or in liminal realms such as a necropolis or caves; caves also provided entrance into the earthly netherworld. In later texts, especially 1 Enoch 22, a more elaborate conception of Šĕʾōl and its topography was described, with four valleys, three dark and one bright; the bright valley had a well of living water reserved for the righteous. Interestingly, in Hellenistic times, the netherworld became ever more mythologically “charged”—analogous to the growing hosts of heaven and their demonic counterparts. Thus, the necropolis as visible entrance 3.╇ See also Podella (2002: 545), who distinguishes three realms.

432

Chapter 7

to both the liminal realm and the netherworld became the dwelling of demonic beings, as reflected in the story of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1–20. According to Ezek 32:17–32, the dead lay in their graves in Šĕʾōl, as they did in visible reality. Special honor was given to the fallen warrior, who was buried with his shield as a cover and his sword as a neck-rest (Ezek 32:27). The uncircumcised lay together in a separate place. Their dead existed in quietness and sleep as indicated in Isa 16:9, or in unconsciousness as in Qoh 9:4–6. The dead were separated from god (Isa 38:18; Ps 6:6; 88:11–14) and were powerless (Isa 14:10; Ps 88:5). Even kings and their armies lost their power (Ezek 32:17–32). Both their resting place and their cover were worms and maggots (Isa 14:11). Even social ties were loosened and inverted: in Šĕʾōl, the dead welcomed the worm as mother or sister (Job 17:13). Thus, their existence was the very opposite of life.

7.2.2.╇ Identity and status of the ancestors As noted above, many 19th-century scholars emphasized the role of ancestor cults in the beginning of religious development. The issue of ancestor cults in ancient Israel has therefore become important to biblical scholarship, especially the identity and ascription of the term ancestor. For more than a century of study, from W. R. Smith (1899/1967) to van der Toorn (1996: 233), scholars have acknowledged that the ancestors in the Old Testament were patrilineal ancestors (‫ אבות‬ʾābōt ‘fathers’), as also indicated by the biblical designation bēt ʾāb (‫בת אב‬, lit., ‘house of the father’) for ‘house’ and ‘family’. Neh 2:5 also referred to the ‘tombs of the fathers’ (‫ קברת אבתי‬qibrōt ʾābōtay) as designating Nehemiah’s hometown of Jerusalem. The national ancestors comprised a special group, within which the mothers of Israel (Sarah in Hebron and Rachel in Ramat Rahel) were commemorated. The ʾābōt are thought to have comprised a collective, to whom the deceased were ‘gathered’ (‫ אסף‬ʾsp in Judg 2:10; 2 Kgs 22:20; and other passages) or next to whom they ‘laid’ themselves (‫ ׁשכב‬škb in Gen 47:30; Deut 31:16; and other passages), thus reflecting family coherence even in post-mortem existence. Because the texts concerned with mortuary rites and (especially) provisions for the dead (Deut 26:14; Sir 7:33) used the generic term ‘the dead’ (MT: ‫ מתם‬metîm; LXX: νεκροί), it appears that there were no categorical distinctions among the dead regarding their ritual care. Rituals were conducted on behalf of all deceased members of a family, even though the ʾābōt were the focal point of family identity. Several biblical texts refer to ‫ רפאם‬rĕpāʾîm (‘healers’, on the etymology of which, see Rouillard 1999: 699–700) as inhabitants of the netherworld (Isa 14:9; 26:14, 19; Ps 88:11; Job 26:5; Prov 2:18; 9:18; 21:16), and biblical scholars have often referred to the rĕpāʾîm as ancestors with divine or semidivine status (for more-recent examples, see Tropper 1989: 334–35; and Loretz 1990: 128–33). However, in Isa 14:9, the term rĕpāʾîm is used to denote the group of deceased kings (like the Ugaritic dynastic ancestors, the rpwm), who had then become weak (Isa 14:10). Moreover, in poetic and wisdom texts (Isa 26:14; Ps 88:11; Prov 2:18), the word rĕpāʾîm is used parallel to metîm, thereby denoting the deceased in the netherworld, in general. Thus, as a weakened status of the rĕpāʾîm is presupposed in the biblical texts, which refer to them as inhabitants of the netherworld, it is clear that they do not represent divine or semidivine ancestors (see Spronk 1996: 227–29; Schmidt 1994: 267–73).

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

433

Several scholars have interpreted the Hebrew kinship terms that appear as theophoric elements, such as ‫ אב‬ʾāb, ‫ אח‬ʾāḥ, and ‫ עם‬ʿam, as referring to deified kin (van der Toorn 1996: 228–31). Of course, ancestors and spirits of the dead can be addressed as ‫אלהם‬ ʾelōhîm, as in 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19–20, although the concept of the deification of ancestors is problematic. First, West Asian kinship names mostly refer to gods (Albertz 1978a: 74–77; 1992: 147),â•›4 not to ancestors. Second, there is no clear indication in any biblical text that the ancestors were worshiped as gods. Ancestors were to be honored (Albertz 1978b) but not worshiped. This being the case, one would expect harsh polemics against ancestor worship. However, there are none in the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic texts, the Priestly law codes, or the prophetic texts against practices considered incompatible with Yahwism. Third, there is no evidence that ancestors were considered able to transform themselves into divine beings, and thereby requiring (as in many cultures) ritual support by the living. Thus arises the question how the rendering of the dead as ʾelōhîm in 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19–20 should be understood. In the Ugarit text KTU 1.6 VI 45–48, the terms rpim, ilnym, ilm, and mtm were used synonymously to refer to the inhabitants of the netherworld. Likewise, in the Ugaritic king list KTU 1.113, the deceased are referred to as il. A Phoenician inscription from Pyrgi (KAI 277.8–9) also indicates that the dead could be referred to as ʾilm, and both Ugaritic and later Phoenician texts show that mtm and ilm could be used synonymously to refer to the deceased. Thus, the use of ʾelōhîm in 1 Sam 28:13 and Isa 8:19–20 is perhaps best understood as ascribing special status to the dead as preternatural beings (Lewis 1989: 115–16), who thereby possessed qualities not shared by the living, especially knowledge of things to come. This preternatural status should not, however, be confused with the status of divine or semidivine beings. The concept of the deification of the dead as a universal religious phenomenon belongs to the evolutionist paradigm of 19th-century scholarshipâ•›5. Because the Hebrew Bible contains almost no evidence that family (or royal) ancestors were worshiped, it seems to provide a strong argument against the universality of this phenomenon. This does not mean, however, that beliefs about the dead and the honoring of ancestors were considered meaningless in ancient Israel. On the contrary, especially as witnessed in the patriarchal stories, ancestors were an important focus of family identity.

7.3.╇ Mourning the dead 7.3.1.╇ Textual evidence Unlike burial and funerary rites, which were done to the dead body or on behalf of the dead, mourning rites were performed by the bereaved, primarily on their own behalf. There was often no clear line dividing funerary and mourning rites, however. Both 4.╇ See also p. 245 in this volume. 5.╇ Schmidt (1994: 292) therefore states: Simply put the worship or veneration of the ancestors typically envisioned as underlying the mortuary rituals of ancient Israel comprises a cherished relic of nineteenth century anthropology. More to the point, mortuary data formerly identified as indicative of a primitive or syncretistic Israelite ancestor cult are neither primitive nor syncretistic nor of the ancestor cult. They witness instead to a variety of indigenous funerary, mourning and commemorative rites.

434

Chapter 7

were separation rites but with different addressees (see Schmidt 1994: 5, 13; Podella 2002: 542–43; Olyan 2004: 6–13). The biblical rites of mourning (‫ספד‬/‫ אבל‬ʾābal/sāpad) were a set of rites and behaviors established to express grief and sorrow about the deceased by alteration of the regular behavior and appearance of the mourners themselves. Mourning rites can be differentiated between those altering garments or bodily appearance and those of self-mutilation and abasement (Kutsch 1986), including self-laceration and other forms of bodily violation and changed social behavior. Mourning rites, especially those of self-mutilation and fasting, were not restricted to mortuary contexts but also appeared in situations of danger and calamity as petitional or prophylactic acts of collective or individual mourning (Kutsch 1986; Podella 1989; Olyan 2004: 25–27). However, petitional mourning transcends its original context of mourning a beloved person. The focus of the present study is the complex of family mortuary and mourning rites. One immediately apparent feature was the changed appearance of the mourner, which found expression in the tearing of clothes (attested in mortuary contexts in Gen 37:34; Lev 10:6; 21:10; 2 Sam 1:11; 3:31; Job 1:20); the donning of a special mourning garment, the ‫ סק‬śaq (Gen 37:34; 2 Sam 3:31; Ezek 27:31; Jdt 8:5); and the removal of headdresses and sandals (Ezek 24:17; Jdt 10:3–4), as well as jewelry (Jdt 10:4). Hair was also loosened and left uncombed (Lev 10:6; 21:10; Jdt 10:3), cut off (Lev 21:5; Job 1:20; Jer 16:6; Ezek 7:18), or shaved off the forehead (Lev 19:27; Deut 14:1). Sometimes beards (Ezek 24:17) or heads were covered (2 Sam 19:5). Washing and anointing were also halted (2 Sam 14:2; Jdt 10:3). Instead, one put dust and ashes on one’s head (Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12) or rolled in the dirt (Jer 6:26). Behavioral changes included fasting (1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 1:12) and sitting in dust and ashes, which was typical of the inverted structure (which Turner 1969 called antistructure) of funerary rites. Rites involving dust also symbolized that the mourners were like the dead. The strongest behavioral expressions of mourning were rites of selflaceration (Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1; Jer 16:6; 41:5) and other forms of self-violation, such as beating oneself on the breast (Isa 32:12) or lumbar region (Jer 31:19). Other expressive rites included uttering mourning cries such as ‫ הוי‬hoy ‘alas’ (1 Kgs 13:30; Isa 1:4; etc.), ‫הו‬ ‫ הו‬hōâ•‚hō ‘oh, oh’ (Amos 5:16), and ‫ אך‬ʾēkā ‘oh, how .€.€.’ (in Lamentations); and lamenting and singing wailing songs (‫ ספד‬sāpad in Gen 23:2; 1 Sam 25:1; 28:3; 1 Kgs 13:30). The performance of mourning rites was primarily the duty either of the nuclear family, represented by the pater familias as in Gen 23:2, or of the joint family as indicated in Gen 25:9 and 35:29, but mourning was not restricted to the members of a family. Mourning rites of self-laceration, however, were most likely restricted to the nearest kin and wailing women. For public lamentation, wailing women were engaged to mourn and cry aloud, sing the wailing song (‫ קנה‬qīnāh), and perform expressive body rites (Jer 9:16, 19; Ezek 32:16; 2 Chr 35:25). The inclusion of wailing woman, most likely recruited from the larger family and neighborhoods, illustrates that mourning the dead crossed the realm of nuclear and joint families to include the broader community (such as the co-residential lineage [‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh], the village, or the neighbors) and to make public the hole that had been made by the death. The literary genre of the qīnāh, or wailing song, was first analyzed in detail by H.€Jahnow (1923), who distinguished between (1) “profane” wailing songs sung on behalf of a dead person and (2) lamentations that were performed on behalf of live individuals

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

435

who were suffering (whether because of sickness, war, or other causes), and the laments were addressed to god. In accordance with Jahnow’s criteria, only 2 Sam 3:33–34 and Jer 38:22 are authentic wailing songs, while David’s wailing song in 2 Sam 1:19–27 is more like an elaborate poem. Other genres, especially the prophetic oracles and the book of Lamentations, use typical motifs yet transcend their original genres. However, the distinction between “profane” wailing songs and lamentions addressed to Yhwh does not mean that wailing was performed in a religious vacuum, because it was nevertheless a fundamental religious duty, as observed by Gerstenberger (1996). Many 19th- and early-20th-century scholars interpreted mourning rites, based on the animistic/dynamistic paradigm, as ritual behaviors intended (for one thing) to support the dead with the powers of life, to protect the living from threats of dead spirits and the negative powers of a corpse, and to establish a unification with the dead or a ritual connection between the living and the dead.â•›6 The rites of self-abasement enabled temporary identification between the mourners and the dead that reestablished and ensured an ongoing social relationship between them (Spronk 1986: 245; Podella 1989: 85, 114–16; Schmidt 1994: 290; Olyan 2004: 42–45). Rites of abasement and altered appearance communicated that mourners no longer held their usual social statusâ•›7 but had assumed a liminal status somewhere between the dead and the living and were temporarily suspended from participating in various social activities. The separation of the mourner generally lasted 7 days, according to Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13; and Sir 22:12, but a mourning period of 30 days is also attested (Num 20:29; Deut 34:8). For non-relatives, a mourning period of 1 day was sufficient (2 Sam 1:11–12; 3:35). The 7-day period corresponded to the 7 days of uncleanness after contact with a corpse in Numbers 19, but it is unclear whether the strict regulation about corpse contact found in the late, Priestly texts existed in preexilic times. However, social separation did not mean that the mourners were ritually impure in general, because according to Jer 41:4–5 they were allowed to bring offerings to the house of Yhwh. The strong biblical prohibitions against laceration and shaving of the forehead for the dead in Lev 19:28; 21:5; and Deut 14:1 have nothing to do with apotropaic rites or offerings (as proposed in Loretz 1990: 112), because the texts include no suggestions about offerings or connections with Baal rites (Spronk 1986: 246–47). The negative attitude toward laceration is perhaps best explained by the fact that rites of this sort leave marks that remain throughout the time of mourning and are therefore “out of place” (Olyan 2004: 123). Mourning rites highlighted not only the relationships of the bereaved to the dead but also the social relationships among the living. The rites that afflicted the appearance and body of the mourner were severe expressions of the utter debasement of life and emotion resulting from the death of the loved one. The altered, humble appearance communicated the hole left by the deceased (Podella 2002: 543) and appealed to the public (in the form of kin, friends, village, and neighborhood) to join the mourners. In this way, people revealed their need to be comforted and to establish new or renewed communitas among the liv6.╇ See, among others, W. R. Smith 1967: 282; Frazer 1989: 99; Bousset 1906: 37–41; Jirku 1912; Bertholet 1907: 1256; Mowinckel 1953: 68. 7.╇Contra Olyan 2004: 35.

436

Chapter 7

ing. As Olyan (2004: 148–53) has pointed out, mourning rites also served to renegotiate status and roles, especially in the political realm. In the context of family, neighborhood, and friends, the two-way participation in mourning rites and comforting of the bereaved by relatives (Gen 37:35) and friends (Job 2:11–13) strengthened social ties and nurtured a spirit of community that lasted at least throughout the time of mourning. Furthermore, mourning and burial were occasions to negotiate roles and status within the family. For example, in Gen 50:14–26, following the death of Jacob, Joseph’s brothers submitted to him, accepting his status as pater familias, even though he was younger than they. Thus we assume that establishing succession rights was an important aspect of mortuary rituals.

7.3.2.╇ Archaeological evidence Mourning rituals were expressive actions performed by the bereaved, about which very few material artifacts have been found. Nevertheless, one group of wailing women appears in the repertoire of Philistine coroplastic art that reflects practices of mourning and perhaps also certain beliefs about the dead (Schmitt 1999: 600–606; cat. nos. 8–18, 102a, b; see also Ben-Shlomo and Press 2009: 44–49). The group consists of about 10 mourning figurines (Type II) from the Philistine coastal plain and 5 specimens from Bethshean. The whole group has been dated to the Iron IB–IIA periods. The figures of wailing women appear to be using the kopetos-gesture of beating the head and breast, a gesture that is also prevalent in contemporary Greek and Cypriot coroplastic art (Schmitt 1999: figs. 6–14). Unfortunately, many examples of mourning figures that reportedly came from burial sites (including two from Azor and two from Tell ʿĒtūn: Schmitt 1999: cat. nos. 9, 13, 16, 17) were acquired on the antiquities market. Only one figurine of our Type II and a unique Iron I pair from Beth-shean that may also be interpreted as mourners were actually found in graves (Schmitt 1999: cat. no. 102a and b). However, because the Aegaean parallels were found solely in funeral contexts, it seems likely that the examples from Philistia and Israel were also originally from graves. The figurines represent mourning relatives who are accompanying the dead to their burials, thus reifying a connection between the living and the dead. Indeed, the figurines emphasize the need of the dead to be cared for by the living.

7.4.╇ Burying the dead 7.4.1.╇ Textual evidence According to Old Testament, burial (‫ קבורה‬qĕbûrāh) in a grave (‫ קבר‬qeber) occurred on the very day of death (2 Sam 3:22–39, among other passages). According to Deut 21:23, an unburied body defiled the land, but this may reflect a later view regarding the sanctity of the land rather than a view that was prevalent during preexilic times. Usually it was the children’s duty to bury their parents in an act of family piety (Gen 25:7–11; 35:29) or a husband’s duty to tend to the tomb and burial of his wife and children (Gen 23:1–20). As Gen 25:9 and 35:29 indicate, even scattered joint families met on occasions of burial. This reflects the fact that, not only the nuclear family was responsible for burial; in cases of a

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

437

pater familias, the greater family was also responsible. His tomb was of utmost importance to the identity of the family and individual. Thus, in Neh 2:1–5, Nehemiah’s hometown of Jerusalem was described as the place of his fathers’ tombs. The most prominent example of family burial is the patriarchal narrative about the family tomb at Machpelah that Abraham purchased from the Hittites (Gen 23:1–20; 49:29–31). In this narrative, not only did the burial at Machpelah symbolize the identity of the family but it also came to symbolize the identity of the nation. Interpretations of the biblical texts regarding burials are in many cases difficult to reconcile with the archaeological evidence, especially regarding the character of the cave as ‫ נחלה‬naḥalāh ‘property, inheritance’. Tombs were located in clusters (as in Lachish) or in graveyards comprising numerous burials (as in Beth-shemesh) outside a city in an agricultural area; they were not single graves. Interment in a family tomb was probably not intended to support a continuous claim to the naḥalāh, as was proposed by Bloch-Smith (1992b: 150) and van der Toorn (1996: 233). There is thus no archaeological evidence for the picture presented in the patriarchal narratives in which the dead were buried on the property of the family (see also Wenning 1997: 84–85), even though the grave itself was most likely the property of the family. It appears that the connection of the grave with naḥalāh in the patriarchal narratives served the purely ideological purpose of claim to the promised land. In two cases, burials under trees are mentioned (Gen 35:8 and 1 Sam 31:13). Whether this indicated perpetuation of memory or the sacred connotation of trees, as supposed by Bloch-Smith (1992a: 785), is not clear, because there are not many biblical references to this custom. The Hebrew Bible provides no information on the treatment and preparation of the dead or burial practices in general, other than a few references to practices in royal burials. Treatment of the dead does appear in later sources such as the New Testament and even rabbinic sources. According to Mark 15:46 and b. Ketub. 8b, the corpse was wrapped in a linen cloth and anointed with spices (see Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; m. Šabb. 23:5). According to rabbinic sources, the corpse was also washed before being buried (m. Šabb. 23:5). Accoutrements found with cloth remains have been discovered in Iron Age burials, such as toggle pins and fibulas (Wenning 1997: 88). Storage jars found outside tombs in the Hellenistic–Roman period (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 121) may have been used as containers for water for the cleansing of corpses. According to the New Testament (Mark 15:42–47 and parallels), not only were family members involved in the burial and its preparation, but also close friends of the deceased. The cremation of the bodies of Saul and Jonathan in 1 Sam 31:12–13 may be historical reminiscence or intentional fiction. Since no cremation burials have been discovered in either Israel or Judah from Iron Age I, and because this custom was also quite rare from Iron IIA on (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: tables 2–3), one might conjecture that the cremations of Saul and Jonathan do not reflect historical fact. On the other hand, because the narrative about Saul’s death describes no negative attitudes toward the fallen king or his son, it seems unlikely that Saul’s cremation was fictitious. Nevertheless, the report about the unusual custom of cremation remains a mystery: Was it done because the corpses were beheaded? Because of their advanced state of decomposition (Hertzberg 1964: 233)? Or was it just to have the bones stripped and cleaned for burial (J. Preuss 1923: 615–16)? These questions must for the moment remain unanswered.

438

Chapter 7

7.4.2.╇ Archaeolovgical evidence One might expect that the material elements of domestic cult and family religious practices would somehow be reflected in the burials. Therefore, in the following, a short overview of typical burial contents is provided to compare with domestic cult remains. Burial contents must be considered carefully for several reasons. First, tombs were commonly used over long periods of time, and most contain material from any number of individuals. As Wenning (1997: 91; 2005: 128) has pointed out, no more than five to seven vessels and one to three items of personal adornment were used in a single burial. Second, burial equipment was chosen based on the special needs of the dead—which were never identical to the needs of the living. Third, burials contained many elements of personal adornment and personal value (especially seals and amulets), which are not represented by the archaeological record in the same way as the furnishings of a household, because they were carried on or near the garment or body of the family member. Because the material found in burials has been analyzed in several other studies (Bloch-Smith 1992a, b; Wenning 1997; 2005), the evidence presented here will be select typical examples from cave, bench, and chamber tombs—all of which can be considered family burial sites from Iron I to Iron IIC in Judah and Israel.

7.4.2.1.╇ Survey of Iron Age tomb types E. Bloch-Smith (1992a: 25–62) has distinguished eight burial types in the ancient Palestine–Israel region: the first type was the simple earthen or pit grave, dug into the gound, which usually contained one body. This type is exemplified by 249 sites from Iron Age I, mostly located on the southern coast or in the Jordan Valley; 199 graves from Iron Age IIB, mostly on the northern and southern coasts or in the Shephelah; and 212 finds from Iron Age IIC, mostly on the northern and southern coasts or in the Jordan Valley. The second type was the cist grave lined with stones or mud bricks. One hundred four examples have been found from Iron Age I, mostly on the southern coast and in the Jordan Valley; 39 examples from Iron Age IIA–B, mostly on the northern and southern coasts; and 5 examples from Iron IIC, mostly in the Jordan Valley. The third type was the jar burial, which was in most cases the inhumation of an infant, of which 104 Iron Age I examples have been found, mostly on the northern and southern coasts or in the Jordan Valley; 39 Iron Age IIA–B examples have been found, mostly on the northern and southern coasts; and 18 examples from Iron Age IIC were found mostly in Israel and the Transjordanian Plateau. The fourth type was burial in anthropoid, wooden, or stone coffins. From Iron Age I, 17 examples have been found in Israel and on the southern coast, with 25 examples of Iron Age IIB–C coming in the Transjordanian Plateau. The fifth type was burial in a bathtub-shaped ceramic vessel. A single example is dated to Iron IIA–B Israel, while 14 Iron IIC examples have been found in Israel, the southern highlands, and the Transjordanian Plateau. The sixth type was the cave, chamber, or shaft tomb used for multiple burials; the bodies in this case were placed directly on the earth. Twenty-two Iron Age I examples have been found, mostly in Israel, the Shephelah, and the Transjordanian Plateau; from Iron

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

439

IIA–B, 52 examples have been found on the northern coast, in the Shephelah, the southern highlands, and the Transjordanian Plateau; and 29 Iron Age IIC examples have been found in similar geographic regions as the Iron IIA–B examples. The seventh type was the arcosolia or bench tomb,â•›8 which usually consisted of a square chamber used for multiple burials, in which the bodies were lain on benches or in loculi cut into the rock. Forty-four Iron Age I examples have been found, mostly on the northern and southern coasts; 63 Iron Age IIA–B examples, mostly in the Shephelah and southern highlands; and 184 Iron Age IIC examples, mostly in the southern highlands. The eighth type was cremation, which was restricted to the northern and southern coasts. Two of these were found dating to Iron Age I, 96 to Iron Age IIA–B, and 109 to Iron Age IIC. A survey of the various burial types in Iron Ages I–II shows strong local traditions. The dominant burial types in Israel and Judah during these periods were bench and arcosolia tombs and cave tombs. The underrepresentation of simple earthen graves in Judah and Israel may be because these are difficult to discover and are easily destroyed by such things as erosion, agriculture, and earth works. Therefore, we assume that this type of burial was much more common than suggested by the actual numbers (Zenger and Wenning 1990: 286; Wenning 1997: 86). The types of tomb described above are mostly clustered in the vicinity of towns or cities, as exemplified by the necropolis of Silwan in Jerusalem. During the Second Temple period, the city was surrounded on all sides by graveyards. At Megiddo, the necropolis excavated by Guy was located on the southeastern slope of the tel and comprised quite a dense cluster (see Guy and Engberg 1938: fig. 2 and pl. 1). At Lachish, the tombs were located in several clusters in proximity to the tel. For example, the EB “2000” cemetery consisted of 120 densely packed tombs on the northwestern slope of the tel. At Gezer, the graveyards were also grouped in clusters around the city, but here they were 200–500 m away from the city wall and the gate (see Macalister 1912: vol. 2, pl. 8), while at Bethshemesh, the necropolis was located just 50 m west of the wall and about 170 m outside the gate (Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 1). Cemeteries seem generally to have been located near cities, with a few minor exceptions due to topographical idiosyncrasies. Moreover, not only were graveyards generally located near cities, they also seem to have been situated so that they were clearly visible from many parts of the city.

7.4.2.2.╇ Iron Age I Early Iron Age burials mostly follow Late Bronze Age forms, especially cave tombs, which were often reused; bench tombs, which predominated in later periods, also appeared in Iron Age I (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: tables 2–3; Wenning 1997: 86; 2005: 122– 24). Gezer Tomb 59 and Megiddo Tomb 39 are typical of cave burials in the Late Bronze– Early Iron transitional phase. Gezer Tomb 59 (see fig. 7.1, after Macalister 1912: 1.325–31, pls. 56.17, 84–85; see also Bloch-Smith 1992a: 176) consisted of a central chamber with five recesses and contained remains of more than 30 individuals. Nearly all the grave goods and bones were found 8.╇ Wenning (1997: 86–87; 2005: 122–23) has classified the arcolosolia type as quadrosolia tombs (because of the square loculi) and (with Mackenzie 1912–13) the bench tombs as “diwan”-type.

440

Chapter 7

concentrated in one recess, which had been used as receptacle, and contained more than 100 vessels that included an anthropoid vessel, bowls, cup-mouthed lentoid flasks, over 40 lamps, several Philistine and Cypro-Phoenician bichrome black-on-red vessels, a chalice, beads, a decorated ivory comb, rings, an arrowhead, two flint knives, and a Bes-amulet. Along with the human remains, the tibia of a goat was found that was most likely part of the food provisions for the dead. Megiddo Tomb 39 (see fig. 7.2, from Guy and Engberg 1938: 17–119 with fig. 143 and pls. 68.9–20; 69.1–4; 164–68) is a rock-cut shaft tomb with two irregular chambers that was built in the MB period and reused in Iron I. Unfortunately, the number of human remains was indeterminable. The pottery consisted of 3 flasks (among them a cup-mouthed lentoid flask), 2 lamps, 1 cooking bowl, 6 bowls, 1 krater, 1 multihandled krater, 2 juglets, 1 pyxis, 2 chalices, and 4 jars, as well as a fragmentary fayence vessel. Among the small finds were 11 seals, 3 amulets (one Ptah-Sokar, one Bes, and one crocodile), 4 gold rings, 2 gold earrings, 3 gold plaques, a gold medallion, 2 gold pendants, 1 bone pendant, a bone comb, 8 bone inlays, a tournette, 9 weights, and 6 whorls. The fine pottery is of the same type as the Stratum VI domestic assemblages. The rich jewelry finds fit well with the Stratum VI evidence, which suggests that the inhabitants had lived in an unusually wealthy settlement.

7.4.2.3.╇ Iron Age IIA In Iron Age IIA, different forms of cave, chamber, arcosolia, and bench tombs were often used side by side, especially in the Shephelah and the Judean Hills, although evidence from the north remains scarce (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: table 3). Tell en-Naṣbeh Tomb 54 (fig. 7.3) was a cave tomb of approximately 7 × 8 m, with a stepped main chamber. A smaller rear chamber may have been used in earlier periods, but it contained materials from the 10th century (McCown 1947: 82–83, fig. 19.1, table 2; cf. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 207). The cave yielded mandibles from at least 54 individuals. A total of 193 vessels were found inside the cave: 33 lamps, 8 chalices, 5 kraters, 5 pitchers, 11 jugs, 76 juglets, 2 cups, 1 one-handled pot, 32 bowls, 11 lug-handled bowls, and 9 miscellenous vessels. Among the smaller finds were a number of flint artifacts, 9 eyelet pins, about 25 iron rings, 2 bronze bracelets, 2 iron arrowheads, 2 cylinder and 2 stamp seals, and an unspecified number of bronze objects of personal adornment. Lachish Tomb 521 (Tufnell 1953: 222–24; no usable drawing provided) was a shaft tomb with a rectangular chamber and a bench running along the north wall and has been dated to around 1000 b.c.e. Two skeletons were found on the bench, one above the other, with another two positioned in front of the southern wall. The pottery consisted of 4 lamps, 5 bowls, a loop-footed bowl, 2 jugs, 3 juglets, a strainer spouted jug, and 4 storage jars. The small finds included 4 seals, 3 iron knives, an iron trident, a pendant, 1 bone object that appears to have been a calendar, and 2 bone spindle whorls. Most of the pottery and objects were found near the heads on the bench, while the jars were positioned on the floor. Tufnell (1953: 222) concluded that Tomb 521 was a family tomb of four people, two of whom may have been of older generations or of inferior rank. In most cases, at least one object of each group (for example, 1 of the lamps, 1 bowl, 1 jug, and 1 seal) appears to have been associated with each of the bench burials.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

Fig. 7.1.╇ Gezer, Tomb 59 with sample of contents.

441

442

Fig. 7.2.╇ Megiddo, Tomb 39.

Chapter 7

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

Fig. 7.3.╇ Tell en-Naṣbeh, Tomb 54.

443

Chapter 7

444

Table 7.1.╇ Pottery content of Lachish Tomb 1002 Lamps Bowls Chalices Jugs Juglets Spouted jugs/juglets Mini pithoi Mini amphorae Storage jars Pilgrim flasks Cooking pots

Layers 1–5

Layers 6–10

Layers 11–13

37 31 – 71 38 2 1 2 – 2 10

24 28 – 88 48 2 3 – 1 2 9

40 28 6 111 41 – 2 – 1 – 8

7.4.2.4.╇ Iron Age IIB In Iron Age IIB, the bench or diwan tomb along with the arcosolia tomb were the dominant forms of contemporary burial places, although earlier burials caves were also reused. Tell en-Naṣbeh Tomb 3 (see fig. 7.4.; McCown 1947: 102 with fig. 11) is an Iron IIB bench tomb (whcih was reused in the Hellenistic period) with some interesting features. A forecourt measuring 2.25 × 1.3 m led to the burial chamber and had a small recess or repository with a stone slab cover. This yielded the bones of an infant with adult femurs above them. The main chamber was approximately 3 × 4 m and had benches running along three sides with one recess at the corner of the rear bench and a second recess cut into the side of the chamber. The most outstanding architectural features were two protruding lamp sockets above the western bench and a second socket in the western corner. The Iron Age pottery consisted of 10 saucer lamps, 5 lamps with disk bases, 4 black juglets, 4 decanters, 6 bowls, and a pitcher, as well as a steatite seal. Samaria Tomb 103 (see fig. 7.5.; Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 21–22, fig. 10; Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 135–36, 197–98; cf. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 197) is a cave tomb with a pillar supporting the roof. It has an irregular plan with a central chamber measuring about 5 × 4.7 m and a smaller burial chamber proper of 2.4 × 1.9 × 1.55 m that contained the skeletons of three adults and one child, buried with their heads toward the east. The most astonishing feature was a group of seven bottle-shaped pits up to 4.5 m deep, with ring-shaped openings for stone covers. These were filled with pottery and other objects of bronze, iron, stone, and bone, including the bones of asses, sheep, and goats. The bones were interpreted by the excavators as offerings to the dead. Unfortunately, the precise number of pottery pieces has never been published. The pottery assemblage reported from pit I consisted of bowls, small bowls, large bowls, juglets, a jar, a cooking pot, two bone spatulas, and an arrowhead. Pit II yielded bowls, cooking pots, jars, a rattle, a scarab, a Bes-amulet, 1 bead, and 5 bone spatulas. Pit III contained 2 bronze fibulae, a bronze spatula, and a bead. Pit IV in the burial chamber contained bowls, jars, jugs, several bronze objects (including a fibula, a spatula, rings, a bangle, and a buckle), stone

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

445

Fig. 7.4.╇ Tell enNaṣbeh, Tomb 3.

Chapter 7

446

Fig. 7.5.╇ Samaria, Tomb 103.

Table 7.2.╇ Small finds in Lachish Tomb 1002 Layers 1–5 Human figurines Animal figurines Zoomorphic vessels Rattles Model furniture Seals Amulets Metal objects

Bone objects

2 JPF 1 horse-and-rider 1 bird figurine 1 unspecified 1 fragment 1 2 3 5 5 earrings 1 ring 1 bangle 1 armor scale 1 pendant

Layers 6–10

Layers 11–13

Unstratified

2 JPF

1 horse-and-rider

–

1 bird figurine 1 unspecified – 3 1 8 3 4 earrings 1 knife 3 bangles 1 fibula 1 finial

–

–

3 – 1 8 2 3 earrings 2 rings 2 bangles 1 armor scale 1 pendant

– – – 15 5 2 earrings 1 bangle 1 fibula 1 blade 1 calendar 2 pendants

Table 7.3.╇ Ceramic evidence in Beth-shemesh Tombs 2, 7, and 8 Tomb 2 7 8

Total

Bowls

Jugs

Juglets

92 109 165

12 18 20

20 28 49

34 15 24

Cooking Pots 2 2 2

Storage Jars 1 3 1

Lamps 23 43 69

objects (including a cosmetic palette, a pounder, and a spindle whorl), a bone pendant, and 15 beads. Pit V contained a high bowl, 5 saucer bowls, a rattle, a dipper juglet, a lamp, 2 iron arrowheads, and a small stone polisher. Pit VI contained large and small bowls, a

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

447

Table 7.4.╇ Comparison of finds on the benches of Beth-shemesh Tomb 7 Tomb 7

Bowls

Eastern bench Western bench Floor

5 5 8

Jugs 5 1 22

Juglets 9 2 4

Cooking Pots

Storage Jars

Lamps

2–3 – –

14 18 11

– 1 1

Table 7.5.╇ Small finds in Beth-shemesh Tombs 2, 7, and 8

Human figurines

Tomb 2 –

Animal figurines Figurative vessels

1 –

Rattles Model furniture Seals Beads

– – 4

Amulets Metal objects

– 1 fibula

Bone objects Miscellenous

–

Tomb 7

Tomb 8 Repository

Tomb 8 Chamber

1 horse-and-rider 1 anthropomorphic jug

1 2 7

18 rings 1 fibula 1 bangle 2 toggle pins 7 arrowheads 1 bone inlay 3 loom-weights

1 5?

numerous beads + complete necklaces and bracelets 10 rings 4 toggle pins 1 bronze tube 1 bronze disc 1 knife 12 arrowheads

“footbath,” jugs, a rattle, 1 pair of bronze tweezers, and a pottery spindle whorl. Pit VII contained a bowl and a dipper juglet. The resemblance of the pottery from Tomb 103 to the material from Locus E207 was well noted by the excavators as was the fact that figurines and other figurative objects were absent from the cave (G. M. Crowfoot in Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 135). Lachish Tomb 4002 (see fig. 7.6; Tufnell 1953: 239–40, fig. 28; cf. Bloch-Smith 1992a: 176) is a cave tomb with five loculi that was in use from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age and was subsequently reused in Iron IIB. The Iron Age burial of two adults was accompanied by a bowl, 2 lamps, a dipper juglet, a cup, a storage jar, an iron knife, and 53 beads. The tomb and its contents can be seen as a typical example, with a relatively small assemblage of burial gifts for each person (see Wenning 2005: 128).

Chapter 7

448

Table 7.6.╇ Lachish Tomb 106 Iron Age IIC pottery Bowls

Jugs

Juglets

Cooking Pots

Room

Total

A B

171 174

28 23

20 38

63 51

4 7

C

138

18

15

45

4

Storage Jars – 2 mini pithoi –

Lamps

Misc.

56 53

–

54

2 bottles

Table 7.7.╇ Lachish Tomb 106 Iron Age IIC objects other than pottery Chamber A Human figurines Animal figurines Figurative vessels Rattles Model furniture Seals Beads Amulets Metal objects

Miscellaneous

1 horse-and-rider figurine

1 1 8 2 (Lotus and Mut) 2 iron knives 6 iron arrowheads 1 iron tweezer 1 nail 1 chisel 1 spindle whorl

Chamber B

Chamber C

Tomb Filling

3 JPF 1

1 zoomorphic vessel

3

2

1 sow-amulet 2 fibulae

1 Isis with Horus 3 knives 2 arrowheads

12 33 4 earrings 1 arrowhead

Lachish Tomb 1002 (Tufnell 1953: 229–36 with pls. 43, 44, 57; no usable drawing provided) is—despite its collapsed structure—especially remarkable, because it contained burial remains of about 600 vessels accumulated in 13 layers from Iron IIB (layers 11–13) to early Iron IIC (layers 1–5). The pottery content is shown in table 7.1. ���������������� Besides the pottery, there were many smaller pieces, including an unusually high number of zoomorphic vessels (see table 7.2).

7.4.2.5.╇ Iron Age IIC In Iron Age IIC, the dominant burial type was the bench or diwan type, and newly excavated collective burials in Judah seem to have been mostly of this type (see Bloch-Smith 1992a: table 4; Wenning 2005: 126). The Iron Age II (8th-century) bench or diwan tombs from Beth-shemeshâ•›/Ain Shems (Mackenzie 1912–13) that were studied by Wenning (2005: 130–31) were typical. He summarized the ceramic evidence from Tombs 2, 7, and 8 (figs. 7.7–7.9, after Mackenzie 1912–13: pls. 5, 10) as shown in table 7.3. Thus, the pottery repertoire seems to have been relatively homogeneous at this local level, with lamps strongly predominant. This is

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

449

Fig. 7.6.╇ Lachish, Tomb 4002.

especially apparent if we compare the deposits on the single benches of Tomb 7 (Wenning 2005: 131); see table 7.4. The small finds from the above-mentioned tombs are shown in table 7.5 (after Mackenzie 1912–13). Lachish Tomb 106 (Tufnell 1953: 179–87) was a triple-chambered-bench or diwan tomb, with recesses in two chambers (denoted B and C; fig. 7.10). The pottery of this tomb has been dated to the late monarchic period (670–580 b.c.e). The tomb was reused for burials in the late Roman / Byzantine period. The Iron Age IIC pottery is shown in table 7.6. Objects in the cave other than pottery are shown in table 7.7. From the human remains, at least 25 skulls have been reported. Thus, Lachish Tomb 106, with its three chambers and its finds has been interpreted as the burial place of a rather well-to-do family. It is especially noteworthy that in Tomb 106 the number of pieces associated with each burial is more than the customary number of 5–7. If the proposed number of around 25 burials is correct, the average number of pottery items used for each inhumation would have been about 19.

7.4.3.╇ The significance of burial practices for family religion The kind of pottery generally associated with burials consisted of typical quotidian household items such as bowls, kraters, chalices, pilgrim flasks, jugs, juglets, cooking pots, storage jars, and lamps. Lamps were dominant, as were vessels for the storage of liquids (such as jugs, juglets, decanters, and flasks) and bowls for consuming food and liquids,

450

Fig. 7.7.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 2.

Chapter 7

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

451

Fig. 7.8.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 7.

Chapter 7

452

Fig. 7.9.╇ Beth-shemesh, Tomb 8.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

453

Fig. 7.10.╇ Lachish, Tomb 106.

followed by food-preparation and storage vessels (such as cooking pots and large bowls or kraters). Very few specialized ritual vessels such as stands or incense burners have been found in graves, with the notable exception of a few examples of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic vessels from Lachish and Ain Shems, which seem to reflect a regional custom. Libation vessels have only rarely been found in Iron IIC burials. The appearance of zoomorphic vessels in Lachish Tomb 1002 seems to reflect a custom unique to one family, because no vessels of this type have been found elsewhere. On the other hand, figurative ritual objects that have frequently been found in Iron IIC domestic assemblages, such as JPFs, horses and riders, model furniture, and animal figurines, are commonly found in graves as well. Thus, these burial assemblages are clearly a subset of domestic utilitarian pottery assemblages, although they do differ significantly in their lack of specialized ritual vessels, such as stands, tripod incense burners, or libation vessels. The only specialized object that seems to have been typical for Iron IIC graves is the rattle. As Wenning (2005: 130–33; see also Bloch-Smith 1992b: 80) has shown, there was no typical Judean “standard” assemblage, but there existed strong local traditions regarding content

454

Chapter 7

that mostly followed the earliest burial in a cemetery. For example, the Beth-shemesh tombs contained many lamps that have no functional explanation; at Tell en-Naṣbeh, the tombs yielded more storage jars than other places have. In some cases (such as Lachish Tomb 1002), burials seem to have followed specific family traditions. Large storage vessels such as jars and vessels for the preparation of food, have seldom been found in burials from Iron Age I and were introduced into common use in the 10th century (Bloch-Smith 1992b: 75–76). Most individual burials, however, seem to have followed a general pattern of including a standardized repertoire of 5–7 vessels of the types described above, and 1–3 items of jewelry and personal adornment, including amulets. Sometimes a weapon, such as an arrow, spearhead, or knife was added to the grave goods (Wenning 2005: 128). The significant omission of specialized vessels for libation and incense burning is perhaps best understood by presuming that the dead in Šĕʾōl did not need to sacrifice anything. Moreover, no sacrifices were performed by the bereaved in the cave proper. Conversely, the presence of other ritual media such as terra-cotta figurines of various types, amulets, and perhaps weapons suggests a perceived need for protection. The function of the rattles is puzzling. It may be assumed that the act of rattling or the mere presence of the instrument had some apotropaic effect in protecting the dead. The relatively small number of vessels that accompanied each inhumation does not support the supposition that they served as supplies either in the grave or in Šĕʾōl for longer periods extending into eternity. It seems more likely that the food provisions served for shorter, transitional phases during which the person may have been believed to be present, or possibly until the body had decomposed (Wenning 2005: 129–30). The latter case was apparently the opinion in rabbinic sources (see b. Šabb. 152b; m. Nid. 10:4). Interestingly, burial customs in ancient Israel do not show great social differentiation (except for the burials of the administrative and royal elites in Jerusalem). Differences in status can be discerned through the quality or apparent value of individual grave goods, but generally the burial customs in Israel and Judah during Iron IIA–IIC seem to have been egalitarian. There also appears to have been no difference in burial customs among men, women, and children (see Wenning 2005: 128). A slight contrast to the situation that prevailed in the central and southern hill country during Iron I appears in Megiddo, where exceptionally rich caves reflect the wealth of the Iron Age I (Stratum VI) residential quarters. Both the size and content of the tombs, which clearly represent a subset of domestic assemblages, lead to the conclusion that one tomb was generally used per nuclear family or at least per extended family, as most strikingly confirmed by the evidence from the Beth-shemesh tombs. Unfortunately, very few accurate numbers with regard to human remains have been obtainable due to both the advanced state of decomposition of the bodies and inadequate records. Nevertheless, even caves that were used over long periods (of up to 200 years) contain maximal numbers of 25–54 individuals (Wenning 1997: 90). The mixture of skeletal remainsâ•›9—insofar as they were discernible or recorded at all—mirrors the stratification of ages and also suggests use by nuclear or extended nuclear families. 9.╇ Bloch-Smith (1992b: 70) records a ratio of 15.4% infants, 7.7% children, 7.7% adolescents, and 69.2% adults for cave tombs; and 8.3% infants, 25% children, 25% adolescents, and 41.7% adults for the bench tombs.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

455

The most significant social functions of burial practices in Israel and Judah during Iron Age II seem to have been the creation, maintenance, and continuation of identity both on local and family levels. The grave goods, with their regional and sometimes individual differences, may be seen as both markers and communicators of family and local identity. As in Neh 2:1–5, the family tomb was a symbol of the location one identified with and a symbol of family identity. The tombs communicated the cultural and symbolic systems of the burial rites performed, as did the grave goods and the treatment of corpses (see also Wenning 2005: 109–12). The personal identity of the deceased was indicated on seals and objects of personal adornment such as jewelry and fibulae. When a grave was opened again for additional burials, the dead were easily identifiable by their objects of personal value. Even after bones were stored in a recess after decomposition, the personal items remained features of continuing remembrance. The treatment of the corpse and the nature of the grave goods were important indications of the identity and values of the family who gathered together at the burial. By performing the burial rites and observing the burial practices, children and young people were able to internalize the customs, values, and other elements of the symbolic system that constituted family and local identity.

7.5.╇ Feeding the dead and other forms of post-mortem care for the dead 7.5.1.╇ Textual evidence Old Testament evidence for feeding the dead—as distinct from ritual meals involving both the living and the deadâ•›10—is scarce. The Bible does not directly refer to institutions such as the Mesopotamian kispum (see Tsukimoto 1985), which according to van der Toorn (1994: 48–65) could have been performed daily, at the interlunium, at the end of the month, or annually. However, there is at least some evidence for regularly performed mortuary rites in the Old Testament. For example, regular provisions for the dead are suggested by Deut 26:14: I have not eaten of [the required tithe of produce] while mourning, nor have I removed any of it while I was unclean or offered any of it to the dead. I have listened to the voice of Yhwh my God; I have done all that you have commanded me.

Deut 26:14 is a kind of “liturgical supplement” (Braulik 1992: 191) for annual regulations of the tithe by means of an oath affirmed by the pater familias.â•›11 Rather than being a general prohibition against provisions for the dead, as suggested by van der Toorn (1997: 107), it referred to the regulation that no portion of Yhwh’s tithe reserved for the needy should be given to the dead. In his or her oath, the dedicant would proclaim that he or she had not eaten any of the consecrated portions for the needy while mourning or during times of uncleanness and had not offered a portion of it to the dead. Behind this regulation was a fear that any ritual behavior on behalf of the dead might have infected the dedicant 10.╇ See below, pp. 457–459. 11.╇ However, one should not speak of “counter-liturgies” against Canaanite fertility cults, as stated by Braulik (1992: 191).

456

Chapter 7

and therefore also the tithe for the house of Yhwh. Though the text does not refer to a regular portion for the dead, it makes clear that tithes of the produce of the field were occasionally given to the deceased and, furthermore, that the pater familias was responsible for offerings to the ancestors. Ps 106:28€mentions sacrifices for the dead in connection with the Baal of Peor: “Then they attached themselves to the Baal of Peor and ate sacrifices offered to the dead (‫זבחי‬ ‫ מתם‬zibḥē mētîm).” This has been interpreted to suggest an ancestor cult requiring sacrifices to the dead (Lewis 1989: 167) or a cult of the dead associated with the Baal of Peor as a chthonic deity (Spronk 1986: 232). However, in concurrence with Schmidt (1994: 266) and numerous others, this is better understood as a polemic against sacrifices to dead idols in reference to Num 25:2.â•›12 Food provisions for the dead were still common in Hellenistic times. According to Sir 7:33, providing food for the dead was a holy duty: ‘Give graciously to the living and do not withhold kindness from the dead’ (χάρις δόματος ἔναντι παντὸς ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ νεκρῶι μὴ ἀποκωλ``ύσηις χάριν). In Tobit’s instructions to his son, Tob 4:17 mentions placing a gift of bread on the tomb of the righteous (ἔκχεον τοὺς ἄρτους σου ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον τῶν δικαίων) as one of the duties of the living for the dead. Thus, in the realm of family religion, care for the dead was—even in Hellenistic times—an orthodox practice in the true sense of the word. Notably, the text states that the gift for the deceased was placed on the tomb proper, which appears to indicate a regularly performed rite of giving portions to the dead at burial sites. Because textual evidence is scarce with regard to occasional gifts to the dead (other than Deut 26:14; Sir 7:33; and Tob 4:17), we cannot reconstruct any institution of regular care for the dead. However, it seems possible that these gifts were—as in Babylonia—occasions that were fixed by the calendar, even though they are not reflected in the text. Nevertheless, the texts do reflect the fact that ritual care for the dead—either occasionally or regularly—was indicative of ongoing social relationships between the living and the dead. The ‫ פגר‬pgr mentioned in Ezek 43:7–9 has been interpreted as sacrifices for the king (see Kühn 2005: 384–86; Dietrich and Loretz 2005: 236). This interpretation, however, does not correspond to the use of pgr elsewhere in the Old Testament (see HALOT 911), where it clearly refers to a ‘corpse’. Therefore, Ezek 43:7–9 does not have had anything to do with a cult for dead kings but was instead a polemic against burying kings in the palace, which might have polluted the neighboring Temple. 2 Chr 16:14; 21:19; and Jer 34:5  mention fires lit on the occasion of the death of a king. These fires were not burnt offerings (Bloch-Smith 1992b: 119) or food portions for the dead king. As parallels from Mesopotamia show, the fire was an independent rite that most likely had an apotropaic function and thus was adopted from Assyria during the late monarchic period (Zwickel 1989).â•›13 12.╇ There is no evidence that Baal of Peor was a god of the netherworld. Moreover, it is obvious that Ps 106:28 depends on Numbers 25, which has no association with the cult of the dead. See Kraus 1989: 904; Seybold 1996: 423–24. For discussion, see also Schmidt 1994: 266. 13.╇ Texts analyzed by Zwickel (K. 164; K. 12 = ABL 670 = LAS 4; ABL 378 = LAS 195; K. 168 = ABL 437 = LAS 280) show that items such as furniture and other household items of the deceased were burned during these rituals.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

457

7.5.2.╇ Archaeological evidence As the discussion of burial contents during the Iron Age has shown, common utilitarian household wares used for the consumption, storage, and preparation of liquids and food were also placed in graves. Vessels with food remains, mostly animal bones, have been reported in many excavations (a comprehensive overview was given by Bloch-Smith 1992b: 105–8). Archaeologically, supplies for the dead in graves, such as items of personal adornment, lamps, cosmetic containers, cooking pots, bowls, and jugs with food are well attested until the late Second Temple period (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 116, 121; Kuhnen 1990: 77; Hachlili 1992: 790–91; Triebel and Zangenberg 2003: 456).â•›14 These finds probably represent the continuation of earlier practices. As mentioned above, the small portions of food for each burial were not intended as supplies for an extensive period, let alone for eternity, but for a liminal phase, during which the spirit of the deceased was still thought to be present in the grave. In addition to semi-regular provisions at the tomb itself, we can assume that regular portions of daily meals were dedicated to the ancestors, as indicated by domestic ritual objects found by archaeologists. The boundary between feeding the dead and commemorative meals for the ancestors is, of course, somewhat fluid.

7.6.╇ Commemorating the dead 7.6.1.╇ Textual evidence 7.6.1.1.╇ Funerary meals and feasts commemorating the dead 1 Sam 20:6 refers to an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem on behalf of the entire clan (‫זבח‬ ‫־המׁשפחה‬â•”‫ הימם לכל‬zebaḥ hayyāmîm lĕkol-hammišpāḥāh), which David pretended to go to, thereby avoiding attendance at a royal banquet (20:5; ‫ לחם‬leḥem) held by Saul on the same day. Several scholars have interpreted this banquet as a practice associated with preexilic Israelite worship of ancestors (Loretz 1982: 93; Bloch-Smith 1992b: 124; van der Toorn 1996: 211–18; 1997: 109–13), particularly because, as van der Toorn observed, this ritual took place at the date of the interlunium (‫ חדׁש‬ḥodeš), or at the beginning of the disappearance of the last quarter of the moon (new moon). However, the text does not specify whether this ritual banquet was performed on behalf of the dead or whether the ancestors were thought to participate in any way. However, the phrase lĕkol-hammišpāḥāh in 20:6 can be interpreted to suggest solidarity between the living and deceased members of the clan, which here most likely referred to a co-residential kinship group. Thus, both living and dead were provided with portions of the sacrifice reserved for the clan. As van der Toorn (1994: 214–18) further noted, in the narrative of Saul’s meeting with Samuel in 1 Samuel 9–10, his participation in the sacrificial meal at the local ‫ במה‬bāmâ ‘high place’ most likely occurred at the ‘new moon’ (ḥōdeš ‘month’). The ritual performances on the ḥōdeš included, according to 1 Sam 10:2–3, visits to ancestrals tombs, such 14.╇ However, it is not clear whether the vessels generally served as containers of provisions for the dead (which seems most likely for vessels found in closed loculi) or contained water or other substances used during the burial or for cleaning. Storage jars were mostly found outside tombs. See Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 121.

458

Chapter 7

as the tomb of Rachel and the oak of Tabor. The latter was most likely the oak of weeping in Gen 35:8, which was the tomb of Deborah. Funerary and commemorative meals for the dead are explicitly mentioned in Jer 16:5–8 and Isa 65:3–5. The former referred to a funerary ritual banquet in the context of a ‫ מרזח‬marzeaḥ: 5 For thus says Yhwh: Do not enter the marzeaḥ-house, or go to lament, or bemoan them; for I have taken away my peace from this people, says Yhwh, my steadfast love and mercy. 6Both great and small shall die in this land; they shall not be buried, and no one shall lament for them; there shall be no laceration, no shaving of the head for them. 7 No one shall break bread for the mourner, to offer comfort for the dead; nor shall anyone give them the cup of consolation to drink for their fathers or their mothers. 8You shall not go into the house of drinking to sit with them, to eat and drink.

The marzeaḥ mentioned in this context of mourning rites has been interpreted as a special ritual meal, as attested in the Ugarit texts (see KTU 1.21, 1.114; 3.9; 4.642). However, it is now widely acknowledged that marzeaḥ was not a technical term for a ritual meal of the dead but was more likely an institution such as a club or association, or a public place such as a public drinking house (Spronk 1986: 196–202; Lewis 1989: 80–94; Schmidt 1994: 246–49; McLaughlin 2001: 214–17; McGeough 2003: 410–11). Furthermore, Jer 16:8 uses the term ‘drinking house’ in parallelism with the marzeaḥ-house in 16:5. This is further confirmed by the use of the term in Amos 6:7, where it refers to a kind of symposium of the upper class of Samaria (see Schmidt 1994: 144–47). Although the textual evidence does not support the meaning of marzeaḥ as a ritual funeral meal, ritual feasts on the occasions of funerals could have taken place at a common place, the marzeaḥ-house, outside the mourning house itself, and could have involved the family and friends of the deceased.â•›15 The text thus provides evidence for both the public nature of mourning rites and the fact that they were not performed in the house of mourners itself. The funeral meal at the marzeaḥ-house involved the breaking of bread and the offering of the ‘cup of consolation’ (‫ כס תנחומם‬kōs tanḥūmîm) by the participants to the bereaved on behalf of the father and mother of the deceased. The consolation rites performed by the comforters, the breaking of bread, and the offering of the cup of consolation (Jer 16:7) were all intended to strengthen and renew the social ties between the bereaved and the guests, their family, their friends, and their dependents (see Olyan 2004: 57–59). We can assume that the location of the funeral in the marzeaḥ-house was because the consumption of alcoholic beverages would commonly have been accepted there. Alcohol may have served as a “comforter” in the literal sense of the word. Drinking together and sharing the cup and bread were expressions of solidarity and community.â•›16 Another type of ritual meal is mentioned in Isa 65:3–5:

15.╇ For Ugarit, McGeough (2003) has tried to identify as a marziḥu-house the so-called bâtiment au vase de pierre, with its large main hall of 10 × 10 m, in which big stone vessels and a great number of kraters have been found. 16.╇ In many regions of Germany, funeral ceremonies are traditionally held in taverns or bars. Drinking to excess is acceptable and common, especially in rural environments.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

459

a people who provoke me continually to my face, who sacrifice in gardens, burning incense on bricks; 4who sit in tombs and spend the night in secret places; who eat the flesh of swine, and in their vessels is the broth of a desecrated sacrifice (piggûl↜);â•›17 5who say: “Stay where you are; do not come near me, for you will become holy (qedaštīkā).” 3

The polemic of Trito-Isaiah was in opposition to the custom of ritual meals for the dead involving the consumption of certain kinds of unclean flesh, which was forbidden elsewhere in the Bible. We may suppose that the consumption of pork occurred during a special mortuary meal. In fact, it seems that Isa 65:3–5 was not a polemical distortion at all but a real practice (at least in offering provisions for the dead), because swine bones were discovered in two Iron Age IIC graves in Lachish (Tufnell 1953: 187, 193.). The ‘desecrated sacrifice’ (piggûl) refers to sacrificial meat that had to be consumed in two days and that became unsuitable on the third day and had to be burned (Lev 7:18; 19:7). The rules of suitable meat seem to have been inverted with regard to this kind of ritual meal, creating a death-related antistructure. Due to proximity of the dead and the meat, the participants were in a special state of holiness (‫ קדׁש‬qdš ‘holy’ but not—as might be expected in accordance with Num 19:11—‫ טמא‬ṭmʾ ‘unclean’). This included the danger of contaminating individuals who were not involved in the ritual (19:5). According to the LXX, mortuary meals were accompanied by necromantic practices (v. 4a: δι’ ἐνύπνια), although it remains unclear whether the addition in the Septuagint reflected older traditions or came from Hellenistic-era dream-oracle practices. Because the LXX evinced little understanding of Hebrew magic and mantic terms, and there is no equivalent to δι’ ἐνύπνια in the Hebrew text, this was most likely added by the translators. The ritual meal provided at the grave that included unclean meat was a sort of upside-down or antistructural ritual that used the strong opposition between life and death, clean and unclean, and suitable and unsuitable meat to express a change in social status.â•›18 By eating unclean meat and sleeping in the grave, the participants temporarily became as the dead: participating in taboo social practices and being unable to come into contact with the living. Thus, this kind of mortuary meal would have served to strengthen and renew ties to ancestors by sharing the ancestors’ “home” and provisions and by temporarily assuming their status. This meant, however, that one temporarily became a social “outsider.” The polemics of Trito-Isaiah may have been prompted by the exaggerated character of the ritual itself and by the use of the desecrated portions of offerings, which were not otherwise available legally. From the textual evidence, it is difficult to discern the typical size of groups who held commemorative meals at a grave site. Because the text does not mention the burial itself, perhaps this sort of ritual was a commemorative meal that was held on special occasions or at regular intervals fixed by the calendar. And because the burial cave itself or some other hidden place was used, we may conclude that the participants and thus the range of rituals were not identical with the burial. We can only conjecture that the nuclear or joint family participated in these meals, which generally took place in rather small burial caves. 17.╇On piggûl, see Wright 1987: 141–42. 18.╇ Upside-down oppositions often appear in statements about the netherworld or in funeral rituals in many cultures’ belief systems. For Mesopotamia, see Gilgamesh XII and The Descent of Ishtar to the Netherworld.

460

Chapter 7

7.6.1.2.╇ Material memorials for the dead Ritual memory for the dead, according to the Old Testament, was not only expressed by rites, gatherings, and meals but also by material memorials. Material memoria for the dead were called ‫ יד‬yād (2 Sam 18:18; Isa 56:5), ‫ צין‬ṣīyyūn (‘sepulcher’ of the man of God in 2 Kgs 23:17), or ‫ מצבה‬maṣṣebāh (the ‘tomb’ of Rachel in Gen 35:20; the ‘monument’ of Absalom in 2€Sam 18:18; see Schroer 1987: 361–73; Bloch-Smith 1992b: 113–14; Kühn 2005: 311–45). The erection of a memorial was, according to Gen 35:20 and Isa 56:6, a part of family piety, and it was especially the duty of a son to commemorate his parents after their death (see Albertz 1978b). The designation of the memorial as a maṣṣebāh suggests that these items were worked or unworked stelae that most likely would have functioned as more than just markers of tombs. This is made explicit in the notice about Absalom’s maṣṣebāh in 2 Sam 18:18; it was called “Absalom’s monument (yād).” In his lifetime, Absalom had taken and set up a maṣṣebāh for himself in the King’s Valley, for he said: “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.” He called the maṣṣebāh by his own name. It is called Absalom’s monument (yād) to this day. 18

The note about Absalom’s maṣṣebāh or yād was a late addition to the story about succession to the throne, as noted by Rost (1943) and others subsequently. It is uncertain whether this verse reflected preexilic traditions or folkloric associations that were prevalent at the time of a later compilation of the preexilic sources. Furthermore, in Isa 56:4–5, memorials were thought to ensure eternal remembrance: For thus says Yhwh: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant. 5 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name (yād wāšem) better than sons and daughters. I shall give them an everlasting name, that shall not vanish. 4

As both 2 Sam 18:18 and Isa 56:4–5 show, memoria were not placed at the grave or in its vicinity, as the pillar was at Rachel’s tomb in Gen 35:20; instead, it was to be placed in a temple or some other location. As the text indicates, a memorial to one’s name in the presence of the Lord in his Temple was considered an exceptional honor. In the case of Absalom’s pillar, we presume that a place was chosen that would include other royal commemorative stelae as well. This place could have been the ‫ עמק ידת‬ʿmq ydt ‘valley of monuments’, as attested twice on an ostracon from Jerusalem (Renz and Röllig 1995: 310–11, Jer [7]:5). Unfortunately, however, no archaeological evidence of memorials in the form of stelae have been found in Iron Age Israel.â•›19 Nevertheless, in contemporary Syria and Phoenicia, memorials in the form of stelae were common, especially in honor 19.╇As Wenning (2005: 120) has noted, Iron Age tombs lack markers or any other installations on the outside. The arrangement of stelae and the seated figurine at the Hazor Stelae Temple (Yadin 1985: 83–92) may have been related to the worship of a royal ancestor, which is the case at Tell

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

461

of kings, but also for common people (see Moscati 1988). In Iron Age Jordan, memorial pillars with anthropomorphic features (such as noses or, in one case, ears) were placed over graves discovered in the Wādī Fīdān cemetery (Levy et€al. 2005: 471–72, figs. 23, 24, 38–40). These stones stood about 30 cm high and were surrounded by stone circles that indicated the position of a cist grave beneath. It was supposed by the excavators that these monuments were representations of the deceased. However, the Iron Age tomb monuments of Silwan were not examples of the sort of memorial under discussion; they were an expression of royal power. Absalom’s maṣṣebāh and the yād in Isa 56:4–5 can be compared with both the Wādī Fīdān stones and the npš-pillars found in the context of Hellenistic Jewish (see Hachlili 1981; Hachlili and Killebrew 1983: 114–15 and fig.€5; Kuhnen 1990: 80) and Nabatean (see Kühn 2005) tombs. Absalom’s pillar and the yād wāšem for the eunuchs must be understood as memorializing the names of the dead, ensuring the durability of their commemoration. The finds from Wādī Fīdān support the same conclusion, but this representation is not to be confused with identification with the dead spirit or with his or her powers in any animistic sense (contra Schroer 1987: 370–71). There is no textual evidence at all that stelae were inhabited by dead spirits or that acts of veneration were performed in front of them. As Kühn (2005: 280) has observed, the presence of the dead as marked by stelae was not intended to denote any sort of actual presence; it was intended to represent symbolically an ongoing relationship between the dead and the bereaved. The use of stelae and comparable elements in the context of funerary architecture is also attested by Josephus (Ant. 13.211–12), who mentions the monuments that Simon erected for his father and brothers: Simon also erected a very large monument for his father and his brothers, of white and polished stone, and raised it to a great height, to be seen from a long distance, and made cloisters about it, and set up monolithic pillars (στύλους μονολίθους), a work that was wonderful to see. Moreover, he built seven pyramids also for his parents and his brothers, one for each of them, which were made very surprising, both for their size and beauty, and which have been preserved to this day.

Thus, the erecting of commemorative monuments by a son or brother may be traced from the Hellenistic period back to preexilic times. In Hellenistic–Roman times, at least (based on archaeological evidence from Jericho; see Hachlili and Killebrew 1983), this was a custom not only for the tombs of royalty and high priests but also for the tombs of affluent families. Because of the lack of archaeological evidence from this period, however, and because the textual evidence speaks only of memorial stelae for royalty and the administrative elite, one must not conclude that the erection of pillars was a common practice in the Iron Ages. The most important commemorative structure of the Hellenistic period is the monumental Herodian Tomb of the Patriarchs (Ḥaram el-Ḥalīl) in Hebron, a commemorative place that also served as a symbol of national identity. However, because no archaeological work is possible there today (and also, taking into consideration the fact that Josephus Mišrife/Qatna (see Landesmuseum Württemberg 2009: 85–87). Setting up statues and stelae seems to have been a Middle–Late Bronze Age practice that was not continued into the Iron Age.

462

Chapter 7

himself does not mention the building or its history),â•›20 it is not possible to explore its architectural heritage prior to the days of Herod.

7.6.2.╇ Archaeological evidence 7.6.2.1.╇ Figurines as domestic representations of the ancestors The problem with identifying terra-cotta figurines as representations of ancestors has already been discussed in chap. 3.â•›21 As we argued there, only the male figurines may be interpreted as ancestor figurines. The question remains, however, why are there so few male figurines (no more than ten percent, at most)? Alas, consistent explanations are not easy to find. Ancestors, of course, did not generally need to be represented by objects, because they could be remembered by name or by their collective identity. Based on the argument above drawn from the textual evidence that quasi-divine ancestor worship seems unlikely to have been prevalent in ancient Israel during the Iron Age (and, of course, later), figurines may be understood as representing ongoing social relationships between the living and the dead. This in no way contradicts the notion that figurines, as representations of ancestors, probably were given portions of meals and beverages as part of domestic ritual actions (which should not be confused with the phenomenologically similar offerings to a deity) and thus would have played a part in family meals. The same applies to the possible use of figurines in necromancy. The presence of male figurines during Iron Ages IIB and IIC may also be associated with the tendency evident during Iron IIC to use anthropomorphic objects as votives and representations of the dedicants, especially JPFs. Though male figurines with horses and riders may best be interpreted as ancestor figurines, it is nevertheless possible that they were also used to represent the dedicant and were thus used as votive figures or for mediating pleas. 7.6.2.2.╇ Jerusalem Cave I and related finds as evidence for ritual commemoration of the dead Records of the materials from several caves located on the eastern slope of the southeastern hill in Jerusalem that were excavated in 1967 by Kathleen Kenyon were published intermittently between 1974 and 1996 (Kenyon 1974; Holland 1977; Franken and Steiner 1990; Eshel and Prag 1995). The caves yielded no traces of burials and therefore were probably never used as tombs but nevertheless contained great amounts of utilitarian pottery, as well as category A and B ritual objects. The reference to caves and secret or hidden places as room for rituals for the dead in Isa 65:3–5 raises the question whether Jerusalem Caves I–III and related finds, which were not used for burial purposes, were nevertheless used in ritual care for the dead. Cave I (fig.  7.11) was an artificial cave cut into the rock; it was approximately 8  m long, 1.65 m high, and had a maximum width of 4.2 m. The cave yielded exceptionally large numbers of pottery pieces as well as ritual objects, including 16 JPF and other types of female figures, 21 horse-and-rider figurines, 7 bird figurines, 38 different zoomorphic figurines, 2 anthropoid vessels, 3 items of miniature furniture, 1 rattle, 1 model shrine, 20.╇ Josephus (Ant. 1.237 and J.W. 4.531) only refers to the sepulchers (μνημεία) of the patriarchs. 21.╇ See above, pp. 60–65.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

463

2 miniature altars, 1 intact fenestrated cult stand, and fragments of 2 more items, as well as 3 chalices (Holland 1977: 139 and figs. 7–9; Franken and Steiner 1990: 48; fig. 7.3; Eshel 1995: figs. 31–33).â•›22 A sample of these objects is shown in fig. 7.11 (compiled after Holland 1977: figs. 7–9). According to Eshel (1995: table 3), the pottery consisted of typical household items, especially vessels for the consumption of food (which numbered 511 bowls, or 42.5% of the total number of items), for the preparation of food (with 168 cooking pots, or 14% of all items), and for the storage of dry goods and liquids (including 261 jugs, 51 juglets, 62 jars, and 5 kraters), as well as 105 lamps. In total, 63% were used for some aspect of food consumption, 9% for the preparation of food, and 24% for storage (Franken and Steiner 1990: fig. 7.3). Moreover, because a tabun and animal bones were found in the cave (Lernau 1995), it is likely that the preparation and consumption of food took place in the cave itself. Among the pottery pieces, there were also a number of vessels and sherds that were inscribed with names (Renz and Röllig 1995: 267–72; Jer [7]:12–29) indicating dedications for rituals. In Cave II, a similar assemblage of about 288 vessels was found. Eshel (1995: 19, table 2) listed a total of 159 bowls (or 55.2% of the total), 1 krater, 13 cooking pots (or 4.5% of all items), 53 jugs (18.4%), 33 juglets (11.4%), 2 jars (0.6%), 21 lamps (7.3%), and 6 miscellaneous vessels. Here too, the majority (72%) were food-consumption vessels, while vessels for the preparation of food made up 3%, and vessels for storage made up 18% (Franken and Steiner 1990: 26 and fig. 7.3). Only 2 fragments of ritual objects were found: 1 fragment of a model chariot, and 1 leg from an animal figurine (Prag 1995: 217). Fifty-eight percent of all vessels from a third assemblage, excavated from Cave III, were used for the consumption of food, 12% for its preparation, and 12% for storage (Franken and Steiner 1990: fig. 7.3). In contrast to Caves I and II, Cave III yielded no specialized objects. A fourth, smaller assemblage otherwise similar to that of Cave I was discovered in a rock-cut chamber (Locus 6015) on the eastern slope of the Ophel (Mazar and Mazar 1989: 50–53, plan 20, pls. 25–29; a plan and a sample of objects are shown in fig.€7.12). The chamber was roughly square but rounded to the north. It spanned between 2.15 and 3.90€m and had a height of 3.5€m. It was accessible through a small square shaft in the west. An opening in the ceiling of the chamber was a kind of square chimney of 0.8 × 1€m. Like Caves I–III, Locus 6015 yielded no human remains or other suggestions of burial, but again many pottery and ritual objects were found, and the chamber was therefore considered by the excavators to have been a repository or storeroom (Mazar and Mazar 1989: 53). The pottery assemblage consisted of vessels for the consumption of food (in the form of 40 bowls), for the preparation of food (in the form of 8 cooking pots and 2 baking trays), storage vessels (including 6 large bowls, 1 krater, 4 jars, 3 pithoi, and 3 hole-mouth jars), vessels for liquids (including 6 jugs, 4 decanters, and 6 juglets), as well as 2 pyxides and 3 lamps. The assemblage of category A ritual objects consisted of a cylindrical stand, 1 chalice-like stand, the torso of a JPF, a bearded male head with helmet (which had most likely been part of a horse-and-rider figurine), a fragment of a horse figurine, and a rattle.

22.╇ There are some differences in the total number of vessels presented by Franken and Steiner (1990) and by Eshel (1995).

464

Chapter 7

Fig. 7.11.╇ Jerusalem, Cave 1 with sample of ritual objects.

As argued above,â•›23 cylindrical stands were typical in ritual assemblages but not in burials. The high percentage of vessels for the preparation and consumption of food suggests that meals accompanied by ritual actions were performed using the stand and the figurines. 23.╇ See pp. 68–69.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

465

Fig. 7.12.╇ Jerusalem, Cave Locus 6015 with sample of ritual objects.

466

Chapter 7

One of the jars had an inscription on the shoulder that read ‫ ליׁשעיהו‬lyšʿyhw ‘belonging to Yešaʿyāhû’ (Mazar and Mazar 1989: pl. 27.5; Renz and Röllig 1995: 274–75; Jer [7]:29), which seems to suggest a votive or dedicatory function. The finds in Jerusalem are comparable to the materials found by the Joint Excavations at Locus E207 in Samaria. This locus was interpreted by the excavators as having been an Israelite shrine (Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 23–24, fig. 11; Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 76–82, 137–39 with figs. 13–33, fig. B, pls. 11–12; see fig. 7.13a/b.),â•›24 and was located about 700 m east of the Israelite royal enclosure. It was located in a trapezoidal hewn rock trench that measured about 26 × 30 m. The trench itself was 3.3–3.75 m deep × 4 m wide. The unbuilt center of the trench was accessed by a bridge to the west. Several shafts and tombs were cut into the outer wall of the trench. Locus E207 yielded a great number of category A objects, especially figurines, including 23 female, 2 male, and 120 zoomorphic figurines; the latter included 34 horses, 83 cows or bulls, 1 camel, 1 sheep, and 1 donkey. Other ritual objects included several tripod incense cups, a perforated goblet, and 2 rattles. Although details were not provided in the original report—which merely mentioned a total of 155 items—McClellan (1975, cited by Eshel 1995: table 4) has since enumerated this collection of typical household items thus: 403 bowls, 1 krater, 2 platters, 4 cooking pots, 52 jugs, 62 juglets, 13 jars, and possibly 4 lamps.â•›25 A number of high-status vessels were also found in the assemblage, such as decorated chalices and Cypro-Phoenician ware. A sample of pottery and other objects is presented in fig. 7.13b.â•›26 Remarkably, the proportion of cooking pots was only 0.5%, which was a much smaller percentage than was found in Cave I, where cooking pots constituted 14%. It thus appears that little cooking was done in this locus, suggesting that food was brought here already prepared for consumption. Of particular interest are a number of ostraca and whole pots from E207 with incised inscriptions, mostly names, and an animal figurine incised with a name (Birnbaum in Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1957: 9–25; Renz and Röllig 1995: 140–42, Sam [8]:3–7, 9–11, 13). The inscription on the animal figurine read lʿzʾ hḥṣʾ [. .] ‘belonging to ʿUzzā [╇ ]’, although it is unclear whether hḥṣ [. .] denoted a place-name or a patronym (see Renz and Röllig 1995: 140 with n. 2, Sam [8]:3). The inscriptions show that personal votive figurines, as well as dedicated jugs, bowls, and their contents were used in ritual procedures in this locus. As noted by several others (H. Weippert 1988: 622; Zwickel 1994: 248; Zevit 2001: 208), Locus E207 was quite unusual for a shrine, because no architectural or other structural features such as cult installations were discovered here, which provides opportunity for alternative interpretations of the function and purpose of this structure. Kenyon first interpreted Caves I–III in Jerusalem as favissae for a nearby sanctuary, as indicated by standing stones (Kenyon 1967: 138–40). Because the adjacent structures that were originally interpreted as maṣṣebōt are more akin to pillars designed to support a 24.╇ Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: fig. 11. 25.╇ The small number of lamps listed here is not consistent with the original report (Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 181), which mentions that “in E 207 several baskets-full were recorded.” 26.╇ Compiled after Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: fig. B, figs. 13–33.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

Fig. 7.13a (above).╇ Samaria, Locus E207: Plan and Sections. Fig. 7.13b (below).╇ Selection of ritual objects and pottery from Samaria, Locus E207.

467

468

Chapter 7

roof, Franken and Steiner (1990: 125–29) proposed that Caves II and III were storerooms for a guesthouse. In agreement with Holladay’s earlier theory (1987) that Cave  I was a place for “nonconformist” cultic practices, Franken and Steiner considered this cave possibly to have been the cult place where a popular heterodox cult practiced magic rituals. The rooms above the cave would have served a prophet or another functionary as both a dwelling and a place to receive visitors. Similar conclusions regarding Samarian Locus E207 were reported by the excavators themselves (Sukenik in Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 23–24; Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 137–39), as well as by Holladay (1987), Franken and Steiner (1990: 25), and Moorey (2003: 55). Furthermore, the exceptional Tell ʿĒtūn Tomb 1 (see Ussishkin 1974) was suspected of having been a place for a cult of the dead (Zevit 2001: 241–47),â•›27 although there is scant evidence for this sort of function. In comparing the finds from Samaria E207 with the contents of Jerusalem Caves I and II, Eshel (1995: 22–23) pointed out that the Samarian assemblage differed in its relative number of category-A and -B objects, which was between 2.0 and 2.2% of the finds from Jerusalem Caves I and II but 32.6% of the finds from Samaria E207. He concluded that the assemblages of Caves I and II were essentially related to domestic storage and production, despite the presence of ritual objects. Eshel therefore tried to categorize the contents of the assemblage according to patterns of usage and interpreted the ritual objects as having originally belonged to a public cult center rather than to the cave itself. A noncultic interpretation of Cave I (first as a storeroom, then as a dump) that reflects the functions of the nearby buildings was also preferred by Prag (1995: 213–16), but he did not deny that the figurines and other specialized objects in Cave I may also have served ritual purposes. Zevit (2001: 206–9) considered Cave I to have been a cult place in its first stage and a favissa in its second. The Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic prejudices inherent in interpretations of these caves as locations of “nonconformist” or “heterodox” cults unavoidably entail their own problems, as discussed in chap. 3. The dissociation of the Jerusalem assemblages preferred by Eshel and Prag is, however, not convincing. The presence of ritual objects together with items for the preparation and consumption of food that was common in domestic assemblages as described in chap. 3â•›28 clearly indicates ritual actions associated with meals performed in or near the caves. As indicated by the animal bones (Kenyon 1967: 136; Franken and Steiner 1990: 26; Lernau 1995) and the oven in Cave I, ritual actions were enacted in the subterranean chamber itself, at least in this cave, while the smaller Caves II, III, and Locus 6015 may have served as storerooms for supplies used in ritual meals outside or nearby. Therefore, Moorey (2003: 55) interpreted the cave deposits as indicating places where rituals were “performed by the common people in family groups or communally.” Dever’s interpretation was similar. He classified Cave I as a bamah (2005: 155). Animal bones were also found in Samaria Locus E207 (Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 138), indicating that meals occurred in the trench proper. 27.╇ Despite the unique sculptural decoration of the tomb, Tomb 1 was almost certainly used for burials. The fact that cooking took place in the tomb, as indicated by the ashes and blackened cooking pots, may point to occasional ritual or burial procedures (such as cleaning and preparing the tomb for burial) but not to long-standing rituals. 28.╇ See above, pp. 172–175.

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

469

Except for Cave III, which had no ritual objects, all other places mentioned above had several things in common: a subterranian location, a large utilitarian assemblage for the preparation and consumption of food, the presence of ritual objects and vessels, and also—in the case of Jerusalem Cave I, Locus 6015, and Samaria E207—the presence of votive vessels inscribed with names. These locations were not a matter of happenstance; it appears that locations for ritual meals beneath the earth were chosen solely to provide proximity to the dead and the netherworld. As in the Hebrew Bible, the caves or cisterns were a metaphor for death and the netherworld (Keel 1972: 54–57; 60–63; Janowski 2003: 30–35). Thus, one may interpret them as a kind of forecourt of the netherworld, where the world of the living met the world of the dead (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §201). It therefore seems plausible to interpret Caves I–III, Jerusalem Locus 6015 (which was located near a cemetery), and Samaria Locus E207 as places for ritual communication with the dead, especially commemorative meals, whereby the living shared community with the dead, as in Isa 65:3–5. We posit that the terra-cotta figurines served as representations of ancestors, who were honored by burning incense on the altars and offering them portions of food on the stands. Another argument for interpreting these places as hosting rituals associated with the dead comes from the presence of rattles, which have otherwise been found mostly in graves and only rarely in domestic contexts (Tufnell 1953: 376; BlochSmith 1992b: 102–3). Rattles are the only specialized items that are distinct from the usual domestic assemblages. The assemblages from the Jerusalem caves and from Samaria 207, which were designated in chap. 4 as Type IV cultic structures, were identical in content to domestic assemblages. Both of these types of assemblage included similar percentages of utilitarian vessels and ritual objects; the differences between them was only in terms of absolute numbers. The grave assemblages are thus an enlarged subset of domestic assemblages. As in domestic ritual assemblages, the presence of a deity was not indicated by permanent representations but was evoked by ritual acts. One can therefore conclude that these caves served the families of the deceased, who met to commemorate their ancestors with meals that included the giving of portions to relatives who were residing in the netherworld. Although Jerusalem Cave I could have accommodated quite a large group, it is nevertheless likely that the cave served only nuclear or joint families. The number of accumulated vessels gradually increased as the cave was used over an extended period of time.

7.7.╇ Interrogating the dead 7.7.1.╇ Textual evidence The Hebrew Bible rarely refers to ritual communication with the dead. The corpus of texts mentioning necromantic practices is quite small,â•›29 and if mentioned at all, necromancy is either forbidden or criticized. Because necromancy has been discussed extensively in many recent works,â•›30 only a few remarks are necessary here. 29.╇ Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Samuel 28; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; Isa 8:19; 19:3; 29:4; Ezek 21:26; Zech 10:2; 1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 16:12. 30.╇See Spronk 1986: 251–57; Lewis 1989; Tropper 1989; Podella 1989: 103–6; 1997; Cryer 1994; Schmidt 1994; Jeffers 1996.

470

Chapter 7

Judgments against necromancy are found in the prophetic law in Deut 18:11, which prohibits the interrogation of ‫ אוב‬ʾōb, ‫ ידענים‬yiddĕʿōnîm, and ‫ מתים‬metîm, as well as in the Holiness Code in Lev 19:31 and 20:6, which mentions the interrogation of ʾōbōt and yiddĕʿōnîm as forbidden practices (see Schmitt 2004: 345–46). The much discussed ʾōbōt were most likely pits, as in the Hurrite and Hittite rituals evoking the gods of the netherworld (see Ebach and Rüterswörden 1977; 1980; see also Otten 1961), but are also understood in the Old Testament as having been spirits of the dead.â•›31 The ‘wise ones’ (‫הידענים‬ hayyiddĕʿōnîm) can also be understood as spirits of the dead (see Tropper 1989: 317–19; Cryer 1994: 260–61; Loretz 1990: 140; 2002: 509) or representations of them (Loretz 2002: 509–10). The most noteworthy description of necromancy is found in the famous story of Saul’s consulting the “witch” of Endor in 1 Sam 28:3–25. The location of the conjuring pit, the ʾōb, seems to have been inside the home of the ‫ בעלת עוב‬baʾălat ʾōb. We suppose that the ʾōb inside the house was comparable to similar installations such as the pits or cisterns that were common in Iron Age Israelite houses. Although this text refers to an old tradition that provides insight into practices of divination by death spirits, it is dependent on the Deuteronomic pronouncements against necromancy. In following the Deuteronomistic guidelines, Chronicles also considered necromancy to be a punishable crime. King Asa’s consultation of the ‫ רפאים‬rĕpāʾ↜îm in 2 Chr 16:12 actually led to his death. Prophetic polemics such as Isa 8:19–20 also alluded to Deuteronomy 18: Now if people say to you, “Consult the ʾōbōt and the yiddĕʿōnîm that chirp and mutter!”; should not a people consult their ancestor spirits (ʾĕlōhîm),â•›32 the dead on behalf of the living?” 20To the law and to the testimony! They are speaking according to this word, which has no power. 19

None of the biblical texts that mention necromantic practices (except 1 Samuel 28) provide clear evidence of domestic consultations. Zech 10:2 mentions tĕrapîm as being used in divination but, because this was a late text that used stereotypical terminology with its concomitant negative connotations (see Tropper 1989: 337–38; and also Loretz 1990: 140), it offers little insight into domestic practices. One reason for the biblical proscriptions against necromancy is that the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic, Priestly, and prophetic lines of tradition considered the consultation of other authorities besides Yhwh to be insubordinate to his sovereignty. Another reason is the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic tendency to maintain a distinction between the worlds of the living and the dead (Schmidt 1994: 290; Olyan 2004: 122–23). The Priestly lines of tradition were also concerned with the authorization of ritual performances (Schmitt 2004: 345–47). Because most of the texts on necromancy arose in consultation with Deuteronomy 18, and because the texts do not provide clear evidence of domestic forms of necromancy, the practice of consulting spirits of dead family members could only have been either a marginal phenomenon or some sort of official religious practice (Schmidt 1994: 286–87). Rather than supposing that necromantic practices were 31.╇ For discussion, see Tropper 1989: 189–204; Jeffers 1996: 169; Loretz 2002. 32.╇ Taking into consideration the context and 1 Sam 28:13, we suggest that ‫ אלהים‬ʾēlōhîm is best translated here as ‘ghost’ or ‘spirit of the dead’ (see Podella 1988: 87).

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

471

a late introduction during the time of Manasseh, however, we must consider the tradition behind 1̣Samuel 28 to indicate that domestic necromancy was known and practiced in ancient Israel, even though it may never have been a very well-known practice.

7.7.2.╇ Archaeological evidence Archaeological evidence for necromantic practices is scarce. The only evidence that can convincingly be associated with necromantic practices is a mask that was found in Iron IIB Locus 44 (Area A, Stratum V) of Hazor (fig. 3.26).â•›33 We presume that this mask (masks are very rare items in Iron Age Israel) was used for divination practices, as in numerous other cultures. It has been proposed that the tĕrapîm mentioned in Zech 10:2 were used as media for divination (Loretz 1990: 140). However, because this was a later text that was written with reference to earlier polemics against “false gods,”â•›34 this proposal does not seem particularly plausible. It is possible, however, that the frequently found astragali were involved in ritual interrogations of the dead, in addition to their main purpose as game pieces. The scant archaeological evidence for necromantic practices similarly suggests that, although domestic necromancy may have been known and practiced, it probably was not widely practiced.

7.8.╇ Summary and conclusions: The functions of mortuary rites in the context of family and household religion Both textual and archaeological evidence supports a variety of forms of mortuary rites and ritual communication with the dead. This evidence reveals that, in ancient Israel, there was no ancestor cult in the sense of ancestors being venerated as divine or quasidivine beings, although the dead may have been addressed as preternatural beings. The dead, especially the patrilineal ancestors, were honored and remembered both by rites (including commemorative ritual meals, and regular or occasional gifts to the dead) and by representation as figurines or other material memoria such as stelae (the latter are attested only in textual sources). Honoring and remembering ancestors was an important aspect of building and maintaining family identity. Rites and rituals for the care of the dead can be considered in two different categories based on the social groups who performed them. First was a ritual that included burial and mourning rites for the local family; second was regularly or occasionally observed commemorative rituals that would have been significant to the social group comprising everyone from the nuclear family to the entire lineage (mišpāḥāh). In the first category were burials rites primarily addressed to the dead and rites of mourning that primarily addressed the bereaved. Collective burials in bench or arcosolia tombs, which were the dominant form in Iron Age burials, most likely served as final resting places for nuclear or extended families; they reflect the ongoing connection thought to exist between family members after death. Burial gifts, such as food provisions, figurines, amulets, and post-mortem gifts all attest the need of the dead for care by the living. The 33.╇ See p. 106 above. 34.╇ See above, pp. 60–61.

472

Chapter 7

personality of the deceased was represented by items of personal adornment and jewelry. Thus, a (nuclear) family tomb became an expression of broader family and local identity. Burial and mortuary rites performed by family members were an act of family solidarity. The family was accompanied and assisted by local members of their lineage and by friends, clients, and members of the local community. Burial and mourning rites thus clearly were public due to the involvement of local individuals, such as wailing women from the neighborhood. The burial itself and its contents were a means of communicating local and family identity and values. Mortuary rites such as mourning made tangible the gap left by the deceased; grief and sorrow were expressed and enacted in physically expressed rites. During mourning rites, the living temporarily became like the dead, able to express the ongoing social relationship between the deceased and the bereaved. Mourning rites were also an occasion to strengthen and renegotiate the social roles of the living, especially within the realm of the joint family, such as among Joseph and his brothers, but also within the larger co-residential lineage and the local community as a whole. The second category (regularly observed mortuary rites) was more contracted. These rites addressed ancestors by involving the nuclear or joint family and included individuals up through the lineage group of the mišpāḥāh. There are textual witnesses to annual commemorative meals, such as 1 Samuel 20, involving the mišpāḥāh at the time of the new moon, and thus we can presume that there were gatherings (which perhaps included members of the joint family) at the same fixed time each month. Rituals conducted more frequently concerned daily care for the dead and were performed in a home by nuclear or extended family members. The existence of such practices is supported by archaeological evidence that suggests the frequent use of domestic ritual objects. Family commemorative meals were evidence of the ongoing social relationship between the living and the dead. These relationships were also reflected in rites performed in special locations such as in Jerusalem Cave I. The large assemblages that were used over longer periods of time in Jerusalem Caves I–III, Locus 6015, and Samaria E207 are suggestive of ritual meals held by groups such as nuclear or joint families. The textual evidence reveals that portions of food for the dead and sacrificial meals held on their behalf more likely served as symbols of the ongoing social relationship between the dead and the living rather than as provisions for their existence in the netherworld. The entire complex of mortuary rites together expressed the importance of the role of the family and the maintenance of its solidarity in ancient Israelite society. The social groups who performed rites or cared for the dead are diagramed in fig. 7.14. The nuclear family was responsible for the basic, more frequently performed rituals of care for the dead. The rites that were less frequently or only occasionally performed belonged to the realms of the co-residential lineage and the local public. The rituals that were performed by the nuclear family itself, especially rituals for daily care, ensured the well-being of a family by maintaining a connection between the living and their ancestors. Even though ancestors were not considered divine or semi-divine, the maintenance of ongoing relationships with them provided positive benefits for the surviving nuclear family. These benefits included, in particular, reinforcing the endurance of the family itself as well as their prosperity and general welfare. A common function of burial-related rites in all three of the realms depicted above was the renegotiation of socials roles, which could have

Care for the Dead in the Context of the Household and Family

473

public lineage

Nuclear/ joint family

Daily care for the dead, commemorative meals, preparation for burial Commemorative meals at interlunium Mourning, attendance at burials

Fig. 7.14.╇ Categories of social groups performing rites for the dead.

various degrees of importance depending on the role of the deceased and the role of the male descendants in each of the three realms. The middle realm of the lineage was of less importance, because its members only needed to perform commemorative rites, while the nuclear or joint family were always responsible for the more important functions.

Chapter 8

Summary 8.1.╇ Research history The subject of this book, the family and household religion of ancient Israel, has been overlooked in Old Testament scholarship for a long time. Due to the concept of collectivism, influential scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries (19th: B. Duhm 1875; B. Stade 1887–88; 20th: W. Eichrodt 1964; G. von Rad 1962) regarded the people of Israel—a single, corporate group—as the main carrier of Israelite religion, and they denied or downplayed the role of the individual or the family in this regard. Other scholars, however, such as E. Sellin (1893), J. Hempel (1936), and H. H. Rowley (1956) saw fit to grant the family some significance. Inquiry into family and household religion in ancient Israel began in earnest about 35 years ago, when H. Vorländer (1975) and R. Albertz (1978a) identified the notions of a personal deity (in the sense of one’s own deity) and personal piety as specific elements of the religion of ancient Israel. Three different approaches to the question that converged over the course of time shed more and more light on the subject. The religious-historical approach of M.  Weippert (1997), F. Stolz (1996), R. Albertz (1994; 2008), K. van der Toorn (1996b), P. D. Miller (2000), E. S. Gerstenberger (2001), S. M. Olyan (2008), and others aided the reconstruction of several aspects of Israelite family religion and provided a theoretical background for describing family religion as a specific segment of the religion of Israel. The genderoriented approach developed by P. A. Bird (1987), C. Meyers (1988; 2002), E. A. R. Willett (1999), and S. Ackerman (2008) contributed many anthropological and cross-cultural insights that served to highlight the important religious functions of women in Israelite family and household religion. Finally, the archaeological approach of H. Weippert (1988), J. S. Holladay (1987), W. G. Dever (2001; 2005), B. A. Nakhai (2001), Z. Zevit (2001), and P. M. M. Daviau (2001) provided such a wealth of material evidence for the domestic cult that private ritual activities by Israelite families could no longer be doubted. The rich finds that Daviau excavated in a domestic area of Tell Jawa in Transjordan are especially helpful for reconstructing assemblages of ritual objects from domestic areas in the ancient Israelite sites where the archaeological evidence is less conclusive. Incorporating the methods and results of all three approaches into a critical analysis of the topic laid the foundation for a comprehensive reconstruction of ancient Israelite family religion that encompasses all of its aspects and dimensions.

474

Summary

475

Because later developments in Israelite family religion have been described elsewhere (Albertz 1994: 2.399–411, 507–22, 556–63), the reconstruction in the present book is limited to the preexilic period (11th–7th centuries), a period that had barely been verified in the Hebrew Bible before Israelite family and household religion came under the control of state officials (Deut 13:7–12), and family rituals were subsumed within the official cult of Jerusalem (16:1–8; 26:1–11).

8.2.╇Methodology In order to overcome particular uncertainties and controversies in previous scholarly works, we found it necessary to clarify several terms and concepts at the outset. According to Nave-Herz (2002: 148–49), the term family is defined by four distinct features: its dual biological and social nature, its distinguishing of the generations, its structuring of specific roles, and the unique cooperation and solidarity of its family members. PreÂ�industrial families such as those living in ancient Israel undertook four main functions: the basic functions of reproduction and socialization, and the economic functions of production and consumption. Because of the ambiguity of the term family, especially in English, it is helpful to combine it with the term household. A household is defined as a “group of coresidents, people who live under the same roof and typically share in common consumption” (Kertzer 1991: 156). Referring not only to the co-residents themselves but also to their production and consumption activities, the term household extends beyond the living area to include the hardware of the family (e.g., tools, granaries, wells, livestock, fields, orchards), as Meyers (1988: 130) has pointed out. The two terms—family and household— overlap because both include the functions of consumption and production. Incidentally, the combination of the two terms corresponds to the biblical terminology; the Hebrew term for family, which is ‫ בית אב‬beit ʾāb ‘house of the father’, also combines a location term with a kinship term. Moreover, members of the household who were not actual relatives, such as slaves or resident aliens, can easily be included in the term family household. The specific familial functions of reproduction and socialization, however, foster a sort of cooperation and solidarity that, as Nave-Herz (2002: 149) has emphasized, can differ in form and content in different cultures and historical periods but “always [constitute] a very specifically declared relationship, which is distinguished from any other relation of social interaction in a given society.” This structural, sociological difference seems to be one of the reasons for the existence of family religion as a distinctive phenomenon. While biblical and archaeological scholars have debated at length whether ancient Israelite family units should be considered nuclear or extended—or, better, joint—families, sociologists such as Laslett (1974: 28–32) and Kertzer (1991: 158–59) have identified many other types as well. For these types, the number of conjugal units—that is, married couples including their children—is the distinguishing factor. Following their lead, we distinguish here among five different types of families: (1) the nuclear family household consisting of one conjugal unit, which runs the entire household; (2) the extended family household consisting of single relatives beyond the conjugal unit; (3) the paternal joint family household consisting of more than one conjugal unit while the father of married sons is still alive; (4) the stem family household consisting of the conjugal units of the

476

Chapter 8

father and a single son; all other sons function as unmarried workers or leave the household when they marry; and (5) the fraternal family household, in which two or more married brothers live together after their father has died. Sociologists emphasize the dynamics of family structure; the same individuals can belong to different types of families over the course of their life cycles. An investigation of biblical terminology and texts shows that different types of families coexisted side by side. The term beit ʾāb, often denoting a paternal joint family (Gen 46:31; 47:12; 50:8), may have constituted the ideal form of family in the opinion of the biblical tradents (Schloen 2001: 148–50), but it did not predominate in Israelite and Judahite society during the monarchic period. A detailed investigation of the typical living spaces of excavated domestic buildings in Cisâ•‚ and Transjordan has revealed (cf. Faust 1999a; 2000) that joint family households (roughly 10–20€members) prevailed only in rural settlements and among the wealthy inhabitants of the towns, whereas in urban settlements, nuclear or extended family households (about 5–7€members) probably composed the vast majority (up to 70%). Thus, nuclear families played a much more prominent role in ancient Israelite society than several biblical scholars seem to have thought (Gottwald, van der Toorn, Schloen, et€al.). Because both the biblical (several ‫ בתים‬bātîm within one ‫ּבית אב‬ beit ʾāb) and the archaeological (higher numbers of rooms in the large dwellings of rural settlements) data show that the conjugal units within joint family households enjoyed some degree of independence and privacy, the conjugal family unit formed the heart of all types of family households—nuclear, extended, or joint. Thus, it is no coincidence that many beliefs and rituals of Israelite family and household religion were focused on the conjugal unit. It has sometimes been presumed that the ties between a given family household and the co-residential clan (lineage) to which it belonged were so close that the borders between the two social units became blurred, and the religious practices of family and clan intermingled (Gottwald 1981: 282–84; van der Toorn 1996b: 246–55; Meyers 1997: 39). Archaeological remains in rural settlements (only a few wine presses and common storehouses) seem to indicate that there was, indeed, agricultural cooperation among families who probably were related (Faust 2000: 23, 31). This cooperation in the production of food, however, was only one of the four main family functions. The function of reproduction was strictly limited to the conjugal family unit, and common consumption was also normally restricted to the family group because of the limited space of its dwelling. Only during certain feasts did the whole clan customarily participate in a common meal. Socialization was primarily the function of the nuclear family unit but could be supplemented with or replaced by other members of the joint family or the clan. Finally, there were only a few other non-family kin who might have been part of a household “living under one roof.” The same was true for participation in the domestic cult, especially if it occurred on the second story. Thus, even though there were social ties to other kin, ancient Israelite families in all their variant types were well-defined social units. Therefore, family and household religion, as practiced by these units, can also be reconstructed as a specific phenomenon. Taking the various functions and social ties of Israelite family households into consideration, we distinguish three circles of family and household religion. First, we assign to

Summary

477

the inner circle all rituals that were performed in the residential dwelling—rituals that we refer to as components of the “domestic cult,” such as birth rituals for a pregnant mother, prayer rituals for ill members, daily care for the dead, and apotropaic rituals to protect the house. Second, we discern a middle circle that comprised all the rituals that were performed outside the house but within its vicinity, such as visits to neighborhood shrines to uphold the promise of a vow, or commemorative meals held regularly for the dead and performed at family grave sites. Third, an outer circle consists of the rites that would have been performed by the family within the sphere of the public cult at local, regional, or state sanctuaries, such as sacrificial meals to celebrate the healing of a family member, or offerings of agricultural “firstfruits” and firstborn domestic animals. Here, family religion came into contact with the sphere of regional or state religion. In previous works, scholars have used various concepts to explain the various layers or segments of ancient Israelite religion. We discussed in detail the merits and disadvantages of the concepts of syncretism (Smend 1899; von Rad 1962; Ringgren 1988), approaches to life (Fohrer 1973), popular religion (Vorländer 1975; Holladay 1987; \ 1992; Dever 1991; 2001; 2005; et al.), primary and secondary religion (Sundermeier 1980; 1999; Niehr 1999; Wagner 2006; Leuenberger 2008), and internal religious pluralism (Lanczkowski 1981; Albertz 1978a; 1994; 1995; M.  Weippert 1997; van der Toorn 1996; Stolz 1996; Miller 2000; Gerstenberger 2001). We consider the latter to be the most suitable for describing family and household religion as a self-contained unit that was also related to other segments of Israelite religion—whether local or state religion. The concept of internal religious pluralism avoids pejorative categories (“syncretism,” “popular”), mere dichotomies (primary–secondary), and questionable notions taken from outside the ancient world (“orthodoxy”). In contrast to other concepts, it is sociologically grounded and distinguishes at least three segments of religion based on three levels of social groups: those of the family, the local community, and the entire people (federation of tribes, or state). Although mutually related, these three segments of religion—family and household religion, local religion, and official or state religion—differ from one another in terms of their adherents, their target groups, their degree of institutionalization, and their religious beliefs, practices, and functions. The concept of internal religious pluralism also allows for open debate about the degree of continuity and discontinuity between family and household religion, on the one hand, and local and state religions, on the other hand (Albertz 2008: 102–4; Olyan 2008: 121; Bodel and Olyan 2008a: 278). We maintain, however, that the exploration of family and household religion is a meaningful enterprise only if it can be defined at least partially on the basis of its own unique characteristics, which contrast with other segments of the religion of Israel.

8.3.╇ Archaeological evidence for domestic religious practices Despite growing interest in the issue of family religion, the archaeological evidence for ritual activities in Iron Age houses has only been acknowledged occasionally, and the phenomenon of cultic elements in secular contexts (see Negbi 1993: 227) has never been addressed systematically by scholars. Our aim in this book was to fill this gap and to investigate the ritual apparatuses in domestic contexts on a broader archaeological base

478

Chapter 8

than ever before. Our investigation reexamined domestic and related structures from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIC by analyzing their contents based on three categories: category A: unambiguous ritual objects such as stands, altars, figurines, amulets, etc.; category B: objects with possible ritual use such as chalices, goblets, cosmetic items, lamps, collectibles, etc.; and category C: utilitarian objects such as cooking pots, storage vessels, stone and other tools, etc. Insofar as it was possible to judge from the published materials, we reconstructed assemblages of ritual objects or at least determined typical usage patterns of ritual objects and their relation to architectural features and to utilitarian objects in category C. In our study, we surveyed 29 Iron Age I structures containing category A and B artifacts. Of these, about 53% yielded stands or fragments thereof, and 46% had chalices or goblets that could be associated with them. Approximately 31% of the assemblages contained zoomorphic terra-cotta figurines or vessels, although a few (around 14%) were anthropomorphic terra-cotta. Miniature shrines were rare, appearing in only two of the assemblages. The predominant ritual actions performed with the vessels seem to have been libations and, possibly, dry offerings such as bread, grain, or fruit. One-third of the assemblages clearly belonged to kitchen installations, and 76% of all domestic assemblages that contained category A or B objects also contained vessels for the production or consumption of food. Of the 19 Iron IIA assemblages, around 36% contained stands, and a further 26% contained chalices or goblets. About a third of all assemblages contained zoomorphic figurines or vessels, while female figurines were present in 21%. Model shrines made up around 10%. Similarly to the Iron Age I assemblages, one third of all structures examined contained category A and B artifacts that could be attributed to kitchen installations. In the 20 surveyed Iron IIB structures that contained category A and B artifacts, stands appeared less frequently than in Iron Age I and IIA structures—in only 15% of structures—although a third of the domestic ritual assemblages contained tripod censor-cups (35%), and around 20% contained either zoomorphic vessels or kernos fragments. Chalices and goblets also appeared less often during these times—in about 10% of assemblages. Approximately 80% of the assemblages were directly associated with pottery designed to be used in the preparation and consumption of food; in some cases, this pottery also appeared in kitchen facilities. Of the 42 Iron IIC structures and their contents surveyed in chap. 3, around 53% contained the typical Iron IIC Judean pillar-figurines (JPFs) or fragments of other anthropomorphic figures, and 48% yielded zoomorphic figurines or vessels. Around one-tenth of the assemblages yielded male horse-and-rider figurines. About 9% of the assemblages contained stands, and around 9% contained altars. The tripod incense burners, frequently found in Iron Age IIB, were found in only one of the assemblages. One-tenth of the ritual objects or assemblages of objects were associated with fireplaces, and over 40% contained or were related to kitchen tools or to pottery used for the production of food. Based on the analysis of more than 80 instances of cultic items found in domestic and related contexts from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIC and the ritual paraphernalia found in these contexts, we can conclude that ritual objects were often assembled and arranged near fireplaces or other facilities associated with the processing and consumption of food

Summary

479

on the ground floor. Additionally, ritual objects were located in storerooms (being stored away when not in use) and also occasionally in debris from second stories, pointing to ritual actions that were occasionally performed in upper rooms or on the roof. In Iron Age I–IIC, there is no evidence of fixed ritual installations such as domestic shrines or sacred corners of the house. Rather, ritual objects were arranged and used situationally and simultaneously in different rooms according to the demands of the ritual. As demonstrated in chap. 2, most houses in Iron Age I–II Israel and Judah would have contained nuclear or extended families, who would thus have been the social carriers of the domestic cult activities represented by the ritual objects. Contemporary Transjordanian structures manifest closely related ritual practices, as was true in Iron Age Phoenicia and Syria and perhaps also in Mesopotamia. Based on the cultic apparatuses found in the domestic structures, we can conclude that the predominant ritual actions were libation rites with stands and zoomorphic vessels, dry offerings in the stand bowls, the burning of aromatic compounds, as well as votive practices and other ritual actions with human and animal figurines. The ritual apparatuses suggest that daily offerings and gifts were given to deities and ancestors, the latter of which may have been represented by human figurines. The human representations, predominantly the JPFs in Iron Age IIC, are not divine representations, given their lack of divine emblems, but more probably likenesses of humans, expressing human needs and wishes such as fertility, plentiful progeny, ample lactation for the mother, etc. They were generally multipurpose objects used in various contexts (domestic residences, temples, graves), especially for votive practices. We define votive practices as the use of the figurine as an ex voto, both to give thanks for a benefit from the gods and to give to the gods in exchange for a benefit; they also served as media for prayer by representing the petitioner, and for magical rites such as love charms and apotropaic rituals (see Schmitt 2004: 187–89). Unambiguous divine figures (carrying divine emblems) used in domestic cult activities have not been found in Iron Age Israel, but they are occasionally found in Transjordan and Phoenicia and also in Philistia, where they were more common. Note also that, in Transjordan and Phoenicia, divine representations are not commonly found in domestic contexts but human representations are. Other figures such as the commonly found animal figurines represent families’ requests, especially for abundant livestock. Apotropaic rituals in domestic contexts are attested by a great number of Egyptian-type amulets and (much less commonly) by apotropaic figurines, such as the Beersheba cherub. Most likely the rituals associated with the objects were performed by the women in charge of the kitchen facilities. Thus, women played an important role in the ritual activities of everyday life. These ritual acts, such as votive and magic practices with the figurines, libations, food offerings, and the burning of aromatic compounds would have provided a means for deities or ancestors to participate in the daily lives of families, thereby ensuring the family’s continuation, whether in terms of health, wealth, or prosperity. With regard to both the periods and the regions observed in our study, it can be said that there was a great deal of continuity among Iron Age domestic ritual practices in the West Semitic world in the apparatuses employed (although types of objects might change) and in the associations with food production and consumption.

480

Chapter 8

8.4.╇ Typology of cult places outside the domestic realm Our analysis of cult assemblages and other features has revealed a variety of cult practices associated with a range of different contexts, apart from the aforementioned domestic cults. Eight types of cult places are now discernible, and they can be partially subdivided. These types can also be categorized within the three circles of familial ritual activities (domestic, neighborhood, local/regional/supraregional) already distinguished in chap. 2: • Type IA: The usual domestic cult, with the nuclear or extended family as carrier group • Type IB: A large-scale domestic cult or domestic shrine (also with the nuclear or extended family as carrier group) that could be used for ritual activities by the inner circle • Type II: Work-related cults of various sizes •â•‡ IIA: Small-scale, inner circle, nuclear family •â•‡ IIB: Large-scale, inner and middle circles, extended/joint family, wider kin • Type III: Neighborhood cult installations or shrines (medium circle, ranging from the nuclear or extended family to the co-residential lineage and the neighborhood) • Type IV: Places for the cult of the dead, also in the medium circle • Type V: Village sanctuaries, outer circle, with the co-residential lineage and/or the local community as carrier group •â•‡ VA: Shrines •â•‡ VB: Open-air cult places •â•‡ VC: Gate sanctuaries • Type VI: Palace shrines, an official variant of large-scale domestic cultic practice, carrier group being the local military and administrative elites • Type VII: Regional sanctuaries, with the regional tribe, the inhabitants of the regional communities, or an official body as carrier group, and with priests maintaining the cult •â•‡ VIIA: Shrine/temple •â•‡ VIIB: Open-air • Type VIII: Supraregional temples of the official cult, carrier group was the king or an official body, maintained by a priesthood One important fact that we discovered is that a considerable number of structures from Iron Ages IIA–IIC that seem to have been work-related areas or workshops exhibit features similar to residential structures. Domestic cultic assemblages (Type IA) and small-scale industrial structures (Type IIA) share the same contents in terms of ritual paraphernalia and therefore the same carrier group, the nuclear family. Likewise, large-scale industrial installations (Type IIB) such as the olive-oil production area at Tel Miqne/Ekron also contained ritual objects and even built-in ritual apparatuses such as limestone altars, but they belonged to the medium circle, above the nuclear family level and were used by wider kin, members of the co-residential lineage, the neighborhood, and perhaps servants and clients. Permanent installations with a clear cult focus and enlarged ritual assemblages

Summary

481

within a domestic context, which can be seen as domestic shrines (Type IB), are only attested in one early case (Megiddo Locus 2081) and may have served an elite family. Cultic structures in the medium circle were neighborhood shrines (Type III, predominantly in Iron Age I sites); they were small cultic buildings or rooms within or integrated into a residential area. They were also places for the care of the dead, as illustrated by Jerusalem Cave 1 (Type IV). While Type IV places for the care of the dead yielded enlarged and more-differentiated subsets of domestic ritual assemblages, large-scale industrial cult installations and neighborhood shrines also had permanent installations, such as platforms and benches, and (in the case of the Tel Miqne olive industry) larger limestone altars, some of which were attached to the building. The predominant ritual actions carried out here—dry offerings, libations, and burning aromatic compounds—were similar to domestic ritual activities and did not require specialized personnel. They could be carried out by the pater familias and other family members. Permanent installations fall in the Type V category; they were found mostly in rather small village or city shrines or temples and cult installations situated at gate areas. They were subsidized by the local communities and, in the case of village shrines and temples, may have been maintained by priests, as indicated by evidence of animal offerings at the structures in Tell Michal and Tel Reḥov. Palace shrines (Type VI) are exemplified by only one structure (Megiddo Room 338). It had features similar to domestic shrines, with evidence only for dry offerings, libations, and incense burning. However, it was used by administrative and military elites and therefore must be categorized in the realm of official religious activities. Likewise, regional (Type VII) and supraregional sanctuaries (Type VIII) were maintained by official bodies. One example of the regional sanctuary type is the Arad fortress temple. It was part of the official structure and had a large sacrificial altar that most likely accommodated animal offerings. Based on excavated sacrificial dishes inscribed with qob-qab = qōdeš qōhānîm (‘set apart for the priests’), we know that it was maintained by an official priesthood. Similar features also characterize supraregional sanctuaries (Type VIII) such as the Tel Dan temple, with its differentiated structures and rich ritual apparatuses (large sacrificial altar, multiple small altars, stands, and bathtub). However, we can also discern several levels of cultic activities with enlarged subsets of ritual paraphernalia by the size of the cult places, and their ritual apparatuses show onÂ�going interdependence and interaction among the levels. Typical votive objects from Iron IIC domestic contexts, such as figurines, were also found at the regional sanctuary in Arad (see Kletter 1996: fig. 35), and other types of votive figure were uncovered in the Northern Kingdom’s sanctuary at Dan, indicating votive practices by families or individuals. However, these votive practices did not play an important role in the earlier neighborhood or small-village shrines of Iron Ages I–IIA. For the Persian–Hellenistic periods, the hundreds of votive inscriptions from the Samaritan sanctuary on Mount Gerizim are a witness to the ongoing importance of family ritual practices at official cultic sites. This interdependence and coexistence of various layers and realms of cultic activity is best understood by reference to the concept of internal religious pluralism, which allows for multiple intersections between the circles of domestic, local, and official religion. But, despite this continuity among the segments of religion with regard to ritual artifacts and cult

482

Chapter 8

places, the cultic facilities that show evidence of blood sacrifices and permanent priesthoods were clearly cult places that were used by the public (Types V, VII, VIII). Evidence of sacrifices and priesthoods is missing in cult remains on the domestic, neighborhood, and work-related levels (Types I, II, III, IV, VI).

8.5.╇ The symbolic world of family religion based on personal names Because of the scarcity of religious texts that have survived from the world of ancient Israelite and Judahite families in the preexilic period, we needed to explore the symbolic world of their religious beliefs by a detailed investigation of the theophoric Hebrew personal names that are frequently attested in inscriptions on ostraca, seals, bullae, and weights. The corpus, drawn from several recent publications, comprises 675 different personal names that appear 2,922 times altogether. Some of them come from the 10th and the 9th centuries b.c.e. but most from the 8th to 6th centuries. For the sake of comparison, we combined the Hebrew name corpus with some smaller corpora of personal names from Israel’s ancient neighbors, the Moabites, Ammonites, Arameans, and Phoenicians. Altogether, they totaled 895 names and 1,394 occurrences. Only the Edomite onomasticon was excluded from the statistical calculations, because of its small size (19 names, 20 occurrences thus far). Although some scholars have been skeptical (Stolz 1996: 125–26; Olyan 2008: 117), most have acknowledged for a long time (Sellin 1893: 445; Noth 1928: 133; Albertz 1978a: 49–51; Gerstenberger 2001: 50–53) that Hebrew personal names provide suitable, though perhaps not ideal, access to the personal piety of ancient Israelite families. The names undeniably come from pious families; a large percentage of them are theophoric (up to 90%!). According to the biblical narratives, they were chosen by parents with intent and deliberation, probably during a naming feast, when the days of the mother’s purification had ended. Moreover, the names’ religious statements overlapped with the religious statements in the individual prayers in the Hebrew Bible to a significant degree. Thus, they reflected—as did the prayers—the religious crises of the family, primarily of the mother during the dramatic, dangerous process of birth, but also of other family members during struggles for survival. To understand the significance of personal names, one must categorize them accurately. This is crucial. Developing Noth’s (1928) proposal further, we grouped Hebrew names in six categories: (1) names of thanksgiving; (2) names of confession; (3) names of praise; (4) equating names; (5) birth names; and (6) secular names. Personal names from Moab, Ammon, Syria, and Phoenicia (at least the names of Northwest Semitic origin) can also be grouped into the same categories. Amazingly, even the distribution of the names among the six groups is similar in all Levantine onomasticons. There is a high percentage of thanksgiving and confession names: the two name groups, which are closely related, together encompass about half of all personal names in each of the five onomasticons. The same is true for the somewhat smaller number of birth names, which amount to between one-quarter and one-third of all personal names in the Levantine onomasticons. The praise-name and equating-name groups are small in each of the five cultures (5%–10%).

Summary

483

The secular names vary from 6% to 15% in the different cultures; they were not popular, except in Syria (12.9%), because their occurrences are less than 10% in all the other cultures. This striking result suggests that family religion in Israel was similar in structure to the family religion of the other cultures in Syria and the Levant during the first half of the first millennium b.c.e. The similar pattern of name distribution among the six name groups also provides an argument against the suspicion that a significant portion of the Hebrew name seals and bullae were forged. Because the epigraphic Hebrew names accord with those of the neighboring cultures, and because the seals and bullae that almost certainly come from the antiquities market show the same pattern of distribution as the inscriptions and ostraca found in controlled excavations, the authenticity of most of the material that came from antiquities markets is very likely. One of the most interesting results related to the debate about the continuity or discontinuity between Israelite family and household religion, on the one hand, and the official or state religion, on the other is that unambiguous allusions to the specific traditions of official Israelite religion—the exodus, conquest, or kingship; Sinai, Zion, or Bethel theology—are nonexistent in predicative elements in the epigraphic Hebrew personal names. There are no names derived from the verbs ‫ יצא‬or ‫ עלה‬in the Hiphil (‘to lead out’ or ‘up’), which appear frequently in exodus theology, and none with the verbs ‫ נחל‬in the Hiphil (‘to give an inheritance’) or ‫ נוח‬in the Hiphil (‘to provide a resting place’), which are common in conquest theology. Likewise, the verbs ‫‘( רעה‬to graze’), used metaphorically in kingship theology, or ‫‘( יׁשב‬to take a seat’), prominent in Zion theology, are lacking in the personal names. And the same is true for priestly concepts, such as ‫‘( קדׁש‬to be holy’), ‫‘( טהר‬to be clean’), and ‫ כפר‬in the Piel (‘to make atonement’). In the case of the name ‫( עגליו‬ʿEgelyau ‘young steer of Yhwh’), one could posit an allusion to the theology of the sanctuary at Bethel, but because the Deuteronomist used the term ‘calf ’ in a pejorative sense and similar names also appear in Syria and Phoenicia, this suggestion is highly unlikely; rather, the name probably denotes a desire for the child to be a small companion of the deity. Noth (1928: 213, 194) considered two names to be allusions to Israel’s national history. According to him, ʾElyāšīb (‘El may bring or has brought back’) expresses a wish for Israel’s return from exile, and Šĕkanyāh (‘Yhwh has taken up his abode’) refers to the reconstruction of the Temple in 520–515 b.c.e. Both names, however, have now appeared in epigraphic evidence from the preexilic period. Thus, the first name was interpreted by J.€J. Stamm (1980: 71) as a substitute name (for another child who died); and the second name probably refers to the domestic cult where the presence of the deity was noteworthy. There is only a small overlap of personal names with Priestly terminology: names regarding the fulfillment of vows (Dĕrašyāhû ‘Yhwh has asked for [the payment of a vow]’; cf. Deut 23:22) and the offering of sacrifices (Ḥăšabyāhû ‘Yhwh has taken [the vow/sacrifice] into account’; cf. Lev 7:18). These are precisely the areas where family and priestly ritual activities came into contact in the outer circle of family religion. Whether names that seem to refer to a storm theophany really existed is uncertain. Thus, as far as the beliefs of family and household religion are concerned, there is primarily discontinuity in relation to other domains of Israelite religion. Not all of the details of the many family beliefs enshrined in the personal names can be presented here; only a few generalities can be outlined. Because of the large number of

484

Chapter 8

birth names, which comprise 28.4% of all names and 29.9% of occurrences, we conclude that the birth of a child played a central role in the symbolic world of family religion. No less than 74 different roots were used to express a great variety of religious notions accompanying the long birth process from the distress of infertility, through conception and pregnancy, to confinement, care for the newborn, his/her integration into the family group, and the potential of infant mortality. Each of these phases was regarded as having its own religious or even mythological dimension. The deity was believed to overcome the infertility of women, to accept their prayers and vows, to bestow benevolent oracles on them, and to cause their conception and pregnancy. During the phase of pregnancy, the deity was believed to create the child in the womb of its mother (Sĕbakyāhû ‘Yhwh has woven [the child in the womb]’; cf. Ps 139:13; Jer 1:5; Job 10:8–11), and during her confinement he was believed to be active as a midwife (Daltāyāhû ‘You, O Yhwh, have drawn out [the child]’) who delivered his new little creature and cared for it (Pĕqaḥyau ‘Yhwh has opened [the eyes of the child]’). The many creation names (39) derived from 11 different roots—such as Bĕnāyāhû (‘Yhwh has created’), ʾElʿāśāh (‘El has made’), and Miqnēmélek (‘creature of the King’), which occur no less than 148 times—verify that the creation of the individual was one of the central beliefs of the family and household religion of ancient Israel. Every wonderful, dangerous birth was experienced as an encounter with the divine (Šĕkanyau ‘Yhwh was present’) and considered to be a continuation of the mythological creation of man (Gen 2:7; 4:1). The newborn was integrated into the family group by accepting it as a present from the deity (Mattanyāhû ‘gift of Yhwh’). It seems that this act, celebrated during the naming feast on the 8th or 15th day after birth, began to be replaced by the ritual of infant circumcision (Malyāhû ‘Yhwh has circumcised’) during the 7th century b.c.e. The high rate of infant mortality is reflected in the large number and variety of substitute names (20 names and 219 occurrences). Next to birth names, the names of thanksgiving and confession constitute a considerable portion of epigraphic Hebrew personal names; thanksgiving names make up 24.3% of all the names and 34% of occurrences; confession names are 17.6% of all names and 14.9% of occurrences. Although the two sets of names are different in size, the combined sets contain 53 different roots, with 9 occurring in both sets. The names of thanksgiving and confession also reveal an amazing number and variety of family beliefs. These deal, on the one hand, with divine attention, salvation, assistance, and protection of the individual during suffering or danger and, on the other hand, with trust in and dependence on the deity. Of course, many of these names can also be related to the dangers of the birth process, but they point more generally to a wider range of crises. This accords well with the fact that both groups of names often correspond to the individual complaints, thanksgiving psalms, and oracles of salvation in the Hebrew Bible. First, there is a fundamental structural correspondence between the names of thanksgiving and the petitions for divine attendance and salvation that one finds in the individual complaints and in the corresponding reports of the thanksgiving psalms; there are also correspondences between the names of confession and the confessions of trust in the individual complaints including the corresponding statements in the oracles of salvation. Second, there is a close verbal correspondence with the individual Gattungen of the Psalms: 67% of all roots that appear in the epigraphic names of thanksgiving are also attested in the biblical thanksgiving texts;

Summary

485

and the verbal correspondence of the names of confession varies between 51 and 66%, depending on how they are delineated. This verbal correspondence is even a bit higher than the correspondence between the biblical names and the individual psalms (a little more than 50%; see Albertz 1978a: 49–50). Based on these results, one can infer that these personal names actually reflect the prayer customs of ancient Israelite families and that the individual psalms, although given a ritual shape by professionals and often edited in much later periods, still reflect ancient family piety in some way. On the basis of the personal names mentioned above, the structure of family piety can be reconstructed insofar as it was related to crises. The names of confession, especially, show an intimate personal relationship with the divine; the deity was often addressed as “my god,” although in the epigraphic material the first-person-singular suffix was normally not written during this period. But names such as ‫( אליסמך‬ʾElîsāmāk ‘my god has supported me’), ‫( אליעז‬ʾElîʿoz ‘my god is my [strong] protection’), or ‫( עמדיהו‬ʿImmādīyāhû ‘Yhwh is with me’) unambiguously verify the intimate relationship between the individual who bore this name and his or her personal god. Sometimes even the whole family group could be included in this personal relationship (‫ עמנויהו‬ʿImmānûyāhû ‘Yhwh is with us’). Generally speaking, this personal relationship with the divine had two aspects: a strong sentiment of trust in (e.g., ‫ מבטחיהו‬Mibṭaḥyāhû ‘my trust is Yhwh’) and a sentiment of dependence on the personal deity (e.g., ‫ עבדיהו‬ʿAbdiyāhû ‘servant of Yhwh’). This relationship lasted for the entire life of the name-bearer; it was not a matter of personal choice but a relationship inherited from the parents who bestowed the name on their child. We showed that the creation of every individual by the deity, as reflected by the creation names, was the foundation for this intimate, trustful relationship with the deity (cf. Ps 22:10–11; 71:5–7). Because it was based on a biological connection, this individual religious relationship differed significantly from Israel’s relationship with Yhwh, which was based on political history. In its broadly unconditional, indissoluble, and indestructible character, this individual relationship had strong analogies with the social relations between family members, especially the relationship between parents and their small children. Thus the “very specifically declared relationship” that, according to the sociologist R.€Nave-Herz (2002: 149), “distinguished the family from any other relation of social interaction in a given society” was also the very one that determined and defined the typical features of family religion. The names of praise (48 names and 135 occurrences) compose a much smaller portion of the epigraphic corpus (7.1% and 4.6%, respectively). Dealing with the greatness, kindness, and vital activity of the deity and calling for praise and veneration of him, these names have structural parallels with the hymn Gattung, with which they also exhibit some verbal correspondences (40%). Hymns were used in the services of the state cult and the great pilgrimage feasts of the regional and central sanctuaries in which many Israelite and Judahite families participated. Thus, the praise-name group verifies that there was influence by the official religion on the family and household religion, but it also demonstrates that it was rather limited. A detailed comparison of all the predicative elements of the theophoric personal names of Israel’s neighbors reveals that there were only slight differences between Israel and other peoples in the distribution of religious statements among the name groups, and

486

Chapter 8

there were only a few variations in motifs and metaphors. There were no significant differences from the corpus of Hebrew names. The metaphorical nature of the Hebrew names may have been somewhat richer than in Moabite, Ammonite, Aramean, and Phoenician names. This impression may obtain merely because of the greater size of the attested Hebrew onomasticon. But in any case, there is no subgroup of prayer names mentioned above for which a parallel from Israel’s neighbors cannot be found. The only difference worth mentioning is the apparent reservation of Israelite parents to express the relationship with the divine in sexual terms; here, the names of the type “son/daughter of DN” that appear frequently in the Aramean (Barhadad ‘son of Hadad’) and Phoenician (Batšaḥar ‘daughter of Shachar’) onomasticons are clearly underrepresented and only are attested as loan-names (e.g., from Egypt, Pašḥur ‘Son of Horus’). The main differences between the personal names of Israel and its surrounding cultures are related not to the predicative elements but the theophoric. That the birth and prayer names do not represent the entire range of family and household religious beliefs was demonstrated by a brief consideration of the biblical proverbs (Proverbs 10–29), because no epigraphic Israelite proverbs are available. While the names focused on crises, the proverbs were intended to provide counsel for the conduct of life in times of relative peace and equanimity. Although the proverbs are directed more at individuals’ reasoning skills than at piety, they have some features in common with the theophoric names, such as references to the divine creation of the individual (Prov 14:31; 17:5; 20:12; et  al.), divine protection (10:29; 14:26; et  al.), and trust in the deity (Prov 3:5; 16:20; 22:19; et al.) and an absence of national religious traditions. The proverbs not only encourage people to act with trust in the deity (16:3) but also warn them against overÂ�estimating their own abilities. God recognizes the limits of their wisdom (21:30), he examines their most intimate thoughts and deeds (15:3), and he will punish evildoers and defend victims (10:3; 12:2; et al.). Thus, the piety of the proverbs has a strong ethical orientation; the deity is not only the benevolent creator of the individual but also the examiner and judge. As far as conducting one’s life was concerned, the guiding family religious beliefs were the dependence of each individual on the deity and the idea of moral and social responsibility. In contrast to the predicate statements, the theophoric elements of personal names differ much more among the various Levantine onomasticons. The Hebrew onomasticon manifests 28 different theophoric elements, with a strong preference for Israel’s national god Yhwh; he appears in 59.4% of the 404 theophoric Hebrew names (excluding the hypoÂ�coristica) and in 67.6% of all 1,978 occurences. An even higher percentage of names that contain the references to the god El appears in the Ammonite onomasticon. He was referred to in 67.8% of the Ammonite names and 81.8% of the occurrences within a small pantheon of 15 deities. The small Moabite onomasticon consisted of 11 different deities; among them, the national god Chemosh held a lower position, appearing in 37.9% of the Moabite names and 40.5% of the occurrences. In contrast to these rather limited pantheons, the Aramaic pantheon had 44 different deities who were referred to in the onomasticon; and the Phoenician, 60 different deities. The main gods Baal and Hadad (including all other weather-gods) were referred to in only a small portion of the names— about 21% or 24%. In spite of these obvious differences, all Levantine onomasticons share

Summary

487

some common ground: they all contain a similar percentage of divinized kinship terms; they all know the god El, the appellative, or a tutelary god; and they all refer to only a small number of female deities. These observations lead to the conclusion that, as far as a choice of deities was concerned, Levantine families obviously adapted themselves to the religious environment of their societies, whether it was a less developed polytheism such as in Ammon, Moab, and Israel; or a more highly developed polytheism such as in Syria and Phoenicia. Nevertheless, they all had some features in common, especially their preference for calling their family deities by kinship terms (ʾāb ‘father’, ʾāḥ ‘brother’, ʿam ‘uncle’, ḥam ‘father-in-law’, ʾēm ‘mother’, and ʾaḥat ‘sister’) or taking them as their personal gods (ʾēlī ‘my god’, ʾădōnī, māray ‘my lord’, malkī ‘my king’)—both of which were less common notions in the official religions of the Levantine cultures. In spite of their adaptation to a more or less polytheistic environment, the Levantine family and household religions manifested one curious characteristic: a variety of theophoric elements were used in the personal names throughout these different cultures, but the predicative elements remained strikingly similar in all of them. This similarity can be observed both by comparing the variety of deities within the individual onomasticons and by comparing the different onomasticons. This means that, regardless of name, nature, or number, all deities were believed to act similarly on behalf of their families. They were divested of the individual characteristics that they had acquired on the level of state and temple religion over a long period of time and became associated with the divine functions (attention, salvation, protection, support) that correspond to the typical needs of family members. In being assimilated as family deities, Yhwh, El, Baal, Anat, Mot, and other deities attested in the Hebrew onomasticon shed their specific individual attributes and were believed to act or function in largely identical ways. This convergence and identification of deities on the family level of religion are likewise attested by the group of equating names, in which two divine designations are closely connected in a nominal sentence. Although these names constitute only a small group within each of the Levantine onomasticons (varying between 5.5% and 10.9% of all the names and 4.9% and 12.7% of the occurrences), they are of great theological significance. Four types can be distinguished. In the first type, the family gods or personal gods are predicated by a major deity (e.g., ʾAḥīḥur ‘my [divine] brother is Horus’; ʾElīyāhû ‘my god is Yhwh’), from whom they inherit their power. By this equating, the major deity becomes integrated into the personal sphere of the family and the symbolic world of its religion. In the second type, a major deity is predicated by either the family god or the personal god (Kamōšʿam ‘Chemosh is [my divine] uncle’; ʾEšmunʾadōnī ‘Eshmun is my lord’). Through this equating, the major deity was shaped with the characteristics of the personal family god and largely divested of the characteristics ascribed to the deity within the sphere of official religion. This corresponds to the observation that the national characteristics of Yhwh are absent in the religious sphere of the personal names. In the third type, deities on the same level are predicated by one another—the personal god by the family god, the family god by the personal god, or a family god by a family god (ʾElîʿam ‘my god is the [divine uncle]’, ʾAḥlay ‘[my divine] brother is my god’, ʾAḥatʾab ‘[my divine] sister is father’). These names are confessions of confidence in the chosen god of the family, that he or she acts as a true family or personal god.

488

Chapter 8

In the fourth type, a major god is predicated by another major god (Šēdad ‘Sîn is Hadad’; Šalmānrimmān ‘Shalman is [Hadad-]Rimmon’). These names allowed families to retain the identity of the gods they had chosen, despite changing conditions in their polytheistic environment. This type corresponds to the observation that on the level of family religion all the deities were furnished with the same functions. It appears more often in cultures with a more-developed polytheism (Syria, Phoenicia). Most of the Hebrew equating names belong to types 1 and 2, in which a major god, in most cases Yhwh, was integrated into the world of family religion. In Israel, where polytheism existed in a relatively restricted form, equating names of the fourth type are rather limited (Yĕhôʾēl ‘Yhwh is El’, Baʿalyāh ‘Baal is Yhwh’ [from the Hebrew Bible]). Nevertheless, the very existence of these names verifies a clear tendency toward an inclusive monolatry in Israelite and all others Levantine family and household religions. In spite of the important role that women, especially mothers, played in developing the belief system of family and household religion, female deities are noticeably underrepresented in the theophoric elements of personal names. This oddity is not limited to the Hebrew onomasticon, where goddesses appear in only 1.7% of all theophoric names and 0.9% of the epigraphic names (in precise figures, 7 and 17, respectively). Similarly low percentages occur in the Moabite and Ammonite onomasticon (2.7% and 2.0% of the names). Goddesses are found somewhat more frequently in the Aramaic onomasticon (4.5%); only in the Phoenician onomasticon is there a higher proportion—13.5% of the theophoric names and 11.0% of the occurrences. It may be that goddesses became more prominent only in more urbanized societies such as Phoenicia and Mesopotamia, where women occupied a more important position in public life, while in more rural societies such as Israel, Ammon, and Moab, where patriarchy dominated, male deities were normally considered more effective. In any event, on the level of family religion, female deities were also divested of their special characteristics and were believed to act as family deities like their male counterparts. Thus the Levantine onomasticons not only provide detailed insights into the beliefs of the family religion of Israel and the family religion of its neighbors but also reveal interesting strategies by which family religions met the challenges of their various polytheistic environments. In contrast to the personal names, the iconographic evidence from the private Iron Age stamp seals of Israel and Judah shows a rather close affinity of family religion to the religious symbol system of state and temple religion. On these personal seals, anthropomorphic representations of major deities seem to have been avoided altogether; instead, an abstract symbolization of Yhwh was used, such as the winged sun-disc and the winged beetle. The presence of both the winged sun-disc and winged beetles on private and official Judean seals reveals a strong continuity between official and private religion in use of symbols. The same is true for the use of winged Uraei (which can be associated with biblical seraphim), cherubim (in the appearance of a sphinx), and Temple iconography; on the seals, they may have functioned as lower protective deities and mediators for Yhwh. The characteristics that were unique to family religion are reflected in the decided preference for protective spirits and apotropaic monsters on private seals; based on the personal names on the seals, divine salvation, protection, and support were of central importance to families. The difference in the evidence provided by the glyptic media and the personal

Summary

489

names may have to do with the fact that the professional manufacturers who engraved the seals were constrained by an iconographic repertoire that was taken from many different international, regional, and local sources, including the official religion. Thus their icons did not directly reflect the beliefs of the seal owners. The second reason may have been the double function of the seals, which were used not only for private purposes but also to represent individuals in the public sphere.

8.6.╇ Rites and rituals of family religion The rites and rituals associated with the religious practices of the family are manifold. Generally, we can discern between the following: (1) rites and rituals associated with the human life cycle, such as those associated with birth, circumcision, and marriage; (2) rites and rituals associated with the calendar, such as the Passover and the Sabbath; (3) occasional rituals such as petitions, vows, lamentations, and apotropaic rituals; and (4) ritual taboos and related observances. Of utmost importance to families were the religious activities and rituals associated with the human life cycle. Pregnancy and birth were a crucial and potentially dangerous period in a woman’s life and therefore were accompanied by rituals and religious observances. Although biblical texts provide no explicit evidence for birth rituals, which may have been the sole purview of midwives, both the Bible and the Hebrew onomasticon provide us with some important information about ritual activities related to pregnancy and birth. Women who had not yet given birth could address the deity with laments and vows at a sanctuary, as Hannah did in 1 Samuel 1. They did this because conception and the creation of a human being were considered a divine work. Ritual protection of the child is attested by amulets of the Egyptian god Bes as well as the appearance of the god’s name in the Hebrew onomasticon (Qadbeś ‘Bes has formed’). Birth-related ritual observances included the mother’s purification period (7 days after the birth of a boy and 14 after the birth of a girl) and, on the 8th or 15th day, the feast of name giving (Gen 17:12; 21:4). The feast to celebrate the birth began being replaced in the 7th century by the circumcision of infants, which originally had been an apotropaic rite de passage at the age of maturity (this function is attested in the story of the “bridegroom of blood” in Exod 4:24–26). Circumcision then became the badge of religious identity during the Exile. Different from birth and circumcision, marriage—otherwise regarded as an important step in the religious life of a person—was, according to both biblical and extrabiblical sources, merely a legal action accompanied by blessings. Monogamous marriages were the rule, and the polygyny of the patriarchs seems to have been an intentional archaism. Moreover, endogamous marriages were preferred by the exilic and postexilic authors in order to maintain the religious integrity of the people as a whole. This was, however, a point of debate, as the book of Ruth attests. Another important social issue, according to the book of Ruth and Deut 25:5–10, was the so-called levirate marriage: the obligation of a brother to marry his brother’s widow, if she had no offspring, in order to ensure the continuation of the brother’s line and the widow’s sustenance. One of the most important feasts fixed by the calendar was the Feast of Passover, which underwent several transformations: from an originally preexilic ritual only performed by

490

Chapter 8

laymen in a family setting with apotropaic elements, as preserved in Exod 12:1–13; to a centralized pilgrimage feast, as depicted in Deut 16:1–8, performed by the priests; and the lamb, which was originally to be consumed, was transformed into a zebaḥ-offering and associated with the agricultural Festival of Unleavened Bread; during the Exile, as attested by the Priestly adoption of the old feast in Exod 12:1–13, the festival regained its family setting. Despite the claim of strict centralization and priestly control over the Passover in the postexilic era, the family character of the festival prevailed in the Second Temple period, including public slaughter and domestic consumption. In contrast to Passover, the Sabbath apparently was not a religious observance of families in preexilic times but was simply a day of rest. During the Exile, the seventh day was combined with the traditions of the Full Moon Festival. It gained religious and cultic dignity as a family celebration (Deut 5:12–15; Exod 20:8–11) and also served as a token of religious identity. In addition to the weekly Sabbath, the postexilic Holiness Code (Lev 25:1–7) promoted the older custom of an agricultural fallow year every seventh year (Exod 23:10–11) to the level of a religious observance. This is confirmed by references to the observance in sources from the Hellenistic and Roman periods (1 Macc 6:49, 53; Josephus, Ant. 8.8.1; 14.10.6; 16.2). Also in the area of agriculture were the offerings of the “firstfruits” of agricultural produce and of firstborn animals (Exod 23:19; 34:19–20, 26; Deut 15:19–23; 26:1–11), as well as the festivals of harvest and ingathering (Exod 34:22). Before the Exile, rituals associated with these offerings, although related to local or regional sanctuaries, were essentially performed independently by each family. The late monarchic Deuteronomistic reform movement sought to incorporate the rites and rituals of family religion with those of the official cult. The most prominent occasional ritual practice was, according to both biblical and extrabiblical sources, the vow (nēder). According to biblical texts, vows were often undertaken during war, as demonstrated by the fight with the king of Arad in Num 21:2 and by Jephtah’s vow in Judg 11:30–31, and in situations of critical personal and political importance, as evidenced by Absalom’s vow regarding his return to Jerusalem in 2 Sam 15:7–8. In family contexts, vows were used in situations that threatened the continuation of a family, such as Hannah’s infertility in 1 Samuel 1. Vows were used not only in situations of severe danger or distress but also in situations of perceived need, as Berlinerblau also observed (1991: 555). However, many biblical texts recommend restraint from vows (Num 30:3; Deut 23:22–24; Qoh 5:3–6; and Prov 20:25). As Jer 44:15–19 attests, oaths were sworn not only to Yhwh but also to other deities such as the Queen of Heaven. In preexilic times, vows would most likely have been made at a local or regional sanctuary (1 Samuel 1; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 7:31–32; 19:6, 11–14), but vows were also made in private contexts (Numbers 30), while rituals following their fulfillment were usually performed in communal sanctuaries. The making of vows thus represented a point of intersection between the realms of family religion and official religion; nevertheless, vowing was essentially a family rite. This intersection—as well as official control over these practices—is attested as well by the rich epigraphic evidence from the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim. Like vows, blessings (‫ ברוך‬bārūk) were an important religious practice of families, but so also was their counterpart, curses. Blessings were particularly important as a ritual performance to transfer the authority of the pater familias to a chosen heir as in Gen 27:1–

Summary

491

40. The counterpart of the family blessing, the curse, is less prominent in biblical texts; nevertheless, biblical law contains strong verdicts against curses in the realm of the family, especially against cursing one’s parents (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9), to prevent family and social disorder caused by curses and related practices of witchcraft. In this case, biblical law was largely shaped by family values. The most common context for curses in epigraphic sources is tomb inscriptions to prevent the family’s cave from being disturbed or robbed. As I emphasized in previous works (Albertz 1978a: 23–49; 1994: 100–101; 2008: 102– 3), ceremonies for sickness, distress, bad omens, and other types of misfortune were originally performed by the pater familias in domestic settings. Although the Old Testament does not refer explicitly to these rituals in family contexts, the Psalms in particular and also analogies from Mesopotamian incantations support the theory that they were family rituals. Most likely, the psalms of individual complaint and thanksgiving originated in the domestic sociohistorical context, because they strongly reflect the beliefs and religious experiences of families. The deity invoked in the psalms of individual complaint and in psalms of confidence and related genres is often addressed as ‘my god’ (‫אלי‬, ‫ אלהי‬ʾēlî, ʾĕlōhay). This sort of personal intimacy with the deity is also reflected in the use of phrases such as ‘my help’, ‘my protection’, ‘my trust’, and ‘my hope’. As shown in chap.€5 above, there is considerable correspondence between the semantic structures of these individual psalms of complaint and thanksgiving and the Hebrew onomasticon. Furthermore, the archaeological evidence presented in chap. 3 supports the idea of domestic ceremonies: for example, the presence of ritual objects such as offering stands, votive figurines, apotropaic amulets, and so on. This archaeological evidence, the biblical texts (e.g., Exod 12:21–23; Tob 3:7–9; and 6:1–9), and several psalms of individual complaint (Ps 22:17; 91:5) attest domestic prophylactic and exorcistic measures against the threat of demons. As mentioned, these domestic ceremonies were usually carried out by the pater familias. But in situations of extreme distress, a ritual specialist such as a man of God (‫ איׁש האלהים‬ʾîš hāʾĕlōhîm) needed to be consulted. These actions by religious specialists are reflected in the miracle stories of the men of God Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings, especially the case of the barren wife in 2 Kgs 4:8–17 and the death of the son in 1 Kgs 17:17–24 and 2€Kgs 4:18–37. In these passages, men of God were occasionally hosted by families, and they paid for this provision with ritual services. As evidenced by the polemics in Ezek 13:17–21 (cf. 1€Samuel 28), there were also female ritual specialists who could be consulted in situations of sickness and distress; however, the patriarchal selection of biblical texts included almost no references to ritual authority held by women. In postexilic times, the Priestly writers’ bias was toward confining domestic ritual procedures to the official sphere of religion, as can be seen in the ritual purification of the house afflicted with a skin disease (‫צרעת‬ ṣāraʿat) in Lev 14:33–53. But we should also realize that, even during the preexilic period, purification rituals involving blood rites would only have been performed by priests. The values and the symbolic system of family religion were also strongly emphasized in the complex of taboos and related ritual observances. Largely due to the groundbreaking study on Purity and Danger by Mary Douglas (1966), there is quite a broad consensus among Hebrew Bible scholars that food taboos (Exod 22:30; Leviticus 11; Deut 14:3–21) and related taboos such as the prohibition against cooking a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exod 23:19b; 34:26b; Deut 14:21b) were linked to societal ideas about sanctity and

492

Chapter 8

cosmic order, which were reflected in the classification systems. Thus, certain animals that did not fit into the classification system were rendered unclean. Although the food taboos may already have been conventional in preexilic times, their observance later became a badge of national and religious identity and were primarily maintained by families. Also strongly shaped by family values were the sexual taboos against incest (Lev 18:6– 18; 20:11–12, 14, 17). The most important reason for the incest taboo was to ensure harmonious relationships between parents, children, and other close kin. Thus, the family as the central source of social harmony was protected. The taboos regarding bestiality (Exod 22:18; Lev 18:23; 20:15–16) and homosexuality (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) were more complex and stemmed from cultural conventions as well as views about the cosmic order. Acts of this sort were considered a blurring of boundaries that endangered the cosmological order. This was also the case for the more general prohibitions on intermixing, such as in Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9–11. As can be shown by prohibitions against sexual deviations in the law codes of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors, specifically against intercourse with animals and homosexuality, the biblical prohibitions do not serve the purpose of demarcating Israel in contrast to foreign cults and their practices but simply reflect common ancient Near Eastern conventions. Obviously, small-scale societies stressed the importance of conducting one’s life according to the commonly accepted models of behavior in order to strengthen, stabilize, and ensure the survival of their basic structure and institutions, especially the family. More closely related to the requirements of official religion were the taboos about genital discharges in Lev 12:1–8. These allegedly archaic taboos were adapted to the Priestly ritual system in postexilic times and strongly affected family life because they enforced periods of isolation and inactivity, especially for women. Other taboos, such as harvesting the edges of a field or stripping a vineyard bare (Lev 19:9–10; Deut 24:19–22) were socially motivated, to sustain the poor and aliens. Obviously, the rituals, rites, and observances of family religion expressed family values such as harmony and solidarity and were strongly influenced by the personal relationships of family members, especially between children and their parents. The rites and rituals of family religion, including the ritual care of the dead, were aimed at the essential religious desires of the familial microcosm, such as peace, stability, harmony, abundant progeny, and general welfare. Moreover, these family values were mirrored by the divine order of the macrocosm. Historically, we can observe that, before the exile, family religious practices existed alongside religious practices performed on local, regional, and official levels of society and that all of these practices interacted closely with one another. Thus, there was no single definitive preexilic religion of ancient Israel but a highly differentiated internal religious pluralism, aspects of which frequently intersected with each other. During the Babylonian Exile and throughout the subsequent Diaspora, many observances, rites, and rituals of family religion became symbolic of national and religious identity and served to maintain this otherwise precarious identity. Particularly effective in this regard were the rites and rituals of circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary customs, which in turn began to create and maintain the religious identity. Passover especially went through a dynamic evolution and transformation, from originally being a family celebration to later becoming a feast of the official cult in the Second Temple period. It nevertheless maintained important elements

Summary

493

from its origin and eventually reverted once again back to being a predominantly family celebration, after the destruction of the Second Temple. Rites, rituals, and observances of the family as well as burial practices and commemorative rituals for the deceased (see below) not only communicated national and religious identity but also manifested and mediated the cultural memory of ancient Israel and early Judaism. One of the most important observations of our investigation is that the basic symbolic system of family religion—with its values of family harmony, welfare, and abundant progeny—did not change a great deal, even when the religious “superstructure” was transformed. Thus, postexilic, early Judaism also shared the essential features of its symbolic system and its religious expressions with its contemporary neighbors.

8.7.╇ Care for the dead in the context of household and family religion Family religion took place in the realm of the house itself and also (as was demonstrated in chap. 4) in other places. One of the most important contexts for ritual activity other than the regular domestic cult was burial and post-mortem care for the dead. The significance of cultic activities for the deceased in Israelite religion has been a controversial subject of recent discussion (Spronk 1986: 247–50; Lewis 1989: 171–81; van der Toorn 1996b: 206–35; Niehr 2003; Schmitt 2007 et€al.). We prefer the term care for the dead instead of terms such as cults of the dead and ancestor cults, because the latter terms imply veneration of ancestors similar to that of gods, and this is not attested in our sources. Care for the dead underlines the ongoing social relations between the living and the deceased members of a family, clan, or other community. Honoring and remembering ancestors were an important aspect of building and maintaining family identity in ancient Israel. Looking at the rites and rituals for the care of the dead, we can distinguish two distinct groups of ritual activities: (1) irregularly observed rites, such as burial and mourning rites; and (2) regularly or periodically observed commemorative rites and rituals. The most important irregularly observed rites were related to burial. Burial rites had the dead as their primary addressee, especially the burial itself, but rites of mourning primarily addressed the bereaved. Information about burial practices is available due to the wealth of archaeological evidence. The dominant type of burial in the Iron Age was collective burial in bench or arcosolia tombs. This may be referred to as the final resting place for nuclear or extended families and is evidence of the ongoing connection between family members that was still important even after death. Burial sites were always arranged in a cluster or a necropolis near the city but not, as indicated in biblical sources, on the family farm or herding land (the ‫ נחלה‬naḥălāh). Material memorials (‫מצבה‬, ‫ יד‬maṣṣebāh or yād) erected as tomb markers or memorial stelae are mentioned in biblical and extrabiblical texts (Gen 35:20; 2 Sam 18:18; Josephus, Ant. 13.211–12) but not attested by archaeological evidence. Burial gifts, such as food provisions, figurines, amulets, and perhaps post-burial gifts show the dead’s need to be cared for by the living. The personality of the deceased was represented by items of personal adornment and jewelry, and thereby the tomb became an expression of the broader family and local identity. Burial and mortuary rites performed by family members were actions of familial solidarity. The family was accompanied and

494

Chapter 8

assisted by local relatives and by friends, clients, and members of the local community. Thus, burial and mourning rites were clearly public due to the involvement of members of the greater community, such as wailing women drawn from the neighborhood. Mortuary rites such as mourning made conspicuous the gap that had been left by the deceased; grief and sorrow were expressed and enacted by expressive physical rites, such as wailing aloud, tearing clothes, sitting in the dirt and rubbing oneself with dirt and ashes, self-laceration, beating one’s breast and head, shaving the forehead, and so on. With these expressive rites, the living temporarily became like the dead. Mourning rites were used as occasions for strengthening and renegotiating the social roles of the living members of the family or clan, as well as the roles of the co-residential circle of relatives and the local community. Among the regularly observed mortuary rites were annual commemorative meals, such as the meal mentioned in 1 Samuel 20 that involved the ‫ מׁשפחה‬mišpāḥāh at the new moon, and we may assume that there were monthly gatherings, perhaps including members of the joint family. Rituals conducted with greater frequency involved the daily care for the dead and were performed in houses by the nuclear or extended family. The existence of these practices is inferred from archaeological evidence that suggests the frequent use of domestic ritual objects. The post-mortem relationship between the living and the dead is reflected in the rites that were performed in special locations, such as in Jerusalem Caves I–III, Locus 6015, or Samaria E207. These locations appear to have been special subterranean places for ritual performances focused on the dead (cf. Isa 65:3–5), especially ritual meals held by such groups as nuclear or joint families. In any case, the ritual apparatus found at these places is identical to domestic ritual assemblages or an enlarged subset of them. The textual evidence of Deut 26:14; Sir 7:33; and Tob 4:17 reveals that portions of the meals for the dead served as symbols of the ongoing social relationship between the dead and the living and also as sustenance for the dead in the netherworld. The entire complex of burial and post-mortem rites expressed the importance of the family and maintaining its solidarity in ancient Israelite society. A special form of ritual communication with the dead was interrogation of the dead, or necromancy, as narrated in the famous story about Saul and the “witch” of Endor in 1 Samuel 28 and other, mostly polemical accounts in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 18). The strong opposition of the biblical writers to necromancy can be explained by necromancy’s being viewed as a violation of Yhwh’s sovereignty and denial of his being the only source of divination. Furthermore, the blurring of boundaries between the living and the dead must be taken into account, because interaction with the spirits of the dead is dangerous. Although a mask was found together with an offering stand, which could be interpreted as evidence for necromancy, there is no textual or archaeological support for necromancy as a common domestic ritual practice. From the historical perspective, the rites, rituals, and observances of ritual care for the dead were relatively stable from preexilic to postexilic times and even into the Hellenistic and Roman periods, although certain practices, such as expressive mourning rites and necromancy were eliminated because they were associated with foreign beliefs and therefore no longer regarded as Yahwistic. Consequently, based on the archaeological, epigraphic, and biblical evidence presented in this volume, we conclude that the family and household religion of ancient Israel

Summary

495

from the 11th to the 7th centuries b.c.e. was a vivid, rich segment of Israelite religion. It was carried out by family members at various locations, whether in their own dwelling, at the shrines or burial places in their neighborhoods, or at local, regional, or even state sanctuaries. Although it intersected in many ways with the local and official segments of Israelite religion, it nevertheless formed a religious symbolic world with its own characteristics and typical ritual activities that were based on the particular social relationships of families and that were focused on their specific needs. Up to the 7th century b.c.e., the Israelite family and household religion manifested almost no unique features but was quite similar to other family and household religions of the Levant. Thus, for the preexilic era, it should be characterized as a mere variant of a common Levantine religious phenomenon. Only from the 6th century onward did the family religion of Israel acquire a distinctive, Israelite shape. But even as the distinctly Jewish family religion of the Persian and Hellenistic periods (as evidenced, for example, by “Torah piety”), it never completely lost the customs and traditions of its family roots.

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16 Table 3.6.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron Age I Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Ai

Iron I

Bethshean

Iron IA Locus 1342

Hazor

Iron IB Stratum XI, platform sanctuary Room 3283 benches and adjacent standing stone structures (Loci 3307 and 3275) freestanding(?)

Tel Masos

Iron I

House 314 Room 343

ovens

kitchen / food preparation / consumption

Tel Masos

Iron I

House 314 Room 307

platform oven

kitchen

Tel Masos

Iron I

House 314 Room 331

Locus 69, integrated

bench platform channel (?)

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B collectibles lamp

Other bowl jar

Cult Activities

Cult Type

cultic

stands animal fig. frag.

storage/ industrial

fem. fig. frag. fayence obj. jars 2 kernoi pyxides bowls jugs

worship/ votive libation

3283: stand foundation offering in jug 3307: 2 stands 3275: 2 stands

libation village shrine food offering/ consumption

ivory handle cooking pot storage jar basalt bowls and pestles 3307: ╇bowl ╇ store jar 3275: ╇bowl ╇ tripod bowl ╇ cooking pot ╇krater ╇ store jar

libation, neighborhood food/drink shrine consumption

pot stand chalices lamps

bowls food / drink kraters consumption cooking jugs cooking pots jugs strainer jug juglets store jars hole-mouth jars amphoriskos pyxides pilgrim flask flower pot working stones

animal figurine ?

collectibles

bowls cooking pots jugs juglets pyxides lamp krater pithos storage jar

stands (bowls) ivory spout (lion’s head)

collectibles? jug (copper) jar lamps pithos bichrome vessel frag.

496

work related

worship/ domestic, votive house shrine food / drink consumption

libations and/or dry offerings

domestic

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

497

Table 3.6.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron Age I Site Tell Mazar

Date

Building/ Room

Iron IB Mound A Room 101

Installations

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B

Other

Cult Activities

Cult Type

storage

fenestrated stand

chalices

storage jars libations cooking pots and/or dry kraters offerings flasks jugs

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Courtyard house 00/K/10, Locus 98/K/77

storage

stand zoom. vessel

chalices

storage jars libations cooking pots bowls jugs juglets flasks lids

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Courtyard oven, tabun house 00/K/10, Locus 00/K/87and 89/K/70

kitchen

zoom. vessels zoom. figs.

storage jars libations cooking pots votive bowls jugs juglets flasks

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area AA, Locus 2159 Courtyard house

storage

mini shrine

pyxis worship/ bowls libations jug jars spouted amph. pilgrim flask lentoid flasks bottle

domestic

kitchen: fem. fig. head 3 chalices storage, food lamp processing and consumption

pilgrim flasks worship/ jugs votive pilgrim flasks pyxis bowls cooking pots jars

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1729

storage, food processing

stand

goblet lamp

libation bowl and/or dry pyxis pilgrim flasks offerings ? jugs juglets strainer cups baking tray jars

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1732

storage

bronze calf amulet zoom. vessel kernos

chalices goblet lamps

amphoriskos votive/ jugs libation juglets flask cooking pots bowl jars basalt bowl

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1727

benches (Rooms 100, 102 only)

Room Function

oven, pit, basin

chalice double pyxis

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1737

tree

unbuilt area or courtyard

zoom. spout

strainer jar juglet jugs

libation and/or dry offerings

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1731

oven

kitchen or storage

stand

bowl flask jars

libation and/or dry offerings

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1735

oven

kitchen or storage

stand

basalt bowl libation amphoriskos and/or dry jugs offerings juglet pilgrim flasks jars

domestic

chalices

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

498

Table 3.6.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron Age I Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1736

food processing/ storage

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1740

Artifacts Cat. A kernos

Artifacts Cat. B

Other

Cult Activities

Cult Type

painted Jugs libation pyxis lentoid flasks and/or dry painted jugs kraters offerings bowls spouted amphoriskos strainer jug baking tray jars

domestic

food stand (bowl processing/ of) consumption

goblets cymbals

strainer jug strainer cup jugs bowls flasks cooking pots

libation and/or dry offerings music

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1744

food stand (base) processing/ consumption/ storage

chalice painted jug

strainer jug libation pilgrim flask and/or dry funnel offerings bowl cooking pots jars

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1780

food processing/ storage

lentoid flask krater cooking pot jug jars

worship/ votive

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1741

food / drink bone anim. consumption? fig. frag.

3 fayence amulets pyxis lamp goblet

bowl basalt bowl jugs painted jug lentoid flask

votive

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Area CC, Locus 1752

food processing/ storage

stand

2 seals goblet lamps cup&saucer

cooking pots libation and/or dry jug lentoid flask offerings jars

fem. fig. frag.

domestic

Megiddo Iron IB Locus 1750

trees

unbuilt area

kernos frag. fayance amulet ivory animal frag.

Megiddo Iron IB Locus 1760

ovens

kitchen

fem. fig. torso chalice flask

bowl jugs jars amphoriskoi

worship/ votive

domestic

Tell Qiri

Str. VIIIB–C building, integrated

benches platform stone basin

cultic

stand+bowl chalices libation vessel miniature vessel amulet

bowls cooking pots krater jug cooking jar pithos

libation animal offerings/ meals

neighborhood shrine

Ḥirbet Iron I Raddana

Cluster S

benches platforms ovens

domestic

stands? decorated krater

libation?

domestic

Shiloh

Room 335, debris 623

Iron I

Iron I

Tell elIron I Wawiyat

NE room

unlikely: dump?

stand frags. frags. of zoomorphic appliques

basin ovens

kitchen

none

bowls libations and domestic cooking pots dry offerings pilgrim flask jug pithoi storage jar none

remains of butchered cow

none

none

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

499

Table 3.7. Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIA Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Tel ʿAmal

Iron IIA

12

ovens

kitchen

stand zoom. spout

Tel ʿAmal

Iron IIA

34

ovens, bench

industrial

stand

Beth-shean Iron IIA

Locus 1564

basin?

domestic

fem. fig. and 2 zoom. frags. 2 stands

Beth-shean Iron IIA

Loci 1557 62 63

storage

2 fem. fig. frags 1 zoom.

Tell el-Fārʿah

Iron IIA

House 440 Room 439

oven

domestic, model shrine food preparation

Tell el-Fārʿah

Iron IIA

House 440 Room 460 courtyard

oven

domestic, fem. fig. and food zoom. frags. preparation

Tell el-Fārʿah

Iron IIA

House 440 Room 437

model shrine ?

Tell el-Fārʿah

Iron IIA

House 175 Room 174

zoom. vessel

Tell el-Fārʿah

Iron IIA

House 161 Room 157 back room

Tell elḤammah

Iron IIA

Lachish

Iron IIA–IIB

Megiddo

Iron IIA/ Locus 2081, IIB Integrated in house

Megiddo

Iron IIB

Tell Michal Iron IIA Tel Qashish

Iron IIA

Tel Reḥov

Iron IIA–B

Ḥorvat Iron IIA Rosh Zayit

benches

Artifacts Cat. B lamp

ivory object

game piece

Other

Cult Activities

Cult Type

bowls juglets

libations

domestic

krater

libations/ dry offerings

work related

flask

libation, votive music

domestic

jar juglets

worship/ votive

work related

millstone

worship/ votive

domestic

jug juglets bowls

worship/ votive

domestic

worship/ votive

domestic

libation

domestic

unlikely

none

game piece mini juglet

food storage/ preparation

game piece bead lamp

Structure on L basins Terrace

industrial/ kernos ring agricultural fem. fig. frag.

multihandled storage jars krater Cypro-Phoen jugl. Pyxides astragali

libation

work related

Room 49, isolated

cultic

altar 4 stands

clay basin chalices bowls lamps jugs juglets cooking pots storage jars

offerings meals

village shrine

built in-corner, cultic bench, stone slab

2 horned altars 3 stands big censor jar

chalices jar astragali (in bowl) juglets axhead bowl mortar rubbing stone

libations, incense burning and burnt offerings

large-scale domestic and/or neighborhood cult

Room 340 integrated in palatial structure 338

bench, platform, pillars, stone slabs

cultic

schematic stone cup and saucer object model shrine frag.

libations burnt offerings

Palace shrine

Building 300, isolated

platform

sanctuary

libation/ drink

village shrine

platform benches oven

Pit 253

Area E open-air structure Locus 16 Str. IIa

mud-brick platform, masṣṣebōt, ovens

jugs juglets cooking pots jar

juglets strainer jugs basalt bowl

3 goblets kernos bowl

globular jug, black bowl foundation domestic on red handmade bowl or ritual jars deposit krater

open-air cult place

stand fem. fig. frag.

chalices

fortress/ storage facility

zoom. vessel

chalice bowls Cypro-Phoenician juglets ware

bowls cooking pots jugs jars

animal slaughter libations votives

open-air village sanctuary

libation

work related

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

500

Table 3.7. Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIA Site

Building/ Room

Date

Installations

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B

Ḥorvat Iron IIA Rosh Zayit

Locus 47 tower

fortress tower

kernos

Cypro-Phoenician ware

Taanach

Room SW 2-7 basin

kitchen and/or storage

stand censor cup

astragali 3 pyxides

Iron IIA

Other

26 storage jars 2 amphorae 10 jugs 11 juglets 1 krater 63 bowls 3 cp

Cult Activities

Cult Type

libation

work related

libation and dry offerings, censing, casting lots

domestic or work related

Table 3.8.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIB Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Beth-shean Iron IIB/C

Loci 298/293

domestic

tripod incense burner stand zoom. frag.

ʿEin Gev

Iron IIB

Locus 11

domestic, storage

tripod incense cup

Tell el-Fārʿah

Iron IIB

Locus 429a, back room

Hazor

Iron IIB

Room 239a Tower of gate

guardroom

Hazor

Iron IIB

House 48/63/47a/35a

food zoom. spout preparation/ consumption

Hazor

Iron IIB

House 48/63/47a/35a

food preparation/ consumption

Hazor

Iron IIB

House 13-16, 44 (back room)

Kinneret

Iron IIB

Building 683, Tripartite building

Tel Kedesh

Iron IIB

chamber with sunk-in jar courtyard bases

Artifacts Cat. B

bowls cooking pots jars jug nephrite ax cosmetic bowl decorated jug bone pendant worked gazelle bone

tripod censor cup 1 zoom. vessel frag. (spout)

Other

CyproPhoenician juglets 2 lamps 2 cups and saucers

ivory handle

Cult Activities

Cult Type

incense burning, libation

domestic

incense jugs burning, beer jug votive jar store jar holemouth jar pestle mortar scraper bone spatulae bronze funnel

domestic

cooking pot bowl

incense burning

domestic

12 bowls 2 jugs 1 basalt bowl

libation drinking, meals?

work related— military?

jugs cooking pot bowl

libation

domestic

offering/ divination ?

domestic

bowls cooking pots juglets krater

stand mask

jug store jar

storage? barracks

fem. fig. torso

bowl krater juglet storage jar

industrial

limestone altar

domestic and/or work related libations, dry work related offerings/ incense burning

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

501

Table 3.8.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages from Iron IIB Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B

Other

Kinneret

Iron IIB

Room 221

Kinneret

Iron IIB

Room 328

Megiddo

Iron IIA/IIB Locus 2081, Integrated in house

built in-corner, bench, stone slab

cultic

2 horned altars 3 stands big censor jar

Megiddo

Iron IIB

Room 340 integrated in palatial structure 338

Bench, platform, pillars, stone slabs

cultic

schematic stone cupandsaucer juglets object strainer jugs model shrine basalt bowl frag.

Megiddo

Iron IIB

Room 332 in Building 338

cultic ? limestone altar/ storage room stand for 340? 2 pottery stands model shrine frag.

Megiddo

Iron IIB

Locus 94 H 8

storage and food preparation

Tell en-Naṣbeh

Iron IIB

Room 430

Tell Qiri

Iron IIB

Str. VII Locus 1027

silo

storage

censor cup

Tell Iron IIB es-Saʾīdīyeh

House 64

platform

dwelling

3 tripod censor cups

Tell Iron IIB es-Saʾīdīyeh

House 6

dwelling

animal fig. frag. kernos frag.

Turʿan

Locus 12

Iron IIB

oven

dwelling

animal fig. frag.

dwelling

votive

rattle goblet

jugs juglets storage jars

uncertain

chalices astragali (in bowl) axhead

jar juglets bowl mortar rubbing stone

libations, incense burning and burnt offerings

large-scale domestic and / or neighborhood cult

libations burnt offerings

Palace shrine

bowl jug flask juglets 1 jug

burnt/dry/ libation offerings

Palace Shrine

basins storage jars bowls kraters cooking pots jugs beer jug juglets jars lamps assyrian bottle

domestic incense burning, libations and dry offerings

incense cup stand zoom. vessel frag.

incense burner

Cult Type

cooking pots bowls

censor cup

grinding stone domestic, kitchen

Cult Activities

incense burning cooking pot shells beads 4 lamps

lamps

domestic

domestic work related

1 jug 2 juglets

incense burning

domestic

bowls kraters cooking pots storage jars

votive libation

domestic

cooking pots bowls krater storage jars

incense burning

domestic

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

502

Table 3.9.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages Iron IIC Site

Date

Building/ Room

Tel Batash Iron IIC Unit 914 Loci 910/915

Installations platform in niche

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B

Other

Cult Type

domestic

anthrop. and zoom. vessel frags.

Tel Batash Iron IIC House 607

domestic

miniature altar

Tel Batash Iron IIC Room 778

domestic

Beersheba

Iron IIC Locus 844 Debris from 2nd store fallen on street

(domestic)

Beersheba

Iron IIC Locus 25

domestic, JPF pillared room model chair

Beersheba

Iron IIC Locus 808

domestic

JPF model chair

Beersheba

Iron IIC Locus 442

domestic

Beersheba

Iron IIC Locus 3622

domestic, courtyard

Tell Beit Mirsim

Iron IIC NW 32-12

Tell Beit Mirsim

Iron IIC NW 31-11 casemate (back) room

domestic

1 JPF frag 2 zoom. frag. lamp

lamp

Tell Beit Mirsim

Iron IIC NW 22-13

domestic

2 JPF 1 zoom. frag.

mini lamp cooking pot cosmetic jug palette juglet

Beth-shean Iron IIC Loci 298/293

domestic

tripod inc. burn. stand zoom. frag.

bowls cooking pots jars jug

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 387

courtyard of house, food preparation

3 zoom. fig. frag. 1 zoom. spout.

juglet votive/ red juglet libation dipper juglets cooking pots

domestic

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 382

kitchen

model chair zoom. spout

dipper juglet “heavy pot” decanters

votive libation

domestic

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 377

JPF head mold horse fig. frag.

juglets bowls lmlk-jar “crude” and “heavy” pots

figurine production votive

domestic

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 376

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 375

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 373

olive-oil press industrial

oven

chalices

Cult Activities

libation/ domestic drink consumption incenseoffering

domestic

miniature vessels pot stand

uncertain

ʿdomesticʾ

collectibles

votive

domestic

mini lamp bowls cooking pots juglets jar

votive

domestic

worship/ votives

domestic

2 limestone altars

incense offering

domestic

Sphinx-figurine

apotropaic

domestic

3 JPF 3 zoom. frags.

worship/ votive

work related

worship/ votive

domestic

worship/ votive

domestic

incense burning, libation

domestic

Bronze and fayance figurines amulets

juglet

various domestic

courtyard (?) 3 zoom. frags. food processing

shells lamp

bowls decanter lmlk-jar mortars

votive

domestic

basalt tank

industrial

animal fig (mouse)?

chalice disk-base lamp

cooking pot

votive

work related

rectangular fireplace

industrial

2 JPF heads lamp (+ 1 from adjacent locus) 1 animal fig. 3 animal fig. frag.

holemouth jar worship/ stone votive pounders pick

work related

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

503

Table 3.9.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages Iron IIC Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B

Other

Cult Activities

Cult Type

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 321

wine press

industrial

various zoom. vessels/ figurines

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC Locus 305

vats

textile production and processing

JPF

juglets votive cooking pots jar holemouth jar mortar pounder loom weights

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC “Fred’s House”

domestic

incised bowl qdš

utilitarian dry offerings domestic pottery, loom weights

Tel Halif

Iron IIC Locus G 8005 back room

storage

JPF head fenestrated stand 2 limestone altars

storage jars jugs juglets

worship/ votive, meals

domestic

Tel Halif

Iron IIC Locus L 8005 Debris of 2nd store

living ?

JPF torso

bowls platter bowl juglets jar

worship/ votive, meals

domestic

Tel Halif

Iron IIC Locus K 8002 Debris of 2nd store

food 3 JPF frags. lamps preparation/ horse and rider consumption frag.

storage jars worship/ pithoi votive, jugs meals juglets cooking pots kraters decanter pitcher grinding stones mouth dipper

domestic

Tel Halif

Iron IIC Locus F 8007 debris of 2nd store

living ?

amphoriskos jugs bowls

worship/ votive

domestic

Tel Halif

Iron IIC Locus F 7002 debris of 2nd store

living ? JPF frag food preparation/ consumption

jars pithoi bowls kraters cooking pots jugs juglets grinding stones

worship/ votive

domestic

Tel Halif

Iron IIC Area F6

Jerusalem

Iron IIC Locus 967 “house of the bullae”

Lachish

Iron IIC lower house, Room 3569

grinding installations

votives/ libations

lamp

JPF torso

scarab mace head bone disc lamps

work related work related

food processing

2 fenestrated stands

libations/ domestic dry offerings

domestic storage (bureau?)

animal fig. frag. big goblet- juglets horse-and-rider like kraters bowls frag. pot stand cooking pots 4 altars decanters store jars holemouth jars

incense burning libations (?) votive

domestic

stand

libation/dry offerings, casting lots/ gambling

domestic

astragali

bowls kraters cooking pots juglets flask storage jars

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

504

Table 3.9.╇ Comparative table of Israelite and Judean assemblages Iron IIC Site

Date

Building/ Room

Installations

Room Function

Artifacts Cat. A

Artifacts Cat. B

Other

Cult Activities

Cult Type

Lachish

Iron IIC lower house, Room 3573

altar, zoom. frag.

Lachish

Iron IIC lower house, Room 3582

2 zoom. frag.

bowl votive krater cooking pots black juglet holemouth jar storage jars basalt bowl

domestic

Lachish

Iron IIC lower house, Room 3533

oven

kitchen

zoom. fig. frag.

bowl cooking pot krater jug

domestic

Lachish

Iron IIC Level II house

channel and basin

wine storage

male head

3 bowls votive/ domestic 1 cooking pot ancestor cult or work 2 store jars related

Lachish

Iron IIC Locus 2066

Lachish

Iron IIC G 14: 1008

Lachish

Iron IIC H 17: 1078

Tel Masos

Iron IIC Room 609

military dwelling ?

zoom. fig.

Tel Masos

Iron IIC Room 708

military dwelling ?

JPF base

Tel Masos

Iron IIC Room 758

military dwelling ?

Tel Masos

Iron IIC Room 718

Tell Iron IIC Rooms en-Naṣbeh 616/622

astragali

bowls cooking pot black juglets lamp jug store jare holemouth jar basalt bowl

entrance area 2 male of house peg-figurines oven

hearth

kitchen

incense burning, votive, casting lots/ gambling

votive

domestic

votive/ domestic ancestor cult

JPF head

imitated cowry shell

bowls jugs cooking pot pilgrim flask jars storage jars

worship/ votive

domestic

JPF head

pot stand lamp

juglet small. jug cooking pot bowl storage jars

worship/ votive

domestic

bowl krater jug juglet store jar

votive

domestic

bowl juglets cooking pots storage jar

worship/ votive

domestic

model chair

cup

votive

domestic

military dwelling ?

zoom. fig. zoom. spout

bowls flask

votive libation

domestic

kitchen

stand 2 JPF frags. (616) anthropom. frag. v frag. (622)

jars bowl cooking pot

libations/dry domestic offerings votive

lamps

Tell Iron IIC 393 en-Naṣbeh

male head couch model

votive

domestic

Tell Iron IIC 398 en-Naṣbeh

JPF head couch model

votive

domestic

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

505

Table 5.1.╇ Epigraphic Judean and Israelite personal names verified by different collections Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Secular Names

Not Included

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances HAE 2/1

70

144

41

80

10

19

27

58

68

132

35

44

13

251

477

HAE 2/2

125

554

81

246

37

87

32

125

135

493

60

131

49

470

1636 51

12

14

8

8

2

2

2

2

16

21

4

4

1

44

FHCB

8

9

5

10

3

3

1

1

9

10

4

6

21

30

39

BPHB

66

251

36

82

14

19

12

41

71

196

28

55

23

227

644

7

NEE

Others Total

18

21

8

8

5

5

6

7

19

23

10

11

164

993

119

434

48

135

47

234

192

875

105

251

66

75

675

2922

Table 5.2.╇ Comparing the distribution of epigraphic and biblical names Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Secular Names

Not Included

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances Epigraphic

164

119

434

48

135

47

34.0% 17.6%

14.9%

7.1%

4.6%

7.0%

thank+confess: 41.9%

48.9%

All Prayer Names: 49.0%

53.5%

24.3%

Biblical

166

993

76

180

32

76

34

34.1% 14.0%

13.2%

5.8%

5.6%

6.2%

thank+confess: 44.5%

47.3%

All Prayer Names: 50.3%

52.9%

30.5%

465

234

192

8.0% 28.4%

95

170

7.0% 31.2%

105

251

29.9% 15.6%

875

8.6%

67

107

32.2% 12.3%

439

7.9%

675

2922

545

1362

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

506

Table 5.3.╇ Epigraphic personal names from Israel and its environment Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Secular Names

Not Included

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances Ammon.

38

34

54

14

27

8

32.1% 23.3%

17.7%

9.6%

8.9%

5.5%

thank+confess: 49.3%

49.8%

All Prayer Names: 58.9%

58.7%

26.0%

Moabite

16

98

10

12

3

28.6% 18.2%

19.0%

5.5%

thank+confess: 47.3%

47.6%

29.1%

18

All Prayer Names: 52.8% Aram.

77

Phoen.

24

26

29

20.8% 30.2%

29.1%

6.4%

5.9%

7.8%

thank+confess: 50.8%

49.9%

All Prayer Names: 57.2%

55.8%

112

228

20

28

30

14.3% 35.1%

39.2%

6.3%

4.8%

9.4%

thank+confess: 50.8%

53.5%

All Prayer Names: 56.9%

58.1%

50

164

83

119

434

48

135

47

34.0% 17.6%

14.9%

7.1%

4.6%

7.0%

thank+confess: 41.9%

48.9%

All Prayer Names: 49.0%

53.5%

24.3%

993

37

8

15

22

29.2% 10.3%

89

7.2%

17

19

3

3

12.7% 30.8%

30.1

5.5%

4.8%

103

48

57

23.2% 12.8%

12.9%

28

146

305

3

55

63

101

374

443

58

319

581

114

675

2922

52.4%

129

15.7%

Hebrew

6

113

20.6%

92

3

4.8% 10.9%

15

4.9% 25.3%

36

83

8.1% 22.2%

86

162

21

28

9.3% 26.9%

52

27.9%

6.6%

4.8%

875

105

251

29.9% 15.6%

8.6%

234

192

8.0% 28.4%

Table 5.4.╇ Epigraphic Judean and Israelite personal names according to their distribution in different collections Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Secular Names

Not Included

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances HAE 2/1

70

41

80

10

30.2% 16.3%

16.8%

4.0%

thank+confess: 44.2%

47.0%

27.9%

HAE 2/2

125

246

37

87

32

15%

7.9%

5.3%

6.8%

thank+confess: 43.8%

48.9%

All Epi� graphic

68

125

135

7.7% 28.7%

44 9.2%

60

131

30.1% 12.8%

493

8.0%

82

14

19

12

6.2%

3.0%

5.3%

thank+confess: 44.9%

51.7% 3.9

2.3

5.5

5.7

4.3

2.7

1.7

1.2

234

192

875

105

251

29.9% 15.6%

8.6%

1.4

4.0

thank+confess:

1.1

4.7

119

434

48

135

47

34% 17.6%

14.9%

7.1%

4.6%

7.0%

164 24.3%

993

71

132

12.8%

8.7

41

35

27.7% 14.0%

36

2.5

251

58

12.1% 27.0%

38.9% 15.8%

29.1%

Max. Deviation

27

81

66

554

19

4.0% 10.8%

33.9% 17.2%

26.6%

BPHB

144

6.4% 31.3%

8.0% 28.4%

28

55

30.4% 12.3%

196

8.5%

13

251

477

49

470

1636

23

227

644

675

2922

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

507

Table 5.5.╇ Epigraphic Judean and Israelite personal names according to their distribution in different collections, taking all prayer name groups together Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Secular Names

Not Included

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances HAE 2/1

70 27.9%

41

80

10

30.2% 16.3%

144

16.8%

4.0%

All Prayer Names: 48.2% HAE 2/2

125 26.6%

BPHB

66 29.1%

All Others

38 27.2%

554

164 24.3%

27

81

246

37

87

32

15.0%

7.9%

5.3%

6.8%

All Prayer Names: 51.7%

54.2%

251

36

82

14

19

12

38.9% 15.8%

12.8%

6.2%

3.0%

5.3%

All Prayer Names: 51.1%

54.7%

44

21

26

10

10

9

26.6% 15.0%

15.8%

7.1%

6.1%

6.4%

All Prayer Names: 49.3%

48.5%

3.5

3.7 135

47 7.0%

993

58

68

12.1% 27.0%

35

44

27.7% 14.0%

132

9.2%

13

251

477

49

470

1636

23

227

644

29

140

165

675

2922

51.0%

33.9% 17.2%

Maximum Deviation All Epi� graphic

19

4.0% 10.8%

119

434

48

34% 17.6%

14.9%

7.1%

4.6%

All Prayer Names: 49.0%

53.5%

125

135

7.7% 28.7%

41

71

6.4% 31.3%

10

493

131 8.0%

28

55

30.4% 12.3%

196

8.5%

44

6.1% 31.4%

234

60

30.1% 12.8%

192

8.0% 28.4%

18

21

32.7% 12.9%

54

12.7%

875

105

251

29.9% 15.6%

8.6%

Table 5.6.╇ Comparing the distribution of the names from ostraca, seals/bullae, and the Hebrew Bible Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Secular Names

Not Included

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Names Instances HAE 2/1

70

144

41

80

10

19

27

58

68

132

35

44

13

251

477

NEE

12

14

8

8

2

2

2

2

16

21

4

4

1

44

51

Others

18

21

8

8

5

5

6

7

19

23

10

11

7

66

75

Ostraca

100

179

57

96

17

26

35

67

103

176

49

59

361

603

29.8% 15.8%

15.9%

4.7%

4.3%

9.7%

29.1% 13.6%

9.8% 1636

27.7% HAE 2/2

11.1% 28.5%

125

554

81

246

37

87

32

125

135

493

60

131

49

470

FHCB

8

9

5

10

3

3

1

1

9

10

4

6

21

30

39

BPHB

66

251

36

82

14

19

12

41

71

196

28

55

23

227

644

814

122

338

54

109

45

167

215

699

92

192

727

2319

35.1% 16.8%

14.6%

7.4%

4.7%

6.2%

30.1% 12.6%

8.3%

675

2922

545

1362

Seals

199 27.4%

7.2% 29.6%

Deviation

-0.3

+5.9

+1.0

-1.3

+2.7

+0.4

-3.5

-3.9

+1.1

+1.0

-1.0

-1.5

All Epi� graphic

164

993

119

434

48

135

47

234

192

875

105

251

34% 17.6%

14.9%

7.1%

4.6%

7.0%

29.9% 15.6%

8.6%

24.3% Biblical

166 30.5%

76

180

32

76

34

34.1% 14.0%

465

13.2%

5.8%

5.6%

6.2%

8.0% 28.4% 95

170

7.0% 31.2%

67

107

32.2% 12.3%

437

7.9%

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

508

Table 5.7.╇ Theophoric elements in Hebrew personal names Names of Thanksgiving

Divinities 28 Theophoric Elements ʾāb

divine father

ʾēm

divine mother

ʾāḥ

divine brother

ʿam ḥam

4

Names of Birth

2

5

10

60

3

8

1

1

2

20

130

1

1

divine uncle

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

father-in-law

2

2

Yhwh

3

21

8

3.1%

3.1%

9.5%

116

10

16 72

Baal

ʾAdōn

lord

ʾAdatt

lady

ʿAnat

Anat

ʾAšer

Asher

Yeraḥ

Yerach

Melek

king

Malkāh

queen

Môt

Mot

Qōs

Qos

Śāhār

Sahar

Šalem

Shalem

Šamaš

Shamash

21

5

2

72.3% Baʿal

Equating Names

1

El, my god

3

16.3% Yahweh

Names of Praise

17.2% 11.9% 520

51

77.0% 60.7%

9

5

2.8% 14.7% 16

6

5.0% 17.6% 265

18

82.6% 53.0%

34

199

3

8.0% 43.5%

8

47.2%

2.8%

21

12

12

9

12.0% 11.5% 64

19

64.0% 24.4%

5.0% 11.0% 104

80

24.6% 73.4%

3

17

71

3

8

27

155

4

4

2

2

53

240

0.7% 13.1%

12.1%

53

220

12.0% 13.1%

55

11.1%

240

1337

83.5% 59.4%

384

67.6%

2

3

1

1

1

4

2

7

5

5

11

20

2.1%

0.4%

1.2%

0.3%

2.9%

4.0%

2.6%

1.7%

4.6%

1.1%

2.8%

1.0%

1

1

1

2

5

18

7

21

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

Other West Semitic Deities and Epithets

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names instances

1

Divinized Designations of Kinship ʾEl, ʾēlī

Names of Confession

1 1.1%

1

9

0.2% 10.7%

9

Ḥor

Horus

2

10

ʾIs

Isis

1

6

Bes

Bes

1

4

Egyptian Deities

4

2.8% 11.8%

7 12

5

69

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

13

78

1

1

2

4

3

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

8

1

1

13

90

6

8

33

120

12.0% 16.7%

21.3%

5.5%

1.7%

8.2%

6.1%

1

1

1

2

4

14

1

1

1

6

2

5

4

20

1

1

2

3

7

24

4.8%

6.2%

1.3%

0.2%

1.8%

0.6%

1.7%

1.2%

šem

name

1

1

1

1

ʿezrī

my help

2

8

2

8

ʾūr

light

2

5

2

5

ḥayil

strength

1

1

ʿalay

the exalted

Divine Characteristics Total

1

1

5

14

1

1

5.1%

2.1%

1.2%

0.3%

99

675

84

321

34

100

78

422

1

2

1

2

1

2

7

17

0.9%

0.4%

1.7%

0.9%

109

460

404

1,978

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

509

Table 5.8.╇ Comparison of the theophoric elements of Levantine onomastica Deities

Hebrew

Number of Deities or Epithets

Moabite 28

Portion in Percent

Ammonite 11

Aramaic

15

Names Inst. Names Inst. Names Inst. Names

Phoenician

44

60

Inst

Names Inst.

Div. Kinship Terms

13.1

12.1

27.0

28.6

15.6

9.6

15.5

14.9

7.9

5.2

El, My God

13.1

11.1

13.5

11.9

67.8

81.8

19.1

20.4

7.2

5.6

Main God

59.4

67.6

37.9

40.5

67.8

81.8

18.7

18.1

23.5

23.5

2.8

1.0

10.8

9.5

2.2

0.9

21.5

21.4

24.3

24.0

10.8

9.5

13.3

7.2

21.5

22.2

47.4

51.8

1.6

1.5

6.8

8.0

Yhwh Weather Gods Other West Semitic Deities or Epithets

7.9

6.0

Egyptian Deities

1.7

1.2

Mesopotamian Deities

0.3

0.1

Total of All Other Gods

9.9

7.3

Divine Characteristics

1.7

0.9

Goddesses

2.4

2.2

Kamosh

10.8 2.7

9.5 2.4

El

Hadad/Baal

Baal/Hadad

1.1

0.5

20.0

18.9

3.2

2.6

14.4

7.7

43.1

42.6

57.4

62.4

0.8

0.7

3.2

2.8

4.5

4.4

13.5

11.0

2.0

1.0

Table 5.9.╇ Theophoric elements in Moabite personal names Names of Thanksgiving

Divinities

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances ʾāb

divine father

ʾēm

divine mother

ʾāḥ

divine brother

ʿam

divine uncle

Divinized Designations of Kinship ʾEl, ʾēlī

1 2 2 1 11.1%

Kamōš

Chemosh

1

1 1

22.2% El, my god

1

4 44.5%

2 2

1 1

22.2% 12.5% 1

1

11.1% 12.5% 4

1

2

11.1% 66.7% 1

1

11.1% 33.3%

1 2

1

2

2

1

1

3

3

6

6

1

3

1

3

5

7

10

12

66.7% 50.0%

50.0%

27.0%

28.6%

1

1

33.3% 10.0%

4

5

2

44.5% 50.0%

55.6%

20.0%

1 4

Baʿal

Baal

1

1

Hadad

1

1

2

2

20.0%

4

23.5% 57.2%

Adad Weather Deities

1

7.1% 14.3%

2 2

14.3% 28.5%

5

5

14.3% 13.5%

1

11.9%

14

17

57.2% 37.9%

4

40.5%

2 2

3

3

1

1

4

4

28.5% 10.8%

9.5%

Malk

Malk, king

2

2

Hauron

Hauron

1

1

1

1

Raḥban

Rachban

1

1

1

1

2

2

4

4

22.2% 25.0%

22.2%

10.8%

9.5%

37

42

Other West Semitic Deities Total

2

2 22.2% 9

2

2 9

8

9

3

3

10

14

7

7

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

510

Table 5.10.╇ Theophoric elements in Ammonite personal names Names of Thanksgiving

Divinities

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances ʾāb

divine father

ʾāḥ

divine brother

ʾaḥat

divine sister

ʿam

divine uncle

ḥam

father-in-law

Divinized Designations of Kinship ʾEl, ʾēlī

El, my god

1 1

1

1

1

2

2

1

7.4%

2.6%

4.5%

24

74

16

Adad

Hadad Baal

96.1% 72.8%

1

32

1

2

8

1

1

2

4

1

1

2

2

3

5

9

3

13.6% 45.4%

39.1%

15%

8

13

17

3

77.3% 27.3%

2

1

2

1

1

14

20

10.2% 15.6%

9.6%

5

40

34.8% 65.0%

61

171

81.7% 67.8%

81.8%

1

1

1

1

2

2

5.0%

2.0%

2.2%

0.9%

1

1

ʾAdōn

lord

2

2

Māreʾ

lord

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

1.3% 18.2%

4

2

10.5% 20.0%

2

1

3

3

4

2

5

3

9.1% 27.3%

6

77

22

38

10

22

11

1

2

2

26.1% 10.0%

Bel, Marduk

27

3 2

1

Mesopotamian Deities Total

3 2

1

1

3.7%

1 1

2.6% 2

Other West Semitic Deities and Epithets

1 1

1

2

1

11

4.5% king

Bēl

5 3

1

Milkom

Mot

3 1

1

Malk

Yhwh

5

84.3% 50.0%

Milkom

Maut

3

3

2.6% 30.0%

1

Weather Deities

Yahweh

3

1

88.9% Baʿal

1

23

1

1

1

1

12

15

4.1% 13.3%

7.2%

1

1

1

1

5.0%

2.0%

1.1%

0.5%

20

49

90

209

Table 5.11.╇ Theophoric elements in Aramaic personal names Divinities

Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances ʾāb

divine father

ʾēm

divine mother

ʾāḥ

divine brother

ʾaḥat

divine sister

ʿam

divine uncle

Divinized Designations of Kinship ʾEl, ʾēlī

El, (my god)

ʾilāh

god

ʾilat

goddess

El + Appellative

1 1

1 1

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

7

9 10

2

16

16

2

2 18

2

2

15 1

1

1

4

4

5

38

41

10.6% 15.5%

14.9%

1

1

2

2

1

22

5

2

8 9.3%

15

20

10

11

1

1

3

3

4

4

1

1

1

1

21

14

38.7% 16.2%

15

3

19

2

3.7%

8.2% 23.5%

4

9

2

16

4

1

4.3%

34.9%

8

1

22.2% 36.5% 3

3

3

3

3

15.5% 17.3%

16.7%

5.8%

4

2

Hadad

Hadad

6

7

15

18

Baʿal

Baal

2

2

5

5

4

36.7% 11.1% 4

4

11

11

6.7% 24.4% 2

13

13

42

51

47

56

27.7% 19.1%

20.4%

9

9

36

40

3

3

10

10

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

511

Table 5.11.╇ Theophoric elements in Aramaic personal names Divinities

Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Baʿalat

Mistress

1

1

Rimmān

Rimmon

1

1

1

2

ʾAplad

Aplad

Rakeb

Rider

Ṣapān

Saphon

Weather Deities

2

10 21.7%

ʾAdōn

lord

ʿAttar

Ashtar

1

2

2

11

1

1

24

28

20.8% 27.9% 5

4

4

3

28.9% 23.5%

21.2%

5.8%

1

1

2

4

12

6.7% 26.7% 2

1

1

1

2

3

2

2

1

2

1

1

53

59

25.5% 21.5%

21.4%

12 1

7

4

4

5

7

Baytʾel

Bethel

2

2

1

1

3

3

Dagan

Dagan

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

Gad

Gad

Hauron

Hauron

1

1

Kadiʾāh

Kadia

1

1

Malk Malik

king, Malik

1

1

2

2

Milkom

Milkom

Māreʾ

lord

1

2

1

1

2

2

4

6

6

6

2

2

3

3

1

1

1

1

6

9

2

2

10

10

Qaus

Qos

1

1

1

1

Šaḥar

Shachar

1

1

1

1

Šalem

Shalem

1

1

Šalman

Shalman

1

3

Yahweh

Yhwh

Other West Semitic Deities and Epithets Assur

Assur

Bēl

Bel, Marduk

5

5

2

2

7

7

19

23

15.2% 1

13.2% 22.1%

1 4

23.7% 23.5%

5

2

Enlil Haldi

Nabû

Nabu

1

1

Nanay

Nanaya

2

1

1

10

10

18

8

8

53

61

17.0% 21.5%

22.2%

27.8% 28.8%

30.0% 17.8%

1

3

4

Nasuḥ

Nasuch, Nusku

3

3

1 3

1 1

1 1

2 5

2

1

Elil

2 2

15

1

Haldi

2

1

1 1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1 1

1 1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

6

7

5

6

6

6

Šamaš

Shamash

2

2

7

7

2

2

2

2

13

13

Sîn

Sin

3

3

4

5

3

3

3

3

13

14

9

19

11

8

8

49

52

17.1% 20.0%

18.9%

Deities from Mesopotamia and Urartu

8 17.5%

17.0% 22.1%

21

2

21.7% 11.9%

Ada

Ada

Sir

Osiris

Ḥor

Horus

1

1

Egyptian and Arabian Deities

2 2.4%

2

11

11.1% 21.2%

18.3% 17.8% 1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

4

2.0%

1.9%

1.6%

2.2%

2.1%

1.6%

1.5%

ʿezrī

my help

1

1

1

1

nabal

noble

1

1

1

1

Divine Characteristics Total

2

2

2

2

4.3%

3.7%

0.8%

0.7%

46

53

246

275

86

97

17

18

52

60

45

47

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

512

Table 5.12.╇ Theophoric elements in Phoenician personal names Divinities

Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances ʾāb

divine father

ʾēm

divine mother

ʾāḥ

divine brother

ʿam

divine uncle

Divinized Designations of Kinship ʾEl, ʾēlī

El, my god

ʾilāh

1

1

1

1

2.8%

2.0%

2

2

6

8

3

3

2

3

3

9

12 3

6

7

8

2

2

5 1

1

1

1

2

2

15

18

2

3

20

24

9.1% 28.3%

17.8%

4.4%

3.1%

7.9%

5.2%

6

4

4

13

17

12.5% 2

3

god

1

1

1

1

ʾēlīm

gods

3

7

3

7

ʾšēdu

tutelary god

1

1

1

1

12

El + appellative + šēdu Baʿal

Baal

Hadad

Hadad

Rimmōn

Rimmon

Ṣapōn

Saphon

Weather Deities

2

2

7

5.6%

4.0%

7.0%

15

21

19

35

2

2

15 41.6%

21

2

3

2

2

3

6

4

4

18

26

6.2% 12.5%

9.1%

5.7%

5.9%

8.9%

4.1%

7.2%

5.6%

8

7

18

9

22

55

104

2

3

1

1

22

38

42.0% 21.8%

2

5 1

1

6

9

19.7% 37.5%

ʾEšmun

Eshmun

3

11

5

17

ʿAštar

Ashtar

1

1

1

1

ʿAštart

Ashtarte

4

4

8

14

Ḥammon

Hammon

2

3

Melqart

Melqart (Tyre)

3

11

Maskir

Maskir

2

ʿAn

An

1

ʿAnat

Anat

labiʾt

1

9

41.0% 17.0% 1

3

21

9

20.8% 20.0% 10

4

4

5

1

1

1

1

61

111

22.7% 24.3%

24.0%

22 13

1

1

4

5

1

2

2

2

16

52

2

2

17

24

2

3

6

15

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

3

2

3

Lioness (ʿAnat)

1

1

1

1

Paʿam

Pa’am

1

2

1

2

Sakkōn

Sakkon

1

3

1

3

Ṣid

Sid (Sidon)

1

1

1

1

5

9

Tannit

Tannit

2

2

1

1

30

61

3

3

Other Phoenician Deities

8 22.2%

16

32.0% 29.7%

31.6% 18.7%

1 6

13.6% 11.3%

3 16

2 12

15.8% 26.7%

4

3

3

59

120

24.7% 23.5%

25.9%

7

19 1

24

ʾAdōn

lord

3

5

ʾAšim

Ashima (?)

1

1

1

Baytʾel

Bethel

1

1

1

1

Dagon

Dagan

1

1

4

14

1

1

1

2

Doʿam

Doʿam

3

4

Gad

Gad

1

1

1

1

Gušī

Gushi

1

1

1

1

Hauron

Horon

1

1

1

1

Ḥodeš

new moon

2

6

2

6

Māreʾ

lord

1

1

Milk

Milk, king

5

5

1

1

8

11

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

8

16

6

26

28

62

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

513

Table 5.12.╇ Theophoric elements in Phoenician personal names Divinities

Names of Thanksgiving

Names of Confession

Names of Praise

Equating Names

Names of Birth

Total

Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Names Instances Milkat

Milkat, queen

1

3

Rešep

Resheph

2

6

Šaḥar

Shachar

1

1

Šalim

Shalim

Šapaš

Shapash

Yahweh

Yhwh

Other West Semitic Deities and Epithets

1 1 8 22.2%

1

1

1

1 1

8

23

38

2

19.7% 12.6%

5

16

22.7% 30.2%

35

1

1

1

2

2

34

60

120

35.1% 23.9%

25.9%

11

Assur Bel, Marduk

Šamaš

Shamash

1

4

Super

scribe (Nabû)

1

1

3

6

3

4

2

5.6%

4.0%

4.4%

Deities from Mesopotamia

1 2

1 34.7% 24.5%

1 4

8

1 1

Bēl

3

5

3

2

Assur

1

3

1 1

1 16.0% 22.8%

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

9

1

1

2

8

12

2.1%

3.2%

2.6%

2

3 9

2.9%

3.1%

ʾAmun

Amun

2

3

ʾAbast

Bastet

1

7

1

2

2

ʾIs

Isis

2

2

1

1

3

3

Sir

Osiris

2

9

1

1

3

10

Ḥapi

Apis

1

1

1

3

2

4

Ḥor

Horus

2

3

Min

Min

Ptaḥ

Ptah

Egyptian Deities

1

1 1

1

3

11

28

1 1.9%

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

4

5

8

17

37

1.0% 11.1%

8.2%

10.9%

14.5%

6.8%

8.0%

ʾohel

tent

1

1

1

1

hēkal

temple

1

4

1

4

ʾūr

light

1

1

1

1

1

1

ʿezrī

my help

1

1

laʾi

mighty

2

3

2

3

naʿm

good

1

2

1

2

šem

name

1

1

Divine Characteristics Total

1

1

2

2

5

10

1

1

8

13

5.6%

4.0%

4.9%

5.2%

6.3%

4.5%

3.2%

2.8%

36

50

101

193

16

22

251

463

53

101

45

97

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

514

Table 5.13.╇ Types of equating names Type

Subject

Predicate

Examples

1a

family god

major god

ʾAbīyāhû, ʾAḥîʾēl, ʾAḥīḥur, ʿAmmīšālēm

1b

personal god

major god

ʾElīyāhû, ʾAdōnīmelek, Malkīyāhû, Mārayḥaldi

2a

major god

family god

Melqartʾāb, Yĕhôʾāḥ, Kamošʿam, Qausʾimmī (?)

2b

major god

personal god

Sasilī, Sîrʾadōnī, Ešmunʾadōnī, Nabûmāreʾ

3a

personal god

family god

ʾElīʿam, ʾAdōnīʾāb

3b

family god

personal god

ʾAḥlay

3c

family god

family god

ʾAḥîʾāb, ʾAḥīʾēm, ʾImmīʾāḥ, ʾAḥatʾāb

4

major god

major god

Yĕhôʾēl, Kamōšʾēl, Šēdad, Šalmānrimmān, Milkšamaš, cf. Baʿalyāh

Table 5.14.╇ Female deities in the Levantine onomastica Goddesses ʾēm ‘mother’

Hebrew

Moabite

Ammonite

Names

Instances

Names

Instances

3

8

1

1

ʾaḥat ‘sister’

Names 2

ʾadatt or baʿalat ‘lady’

1

1

malkāh/milkat ‘queen’

1

1

Aramaic

Instances 2

ʾilat ‘goddess’ ʿAnat

1

Phoenician

Names

Instances

Names

Instances

2

2

3

3

1

1

1

1 3

5

1

1

1

labiʾt ‘lioness’ ʿAshtarte Tannit Isis

1

6

Bastet Nanaya

5

Ada Total Portion Goddesses

2

3

1

1

17

24

3

3

3

3

2

9

6

1

1

7

17

1

1

2

2

11

12

34

51

1.7%

0.9%

2.7%

2.4%

2.0%

1.0%

4.5%

4.4%

13.5%

11.0%

5

1

1

6

8

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

515

Table 5.15.╇ Astral symbols on Iron Age stamp seals Astral Deities

Israelite/ Judahite

Philistine

Ammonite

Shamash/ Man in Sun-Disc

Edomite

Moabite

Phoenician

WSS 1053 WSS 1025

Sin/MoonWSS 80; 97; God of Haran GGG 304; 305b

Ishtar

GGG 286; 287; 288b; 288c

Other Goddesses

WSS 112; 173; 226; GGG 323

Aramaic

Undefined or Unclear Origin

WSS 782; 783; 784; 845; 849 WSS 767; WSS 1177 779; 793; 795; 816; 838; 848; 850; 856

Eggler and Keel 2006: D. ʿAlla 28; Amman 5 GGG 288a

WSS 754 (?)

WSS 861; 921; 950; 976

WSS 791

Symbols of Astral Deities Winged SunDisc lmlk / Winged Scarab lmlk

about 1,700 impressions

Winged Sun-Disc

WSS 3b; 122; 267; 284; 343; 349; 373; 685; GGG 293a; 293b

WSS 867; GGG 294 899; 915; 938; 945; 989

WSS 1032

WSS 728; WSS 750; WSS 1096; 1101; 733; 735; 737; 755; 763, 772; 1107; 1125; 1143; 743; 746; 749 780; 790; 819 1148; 1172; 1174; 1184

Sun-Disc WSS 5; 122 without Wings

WSS 858; 967; 993

WSS 1032

Winged Scarab

WSS 16; 59; 103; 163; 188; 475; 639; 662; Seal of Hezekiah

WSS 860; 865; 891; 944; 981

Rosette

WSS 113; 199; 239

WSS 964

WSS 1037

Star

WSS 94; 112 GGG 280b; 282a; 282b; 282c; 284a 285a; 285b; 286; 287; 289; 290; 301b; 302c

WSS 867; 937; 942

WSS 1006; 1013; WSS 725; 1016; 1017; 1018; 741; 749 1021; 1027; 1028; 1031; 1033; 1035; Eggler and Keel 2006: Karak 2

WSS 817 WSS 731

WSS 775; 843; 785; 811; 832; 837; 839; 843

WSS 1082; 1085; 1094; 1127; 1128; 1129; 1136; 1145; 1150; 1151; 1152; 1159; 1161; 1169; 1171; 1175; 1180 WSS 1088; 1113; 1139

WSS 754; 759; 761; 762; 767; 806; 816; 817; 840; 849; 853

WSS 1075; 1079; 1080; 1083; 1098; 1100; 1110; 1148; 1153; 1167; 1181

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

516

Table 5.16.╇ Deities, protective deities and mixed creatures on Iron Age stamp seals Protective Spirits

Israelite/ Judahite

Seated Deity, Male

Philistine WSS 1067 (?)

Seated Deity, Female Standing Deity, Male

Ammonite

Edomite

Moabite

Eggler and Keel WSS 1057 2006: Amman 88 (Nabu)

Phoenician

Aramaic

WSS 736

Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 5 (Gula) WSS 749

WSS 173

WSS 754 (Ishtar); 782

WSS 1102 (?)

WSS 814 (Adad)

WSS 1098

Winged Anthropo- WSS 173; 185; Morphic, Male GGG 211a,b,c; 212 a, b; 213

WSS 973; Eggler and Keel 2006: Safut 4

Winged Anthropo- WSS 112; 173 morphic, Female

Eggler and Keel 2006: Salt 4

WSS 712

WSS 791

Anthropomorphic WSS 115; 198 Figure without (laḫmu) Wings, Male

Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 5 (il bīti)

WSS 741

WSS 763 (lahmu), 802; 845 (il bīti)

Anthropomorphic WSS 226 Figure without Wings, Female

WSS 861; 921; (950)

Falcon-Headed Figure

WSS 320; GGG 213

Eggler and Keel 2006: Mazar 23

Infant Horus

WSS 4; 126; 316; GGG 241a, b, c.

Horus Falcon (dominant motif only)

WSS 108; 243; 267

Eggler and Keel 2006: Umm Qeis 3

Bes

GGG 226a, b, c; 227; 228

Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 62

WSS 769; 786; 829 (?)

Winged Uraeus

WSS 11; 29, 46; 104; 127; 194; 206; 284; 349; 370; 381; 385; 475; 689 GGG 259b

Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 70, Eggler and Keel 2006: ‘Umeiri 50

WSS 796

Sphinx

WSS 369; (1124 = GGG 246); 249

WSS 940; 965 Eggler and Keel 2006: Umm Qeis 2

WSS 1049 WSS 1012; WSS 713; 740; 1017; 1019; 745 1030; 1038

Winged Griffin

WSS 44; 85; WSS 116; 135; 143; 1067 160; 168; 182; 190; 193; 325; 345; 711; GGG 250a; 251; 254 a, b

WSS 893; 901; 959 Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 54; Mazar 24

WSS 1055; WSS 1023 1056

Lamassu

WSS 173

WSS 925

Lion Demon (Ugallu) Scorpion-Man Lion Dragon

WSS 1020; 1030

WSS 715; 729 WSS 844 (?); 730

WSS 1087; 1092; 1114; 1119; 1134; 1147; 1149; 1154; 1155

(WSS 728, 735 Horus/ Re-Harachte) WSS 712

WSS 858 Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 5 WSS 159

Undefined or Unclear Origin

WSS 733; 740; 743

WSS 747

WSS 1143

WSS 1091; 1124

WSS 1077; 1095; 1124; 1129; 1132; 1163; 1184 WSS 780; 819

WSS 758; 802; 845 WSS 758 WSS 772

WSS 1123; 1128; 1137; 1146; 1147; 1151; 1172; 1174; 1190; 1192

Additional Tables: Tables 3.6–3.9, 5.1–5.16

517

Table 5.16.╇ Deities, protective deities and mixed creatures on Iron Age stamp seals Protective Spirits

Israelite/ Judahite

Other Mixed Creatures

Contest Scene

GGG 284a, b

Philistine

Ammonite

Edomite

Moabite

Phoenician

Aramaic

Undefined or Unclear Origin

WSS 844; 973 Eggler and Keel 2006: Amman 4 (winged bull) Eggler and Keel 2006: ʿUmērī 55 (human/ bovine) Eggler and Keel 2006: ʿUmeiri 77 (winged bull)

WSS 759 (winged bull); 783 (bull men supporting god in sun-disc)

WSS 1113 (winged horse); 1159 (winged lion)

WSS 938

WSS 763; 776; 777; 802

WSS 1097

Iron I

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Tel Batash

Tel Batash

Tel Batash

Beersheba

Beersheba

Beersheba

Beersheba

Date

Ai

Site

Locus 442

Locus 808

Locus 844 debris from 2nd store fallen on street Locus 25

Room 778

House 607

Unit 914 Loci 910/915

Locus 69, integrated

Building/ Room bench platform channel(?) platform in niche

Installations

domestic

domestic

domestic, pillared room

JPF model chair 2 limestone altars

JPF model chair

mini lamp

miniature vessels pot stand collectibles

chalices anthropom. and zoomorph. vessel frags. miniature altar

(domestic) bronze and fayance fig. amulets

domestic

domestic

domestic

stands collectibles animal fig. frag. lamp

cultic

Artifacts Category B

Artifacts Category A

Room function

bowls cooking pots juglets jar juglet

bowl jar

Other

worship/ votives incense offering

votive

votive

uncertain

libation, food/drink consumption libation/ drink consumption incense offering

Cult activities

Comparative Table of Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order

Appendix A

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

(domestic)

domestic

domestic

neighborhood shrine

Cult type

518 Appendix A

Locus 1342

Locus 1564

Loci 1557 62 63 Loci 298/293

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Tell Beit Mirsim

Tell Beit Mirsim

Tell Beit Mirsim

Beth-shean Iron IA

Beth-shean Iron IIA

Beth-shean Iron IIA

IIB/C

Beth-shean Iron

NW 22-13

Iron IIB

Bethel

NW 31-11 Casemate (back) room

NW 32-12

Locus 315

Locus 3622

Iron IIC

Beersheba

Building/ Room

Date

Site

basin?

olive-oil press

Installations

domestic

storage

domestic

storage/ industrial

domestic

domestic

industrial

domestic, courtyard ?

Room function

mini lamp cosmetic palette fayence obj. pyxides

lamp

chalice pendants

Artifacts Category B

tripod incense burner stand zoomorph. frag.

ivory object fem. fig. and 2 zoomorph. frags. 2 stands 2 fem. fig. frags. 1 zoomorph.

3 zoomorph. fig. frags. 3 JPF 3 zoomorph. frags. 1 JPF frag. 2 zoomorph. frag. lamp 2 JPF 1 zoomorph. frag. fem. fig. frag. 2 kernoi

Sphinx-figurine

Artifacts Category A

bowls cooking pots jars jug

jar juglets

cooking pot jug juglet jars bowls jugs flask

various domestic

bowls store jar

Other

Cult activities

incense burning, libation

worship/ votive

libation, votive music

worship/votive libation

worship/ votive

worship/ votive

worship/ votive

votive?

apotropaic

Cult type

domestic

work related

domestic

work related

domestic

domestic

most likely domestic work related

domestic

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 519

Date

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Site

Bethshemesh

Bethshemesh

Bethshemesh

Bethshemesh

Bethshemesh

Bethshemesh

Bethshemesh

Locus 321

Locus 373

Locus 375

Locus 376

Locus 377

Locus 382

Locus 387

Building/ Room

wine press

rectangullar fireplace

basalt tank

oven

Installations

industrial

industrial

courtyard(?) food processing industrial

courtyard of house, food preparation kitchen

Room function

2 JPF heads (+ 1 from adjacent locus) 1 animal fig. 3 animal fig. frag. various zoomorph. vessels/ figurines

animal fig (mouse)?

3 zoomorph. frags.

3 zoomorph. fig. frag. 1 zoomorph. spout model chair zoomorph. spout JPF head mold horse fig. frag.

Artifacts Category A

chalice disk-base lamp lamp

shells lamp

Artifacts Category B

hole-mouth jar stone pounders pick

juglet red juglet dipper juglets cooking pots dipper juglet “heavy pot” decanters juglets bowls lmlk-jar “crude” and “heavy” pots bowls decanter lmlk-jar mortars cooking pot

Other

votives/ libations

worship/votive

votive

votive

figurine production votive

votive libation

votive/ libation

Cult activities

work related

work related

work related

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

Cult type

520 Appendix A

Iron IIB

Iron IIA

Iron IIA

Iron IIA

ʿEin Gev

Tell el-Farʿah

Tell el-Farʿah

Tell el-Farʿah Tell el-Farʿah Tell el-Farʿah Tell el-Farʿah

Tel Halif

Iron IIC

Bethshemesh

Iron IIC

Iron IIA

Iron IIA

Iron IIB

Date

Site

Locus G 8005 back room

House 440 Room 460 courtyard House 440 Room 437 Locus 429a back room House 175 Room 174 House 161 Room 157 back room

House 440 Room 439

Locus 11

Locus 305

Building/ Room

benches

oven

oven

vats

Installations

storage

food storage/ preparation

domestic, food preparation domestic, food preparation

domestic, storage

textile production and processing

Room function

JPF head

tripod censor-cup zoomorph. vessel

fem. fig. and zoomorph. frags. model shrine?

model shrine

tripod incense cup

JPF

Artifacts Category A

fenestrated (pot-)stand 2 limestone blocks

game piece mini juglet game piece bead lamp

game piece

nephrite axe cosmetic bowl decorated jug bone pendant worked gazelle bone

Artifacts Category B

jugs juglets cooking pots jar storage jars jugs juglets

cooking pot bowl

jug juglets bowls

juglets cooking pots jar hole-mouth jar mortar pounder loom weights jugs beer jug jar store jar hole-mouth jar pestle mortar scraper bone spatulae bronze funnel millstone

Other

none

domestic worship/ votive, meals

domestic unlikely

libation

domestic

domestic

domestic

worship/ votive worship/ votive incense burning

domestic

domestic

incense burning, votive

worship/ votive

work related

Cult type

votive

Cult activities

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 521

Date

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Site

Tel Halif

Tel Halif

Tel Halif

Tel Halif

Tel Halif

Area F6

Locus F 8007 debris of 2nd store Locus F 7002 debris of 2nd store

Locus K 8002 debris of 2nd store

Locus L 8005 debris of 2nd store

Building/ Room

grinding installations

Installations

JPF frag

living? food preparation/ consumption 2 fenestrated stands

JPF torso

living?

food processing

lamps

3 JPF frags. horse-andrider frag.

food preparation/ consumption

scarab mace-head bone disc lamps

lamp

JPF torso

living?

Artifacts Category B

Artifacts Category A

Room function Other bowls platter bowl juglets jar storage jars pithoi jugs juglets cooking pots kraters decanter pitcher grinding stones mouth dipper amphoriskos jugs bowls jars pithoi bowls kraters cooking pots jugs juglets grinding stones domestic

domestic domestic

worship/votive, meals

worship/ votive worship/ votive

domestic

domestic

libations/ dry offerings

Cult type

Cult activities worship/ votive, meals

522 Appendix A

Date

Iron IB

Iron IIB

Iron IIB

Iron IIB

Iron IIB

Site

Hazor

Hazor

Hazor

Hazor

Hazor

House 13-16, 44 (back room)

House 48/63/47a/35a

House 48/63/47a/35a

Room 239a Tower of gate

Stratum XI, Room 3283 and adjacent structures (Loci 3307 and 3275), freestanding (?)

Building/ Room platform benches standing stone

Installations 3283: stand foundation offering in jug 3307: 2 stands 3275: 2 stands

Artifacts Category A

food preparation/ consumption food preparation/ consumption stand mask

zoomorph. spout

guardroom 1 zoomorph. vessel frag. (spout)

sanctuary

Room function

ivory handle

CyproPhoenician juglets 2 lamps 2 cup & saucer

ivory handle

Artifacts Category B Other

jug store jar

bowls cooking pots juglets krater

jugs cooking pot bowl

cooking pot storage jar basalt bowls and pestles 3307: bowl store jar 3275: bowl tripod bowl cooking pot krater store jar 12 bowls, 2 jugs a basalt bowl

Cult activities

offering/ divination?

libation

libation drinking, meals?

libation food offering/ consumption

domestic

domestic

work related military?

village shrine

Cult type

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 523

Date

Iron IIC

Iron IIB

Iron IIB

Iron IIB

IA IIA–IIB

Iron IIC

Site

Jerusalem

Kinneret

Kinneret

Kinneret

Lachish

Lachish

lower house Room 3569

Room 49, isolated

Room 328

Room 221

Building 683, Tripartite building

Locus 967 “house of the bullae”

Building/ Room

platform benches oven

oven?

Installations

cultic

dwelling

dwelling

storage? barracks

domestic storage (bureau?)

Room function

Artifacts Category B

stand

altar 4 stands

animal fig. frag.

fem. fig. torso

astragali

clay basin chalices lamps

rattle goblet

animal fig. frag. big goblet-like kraters horse-andpot stand rider frag. 4 altars

Artifacts Category A Other juglets bowls juglets bowls cooking pots decanters store jars hole-mouth jars bowl krater juglet storage jar cooking pots bowls jugs juglets storage jars bowls jugs juglets cooking pots storage jars bowls kraters cooking pots juglets flask storage jars

Cult activities

libation/dry offerings, casting lots/ gambling

offerings meals

uncertain

votive

incense burning libations (?) votive

domestic

neighborhood/village shrine

domestic

domestic and/or work related

domestic

Cult type

524 Appendix A

Date

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Site

Lachish

Lachish

Lachish

Lachish

Lachish

Lachish

G 14: 1008

Locus 2066

Level IIHouse

lower house Room 3533

lower house Room 3582

lower house Room 3573

Building/ Room

oven

channel and basin

oven

Installations

entrance are of house kitchen

wine storage

kitchen

Room function

JPF head

2 male peg-figurines

male head

zoomorph. fig. frag.

2 zoomorph. frag.

altar, zoomorph. frag.

Artifacts Category A

imitation cowry shell

astragali

Artifacts Category B

bowls jugs cooking pot pilgrim flask jars storage jars

bowls cooking pot black juglets lamp jug store jare hole-mouth jar basalt bowl bowl krater cooking pots black juglet hole-mouth jar storage jars basalt bowl bowl cooking pot krater jug 3 bowls 1 cooking pot 2 store jars

Other

worship/votive

votive/ancestor cult

votive/ancestor cult

votive

votive

incense burning, votive, casting lots/ gambling

Cult activities

domestic

domestic

domestic or work related

domestic

domestic

domestic

Cult type

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 525

Iron I

House 314 Room 343

Building 10 (Loci 10-16) here: 11

Tel Masos

Persian

Lachish

H 17: 1078

Mound A isolated? Room 100; 101; 102

Iron IIC

Lachish

Building/ Room

Tell Mazar IA IIA

Date

Site

ovens

benches (Rooms 100, 102 only)

Installations

kitchen/ food preparation/ consumption

storage

Room function

(Room 101) stand

altar

JPF head

Artifacts Category A

pot stand chalices lamps

chalices

lamp

pot stand lamp

Artifacts Category B juglet small jug cooking pot bowl storage jars bowl flask jug hole-mouth jar Stone rubber (Room 101) storage jars flasks jugs krater cooking pots bowls kraters cooking jugs cooking pots jugs strainer jug juglets store jars hole-mouth jars amphoriskos pyxides pilgrim flask flower pot working stones

Other

food/drink consumption

libation and food/drink consumption

offerings

worship/ votive

Cult activities

domestic

domestic

domestic

Cult type

526 Appendix A

Room 718

Mound A Room 101

Iron I

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Iron IIC

Tel Masos

Tel Masos

Tel Masos

Tel Masos

Tel Masos

Tell Mazar Iron IB

Room 758

Room 708

Room 609

House 314 Room 331

House 314 Room 307

Iron I

Tel Masos

Building/ Room

Date

Site platform oven

Installations

storage

military dwelling? military dwelling?

military dwelling?

military dwelling?

kitchen

Room function

zoomorph. fig. zoomorph. spout fenestrated stand

model chair

JPF base

zoomorph. fig.

stands (bowls) ivory spout (lion’s head)

animal fig.?

Artifacts Category A

chalices

lamps

collectibles? (copper) lamps

collectibles

Artifacts Category B Other

storage jars cooking pots kraters flasks jugs

bowls flask

bowls cooking pots jugs juglets pyxides lamp krater pithos storage jar jug jar pithos bichr. vessel frag. bowl krater jug juglet store jar bowl juglets cooking pots storage jar cup

Cult activities

libations and/or dry offerings

votive libation

votive

worship/votive

votive

libations and/or dry offerings

worship/votive food/drink consumption

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic, house shrine

Cult type

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 527

Date

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Site

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Installations

Area CC, Locus 1729

Area CC, Locus 1727

Area AA Locus 2159 Courtyard house

storage

kitchen

storage

Room function

mini shrine

zoomorph. vessels zoomorph. figs.

stand zoomorph. vessel

Artifacts Category A

storage, food processing

stand

fem. fig. head oven, pit, basin kitchen: storage, food processing and consumption

Courtyard house oven, tabun 00/K/10, Locus 00/K/87 and 89/K/70

Courtyard house 00/K/10, Locus 98/K/77

Building/ Room

goblet lamp

3 chalices lamp

chalice double pyxis

chalices

Artifacts Category B Other storage jars cooking pots bowls jugs juglets flasks lids storage jars cooking pots bowls jugs juglets flasks pyxis bowls jug jars spouted amph. pilgrim flask lentoid flasks bottle pilgrim flasks jugs pilgrim flasks pyxis bowls cooking pots jars bowl pyxis pilgrim flasks jugs juglet strainer cups baking tray jars

Cult activities

libation and/or dry offerings?

worship/ votive

worship/ libations

libations votive

libations

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

Cult type

528 Appendix A

Date

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Site

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Area CC, Locus 1740

Area CC, Locus 1736

Area CC, Locus 1735

Area CC, Locus 1731

Area CC, Locus 1737

Area CC, Locus 1732

Building/ Room

oven

oven

tree

Installations

stand

stand

zoomorph. spout

bronze calf amulet zoomorph. vessel kernos

Artifacts Category A

painted pyxis painted jugs

chalices

chalices goblet lamps

Artifacts Category B

stand (bowl of) goblets food cymbals processing/ consumption

kernos food processing/ storage

kitchen or storage

unbuilt area or courtyard kitchen or storage

storage

Room function Other amphoriskos jugs juglets flask cooking pots bowl jars basalt bowl strainer jar juglet jugs bowl flask jars basalt bowl amphoriskos jugs juglet pilgrim flasks jars Jugs lentoid flasks kraters bowls spouted amphoriskos strainer jug baking tray jars strainer jug strainer cup jugs bowls flasks cooking pots

Cult activities

libation and/or dry offerings music

libation and/or dry offerings

libation and/or dry offerings s

libation and/or dry offerings

libation and/or dry offerings

votive/ libation

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

Cult type

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 529

Date

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IB

Iron IIA/ IIB

Site

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Megiddo

Locus 2081, integrated into house

Locus 1760

Locus 1750

Area CC, Locus 1752

Area CC, Locus 1741

Area CC, Locus 1780

Area CC, Locus 1744

Building/ Room

built in corner, bench, stone slab

ovens

trees

Installations

Artifacts Category A

cultic

kitchen

unbuilt area

2 horned altars 3 stands big censor-jar

kernos frag. fayance amulet ivory animal frag. fem. fig. torso

stand food processing/ storage

food/drink bone anim. fig. consump- frag. tion?

fem. fig. frag. food processing/ storage

stand (base) food processing/ consumption/ storage

Room function

chalices astragali (in bowl) axhead

chalice flask

3 fayence amulets pyxis lamp goblet 2 seals goblet lamps cup & saucer

chalice painted jug

Artifacts Category B Other

bowl jugs jars amphoriskoi jar juglets bowl mortar rubbing stone

strainer jug pilgrim flask funnel bowl cooking pots jars lentoid flask krater cooking pot jug jars bowl basalt bowl jugs painted jug lentoid flask cooking pots jug lentoid flask jars

Cult activities

libations, incense burning and burnt offerings

worship/votive

unlikely: dump?

libation and/or dry offerings

votive

worship/votive

libation and/or dry offerings

large-scale domestic and/ or neighborhood cult

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

Cult type

530 Appendix A

Locus 94 H 8

Building 300, isolated

Iron IIB

Iron IIB

Megiddo

Megiddo

Tell Michal Iron IIA

Artifacts Category A

Artifacts Category B

incense burner male head model couch

430

293

stand 2 fem. fig. frag.

Iron IIB Tell en-Naṣbeh Iron IIC Tell en-Naṣbeh

kitchen

hearth

616

kernos bowl

Iron IIC Tell en-Naṣbeh

sanctuary

globular jug, black-on-red

3 goblets

schematic stone cup & saucer object model shrine frag. limestone altar/ cultic? stand storage 2 pottery room for stands 340? model shrine frag. incense cup storage stand and food preparation zoomorph. vessel frag. cultic

Room function

Pit 253

platform

bench, platform, pillars, stone slabs

Installations

Tel Qashish Iron IIA

Room 340 integrated into palatial structure 338 Room 332 in Building 338

Iron IIB

Megiddo

Building/ Room

Date

Site

Other

bowl handmade bowl jars krater jars bowl cooking pots

basins storage jars bowls kraters cooking pots jugs beer jug juglets jars lamps Assyrian bottle

bowl jug flask juglets 1 jug

juglets strainer jugs basalt bowl

Cult activities

votive

libation/dry offerings votives incense burning

libation/ drink foundation or ritual deposit

incense burning, libations and dry offerings

burnt/dry/libation offerings

libations burnt offerings

domestic

domestic

domestic

domestic

village shrine

domestic

palace shrine

palace shrine

Cult type

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 531

Date

Locus 47 tower

House 64

House 6

Iron IIB Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh

Iron IIB Tell es-Saʾīdīyeh

Area E open-air structure

Iron IIA Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit

Iron IIA–B

Tel Reḥov

Locus 16 Str. IIa

Iron I

Ḥirbet Raddana

Str. VII Locus 1027 Cluster S

Str. VIIIB–C building, integrated

298

Building/ Room

Iron IIA Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit

IA IIB

Tell Qiri

Iron IIC Tell en-Naṣbeh IA Tell Qiri

Site

storage

cultic

Room function

platform dwelling

dwelling

fortress tower

fortress/ storage facility

domestic benches platforms ovens mudbrick plat- open air form, maṣṣebôt, cult place ovens

silo

benches platform stone basin

Installations

animal fig. frag. kernos frag.

3 tripod censor-cups

kernos

zoomorph. vessel

stands? decorated krater stand fem. fig. frag.

censor-cup

stand+bowl libation vessel

JPF head model couch

Artifacts Category A

chalice CyproPhoenician ware CyproPhoenician ware shells beads 4 lamps

chalices

chalices miniature vessel amulet

Artifacts Category B

bowls kraters cooking pots storage jars

1 jug 2 juglets

bowls cooking pots jugs jars bowls juglets

bowls cooking pots krater jug cooking jar pithos cooking pot

Other

votive libation

incense burning

libation

libation

animal slaughter libations votives

libation?

domestic

domestic

work related

work related

open-air village sanctuary

domestic

work-related

neighborhood shrine

libation animal offerings/ meals

Cult type domestic

Cult activities votive

532 Appendix A

Date

Iron I

IA IIA

Iron IIB

Iron I

Site

Shiloh

Taanach

Turʿan

Tell elWawiyat

northeast room

Locus 12

Room SW 2-7

Room 335, debris 623

Building/ Room

basin ovens

grinding stone

basin

Installations

kitchen

domestic, kitchen

kitchen and/or storage

Room function

none

incense burner

stand censor-cup

stand frags. frags. of zoomorph. appliques

Artifacts Category A

none

lamps

astragali 3 pyxides

Artifacts Category B bowls cooking pots pilgrim flask jug pithoi storage jar 26 storage jars 2 amphorae 10 jugs 11 juglets 1 krater 63 bowls 3 cooking pots cooking pots bowls krater storage jars remains of butchered cow

Other domestic

Cult type

none

incense burning

none

domestic

libation and dry domestic or offerings, censing, work-related casting lots

libations and dry offerings

Cult activities

Israelite and Judean Assemblages in Alphabetical Order 533

Appendix B1

Names of Thanksgiving Note to the readerâ•›: Epigraphic Hebrew personal names are presented below in order of meaning based on the 6 name groups presented in this book: (1) names of thanksgiving, (2) names of confession, (3) praise names, (4) equating names, (5) birth names, and (6) secular names. An alphabetical list of the same names appears in the index of personal names. Each name is presented in Late Hebrew script, in (a possible) transcription and translation, with its references, with its provenance, and with the number of times it is attested. (Refer to the list of abbreviations in the front matter for identification of reference acronyms.) The total number of appearances for all personal names derived from the same root appears in bold. Biblical names parallel to the epigraphic names or references to related biblical texts are provided in the last two columns. The first number in the row refers to identical names; numbers in parentheses refer to biblical names with minor differences (primarily differences with regard to plene writing or the spelling of theophoric elements). Biblical variants with major differences are noted in the last column together with their number of appearances. At the bottom of the column, the total number of biblical names appears in plain typeface next to the bold total of epigraphic names from the same root. Thus, comparison of the epigraphic and biblical material has been simplified. Note, however, that biblical names derived from roots that are not attested epigraphically are not included in this list. This list of Hebrew names is amplified with epigraphic names from the surrounding Levantine cultures (Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, Aramean, and Phoenician) that are derived either from the same root or from different roots with the same or similar meaning in order to aid cross-cultural comparisons.

1.1.╇ Divine attention 1.1.1.╇ God has heard the complaint Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אלׁשמע‬

ʾElīšāmāʿ

El has heard [me] HAE 1.100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 141; 5.9, 13; 8.65; 10.6; 14.4; 15.3; 17.2; 21.44, 45, 46; BPHB 8; 62; 98a–d; 99; 100; 101a, b; 147a–c; 180a, b; 205; 251a, b; Lemaire 215.12:6

Ammonite

‫יׁשמעאל‬

Yišmaʿʾēl

‫אלׁשמע‬

ʾIlšamaʿ

El has heard

Epigraphic

El has heard [me]

No.

Bib. (6)

Compare Ps 30:11

WSS 82 (= SAJ 7.1); 871; 911; 912; 913; 914; 915; 926; BPPS 166; AMM 39:5

HAE 8.40; 10.52, 66, 78, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90; 13.17, 52, 65, 106; 17.16, 42; 21.81; 30.15, 16; 50.5; Jer(8).8:1; NEE 83.77:2; BPHB 32; 45; 212; 213; 214; 215a, b; 216; 217a–e; 403a–c; Lemaire 211.10: rev.€3?

534

37

33

6

9

‫יׁשמעיהו‬ (1×), ‫יׁשמעיה‬ (1×)

Names of Thanksgiving Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יׁשמע‬ ‫בעלׁשמע‬

Yišmaʿ

[El] has heard

HAE 21.37

Baal has heard

HAE Gem(7).3:4

Baʿalšāmāʿ ‫בעלׁשם‬

Aramaic Phoenician

‫יהויׁשמע‬

‫בעלׁשמע‬

Yĕhôyišmāʿ

Ammonite

Bib. 1

(1)

1

—

Compare ‫יׁשמע‬

Baʿalšam[aʿ]

Baal has heard

ARI 392.310

1

Baʿalšamoʿ

Baal has heard

Benz 100

1

Yhwh has heard or may hear

HAE 10.30

1

(1)

‫הוׁשמע‬

Šamaʿʾil

El has heard

WSS 978

1

‫ׁשמעאל‬

Šamaʿʾēl

El has heard

WSS 1064

1

Šĕmaʿyāhû

Phoenician

‫ׁשמעיה‬ ‫ׁשמעיו‬ ‫ׁשמע‬

No.

‫ׁשמע⟨א⟩ל‬

Edomite

‫ׁשמעיהו‬

535

Yhwh has heard

‫ׁשמעבעל‬

Šamoʿbaʿal

HAE 1.82, 127, 149; 2.29; 5.18; 8.47; 10.62; 21.65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 92; 61.3; Mur(7).2:4; Arad(7).31:5; 39:2; 7f.; Arad(6).27:2; Lak(6).1.4:6; 19.4; BPHB 35; 173?; 281?; 379; 380?; 381a–d; 382?; 383; 387; 417; Naveh 6.9?; Lemaire 208.7:3′ Baal has heard

37

7

1

22

1

—

21

5

Benz 181

Šĕmaʿyāh

Yhwh has heard

BPHB 51

Šĕmaʿyau

Yhwh has heard

HAE KAgr(9).4

Šāmāʿ

[DN] has heard

HAE 1.14, 126; 5.17; 8.30; 21.54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64; 22.5; 61.2; Msa(7).3:4 (?); BPHB 82; 179; 226; 376; 377; 378?

1

‫ׁשמעא‬ (4×), ‫ׁשמעה‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫ׁשמע‬

Šamaʿ

[DN] has heard

WSS 903?; 977

2

Phoenician

‫ׁשמע‬

Šamoʿ

[DN] has heard

FSL 43.16

2

Phoenician

‫ׁשמעא‬

Šamoʿāʾ

[DN] has heard

Benz 181

‫יו⟨א⟩זן‬

Yau⟨ʾa⟩zan

Yhwh has heard [me]

HAE 10.50

‫יהו⟨א⟩זן‬

Yĕhô⟨ʾa⟩zan

Yhwh has heard

FHCB 84.33; 85.34

Ammonite

‫י⟨א⟩זנאל‬

Yazanʾil

El has heard

1

133

55

1

—

2

—

WSS 934

2

‫יאזניהו‬

Yaʾazanyāhû

Yhwh has heard or may hear

HAE 3.16; 10.2, 3, 4, 5; 21.64; Arad(7).39:9; Lak(6).1.1:2, 3; NEE 83.77:3; BPHB 178

‫יאזניה‬ ‫יאזני‬

Yaʾazanyāh

Yhwh has heard

HAE 8.15; 10.1

2

2

Yaʾazanî

[Yhwh] has heard

HAE 21.71

1

—

‫יאזן‬

Yaʾazan

[DN] has heard

HAE 21.70; Arad(8).59:5; Arad(6).58:4

3

—

1

—

1

—

22

5

Aramaic

‫אזניו‬

ʾAzanyau

Yahweh has heard

‫אזני‬

ʾOznî

[DN] has heard

HAE Lak(6).1.20:2

‫אזן‬

ʾAzan

[DN] has heard

BPHB 61

Ps 143:1

11

2

BPPS 109

1

‫אזניה‬ (1×)

Appendix B1

536

1.1.2.╇ God has seen the distress Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יחזיהו‬

Yaḥzēyāhû

Yhwh has seen [my distress]

HAE Kom(8).6.1; Arad(6).6:3

‫יחזבעל‬

Phoenician

‫יחזא‬

Yaḥzāʾ

Yaḥizbaʿal

[DN] has seen

Baal has seen

No.

Bib. 2

(1)

1

—

Compare Ps 17:2

Benz 157

1

HAE Aren(8).1:1

‫יחזיאל‬ (5×)

Ammonite

‫חזאל‬

Ḥazāʾil

El has seen

AMM 36.2:1; BPPS 185

2

Aramaic

‫חזאל‬

Ḥazāʾēl

El has seen

Maraqten 80 (cf. bib.)

3

Aramaic

‫אללחז‬

Elilḥazā

Enlil has seen (?)

Maraqten 69

1

‫חזא‬

Ḥāzāʾ

[DN] has seen

FHCB 72.21

4

8

‫יראיהו‬

Yĕrīʾyāhû

Yhwh has seen [my distress]

HAE 10.73; BPHB 203; 204

3

(3)

‫ראיהו‬

Rĕʾāyāhû

Yhwh has seen

HAE 20.1

1

(3)

‫ירא‬

Moabite

1

Yirāʾ

[DN] has seen

WSS 1027

Baʿalpalos

Baal has looked at

Benz 97

—

Ps 31:8 ‫יריאל‬ (1×) 1

4 ‫בעלפלס‬

Phoenician

‫חזיאל‬ (1×), ‫חזיה‬ (1×)

7 2

1.1.3.╇ God has taken care of the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אלזכר‬

ʾElīzākār

[my] God has HAE 1.65; 10.101; 21.2; BPHB remembered [me] 79

Epigraphic

No.

Bib. 4

—

Compare (Ps 8:5)

Ammonite

‫אלזכר‬

ʾIlzakar

[my] God has remembered [me]

WSS 887; BPPS 156

2

Ammonite

‫זכראל‬

Zakarʾil

El has remembered me

WSS 928; AMM 36.2:3

2

Aramaic

‫זכראל‬

Zakarʾēl

El has remembered me

NTA 42.4:2; 75.9:2

2

Aramaic

‫אבדכר‬

ʾAbidakar

[my] father has remembered [me]

Maraqten 65

1

‫בעלזכר‬

Baʿalzākār

Baal has HAE Sam(8).1.37:3; [39:9] remembered [me]

2

—

Phoenician

‫בעלסכר‬

Baʿalsakor

Baal has remembered [me]

Benz 96

1

Phoenician

]‫זכרב[על‬

Zakorbaʿal

Baal has remembered [me]

NEE 24.5; 25.12 = 26.29

2

‫זכריהו‬

Zĕkaryāhû

Yhwh has HAE 1.143; 2.12; 9.1; 70.2; remembered [me] Msa(7).3:4; NEE 92.79:2; BPHB 194; 296

8

4 (11)

Names of Thanksgiving

537

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫זכריו‬

Zĕkaryau

Yhwh has HAE 7.6, 7; 21.61 remembered [me]

Epigraphic

No.

‫זכר‬

Zakkur Zeker

[DN] has HAE 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 9.6, remembered [me] 7; 10.54; 11.3; 42.1; Sam(8)1.31:3; Arad(8).48:3; 67:5; Arad(7).38:7; Msa(7).1:1; Gaz(7).1:2; BPHB 160?; 161; 213; 283; 358

Bib. 3

—

21

9+1

Compare ‫זכרי‬

(10×)

Ammonite

‫זכר‬

Zakkur

[DN] has remembered [me]

AMM 24.3:2

1

Aramaic

‫זכר‬

Zakar

[DN] has remembered [me]

Maraqten 79

1

Phoenician

‫זכר‬

Zakor

[DN] has remembered [me]

Benz 109; WSS 724; WTP 21.48

4

38

35

19

—

‫ידעיהו‬

Yĕdaʿyāhû

Yhwh has taken care [of me]

HAE 8.42; 10.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 11.13; 16.2:74; 21.88; Arad(7).31:7; 39:4; 5; BPHB 184; 185; 186; 399; Naveh 2.2:3?

‫ידעיה‬

Yĕdaʿyāh

Yhwh has taken care

HAE 10.11

1

3

‫ידעיו‬

Yĕdaʿyau

Yhwh has taken care

HAE 10.18; Sam(8).1.1:8; 42:2; 48:1

4

—

Aramaic

‫ידע⟨א⟩ל‬

Phoenician

‫ידעמלך‬

‫ידע‬

Yaddūʿ

Yadoʿmilk

[DN] has taken care ‫ידע‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשמידע‬

Yadaʿʾēl

Šemyādāʿ

Yadaʿ

‫יוידע‬ (2×)

El has taken care

Maraqten 82

Milk has taken care

Gibson 69.18:3 (Benz 127, Punic)

HAE 10.18; Sam(8).1.1:8; 42:2; 48:1 [DN] has taken care

1 1

3

1 (2)

‫אבידע‬

1

1

‫אלידע‬

(1×)

1

NTA 109.20:4′

the [divine] name HAE Sam(8).1 (clan name) has taken care

(3×),

‫בעלידע‬ (1×)

Aramaic

‫ביתעלידע‬

Baytʾelyadaʿ

Bethel has taken care

Maraqten 72

1

28

17

‫אחבן‬

ʾAḥbān

the [divine] brother has noticed [me]

HAE 3.17

1

0

‫פקדיהו‬

Pĕqadyāhû

Yhwh has carefully paid attention [to me]

HAE 17.35; BPHB 328

1

—

‫פקדיה‬

Pĕqadyāh

Yhwh has carefully paid attention

BPHB 328

1

—

2

17

Ps 5:2

(Ps 8:5)

Appendix B1

538

1.1.4.╇ God has shown mercy to the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אלחנן‬

ʾElḥānān

El was gracious

HAE 1.5

No.

Compare Ps 30:11

‫אלחנן‬

ʾIlḥanan

El was gracious

WSS 890; 891; 892; 934; 987

5

Phoenician

‫בעלחן‬

Baʿalḥan

Baal was gracious

WSS 730

1

Phoenician

‫בעלחנן‬

Baʿalḥanon

Baal was gracious

WSS 731

1

Phoenician

‫בעליחן‬

Baʿalyaḥon

Baal has granted [me] a favor

Benz 94

1

Phoenician

‫דעמחנא‬

Doʿamḥanōʾ

Doam was gracious to him

Benz 108

1

Phoenician

‫עׁשתרחן‬

Aštarḥan

Ashtar was gracious

Benz 174

1

El was gracious

Ḥananʾēl

‫חננאל‬

Ammonite

‫חנניהו‬

‫חנניה‬

Ḥananyāhû

Ḥananʾil

Yhwh was gracious

Ḥananyāh

Yhwh was gracious

1

HAE 8.48 El was gracious

4

WSS 874; 882; 933; 822; AMM 36.2:2?; 5

HAE 1.140; 5.23; 8.51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59; 20.7; 48.2 (?); Arad(8).92:1; Gib(7).1; Arad(7).36:4; Msa(7).1:3; Arad(6).3:3; 16:1; BPHB 12a, b; 102a–c; 171; 172; 173?; HAE 1.48; 8.49, 50

23

6

3

‫יהוחנן‬ (8×),

‫יוחנן‬ (4×)

3

11

Aramaic

‫חנניה‬

Ḥananyah

Yhwh was gracious

Maraqten 81

1

Phoenician

‫יוחנן‬

Yauḥanan

Yhwh was gracious

NEE 25.16

1

Phoenician

[‫חננב]על‬

Ḥanonbaʿal

Baal was gracious

Benz 125

1

Phoenician

‫חנעׁשתרת‬

Ḥannaʿaštart

Ashtarte was gracious

Benz 125 (fem.)

1

‫חנני‬

Ḥănānî

[Yhwh] was gracious

HAE 17.34; 18.3

‫חונן‬ ‫חנן‬

Ḥōnēn

[DN] is gracious

HAE 8.15

Ḥānān

[DN] was gracious

HAE 8.41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47; Bat(10).3; Sam(8).1.43:2; 45:2; 46:2; 47:1; Arad(7).38:2; 6; BPHB 48; 110; 124; 168; 169; 170; FHCB 71.20

‫חנה‬

1

Ammonite

‫חננאל‬

‫חנא‬

Bib. 1

2

5

1

—

20

9

‫חנון‬

(3×)

Ammonite

‫חנן‬

Ḥanan

[DN] was gracious

WSS 932; AMM 36.2:4; Heltzer 253

3

Aramaic

‫חנן‬

Ḥanan

[DN] was gracious

Maraqten 81; WSS 796?; NTA 15.1:18; TSF 655.47:21

5

Phoenician

‫חנן‬

[DN] was gracious

WSS 1084; 1085

2

Ḥannāʾ

Ḥanon

[DN] was gracious

HAE Sam(8).1.30:3

1

—

Ammonite

‫חנא‬

Ḥannāʾ

[DN] was gracious

WSS 878; 931

2

Aramaic

‫חנא‬

Ḥannāʾ

[DN] was gracious

Maraqten 81

1

Phoenician

‫חנא‬

Ḥannāʾ

[DN] was gracious

WSS 1083

1

Ḥannāh

[DN] was gracious

HAE 8.39

1

1

Names of Thanksgiving

539

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חני‬

Ḥannî

[DN] was gracious

HAE 9.4; BPHB 49a, b

No.

Bib. 2

Compare

—

Aramaic

‫חני‬

Ḥannî

[DN] was gracious

Maraqten 81

1

Aramaic

‫חנון‬

Ḥanûn

[DN] was gracious

NTA 34.3:14

1

Ḥan

[DN] was gracious

NTA 34.3:14

1

‫חן‬

Phoenician

‫ירחמאל‬

Yĕraḥmĕʾēl ‫ירחמאל‬

Moabite

‫ירחם‬

El has shown mercy to [me]

Yĕroḥam

Yĕraḥmeʾēl

[DN] has shown mercy

HAE 10.74; BPHB 380 God has shown mercy

55

49

2

3

(Ps 103:13)

BPPS 186

BPHB 205

1

1

8

Aramaic

‫אסרחם‬

ʾAssurraḥam

Assur [or Isis?] has shown mercy

Maraqten 70

1

Aramaic

‫דדרחם‬

Dadraḥam

Hadad has shown mercy

TSF 665.59:1; 666.62:1

2

‫רחם‬

Raḥam

[DN] has shown mercy ‫רחם‬

Aramaic

Raḥam

HAE 14.60 [DN] has shown mercy

1

—

1

4

15

Ḥăsadyāhû

Yhwh has shown loyalty [to me]

HAE 1.102; RRah(7).1:2; BPHB 174

3

—

‫חסדיה‬

Ḥăsadyāh

Yhwh has shown loyalty [to me]

Naveh 2.2:2

1

1

‫כמׁשחסד‬

‫חסדא‬

Ḥasdāʾ

Kamōšḥāsād

[DN] has shown loyalty [to me] ‫צדאׁשמׁש‬

Aramaic

Ṣedaʾšamaš

HAE 8.61

Shamash has shown loyalty [to me]

1

1

—

5

2 1

Yhwh has remained faithful

BPHB 179

1

—

‫יואמן‬

Yauʾāmān

Yhwh has remained faithful

HAE 10.47; 17.3, 33

3

—

ʾEliʾamon

[my] god has

remained faithful

‫חסד‬

(1×)

BPPS 136

Yoʾāmān

‫אלאמן‬

Ps 18:26

Chemosh has shown WSS 1008 loyalty [to me]

‫יאמן‬

Phoenician

(4×)

Maraqten 100

‫חסדיהו‬

Moabite

‫רחום‬

Benz 61

1

4

0

‫ידו‬

Yiddû (?)

[DN] has shown love

HAE 1.106, 136; 10.8; Nasb(8).6:1

4

2

—

‫חמדא‬

Ḥemdāʾ

[DN] has taken a fancy [to me]

HAE Arad(8).55:1

1

0

—

Phoenician

‫חפצבעל‬

Ḥapoṣbaʿal

Baal has taken a fancy

Benz 125

1

Phoenician

‫עׁשתרתצב‬

ʿAštartṣeba

Ashtarte has desired

Benz 175

1

Ḥaday

[DN] was delighted

Maraqten 80

1

Yibḥarʾēl

El has chosen

Maraqten 82

1

Aramaic

‫חדי‬

Aramaic

‫יבחראל‬

Appendix B1

540

1.1.5.╇ God has turned to the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אחיקם‬

ʾAḥîqām

my [divine] HAE 1.50, 51, 52, 53; 21.32; brother has arisen Arad(7).31,5; Jer(6).37; NEE 83.77:5; Naveh 3.3:3?

Epigraphic

No.

‫אחקם‬

ʾAḥîqām

my [divine] HAE 1.59, 60, 61, 62, 63; brother has arisen 16.51; Gaz(7).1:1; NEE 92.79:8; BPHB 46; 77; 78

Bib. 9

1

11

1

Compare Ps 3:8

‫אדניקם‬ (1×)

Moabite

‫אחקם‬

ʾAḥīqām

[my divine] brother has arisen

Heltzer 258

1

Aramaic

‫אחקם‬

ʾAḥīqām

[my divine] brother has arisen

WSS 764; 765

2

Phoenician

‫אבקם‬

ʾAbīqōm

[my divine] father has arisen

Benz 55

4

‫יהוקם‬

Yĕhôqām

Yhwh has arisen

HAE 10.41, 42, 43; 17.12; 21.35; 50.2; BPHB 120; 154; 176a, b; 193; 194; 401; FHCB 74.23?

13

—

‫עזריקם‬

ʿAzrîqām

my [divine] help has arisen

HAE 16.47; 18.10; BPHB 302

3

4

‫עזרקם‬

ʿAzrīqām

[my divine] help has arisen

HAE 16.48, 49, 50; 21.100 BPHB 335

5

—

Aramaic

‫עזרקם‬

ʿAzrīqām

[my divine] help has BPPS 133 (= WSS 1167 undef.) arisen

1

Phoenician

‫עזרקם‬

ʿAzrīqōm

[my divine] help has Heltzer 282 arisen

1

‫פנאל‬

Pĕnīʾēl

El has turned to face [me]

‫פניה‬

Pĕnīyāh

Yhwh has turned HAE Gez(10).1, Rand to face [me]

Phoenician

‫ביתלפן‬

Bayt[ʾ]elpano

HAE Seb(8).1:2

Bethel has turned to face [me]

41

6

1

(2)

1

—

Ps 86:16

WSS 727

1

2

2

‫יהוסחר‬

Yĕhôsāḥār

Yhwh has turned HAE Arad(8).90:1 to [me] (from saḥāru N)

1

0

—

‫אלבא‬

ʾElībāʾ

[my] god has come [to me]

HAE Sam(8).1.1:6

1

0

(Ps 121:1)

‫קדם‬

Qiddem (?)

[DN] has come toward [me]

HAE Arad(7).39:1

1

—

Ps 59:11

1

1

3

—

‫קרבאר‬

Qĕrabʾūr

the [divine] light has come close [to me]

‫קדמיאל‬ (1×)

HAE 19.4; 59.1; Jer(6).37?

Ps 69:19

Names of Thanksgiving

541

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫קרבאור‬

Qĕrabʾûr

the [divine] light has come close [to me]

HAE Arad(6).24:14; Naveh 3.3:5?

No.

Bib. 2

—

5

0

Compare

1.1.6.╇ God has shone on the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

‫אליאר‬

ʾElyāʾīr

El has shone [above me]

HAE 1.66, 67; Arad(6).21:2

3

—

‫יאר‬

Yāʾīr

[DN] has shone

HAE 70.2; Lak(7/6).26:5

2

(3)

‫יהוזרח‬

Yĕhôzārāḥ

Yhwh has risen gloriously [above me]

HAE 10.26; 13.85, 97; BPHB 18a–f; 189; 190

5

3

6

—

Compare Ps 31:17

(Ps 112:4)

‫זרחיה‬ (2×),

‫יזרחיה‬ (2×),

‫זרח‬

(6×)

‫בלגי‬

Bilgay

[DN] has illuminated

HAE 1.93, 94; 2.5, 6, 7; [10.43 read Shilgi] 17.1; BPHB 124

7

1

(Ps 39:14)

‫בלגה‬ (2×)

7 Aramaic

‫יפעהד‬

Yapaʿhadd

Hadad has shone forth

3

Maraqten 84

1

1.2.╇ Divine salvation 1.2.1.╇ God has saved or ransomed the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אליׁשע‬

ʾElîšaʿ

My god has saved HAE 1.91; 13.18; Sam(8).1.1:4; [me] 7; Nim(8).2:1; Arad(6).24:15; 19; BPHB 89

Epigraphic

No.

Bib. 8

1

Compare Ps 3:8

Ammonite

‫אליׁשע‬

ʾIlyašūʿ

El has saved

CAI 31; WSS 894; 895; (SAJ 179.4 Moab.); 960; 975; 979; AMM 36.2:7; 62.33

1

Moabite

‫אחיׁשע‬

ʾAḥîšaʿ

my [divine] brother has saved

WSS 1017

1

Yhwh has saved

HAE Sam(8).1.36:3; Sam(8).4:1

‫יויׁשע‬

Yauyāšāʿ

2

—

Ammonite

‫בעליׁשע‬

Baʿalyašūʿ

Baal has saved

WSS 860; Heltzer 234 (king)

1

Moabite

‫כמׁשיׁשע‬

Kamōšyašūʿ

Chemosh has saved

BPPS 194

1

Aramaic

‫מראיׁשע‬

Māreʾyašaʿ

the lord has saved

WSS 811

1

Phoenician

‫מלכיׁשע‬

Milkyašoʿ

Milk has saved

BPPS 102

1

Appendix B1

542 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יׁשעיהו‬

Yĕšaʿyāhû

Yhwh has saved

HAE 5.24; 8.62; 10.93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100; 13.23; 18.8; 21.52, 79; Jer(7).29:1(?); BPHB 28.29; 218; 219; 220?; 243; 339; 366

No.

‫יׁשעיה‬ ‫יׁשעא‬

Yĕšaʿyāh

Yhwh has saved

HAE 13.67

1

5

Yišʿāʾ

[DN] has saved

HAE 16.9

1

—

Compare

3

‫יׁשעי‬ (4×)

Moabite

‫יׁשעא‬

Yišʿāʾ

[DN] has saved

WSS 1028

1

Phoenician

‫יׁשעא‬

Yišʿāʾ

[DN] has saved

Benz 129

1

‫יׁשע‬

Yašaʿ

[DN] has saved

WSS 1102

1

Aramaic

‫יׁשעה‬

Yišʿāh

Ammonite

[DN] has saved ‫הוׁשע[א]ל‬

Haušaʿʾil

HAE 10.92 El has saved

Haušaʿyāhû

Yhwh has saved

HAE 1.36, 73; 2.16; 3.21; 4.4, 12, 13, 14, 15; 5.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; 17.22, 23, 24, 25, 26; 21.47; 50.1; MHas(7).1:7; Lak(6).1.3:1; Gaz(7).1:3; BPHB 47; 152; 153?; 154; 155a, b; 156a–d; 157; 158; 187; 236; FHCB 69.18

‫הוׁשעיה‬

Haušaʿyāh

Yhwh has saved

HAE 5.10, 11; 17.9; BPHB 191.184

‫הוׁשע‬

Haušēʿ

[DN] has saved

HAE 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 7.1; 13.49; 16.4; Mur(7).2:1; BPHB 6; 48; 72; 81a, b; 90; 146a, b; 147a–c (2×); 148; 149; 150a, b; 151; 310; 364a–c; 365; 395

Aramaic

‫פלטיהו‬

Haušeʿē

Pĕlaṭyāhû

Aramaic Phoenician

‫פלטה‬ ‫פלטי‬

‫הוׁשע‬

Yhwh has saved

‫פלטאל‬ ‫פלטבעל‬

[DN] has saved

1

—

39

—

4

2

25

5

WSS 930

‫הוׁשיהו‬

‫פלט‬

Bib.

22

1

Maraqten 77

HAE 1.60; 10.72; 13.12, 25, 98, 99, 100; 16.28, 75; 17.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; 21.48, 73; BPHB 324; 325; Lemaire 197.1:1

1

103

20

28

1 (1)

Ps 31:2

Palaṭʾēl

El has saved

TSF 655.47:1

1

Paloṭbaʿal

Baal has saved

Benz 176

1

Palṭāh

[DN] has saved

HAE 17.15, 16; BPHB 46; 323

4

—

Palṭî

[DN] has saved

HAE 16.52; 17.17; BPHB 303

3

2+1

Ammonite

‫פלטי‬

Palṭî

[DN] has saved

WSS 968; 969; 986

3

Moabite

‫פלטי‬

Palṭî

[DN] has saved

WSS 1011

1

Aramaic

‫פלטי‬

[DN] has saved

TSF 655.47:1

Peleṭ Ammonite

Palṭî

[DN] has saved ‫פלט‬

Palaṭ

HAE 17.14; BPHB 322; 382 [DN] has saved

1

3

2

CAI 144.1; WSS 966; 978

38

‫יפלט‬ (4×)

3

9

Names of Thanksgiving

543

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חלציהו‬

Ḥeleṣyāhû

Yhwh has delivered

HAE 1.110, 111; 5.15, 16; 8.22, 23, 24, 25; 10.89; 13.40; 20.1; BPHB 163; 164; 165; 166; 177a, b; 333?; FHCB 70.19; Lemaire 201.2:11?

Phoenician

‫חלץ‬

‫אׁשמנחלץ‬

Ḥeleṣ

ʾEšmunḥilleṣ

[DN] has delivered

Eshmun has delivered

No.

Bib.

19

—

Compare Ps 6:5

Benz 70

HAE 8.21; 16.55; Sam(8).1.22:4; 23:4; [26:2]; 30:2; 31:2; ; 32:2; 33:2; [34:2]; 35:2; 49:2; 90:2; Sam(8).11:1

2

14

Aramaic

‫חלץ‬

Ḥeleṣ

[DN] has delivered

BPPS 132 (Israelite)

Phoenician

‫חלץ‬

Ḥilleṣ

[DN] has delivered

Benz 109

2

1 1

33

2

‫מתעאל‬

Mataʿʾēl

El has saved

Maraqten 89

2

Aramaic

‫מתעדד‬

Mataʿadad

Adad has saved

Maraqten 89

1

Aramaic

‫מתעהדד‬

Mataʿhadad

Hadad has saved

Maraqten 90

1

Aramaic

‫מתעׁשא‬

Mataʿšēʾ

Sin has saved

Maraqten 90

1

Aramaic

‫מתע‬

Mataʿ

[DN] has saved

NTA 107.19:3

1

Aramaic

‫מתעי‬

Matēʿî

saved by [DN]

Maraqten 90

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשאמתע‬

Šēʾmataʿ

Sin has saved

Maraqten 101

1

ʾEšmunšillek

Eshmun has saved

Benz 73

3

Aramaic

Phoenician

‫אׁשמנשלך‬

‫גאליהו‬

Gĕʾalyāhû

Yhwh has ransomed

HAE 3.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Arad(7).39:5; Arad(6).16:5

8

—

Ps 69:19

‫גאל‬

Gāʾāl

[DN] has ransomed

HAE 3.1

1

—

‫יגאל‬

9

3

21

1

‫פדיהו‬

‫פדיה‬

Pĕdāyāhû

Yhwh has ransomed

Pĕdāyāh

Yhwh has ransomed ‫פדאל‬

HAE 1.67; 2.19; 10.7; 13.45, 51; 14.57; 16.44; 17.8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 21.75, 98; 57.1, 2; Arad(8).49:15; NEE 89.78:6; BPHB 318; 319; 320 HAE 17.7; BPHB 317

Ps 26:11

‫פדהאל‬ (1×)

‫פדהצור‬ (1×)

2

6

Padaʾil

El has ransomed

WSS 857; 965

2

Moabite

‫פדמלך‬

Padamalk

Malk has ransomed

WSS 1015

1

Edomite

‫פדמלך‬

Padamalk

Malk has ransomed

WSS 1053

1

Ammonite

‫פדא‬

Pādāʾ

[DN] has ransomed

HAE 17.3: 4

2

—

‫פדה‬

Pādāh

[DN] has ransomed

HAE 17.5; BPHB 148; 149; 314; 315

5

—

Aramaic

‫פדי‬

(3×)

‫פדה‬

Pādî Aramaic

Padāh

[DN] has ransomed ‫פדי‬

Padî

[DN] has ransomed

Maraqten 97

HAE 9.2; 15.9; 17.6?; Arad(8).55:2; BPHB 316 [DN] has ransomed

1

5

Maraqten 97; WSS 799

2

Appendix B1

544 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Phoenician

‫פדי‬

Paday

[DN] has ransomed

Gibson 69.18:4 (Benz 175, Punic); NEE 25.15

2

Phoenician

‫פדן‬

Pādāni

[DN] has ransomed me (?)

FSL 62.40 (Tyre)

1

ʾAššuršilleḥ

Assur has set free

Benz 73

35 Phoenician

‫ירחב‬

‫אׁשרׁשלח‬

Yarḥīb (?)

[DN] has given [me] room

12 1

BPHB 402

1

—

Ps 4:2 ‫רחבעם‬ (1×),

‫רחביהו‬ (1×)

‫רחב‬

(3×) 1

5

1.2.2.╇ God has given justice to the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יׁשפט‬

Yišpōṭ

[DN] has given justice

HAE Arad(8).53:1

‫ׁשפטיהו‬

Šĕpaṭyāhû

Yhwh has given [me] justice

‫ׁשפט‬

Sāpāṭ

[DN] has given justice ‫ׁשפט‬

Phoenician

‫צדק‬

Ṣādōq

Šapoṭ

[DN] was just

No.

Bib. 1

—

HAE 1.96; 8.20, 64; 15.11; 16.17, 71; 21.42, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96; 61.5 (?); BPHB 375a–c; 389; 418

19

3 (6)

HAE 8.13; 10.20; 13.37; 21.41, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88; BPHB 388

10

5

[DN] has given justice

Compare Ps 43:1

‫אליׁשפט‬ (1×)

NEE 26.21; 26.26; 26.28; FSL 46.20 (Tyre)

HAE 18.1, 2; Arad(8)93:1; BPHB 330

30

15

4

(7)

4

Ps 4:2

‫יהוצדק‬ (1×)

‫יוצדק‬ (1×)

Moabite

‫ידניהו‬

‫כמׁשצדק‬

Yĕdīnyahû

Kamōšṣādāq

Yhwh has given justice

Chemosh has given justice

WSS 1036

HAE 10.9; Arad(6).27:4

1

4

9

2

—

Ps 54:3

‫אבידן‬ (1×)

‫דניאל‬ (4×)

‫דן‬

(1×)

‫דינה‬ (1×)

Names of Thanksgiving Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

545

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Ammonite

‫חמדן‬

Ḥammīdan

[my divine] fatherin-law has given [me] justice

BPPS 153 (fem.)

Ammonite

‫אלידן‬

ʾIlyadīn

El has given justice

WSS 898; 902

2

Aramaic

‫אלידן‬

ʾElyadīn

El has given justice

NTA 26.2:14

1

Moabite

‫כמׁשדן‬

Kamōšdān

Chemosh has given justice

WSS 1030

1

‫אלירב‬

ʾElyārīb

El has given justice

1

HAE Lak(7/6).27:1

2

7

1

—

Ps 35:1

‫יהויריב‬ (1×)

‫יויריב‬ (1×)

‫יריב‬

(3×)

‫ריבי‬

(1×) Aramaic

‫יהוירב‬

Yĕhôyārīb

Yhwh has given justice

BPPS 123

1

1

6

‫מיפלל‬

Mîpillel

Who has given justice?

HAE 13.17/a

1

1

‫פלל‬

Pālāl

[DN] has given justice

HAE 17.33

1

—

Ammonite

‫פליה‬

‫בחנא‬

Pĕlayāh

Băḥanāʾ

‫פלל‬

Palal

(1×)

[DN] has given justice

‫אפלל‬ (1×)

WSS 82 (= SAJ 7.1)

Yhwh has made a HAE 17.32 just decision

[DN] has tested [me]

—

‫פלליה‬

1

2

3

1

1

1

3

1

0

—

‫אליפלהו‬ (1×)

BPHB 99

Ps 26:2

1.2.3.╇ God has acted wonderfully toward the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫יגדליהו‬

Yigdalyāhû

Yhwh has proven HAE 10.39; BPHB 183 himself to be great

Epigraphic

‫יגדל‬

Yigdal

[DN] has proven himself to be great

‫גדליהו‬

Gĕdalyāhû

Yhwh has proven HAE 1.105; 3.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; 8.57; himself to be Arad(8).71:3; Jer(7).20:1; great Arad(6).21:1; BPHB 24; 131; 132; 133; 134; 385; Lemaire 204.3:1?

BPHB 182; 230a, b

No.

Bib. 2

1

2

—

20

3

Compare Ps 40:17

Appendix B1

546 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫גדליה‬

Gĕdalyāh

Yhwh has proven HAE Arad(6).110:2 himself to be great

‫גדל‬

Gādāl

[DN] has proven himself to be great

‫עתיהו‬

ʿAtāyāhû

Yhwh has proven HAE 16.73 (Zadok, PIAP 32, himself to be derives from Aramaic ‫‘ עות‬to outstanding (?) help’)

‫פלאיהו‬

Pĕlāʾyāhû

Yhwh has acted wonderfully

Epigraphic

No.

HAE 10.1; 16.64

Bib. 1

2

2

2

27

19

1

(1)

Compare ‫גדלתי‬ (1×)

— ‫עותי‬ (2×)

HAE 17.13a, b

1

3

1

(1)

Ps 4:4

‫פלוא‬ (1×)

1

2

1.3.╇ Divine assistance 1.3.1.╇ God has supported the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אלעזר‬

ʾElʿāzār

El has helped [me]

HAE 10.11

‫אלעזר‬

Bib. 1

7

Compare Ps 30:11

ʾIlʿazar

El has helped

WSS 953; PPPS 163; 165; 174; 972; 981; AMM 31.2?; Heltzer 236

8

‫אלהעזר‬

ʾIlahʿazar

God has helped

WSS 770

1 1

Ammonite Aramaic

No.

‫ירחעזר‬

Yarḥʿazar

Yeraḥ has helped

AMM 24.3:1

Moabite

‫מלכיעזר‬

Malkîʿazar

my king has helped

WSS 1039

Aramaic

‫פלדעזר‬

Pladʿazar

Röllig, AoF 368.1:10 Aplad[ad] has helped (the weathergod of Suchu)

1

ʾEšmunʿazor

Eshmun has helped

Benz 72

9

Milkyaʿzor

Milk has helped

Benz 139

Ammonite

Phoenician

‫אׁשמנעזר‬

Phoenician

‫מלכיעזר‬

‫עזראל‬

ʿAzarʾēl

El has helped ‫עזראל‬

Ammonite Aramaic

‫עזרנאל‬

HAE 19.4

1

1

1

ʿAzarʾil

El has helped

WSS 906

ʿAzaranīʾēl

El has helped me

Maraqten 95

‫עזריהו‬

ʿAzaryāhû

Yhwh has helped HAE 1.141; 8.54; 13.104; 15.7, 8; 16.32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 60; 18.15, 16; 21.16, 66; 56.2; Gib(7).1; Arad(6).16:6; Lak(6).1.18.2; BPHB 20; 21; 34; 105; 106; 139; 160; 172; 200; 296; 297; 298; 299; 300; 409; 410; 411

‫עזריה‬

ʿAzaryāh

Yhwh has helped HAE 8.2; 16.31; 21.8

6 1 2

44

11

3

14

Names of Thanksgiving

547

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫עזריו‬

ʿAzaryau

Yhwh has helped HAE 16.45, 46; BPHB 301a, b

Aramaic

‫עזריו‬

Aramaic

‫)?(עזרׁשמׁש‬

Phoenician

‫עזרבעל‬

Phoenician

‫עׁשתרתעזר‬

Phoenician

‫עזרמלך‬

Phoenician

‫עזרתבעל‬

‫עזר‬

ʿAzzūr ʿEzer

Moabite Phoenician

‫יעׁש‬

‫אלסמך‬

Bib. 3

Compare

—

Yhwh has helped

BPPS 132

1

ʿAzaršamaš

Shamash has helped

Maraqten 96

1

ʿAzorbaʿal

Baal has helped

Benz 167; WSS 713; NEE 24.7

4

ʿAštartʿezra

Ashtarte has helped

Gibson 121.32 XIII 2

1

ʿAzormilk

Milk has helped

Benz 170

1

ʿAzartabaʿal

you have helped [me], Baal

Benz 170

2

HAE 1.142, 148; 3.13; 7.2; 8.26; 14.41; 16.23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; 18.13, 14; KAgr(9).4; Msa(7).1:2; Arad(6).22:2; 23:8; 58:3; Lak(6).1.19:1; NEE 83.77:3; 5; BPHB 50; 117; 155a, b; 190; 220; 275; 294; 295; 339?; 376; FHCB 83.32

35

‫עזרה‬

3+6

(2×)

‫עזרי‬

(1×)

‫עזר‬

ʿAzar

[DN] has helped

WSS 962

1

‫עזרא‬

ʿEzrāʾ

[DN] has helped

WSS 1043

1

‫עזר‬

ʿAzor

[DN] has helped

Benz 167; WTP 21.47; FSL 46.20

Yĕʿūš

Edomite

No.

ʿAzaryau

[DN] has helped

Ammonite

Epigraphic

[DN] has come to help ‫בעלעוׁש‬

ʾElsāmāk

Baʿalʿûš

El has supported [me]

HAE Sam(8).1.48:3

87

50

1

(3)

4

— ‫יועׁש‬ (2×)

Baal has come to help

BPPS 203

HAE 1.97; 3.30; 15.17; BPHB 94

1

1

5

4

—

Ps 3:6

Aramaic

‫אלסמך‬

ʾElsamak

El has supported

Maraqten 69

2

Ammonite

‫אלתמך‬

ʾIltamak

El has supported

WSS 917; AMM 36.2:10

2

Aramaic

‫מרסמך‬

Māresamak

the lord has supported

WSS 1094

1

Phoenician

‫מרסמך‬

Māresamok

the lord has supported

Benz 143

1

‫אליסמך‬

ʾElîsāmāk

my god has supported

HAE 3.29

‫סמכיהו‬

Sĕmakyāhû

Yhwh has supported

HAE 1.113, 121, 129; 13.107; 15.14; Lak(6)1.4:6; 13:2; Lak(6).15:5; NEE 89.78:2; BPHB 31; 78; 104?; 145; 240; 278; 279; 280

1

—

‫אחיסמך‬

17

1

‫יסמכיהו‬

(1×) (1×)

Ammonite

‫תמכאל‬

Tamakʾil

El has supported

WSS 881; 886; 923; 982; 983; 984; 985; 986; BPPS 182

9

Aramaic

‫תמכאל‬

Tamakʾēl

El has supported

WSS 853

1

Phoenician

‫תמכאל‬

Tamokʾēl

El has supported

Benz 186

1

Appendix B1

548 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫סמכיו‬

Sĕmakyau

Yhwh has supported

HAE Sam(8):6, 3; Nasb(8):1, 1

No.

Bib. 2

Compare

—

Aramaic

‫סמכיו‬

Sĕmakyau

Yhwh has supported

Maraqten 93 (Nimrud)

1

Ammonite

‫תמכא‬

Tamkāʾ

(DN) has supported

WSS 956; 981

2

Phoenician

‫תמכא‬

Tamokāʾ

(DN) has supported

Benz 186

1

‫סמכי‬

Samkî

[DN] has supported

HAE 55.1

‫סמך‬

Sāmāk

[DN] has supported

HAE 1.54; 2.5; 3.14; 10.95; 15.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 18.2; 20.11; 21.39, 90; Hes(8).1:1; BPHB 65; 66a-d; 67; 68; 69; 85; 228; 257; 274; 275; 276a, b; 277; 320; 407; FHCB 63.13

‫סמך‬

Ammonite

Samak

[DN] has supported

1

—

31

—

56

3

4[7]

—

WSS 861

1

‫סעדיהו‬

Săʿadyāhû

Yhwh has supported

HAE 15.19 (Röllig reads 15.20; 21.7 and Arad[7].31:4 ‫‘ סעריהו‬Yhwh stormed’, but these would be the only examples of a theophany name); BPHB 281; 282; 328

‫סעדיה‬

Săʿadyāh

Yhwh has supported

HAE 15.17

1

—

‫סעדיו‬

Săʿadyau

Yhwh has supported

HAE 15.18

1

—

‫סעדא‬

Săʿadāʾ

[DN] has supported

Lemaire 215.12:4?

1

—

‫סעדה‬

Săʿadāh

[DN] has supported

HAE 15.15

1

—

‫סעדי‬

Săʿadî

[DN] has supported

HAE 15.16 (Röllig reads 10.58 ‫)סערי‬

1[2]

—

9[13]

0

‫יהואחז‬

Yĕhôʾāḥāz

Yhwh has held [me] tight

HAE 10.24

1

4

Aramaic

‫נבלאחז‬

Nabalʾaḥaz

BPPS 107

1

ʾAḥazyāhû

Yhwh has held tight

HAE 1.35; 7.8; 41.1; BPHB 122?

4

2

‫אחזי‬

ʾAḥzay

[DN] has held tight

HAE Sam(8).1.25:3

1

1

‫אחז‬

ʾAḥāz

[DN] has held tight

HAE 1.33, 34, 151; 8.19; Sam(8).1.2:5; Sam(8).9:1; BPHB 9; 72; 98a–d;

9

2

‫אחז‬

ʾAḥaz

Ps 73:23 ‫יואחז‬ (1×)

the noble one has held tight

‫אחזיהו‬

Aramaic

Ps 41:4

[DN] has held tight

Maraqten 67; NTA 54.6.5′

15

10

1

Names of Thanksgiving

549

1.3.2.╇ God has proven himself to be strong (in his assistance) Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יחזק‬

Yeḥzaq

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

HAE 10.56

No.

Bib. 1

Compare

—

Isa 41:9 ‫יחזקאל‬ (2×),

‫יחזקיהו‬ (2×)

‫יחזק‬

Aramaic

‫חזק‬

Ḥāzāq

[DN] has proven himself to be strong ‫חזג‬

Aramaic

‫אמץ‬

Yiḥzaq

ʾAmōṣ

Ḥazag

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

Maraqten 83

1

HAE 8.18

[DN] has proven himself to be strong (sound shift from q to g)

1

—

Maraqten 80

1

2

4

2

(1)

HAE Qad(8).1:1; Seb(8).1:4

Isa 41:10 ‫אמציהו‬ (1×)

‫אמציה‬ (3×)

‫אמצי‬ (2×)

Ammonite

‫אלאמץ‬

ʾIlʾamaṣ

El has proven himself to be strong

CAI 18; WSS 884; 885; 886; 971?

5

Ammonite

‫אמצאל‬

ʾAmaṣʾil

El has proven himself to be strong

WSS 963

1

ʾAmoṣ

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

WSS 1007; 1018

2

‫אמץ‬

Moabite

2

‫גבריהו‬

Gĕbaryāhû

Yhwh has proven HAE Arad(8).60:5f. himself to be superior

1

7 — (Ps 103:11)

‫גבריאל‬ (1×)

Edomite

‫קוסגבר‬

Qausgabar

Qos has proven himself to be superior

WSS 1048; (1049)

1

Aramaic

‫אלגבר‬

ʾElgabar

El has proven himself to be superior

NTA 42.4:7

1

Aramaic

‫הדגבר‬

Haddgabar

Hadad has proven himself to be superior

Röllig AoF 24, 368.1:2

1

Aramaic

‫מלכגבר‬

Malkigabar

BPPS 126 (Edomite?) [my] king has proven himself to be superior

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשאגבר‬

Šēʾgabar

Sin has proven himself to be superior

Maraqten 101

1

Appendix B1

550 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫גבר‬

Geber

[DN] has proven himself to be superior

HAE Gar(7).2:1

‫גברי‬

Aramaic

‫עזזיהו‬

[DN] has proven himself to be superior

‫חתעזת‬

[ʾA]ḥatʿazzāt

Bib. 1

Compare

2

NTA 49.5:5

1

Yhwh has proven Lemaire 211.10: rev. 3? himself to be strong

ʿAzazyāhû

Ammonite

Gabrî

No.

2

3

1

3

Ps 86:16 ‫עזז‬ (1×)

Heltzer 238 (fem.) [divine] sister, you have proven yourself to be strong

1

1

4

‫יהוכל‬

Yĕhôkal

Yhwh has proven HAE 10.31, 46; 13.74; 20.6; Arad(6).21:1; BPHB 225; 279; himself to be Lemaire 215.12:8 mighty

8

(1)

‫יכלמלך‬

Yĕkolmelek

the [divine] king has proven himself to be mighty

BPHB 26

1

—

‫יכליו‬

Yĕkolyau

Yhwh has proven HAE 10.58 himself to be mighty

1

—

‫יכליהו‬ (1×)

Moabite

‫יכל‬

Yakol

[DN] has proven BPPS 189; 196 himself to be mighty

2

Aramaic

‫יכל‬

Yukalāʾ

[DN] has proven Maraqten 83 himself to be mighty

1

Aramaic

‫יכלא‬

Yukalāʾ

[DN] has proven himself to be superior

Maraqten 83

1

‫ילא‬

Yilāʾ

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

10

2

1

0

HAE Arad(8).60:5f.

Moabite

‫ילא‬

Yilʾā

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

WSS 1026

1

Aramaic

‫ילא‬

Yilʾā

[DN] has proven himself to be strong

Maraqten 83

1

Aramaic

‫אלה[ל]אי‬

ʾIlahlĕʾî

God has proven himself to be strong

NTA 14.1:1f.

1

ʿAštartlaʾati

Ashtarte has proven himself to be strong

FSL 31.7

1

Phoenician

‫עׁשתרתלאת‬

1.3.3.╇ God has raised the fallen-down sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אליקם‬

ʾElyāqīm

El has raised [me] HAE 1.75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81; 21.43, 85; BPHB 83; 84a, b; 85; 86a, b; 87; 198; 266; 342

Epigraphic

No. 17

Bib. (3)

Compare Ps 41:11

Names of Thanksgiving

551

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יהויקם‬

Yĕhôyāqīm

Yhwh has raised

HAE 1.146;10.29; Lak(7/6).26:3

No.

‫יוקם‬ ‫יקמיהו‬

Yauqīm

Yhwh has raised

HAE 10.55; 16.72

Yĕqamyāhû

Yhwh has raised

HAE 1.19, 32, 70; 10.64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70; 16.59; 50.3; Arad(8).74:3; 80:2; Arad(8).59:2; Arad(7).39:1; NEE 92.79:3; BPHB 128; 199; 200; 201a, b; 202; Lemaire 201.2:8?; 210.10: obv.2

Bib. 3

(1)

2

(1)

24

—

Compare

‫יקמעם‬ (1×),

‫יקים‬

(2×)

‫יקמיה‬ ‫מקמיהו‬

Yĕqamyāh

Yhwh has raised

HAE 10.63; 13.19

2

2

Mēqīmyāhû

[he] who has raised me is Yhwh

HAE 14.10

1

—

49

10

‫ירמיהו‬

Yĕrīmyāhû

Yhwh has exalted HAE 1.66, 103; 3.5; 8.61; [me] 10.79;, 80, 81, 82, 83; 21.36, 74; 50.4; Ser(7).3:1; Arad(6).24:15; Lak(6).1.1:4; NEE 92.79:13; BPHB 10a, b; 209; 210a, b; 211; Lemaire 214.11:5; 215.12:4?

22

4 (5)

Ps 3:4

‫ירמאל‬

Yarīmʾil

El has exalted

BPPS 153

1

Ammonite

‫ירמלך‬

Yĕrīmmalk

Malk has exalted

CAI 98

1

Phoenician

‫מלכירם‬

Milkyarīm

Milk has exalted

NEE 27.39

Ammonite

‫ירם‬

Yārīm

‫עדד‬

[DN] has exalted

ʿOded Aramaic

[DN] has helped [me] up ‫יעדדאל‬

Yĕʿodedʾel

1

HAE 10.76, 77; NEE 89.78:5; BPHB 206; 207; 208

6

—

28

10

1

2

HAE 13.14 El has helped [me] up

‫ירמי‬

(1×) (Ps 146:9)

WSS 801

1

1.3.4.╇ God has carefully guided the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫נהל‬

Nēhāl

[DN] has guided [me]

HAE 14.40

No.

Bib. 1

0

Compare Ps 23:2

Appendix B1

552

1.4.╇ Divine protection 1.4.1.╇ God has protected the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫ׁשמריהו‬

Šĕmaryāhû

Yhwh has protected [me]

HAE 16.37; 21.74, 75; Arad(6).18:4

4

‫ׁשמריו‬

Šĕmaryau

Yhwh has protected

HAE 21.76; Sam(8).1.1:1f; 13:2; 14:2; 21:1

5

‫זמר‬

Ammonite

‫אלׁשמר‬

Phoenician

‫בעלׁשמר‬

Zāmār

Ammonite

ʾIlšamar

El has protected

AMM 31.2

Baʿalšamor

Baal has protected

Benz 100

[DN] has protected

‫אלׂשגב‬

No.

HAE Sam(8).1.12:3

Bib. 1 (3)

Compare Ps 17:8 ‫ׁשמרי‬ (4×), ‫ׁשמר‬ (3×) ‫ׁשומר‬ (1×), ‫יׁשמרי‬ (1×) 1 2

9

13

1

—

1

4

(Ps 118:14) ‫זמרי‬ (4×)

ʾIlśiggeb

El has protected

WSS 871

[ʾEl]śaggeb

[El] has protected

Maraqten 70

1

ʾApladśaggeb

El has protected

TSF 655.47:21

1

1

Aramaic

‫[אל]ׂשגב‬

Aramaic

‫אפלדׂשגב‬

Aramaic

‫נבוׂשגב‬

Nabûśaggeb

Nabu has protected

WSS 814

1

Aramaic

‫נבׂשגב‬

Nabûśaggeb

Nabu has protected

NTA 84.12:13; Röllig, AFO 24 371.2:7

2

Aramaic

‫ׂשגבי‬

Śaggebî

[DN] has protected

WSS 814

1

Aramaic

‫ׂשגב‬

Śaggeb

[DN] has protected

Maraqten 102

1

Aramaic

‫נצראל‬

Naṣarʾil

El has protected

WSS 866 (SAJ 179.1 Moab.);

3

Aramaic

‫נצרי‬

Naṣrî

[DN] has protected

WSS 756

1

Gannāʾ

[DN] has protected

AMM 36.2:6

1

ʾEl[ya]qāh

El has protected (?)

Maraqten 70

1

Hadadyeḥûṭ

Hadad(?) has protected

NTA 65.6A.11′

1

Yeḥûṭ

[DN] has protected (?)

Maraqten 83

1

Ammonite

‫גנא‬

Aramaic

‫אלקה‬

Aramaic

‫[הד]דיחוט‬

Aramaic

‫יחוט‬

Names of Thanksgiving

553

1.4.2.╇ God has sheltered the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫צפניהו‬

Ṣĕpanyāhû

Yhwh has sheltered [me]

HAE 8.7, 8; 10.83; 15.12, 13; 16.54; 18.19, 20; 21.23, 68; Arad(8).59:5; Jer(7).5:3; BPHB 338; 339?;

No.

‫צפניה‬

Ṣĕpanyāh

Yhwh has sheltered

HAE 18.17, 18

‫צפן‬

Ṣāpān

[DN] has sheltered

HAE 5.7; 18.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 21.95; Jer(7).12:1; BPHB 137; 312; 333; 335; 336; 337; Lemaire 201.2:8, 10

Bib.

14

1

2

3

23

—

39

7

‫חביהו‬

Ḥābāyāhû

Yhwh has sheltered [me]

HAE 18.7

1

(1)

‫חבא‬

Ḥubāʾ

[DN] has sheltered

HAE 8.1; BPHB 162; 244; 329

4

—

‫חבה‬

Ḥubāh

[DN] has sheltered

HAE 8.2

1

1

‫חבי‬

Ḥubī

[DN] has sheltered

HAE 1.51; 8.3; 9.3; ; NEE 83.77:2; BPHB 83; 302

6

—

12

3

Aramaic

‫אלסתר‬

ʾElsatar

El has hidden [me]

Maraqten 70

Compare Ps 27:5 ‫אלצפן‬ (1×), ‫אליצפן‬ (2×)

Isa 49:2 ‫אליחבא‬

1

Appendix B2

Names of Confession 2.1.╇ Divine attention Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חנמלך‬

Ḥannīmelek

The [divine] king is [my] mercy

HAE 8.40

‫חניהו‬

Ḥannīyāhû

Yhwh is my mercy HAE 21.83

‫ׁשחר‬

Šaḥar

HAE 1.134, 135; 10.27, 28; 13.28, 92, 95; 21.6, 20, 21, 22; NEE 92.79:8

[DN] is [my] dawning

‫ׁשחר‬

Ammonite

No.

Bib.

1

—

—

1

—

‫חניאל‬ (2×)

2

2

12

—

‫נסחנגהי‬

Aramaic

‫נגהי‬

— ‫אחיׁשחר‬ (1×) ‫ׁשחריה‬ (1×)

Šaḥar

[DN] is [my] dawning

Heltzer 253

1

Nasuḥnaghî

Nasuch/Nusku is my morning light

Maraqten 91

1

Naghî

[DN] is my morning light

TSF 652.45: rev. 2′

1

12 Aramaic

Compare

2

2.2.╇ Divine rescue 2.2.1.╇ God is the rescuer of the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אבׁשוע‬

ʾAbīšûăʿ

[my divine] father is [my] salvation

HAE 1.13

Ammonite

‫אלׁשע‬

Phoenician

‫אדנׁשע‬

‫יהוׁשע‬

Yĕhôšūăʿ

Moabite

‫כמׁשוע‬

Moabite

‫מׁשע‬

No. 1

Bib. —

Compare Ps 140:8

ʾIlšūăʿ

El is [my] salvation

CAI 18; WSS 885; 916

3

ʾAdonīšūăʿ

[my] lord is [my] salvation

Benz 59; WSS 1082; NEE 25.17

3

Yhwh is [my] salvation

HAE 1.132, 133; 10.44; 13.13, 32, 66; BPHB 74; 196; 197; 231; 386; FHCB 75.24

12

(4)

‫יׁשוע‬ (10×)

Kamōššūăʿ

Chemosh is [my] salvation

WSS 1031

1

Mēšaʿ

[DN] is [my] salvation

KAI 180.1

1

554

Names of Confession Name

Transcrip. ‫מׁשע‬

Edomite

Meaning

Epigraphic

555 No.

Bib.

Compare

WSS 1061; 1062

Mēšaʿ

[my] salvation is [DN]

Šuʿībaʿal

[my] salvation is Baal Benz 182

‫ׁשועא‬

Šûʿaʾ

[my] salvation is [DN]

WSS 1046

1

Ammonite

‫יׁשעאל‬

Yišʿīʾil

[my] salvation is El

WSS 937

1

Aramaic

‫הדיסעי‬

Haddyisʿî

Hadad is my salvation

Maraqten 77

1

Yišīʿaʾ

[my] salvation is [DN]

CAI 20

1

Yišīʿ

[my] salvation [is DN]

CAI 31

1

‫ׁשעבעל‬

Phoenician Moabite

Ammonite

‫יׁשעא‬

Ammonite

‫יׁשע‬

2 1

13

14

‫אלפלט‬

ʾElīpelet

[my] god is [my] rescue

HAE Or(8).1:1

1

1 (4)

‫יהופלט‬

Yĕhôpelet

Yhwh is [my] rescue

BPHB 171; 192

2

—

Ammonite

‫אדנפלט‬

ʾAdonīpillet

[my] lord is [my] rescue

Ps 40:18 ‫פלטיאל‬ )>>×2)>>

WSS 858

1

3

7

2.2.2.╇ God helps the sufferer with justice Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫ מלכיצדק‬Malkîṣedeq

my king is [my] justice

HAE 13.46

‫צדקיהו‬

my justice is Yhwh HAE 18.3; Jer(7).5:4; Lak(6).1.11:5; NEE 92.79:5; BPHB 331?; 332?; Lemaire 201.2:6, 9

Ṣidqīyāhû

No.

Bib.

1

1

7

4 (2)

Compare Ps 4:2

Ammonite

‫צדקאל‬

Ṣidqīʾil

[my] justice is El

Heltzer 221; 239

Moabite

‫צדקאל‬

Ṣidqīʾel

[my] justice is El

SAJ 421.2

1

Aramaic

‫צדקרמן‬

Ṣidqīramām

Rimmon is [my] justice

WSS 839

1

‫צדקא‬

Ṣidqāʾ ‫צדקי‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשפטן‬

[my] justice is [DN] Ṣidqî

HAE 16.50 my justice [is DN]

1

Edomite

‫מׁשפט‬

Edomite Phoenician

—

BPPS 137 (= WSS 1171)

our legal assistance HAE Msa(7).3:3 [by DN]

Šipṭān

2

1

9

7

1

1

(Ps 9:5)

Mišpāṭ

legal assistance of [DN]

WSS 1063

1

‫מׁשפטאל‬

Mišpaṭʾēl

legal assistance of El

BPPS 203

1

‫ׁשפטבעל‬

Šipiṭbaʿal

legal assistance of Baal

Benz 184

2

Appendix B2

556

2.3.╇ Divine assistance 2.3.1.╇ God is support for the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אבעזר‬

ʾAbīʿezer

my [divine] father is [my] help

HAE Sam(8).1 (clan name)

‫אמעזר‬

Aramaic

ʾImmīʿizrī

No. 1

Bib. 2

Compare Ps 54:6

[my divine] mother is Maraqten 70 [my] help

1

‫אחיעזר‬

ʾAḥîʿezer

my [divine] brother is [my] help

HAE 1.49

1

2

‫יהועזר‬ ‫יועזר‬ ‫ׁשמׁשעזר‬

Yĕhôʿezer

Yhwh is help

HAE 10.38, 39

2

—

Yauʿezer

Yhwh is help

HAE 8.48; Mur(7).2:4

2

1

Šamašʿizrī

Shamash is [my] help

HAE 21.77 (Syrian?)

1

—

‫עליעזר‬ (10×), ‫עזריאל‬ (3×)

‫בעלעזר‬

Baʿalʿizrī

Baal is [my] help

Maraqten 73

1

Phoenician

‫בעלעזר‬

Baʿalʿazrī

Baal is [my] help

Benz 96

1

Aramaic

‫הדדעזר‬

Hadadʿizrī

Hadad is [my] help

WSS 785

1

Aramaic

‫הדעדר‬

Hadadʿidrī

Hadad is [my] help

Maraqten 77

1

Aramaic

‫עתרעזר‬

ʿAttarʿizrī

Ashtar is [my] help

Maraqten 97; WSS 837

2

Aramaic

‫עתרעזרי‬

ʿAttarʿizrî

Ashtar is my help

NTA 42.4:9

1

Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫ׁשלמנעזרי‬

Šalmānʿizrî

Shalman is my help

NTA 84.12:10; 95.15:9; Röllig, AoF 24 368.1:8

3

Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜ ‫ׁשמׁשעדרי‬

Šamašʿidrî

Shamash is my help

WSS 848 (showing Sin)

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשמׁשעזר‬

Šamašʿizrī

Shamash is [my] help Hug 42 (S 6)

Aramaic

‫ׁשעזרי‬

Šēʿizrî

Sin is my help

TSF 655.47:18

1

Edomite

‫בעזראל‬

Bĕʿazarʾēl

by the help of El (worshiper of Baal!)

WSS 1052

1

Aramaic

1

7

18

6

1 (3)

‫חזקיהו‬

Ḥizqīyāhû

my strength is Yhwh

HAE 8.19; 10.26; 16.40; 48.1; BMir(8).5:1; Jer(7).5:1

6

5

‫יהוחיל‬

Yĕhôḥayil

Yhwh is [my] strength

HAE 1.65; 10.27; BPHB 400

3

—

‫יהוחל‬

Yĕhôḥēl

Yhwh is [my] strength

HAE 10.28, 99; BPHB 97

3

—

‫חליו‬

Ḥēlyau

[my] strength is Yhwh

HAE KAgr(9).5

1

—

‫חילא‬

Ḥaylāʾ

[my] strength is [DN]

HAE 13.39; 21.24

2

—

‫חלא‬

Ḥēlāʾ

[my] strength is [DN]

BPHB 390

1

—

10

0

Ammonite

‫חלא‬

Ḥēlaʾ

[my] strength is [DN] WSS 930

Ps 18:2 ‫חזקי‬ (1×) Hab 3:19

1

Names of Confession Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אבריהו‬

ʾAbbiryāhû

[my] strength is Yhwh

HAE 1.11; Jer(8).30:1

Phoenician

‫אבראס‬

Phoenician

‫אברבעל‬

Phoenician

‫אברגד‬

Phoenician

‫אדרמלך‬

‫אניהו‬

‫אני‬

Phoenician

‫אילן‬

Aramaic

No.

Aramaic ╇↜渀屮↜‫ביתאלעׁשני‬ Aramaic

‫ׁשעׁשני‬

Aramaic

[‫עׁשנא]ל‬

2

Bib.

Compare

0

—

ʾAbbirʾis

[my] strength is Isis

Benz 55

1

ʾAbbirbaʿal

[my] strength is Baal

Benz 55

1

ʾAbbirgad

[my] strength is Gad

Benz 55

1

ʾAddirmilk

[my] strength is Milk

Benz 60

my power is Yhwh HAE 1.122; Kom(8).3:4

ʾOnîyāhû

557

1

2

0

—

ʾOnī

my strength [is DN]

NEE 27.42

1

ʾAyilān

[DN is] our strength

NTA 95.15:8

1

Baytʾelʿušnî

Bethel is my strength

Maraqten 72

1

Šēʿušnî

Sin is my strength

TSF 653.46, obv. 4; 655.47:4, 6, 9

1

ʿUšnīʾe[l]

[my] strength is DN/El

NTA 34.3:13; cf. WSS 1169 (undef.)

1

2.3.2.╇ God is assistance for the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫עמדיהו‬

ʿImmādīyāhû

Yhwh is with me

HAE 1.58; 15.14; 16.60, 61, 62, 75; Gaz(7).1:2

7

—

BPHB 45

1

—

HAE 16.63

1

—

‫ )?( עמדיה‬ʿImmādīyāh Yhwh is with me ʿImmādīyau Yhwh is with me ‫עמדיו‬ ‫אתאל‬

Aramaic Phoenician

‫]א[תבעל‬

No.

Bib.

ʾIttīʾēl

El is with [me]

NTA 14.1:3

1

ʾIttobaʿal

Baal is with [him]

Benz 73 (cf. 1 Kgs 16:31)

1

‫עמד‬ ‫עמנויהו‬

ʿImmādī

[DN] is with me

HAE 16.59

1

—

ʿImmānûyāhû

Yhwh is with us

HAE 16.64; BPHB 306

2

—

‫עמניהו‬

ʿImmānūyāhû

Yhwh is with us

BPHB 307a, b

1

—

13

1

‫עמן‬

Edomite

‫בעדאל‬ ‫בעדיהו‬

ʿImmānu

[DN is] with us (?)

1

El is for [me]

HAE 1.25

1

—

Baʿădīyāhû

Yhwh is for me

HAE 2.21, 22; 42.3

3

—

[‫בעדא]ל‬

Ammonite

‫בעדא‬

‫עמנואל‬ (1×)

BPPS 202

Baʿădīʾel

Ammonite

Compare Ps 23:4

(Ps 56:10)

Baʿadīʾil

El is for me

WSS 957

1

Baʿadāʾ

[DN] is for me

WSS 915

1

Aramaic

‫אלבעדי‬

ʾElbaʿadî

El is for me

WSS 769

1

Aramaic

‫הדבעד‬

Haddbaʿdī

Hadad is for [me]

WSS 751

1

Aramaic

‫סירבעדי‬

Sîrbaʿdî

Osiris is for me

WSS 827

1

Aramaic

‫אלהלי‬

ʾIlahlî

God is for me

Maraqten 68

1

Aramaic

[‫בכא]ל‬

Bĕkaʾel

El, in you [is my help]

Maraqten 72 (WSS 1130; ARI 378.142)

1

‫מׁשען‬

Mišʿān

Aramaic

‫אלסמכי‬

[my] buttress [is DN] ʾElsumkî

HAE 13.92 El is my support

WSS 106

4

0

1

0

Ps 18:19 1

Appendix B2

558 Name

Transcrip.

Aramaic

‫עתרסמך‬

Aramaic

‫עתרסמכי‬

‫נתביהו‬

Nĕtībyāhû

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

ʿAttarsumkī (?) Ashtar is [my] support

Maraqten 87; WSS 753

2

ʿAttarsumkî

NTA 15.1:14

1

Ashtar is my support

1

[my] path is Yhwh HAE 14.49

0

—

2.3.3.╇ God is light for the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אראל‬

ʾUrīʾēl

[my] light is El ‫אוראל‬

Ammonite

ʾUrīʾil

Epigraphic

No.

HAE 1.12 [my] light is El

Bib.

1

[4]

2

ʾUrīyāhû

my light is Yhwh

HAE Kom(8).3:1, 2; Arad(7).31:2; [36:2]; Jer(7).5:8; Arad(6).26:1

6

1 (4)

‫אריהו‬

ʾUrīyāhû

my light is Yhwh

HAE 1.49:138, 139, 140, 141, 141/a, 142; 10.33, 77; 11.4; 13.105; BPHB 114; 115; 116; 117; 118; 134; 152; 163; 209; 210a, b; 351; 354; 355; 393; FHCB 91.41; Lemaire 217.13:4?

27

—

‫אריו‬

ʾUrīyau

my light is Yhwh

HAE Sam(8).1.50:2; Sam(8).6:4

2

—

‫ארמלך‬

‫ארא‬

ʾUrāʾ

ʾUrīmilk

[my] light is Milk

‫אורא‬

Ammonite

‫ארא‬

Aramaic

Benz 64

HAE 1.118,145; 10.71; BPHB 112; 113

my light is [DN]

Ps 27:1

WSS 891; 959

‫אוריהו‬

Phoenician

Compare

ʾUrāʾ

[DN] is [my] light

WSS 988

ʾUrāʾ

[DN] is [my] light

BPPS 114

1

5

—

‫אורי‬ (3×) 1 1

‫יה]ו[אר‬

Yāh[û]ʾōr

Yhwh is [my] light HAE 50.1; BPHB 187; Lemaire 210.10: obv. 4?

3

—

‫יואר‬

Yauʾōr

Yhwh is [my] light HAE 10.48

1

—

Ammonite

‫אלאור‬

ʾIlʾûr

El is [my] light

WSS 884

1

Ammonite

‫אלאר‬

ʾIlʾūr

El is [my] light

WSS 887

1

Ammonite

‫מלכמאור‬

Milkomʾûr

Milk is [my] light

WSS 860

1

Moabite

‫כמׁשאר‬

Kamōšʾūr

Chemosh is [my] light

BPPS 198

1

Aramaic

‫מלכאר‬

Malkīʾūr

[my] king is [my] light

BPPS 125

1

‫אלנר‬

ʾElīnēr

Ammonite

NEE 83.77:1

El is [my] light ‫אלנר‬

1

—

2 Sam 22:29

El is [my] light

AMM 36.2:1; 2; 8

3 1

‫אלנורי‬

ʾElnūrî

El is [my] light

WSS 772

Aramaic

‫אלהנר‬

ʾIlahnūr

God is [my] light

BPPS 112

Malkīnēr

12

ʾIlnūr

Aramaic

‫מלכנר‬

45

[my] king is [my] light

HAE 13.47

1

1

—

‫אבנר‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫אדננר‬

ʾAdonīnūr

[my] lord is [my] light

WSS 859

1

Aramaic

‫אדנרי‬

ʾAddunūrî

Adad is my light

Maraqten 66

2

Names of Confession Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

559 No.

Bib.

Compare

Aramaic

‫אחנ]ו[רי‬

ʾAḥīnûrî

[my divine] brother is my light

WSS 762

1

Aramaic

‫ננורי‬

Nannûrî

Nanaya is my light (daughter of sin)

Maraqten 91

1

Sāsnûrî

Shamash is my light

Maraqten 93

1

Šaḥarnûrî

Shachar is my light

Maraqten 102

Aramaic

‫ססנורי‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשחרנורי‬

1

‫נריהו‬

Nērīyāhû

my light is Yhwh

HAE 1.26, 63; 2.18, 30; 4.9; 7.4; 8.53; 10.87; 11.6; 14.19, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48; 16.22; 18.6; 21.103; Seb(8).5:1; Arad(7).31:4; Lak(7/6).21:1; Lak(6)1.1:5; Lak(6).23:1; BPHB 270; 271; 297; 406

‫נריה‬ ‫נוריה‬

Nērīyāh

my light is Yhwh

HAE 8.29

1

1

Naurīyāh

my light is Yhwh

HAE 8.49

1

—

‫נוראל‬

Ammonite Aramaic

[‫נרבע]ל‬

Aramaic

‫נרׁשא‬

Aramaic

‫נרׁשבׁש‬

‫נרא‬

Nērāʾ

‫נרא‬

Nērî

[my] light is El

BPPS 176

1

Nūrībaʿal

[my] light is Baal

Maraqten 92

1

Nūršāʾ

[my] light is Sin

Maraqten 92; WSS 753

2

Nūršavaš

[my] light is Shamash WSS 824

Nūrāʾ

‫נרי‬

Nūrî

HAE 14.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; Gib(7).1; BPHB 19; 265; 266; 267; 268a–g; 269a, b; 331

[my] light is [DN]

my light [is DN]

1

14

—

4

—

58

3

NTA 34.3:14

HAE 14.31, 32, 33, 34

my light [is DN]

Aramaic

[1]

Nûrīʾil

[my] light is [DN]

Aramaic

‫נרי‬

36

1

‫נר‬ (1×)

Maraqten 92

1

2.4.╇ Divine protection 2.4.1.╇ God is protection for the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

‫אליעז‬

ʾElîʿoz

my god is [my strong] protection

HAE 1.73; 10.21

2

—

Ps 28:7

‫אלעז‬

ʾElīʿoz

[my] god is [my strong] protection

HAE 1.98, 99; 10.22, 23; 13.22

5

—

‫עזיאל‬ (7×)

Ammonite

‫אלעז‬

ʾIlʿuz

El is [my] protection

WSS 905; 906; 913

3

Ammonite

‫אלעזן‬

ʾIlʿuzzān

El is our protection

BPPS 162

1

Moabite

‫אבעז‬

ʾAbīʿoz

{my divine] father is [my] protection

WSS 1012

1

‫אדנעז‬

ʾAdonīʿoz

Ammonite

‫אדנעז‬

[my] lord is [my strong] protection ʾAdonīʿaz

BPHB 349a, b

[my] lord is [my] protection

1 BPPS 151

— 1

Appendix B2

560 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יהועז‬

Yĕhôʿaz

Yhwh is [my] protection

HAE 10.34, 35, 36, 37, 63, 102, 103; 16.35; Arad(8).49:7; Arad(7).31:3; BPHB 191a, b; 219; FHCB 73.22

No. 13

Bib.

Compare

—

Moabite

‫כמׁשעז‬

Kamōšʿoz

Chemosh is [my] protection

WSS 1009; Heltzer 267

2

Aramaic

‫מלכמעז‬

Milkomʿaz

Milkom is [my] protection

WSS 792

1

Baʿalʿoz

Baal is [my] protection

Kition 805.1, 3, 5

1

ʿAštartʿoz

Ashtarte is [my] protection

Benz 175; WSS 746

2

Phoenician

‫בעלעז‬

Phoen.╅╇╛╛╛ ‫עׁשתרתעז‬

‫עזיהו‬

ʿUzzīyāhû

my protection is Yhwh

HAE 8.46; 16.21, 22; 56.1; Arad(6).20:2; Lemaire 201.2:4?

6

3 (3)

‫עזיו‬

ʿUzzīyau

my protection is Yhwh

HAE 1.9; 21.17; PIAP 279. 72127:10 (KAgr)

3

—

‫עזאל‬

ʿUzziʾil

El is [my] protection

WSS 961

1

Aramaic

‫עזאל‬

ʿAzziʾēl

[my] protection is El

Maraqten 95; WSS 1115

2

Aramaic

‫עזבעל‬

ʿAzzibaʿal

[my] protection is Baal

BPPS 105

1

Phoenician

‫עזבעל‬

ʿUzzibaʿal

[my] protection is Baal

Benz 165; NEE 25.13; 25.16; Heltzer 281; FSL 62.39

7

Phoenician

‫עזמלך‬

ʿUzzimilk

[my] protection is Milk

Benz 165

1

Phoenician

‫עזם‬

ʿUzzima

[my] protection is [Milk]

Benz 165; WSS 713; NEE 26.22

3

Ammonite

‫עזא‬

ʿUzzāʾ

[my] protection is [DN]

HAE 1.76; 16.19, 20; Sam(8).1.1:5; Arad(8).72:4; Sam(8).5:1; BPHB 212.208

7

—

‫( עזי‬5×) ‫עזיא‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫עזיא‬

ʿUzzîʾa

my protection is [DN]

WSS 868

1

Ammonite

‫עזא‬

ʿUzzāʾ

[my] protection is [DN]

WSS 925; 960; AMM 36.2:4; Heltzer 242

5

Aramaic

‫עזא‬

ʿAzzāʾ

[my] protection is [DN]

WSS 1114; BPPS 131

2

Phoenician

‫עזא‬

ʿUzzāʾ

[my] protection is [DN]

Benz 165

2

Aramaic

‫עזי‬

ʿAzzî

my protection [is DN]

WSS 1116

1

Aramaic

‫עז‬

ʿAz

[my] protection [is DN]

Hug 18 (NinU.2:8)

1

‫זמריהו‬

Zimrīyāhû

my protection is Yhwh

HAE 10.76

‫יוסתר‬

Yauseter

Yhwh is [my] hiding place

HAE 21.62

37

19

1

—

1

4

1

—

1

2

Ps 118:14 ‫זמרי‬ (4×) Ps 32:7 ‫סתרי‬ (1×) ‫סתור‬ (1×)

Names of Confession Name

Transcrip. ‫אביקי‬

Aramaic

Meaning

Epigraphic

561 No.

Bib.

Compare

ʾAbyaqî

[my] father is [my] protector (?)

Maraqten 65

1

Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫ביתאלרעי‬

Baytʾelraʿî

Bethel is my Shepherd

WSS 776

1

‫הדדערי‬

Hadadʿīrî

Hadad is my guardian (?)

BPPS 121

1

Paqdîhadd (?)

my watchman is Hadad

WSS 838

1

ʿAyinʾēl

[under the] eye of El

Benz 171

Aramaic

Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫)?(פקדיהד‬

‫עינאל‬

Phoenician

‫צלא‬

Ṣillaʾ

[DN is my] shadow ‫צלתי‬

Aramaic

‫בצל‬

Bĕṣēl

Ṣillatī

in the shadow of [DN]

‫צלנני‬

Aramaic

Ṣilnanay

HAE 5.6; Nim(8).3.1

2

2

(1)

Ps 57:2

1

—

‫בצלאל‬ (2×) ‫צלפקד‬ (1×)

my shadow [is DN](?) Maraqten 98

HAE Arad(8).49:1

[in] the shadow of Nanaya

1

NTA 106.19:6

1

3

4

‫בדיהו‬

Bēdyāhû

in the hand of Yhwh

HAE 2.1; 8.28

2

(1)

‫בדיו‬

Bēdyau

in the hand of Yhwh

HAE Sam(8).1.58:1

1

—

‫במלך‬

Bōmilk

in the hand of Milk HAE Gem(8).2:1

1

—

Ammonite

‫בידאל‬

Ammonite

‫בדאל‬

Ps 31:6

Bayadʾil

in the hand of El

WSS 857; 922; 923; 931; AMM 36.2:3; BPPS 169

6

Bādʾil

in the hand of El

WSS 908; 921a, b

2

Aramaic

‫בדמלכם‬

Bādmilkom

in the hand of Milkom (?)

WSS 853

1

Phoenician

‫בדאׁשמן‬

Bōdʾešmun

in the hand of Eshmun

Benz 75

1

Phoenician

‫בדבעל‬

Bōdbaʿal

in the hand of Baal

Benz 75; WSS 726

4

Phoenician ‫בדמלקרת‬

Bōdmelqart

in the hand of Melqart

Benz 75

1

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫בדעׁשתרת‬

Bōdʿaštart

in the hand of Ashtarte

Benz 82

3

Kullbayadʾēl

all is in the hand of El Maraqten 85

Aramaic

‫כלבידאל‬

Aramaic ╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫כלבידׁשמׁש‬

‫ידבעל‬

1

Kullbayadšamaš all is in the hand of Shamash

WSS 802

1

Yadbaʿal

[in] the hand of Baal

NEE 26.30

1

Aramaic

‫בדי‬

Bādī

in the hand of [DN]

Maraqten 71

1

Phoenician

‫בדא‬

Bōdaʾ

in the hand of [DN]

Benz 74

4

Phoenician

‫בד‬

Bōd

in the hand [of DN]

Gibson 12.3

Phoenician

1

4

1

Appendix B2

562

2.4.2.╇ God is a refuge for the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫[א]למעז‬

[ʾE]lmaʿaz

El is [my] refuge

HAE 16.42

No. 1

Bib. —

Compare Ps 31:5

Aramaic

‫אדמעזי‬

ʾAddumaʿuzî

Adad is my refuge

Maraqten 66

1

Aramaic

‫נסחמעזי‬

Nasuḥmaʿuzî

Nasuch/Nusku is my refuge

NTA 34.3:15

1

‫מעז‬

Maʿaz

[DN is my] refuge ‫מעז‬

Aramaic

Maʿaz

HAE 13.63

[my] refuge [is DN]

1 ARI 391.303

2

1 (1)

HAE Sam(8).6:1; BPHB 232

2

—

HAE 13.8

1

—

16

1

Maḥsēyāhû

[my] refuge is Yhwh

HAE 13.9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 21.14, 72; 50.6; Arad(6).23:6; NEE 92.79:3; BPHB 229; 230a, b; 231

‫מחסיו‬

Maḥsēyau

[my] refuge is Yhwh

‫מחסא‬

Maḥĕsāʾ

[my] refuge is [DN]

‫סנעיד‬

Sinʿiyād

‫מעזיהו‬ (1×) 1

13

‫מחסיהו‬

Aramaic

—

Sin is (my) refuge (cf. WSS 834 Arab.)

Ps 61:4

1

‫אליצר‬

ʾElîṣūr

my god is [my] rock

HAE 1.74

1

(1)

Ps 62:3

‫אלצר‬

ʾElīṣūr

[my] god is [my] rock

HAE Seb(8).2:1; BPHB 96

2

—

‫צוריאל‬ (1×) ‫צוריׁשדי‬ (1×)

Aramaic

‫אחצר‬

Aramaic

‫צוריהדד‬

Aramaic

‫צורי‬

Aramaic

‫קתרא‬

ʾAḥīṣūr

[my divine] brother is [my] rock

WSS 763

1

Ṣûrîhadad

my rock is Hadad

NTA 93.14:4′

1

Ṣûrî

my rock [is DN]

WSS 840; BPPS 135

2

Qatraʾ

[my] rock is [DN]

Maraqten 100 (WSS 1173)

Harībaʿal

[my] rock is Baal

Benz 108

3 Phoenician

‫הרבעל‬

3 1 1

‫מגדליהו‬

Migdalyāhû

[my] tower is Yhwh

HAE Gib(7).1:58

1

0

Ps 61:4

‫יהוטר‬

Yĕhôṭūr

Yhwh is [my] defensive wall

NEE 92.79:4

1

0

(Jer 1:18)

Aramaic

‫]א[בׁשורי‬

[ʾA]bīšûrî

[my divine] father is my defensive wall

TSF 652.45: rev. 3′

1

Aramaic

‫אדׁשרי‬

ʾAddušūrî

Adad is my defensive wall

Maraqten 66

1

Aramaic

‫נבוׁשרי‬

Nabûšūrî

Nabu is my defensive wall

WSS 815

1

Aramaic

‫עויד‬

ʿAwîd

refugee (of DN)

Maraqten 95

1

Names of Confession

563

2.4.3.╇ God is a protected living space for the sufferer Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫נויו‬

Nawīyau

my pasture is Yhwh

HAE 14.3

1

—

‫נויה‬

Nawīyāh

my pasture is Yhwh

HAE 14.62

1

—

‫נוי‬

Nawî

my pasture is [DN] HAE Gaz(7).1:3

1

—

‫חמיאהל‬

Ḥammîʾohel my [divine] father- HAE 8.34 (fem.) in-law is [my] tent

Phoenician

‫אהלבעל‬

Phoenician

‫אהלמלך‬

‫אוהל‬

No.

ʾOhel

3

0

1

—

Compare Ps 23:2

(Ps 27:5) (1×)

ʾOhelbaʿal

[my] tent is Baal

Benz 60

ʾOhelmilk

[my] tent is Milk

Benz 60

HAE 1.79

[DN is my] tent

Bib.

1 1

1

(1)

2

4

‫אהליבמה‬ (2×) ?

2.5.╇ Trust in god 2.5.1.╇ God is one’s portion in life Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חלקיהו‬

Ḥilqīyāhû

my portion is Yhwh

HAE 8.28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41; 10.26, 86, 94, 97; 13.70; 16.33, 34; 17.19, 28; 20.5; NEE 83.77:4; BPHB 18a–f; 84a, b; 153?; 167; 224a–c;

Aramaic

‫חלקיו‬

Ḥilqīyau

my portion is Yhwh

No. 23

Bib. 4 (7)

Compare Ps 142:6

WSS 818

1

‫חלקא‬

Ḥelqāʾ

[my] portion is [DN]

HAE 8.27; 16.32; BPHB 311

3

—

‫חלק‬

Ḥeleq

[my] portion [is DN]

HAE 4.5; 8.26; 13.44; 17.27; Sam(8).1 (clan name)

5

1

31

13

‫חלקי‬ (1×)

2.5.2.╇ God is the basis of trust Name

Transcrip.

‫מבטחיהו‬

Mibṭaḥyāhû my trust is Yhwh

Meaning

HAE 13.3, 4, 5; Lak(6).1.1:4; BPHB 30; 36

Epigraphic

No. 6

Bib. 0

Compare Ps 71:5

‫כסליהו‬

Kislīyāhû

my trust is Yhwh

HAE 8.44; BPHB 267?; FHCB 81.29; 81.30; 82.31a, b; 90.38a, b; 90.39a, b; 91.40

8

—

Job 4:6

‫כסלא‬

Kislāʾ

[my] trust is [DN]

HAE 11.7, 8, 9; 15.4; 17.20

5

—

13

0

Appendix B2

564 Name

Transcrip. ‫האמן‬

Aramaic

Meaning

Epigraphic

Haʾamen

he trusted [in DN]

No.

Bib.

1

‫חכליהו‬

Ḥakalyāhû

place your hope in Yhwh!

HAE Lak(6).1.20:2

1

(1)

‫חכל‬

Ḥakal

place your hope in [DN]!

HAE 10.59

1

—

2

1

Phoenician

‫יחלבעל‬

Yaḥellĕbaʿal

wait for Baal (?)

Compare

Maraqten 77

(Ps 33:20)

Benz 127

1

‫קוה‬

Qawwēh

place your hope [in DN]

NEE 92.79:12

1

—

‫תקוה‬

Tiqwāh

[my] hope [is in DN]

HAE 22.5

1

2

2

2

Ps 62:6

2.5.3.╇ God is the joy of life Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫ׂשראל‬ ‫אבגיל‬

[ʾA]śrīʾēl

[my] joy is El

HAE Sam(8).1 (clan name)

1

(3)

ʾAbīgayl

[my divine] father is [my] rejoicing

HAE 1.4, 5 (fem.)

2

(2)

Ps 43:4

‫חמיעדן‬

Ḥammîʿeden my [divine] father- HAE 8.35 (fem.) in-law is bliss

1

—

—

‫יהועדן‬

Yĕhôʿeden

1

1

HAE 10.33

‫אבעדן‬

ʾAbīʿadan

[my divine] father is [my] bliss

WSS 869 (fem.)

‫בעלעדן‬

Baʿalʿadan

Baal is [my] bliss

ARI 391.301

Ammonite Aramaic

Yhwh is my bliss

No.

‫תנתׁשבע‬

Tanitšebaʿ

Tannit is richness

1

1

FSL 38.13

‫גדיהו‬

Gaddīyāhû

my luck is Yhwh

HAE 1.135; 3.10, 11, 12, 13; 21.21, 22; 43.1; BPHB 252?

‫גדיו‬

Gaddīyau

my luck is Yhwh

HAE Sam (8).1.2:2; 4.2; 5.2; 6.2f.; 7.2; 16a/b.2; 17a/b.2; 18.2; 30.2; 33.2; 34.2; 35.2; 42.3

1

9

—

13

—

— ‫גדיאל‬ (1×)

‫מלכמגד‬

Milkomgad

Milkom is [my] luck

WSS 940

1

Phoenician╇↜ ↜‫עׁשתרתג‬

ʿAštartga[d]

Ashtarte is [my] luck

FSL 57.32

1

Ammonite

‫גדא‬ ‫גדי‬

Compare

1

2 Phoenician

Bib.

HAE Arad(8).72:3

Gaddāʾ

[my] luck [is DN]

Gaddî

my luck [is Yhwh] HAE 2.10; 21.20

Phoenician

‫גדי‬

Gaddî

my luck [is DN]

1

—

2

1

25

5

Benz 102

‫( גד‬3×) 1

Names of Confession

565

2.6.╇ Relationship of personal trust in god 2.6.1.╇ Servant of god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

‫עבדירח‬

ʿAbdiyēraḥ

servant of Yēraḥ (moon-god)

HAE 2.25

1

—

‫עבדׂשהר‬

ʿAbdiśāhār

servant of Sahar (moon-god)

HAE 21.77 (Syrian?) [not included in the index of HAE II/2]

1

—

‫עבדיהו‬

ʿAbdiyāhû

servant of Yhwh

HAE 10.38; 14.59; 16.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Arad(8)49:8; Arad(6).10:4; 27.2; NEE 92.79:9; BPHB 137; 287; 288; 289; 359

18

3

‫עבדיה‬ ‫עבדיו‬ ‫עבדחיל‬

ʿAbdiyāh

servant of Yhwh

HAE 10.3

1

8

ʿAbdiyau

servant of Yhwh

HAE KAgr(9).3; Sam(8).1.50:2

2

—

ʿAbdiḥayil

servant of the [divine] strength

BPHB 286

1

—

Compare Ps 143:12

‫עבדיאל‬ (1×), ‫עבדאל‬ (1×)

Ammonite

[‫עבדא]ל‬

ʿAbdʾi[l]

servant of El

CAI 144.1

1

Ammonite

‫עבדאדד‬

ʿAbdʾadad

servant of Adad

WSS 959

1

Moabite

‫עבדחורן‬

ʿAbdiḥauron

servant of Hauron

WSS 1041

1

Moabite

‫עבדרחבן‬

ʿAbdiraḥban

servant of Rachban

WSS 1042; BPPS 199

2

Aramaic

‫עבדאיו‬

ʿAbdʾayau

servant of Yhwh (?)

Maraqten 94

1

Aramaic

‫עבדבעל‬

ʿAbdbaʿal

servant of Baal

Maraqten 94

1

Aramaic╅↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜‫עבדבעלת‬

ʿAbdbaʿalat

servant of the Lady

Maraqten 94

1

Aramaic

‫עבדהדד‬

ʿAbdhadad

servant of Hadad

WSS 832; NTA 26.2:11

2

Aramaic

‫עבדחורן‬

ʿAbdḥauron

servant of Hauron

Maraqten 94

1

Aramaic╅╛↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮‫עבדכדאה‬

ʿAbdkadiʾāh

servant of Kadiʾa

ARI 372.80

1

‫עבדסלם‬

ʿAbdsalim

servant of Shalem

WSS 833

1

Phoenician ↜渀屮‫עבדאבסת‬

ʿAbdʾabast

servant of the Lady Bastet

Benz 148

7

Phoenician

‫עבדאדני‬

ʿAbdʾadonî

servant of my lord

Benz 149

1

Phoenician

‫עבדאלם‬

ʿAbdʾelīm

servant of the gods

Benz 149; NEE 27.38

5

Phoenician

‫עבדאמן‬

ʿAbdʾamun

servant of Amun

Benz 149; Gibson 115.29:1

2

Phoenician

‫עבדאס‬

ʿAbdʾisi

servant of Lady Isis

Benz 149

1

Phoenician

‫עבדאסר‬

ʿAbdʾosir

servant of Osiris

Benz 149

8 13

Aramaic

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜‫עבדאׁשמן‬

ʿAbdʾešmun

servant of Eshmun

Benz 150

Phoenician

‫עבדבעל‬

ʿAbdibaʿal

servant of Baal

Benz 153; WSS 743

4

Phoenician

‫עבדהדד‬

ʿAbdihadad

servant of Hadad

Benz 154

1

Phoenician

‫עבדחורן‬

ʿAbdiḥauron

servant of Horon

Benz 154

1

Phoenician

‫עבדחמן‬

ʿAbdiḥammon

servant of Hammon

Benz 154

2

Phoenician

‫עבדחר‬

ʿAbdiḥor

servant of des Horus

Benz 154

2

Phoenician

‫עבדלא‬

ʿAbdilaʾi

servant of the mighty one

Benz 154

2

Phoenician ╇↜渀屮↜‫עבדלבאת‬

ʿAbdilabiʾt

servant of the lioness (Anat)

NEE 24.2; 3; 4; 25.10?; 11

1

‫עבדמלך‬

ʿAbdimilk

servant of Milk

Benz 155; WSS 744; BPPS 100

3

Phoenician

Appendix B2

566 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Phoenician ╇↜渀屮↜渀屮‫עבדמלכת‬

ʿAbdimilkat

servant of the queen

Benz 155

3

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮‫עבדמלקרת‬

ʿAbdimelqart

servant of Melqart

Benz 155

7

Phoenician╇↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫עבדמסכר‬

ʿAbdimaskir

servant of Maskir

Benz 162

1

‫עבדסכן‬

ʿAbdisakkōn

servant of Sakkon (corresponds to Hermes)

Benz 162; FSL 63.41?

3

Phoenician ╇ ‫עבדעׁשתר‬

ʿAbdʿaštar

servant of Ashtar

Benz 162

1

Phoenician ‫עבדעׁשתרת‬

ʿAbdʿaštart

servant of Lady Ashtarte

Benz 162;

2

Phoenician

Phoenician

‫עבדפעם‬

ʿAbdipaʿam

servant of Paʿam

Benz 163; FSL 74.51

2

Phoenician

‫עבדפתח‬

ʿAbdiptaḥ

servant of Ptah

Benz 163

3

Phoenician

‫עבדרׁשף‬

ʿAbdirešep

servant of Resheph

Benz 163

5

ʿAbdišamaš

servant of Shamash

Benz 163

4

ʿAbditanīt

servant of Lady Tannit

Benz 163

1

Phoenician ‫עבדׁשמׁש‬

‫עבדתנת‬

Phoenician

‫עבדא‬

ʿAbdāʾ

servant of [DN]

HAE 5.25; 9.5; 16.2, 3, 74; Sam(8).1.57:1; Lemaire 211.10: rev. 6

7

2

Aramaic

‫עבדא‬

ʿAbdāʾ

servant of [DN]

WSS 864; BPPS 177

2

Aramaic

‫עבדא‬

ʿAbdāʾ

servant of [DN]

Maraqten 94; WSS 1112; 1113

3

Phoenician

‫עבדא‬

ʿAbdāʾ

servant of [DN]

Benz 148; WSS 1095

‫עבדה‬ ‫עבדי‬

servant of [DN]

BPHB 284

1

—

ʿAbdî

servant of [DN]

HAE 1.43; 10.47; 14.13; 16.4, 5, 6; 21.63; BPHB 19; 408

9

3

Phoenician

‫עבדי‬

Phoenician

‫עבדני‬

‫עבד‬

8

ʿAbdāh

ʿEbed

ʿAbday

servant of [DN]

NEE 26.27; 27.34; 27.40; 27.41; WTP 21.45; 46

6

ʿAbdoni

servant of my lord

NEE 25.13

1

servant [of DN]

HAE 16.1; Arad(8).72:5; Seb(8).1:2; BPHB 285; Lemaire 214.11:1

Aramaic

‫עבד‬

ʿAbd

servant [of DN]

Aramaic

‫עביד‬

ʿUbayd

small servant [of DN] WSS 834

5

2

Maraqten 93

1 1

46

20

Phoenician

‫אמתאסר‬

ʾAmotʾosir

maidservant of Osiris Benz 62

1

Phoenician

‫אמתבעל‬

ʾAmotbaʿal

maidservant of Baal

Benz 62

1

ʾAmotmaskir

maidservant of Maskir (divine warrior)

FSL 59.34

1

‫אמתספר‬

ʾAmotsūper

maidservant of the [divine] scribe (?)

FSL 56.30

1

Phoenician↜渀屮‫אמתעׁשתרת‬

ʾAmotʿaštart

maidservant of Lady Ashtarte

Benz 63 (fem.)

1

‫אמתשמן‬

ʾAmotešmun

maidservant of Eshmun

FSL 32.8

1

Phoenician╇↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫אמתמסכר‬

Phoenician

Phoenician

‫נעריהו‬

Naʿaryāhû

servant boy of Yhwh

HAE 14.24

1

(2)

1

3

— ‫נערי‬ (1×)

Names of Confession Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

567 No.

Bib.

Compare

Phoenician

‫מהרי‬

Maharî

soldier of [DN]

FSL 56f.:31

1

Aramaic

‫מליך‬

Malīk

governed by [DN]

Maraqten 87

1

‫אלף‬

ʾAllūp

‫כלב‬

friend [of DN] ‫רעדד‬

Aramaic

Kālēb

Reʿēdad

[faithful] dog [of DN]

HAE 1.100 friend of Adad

1

0

—

1

2

—

Maraqten 100

1

HAE Arad(6).58:2

Aramaic

‫כלבא‬

Kalbāʾ

[faithful] dog of [DN]

NTA 89.13:8′

1

Aramaic

‫כלבו‬

Kalbū

[faithful] dog of [DN]

Maraqten 85

1

Phoenician

‫כלבא‬

Kalbāʾ

[faithful] dog of [DN]

Benz 131

1

Phoenician

‫כלבאלם‬

Kalbʾēlīm

[faithful] dog of the gods

Benz 131

1

Phoenician

‫כלבי‬

Kalbay

[faithful] dog of [DN]

Benz 132

2

Phoenician

‫כלבלא‬

Kalblaʾi

[faithful] dog of the might one

Benz 132

1

Phoenician

‫כלבת‬

Kalbat

[faithful] bitch of [DN]

FSL 63.41 (fem.)

1

‫עגליו‬

ʿEgelyau

young steer of Yhwh

‫עגלהדד‬

HAE Sam(8).1.41:1

1

0

—

ʿEgelhadad

young steer of Hadad WSS 835

Phoenician

‫עגלא‬

ʿAglāʾ

young steer of [DN]

WSS 1096

1

Ammonite

‫מתא‬

Mutaʾ

man of [DN]

WSS 951

1

Aramaic

‫מתי‬

Mutî

man [of DN] (?)

Maraqten 89

1

Aramaic

‫כמראלה‬

Kumrʾilah

priest of god

Maraqten 85

1

Aramaic

1

2.6.2.╇ Belonging to god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫גריהו‬

Gēryāhû

sojourner of Yhwh HAE 3.31; 13.83; 16.67; Arad(8).64:1; BPHB 139; 140

Epigraphic

No. 6

Bib. —

Compare Ps 39:13

Aramaic

‫גראל‬

Gerʾēl

sojourner of El

ARI 379.152

1

Aramaic

‫גרצפן‬

Gerṣapān

sojourner of Saphon

Maraqten 76

1

Phoenician

‫גראהל‬

Gerʾohel

sojourner of the [divine] tent

Benz 103

1

Phoenician

‫גראׁשמן‬

Gerʾešmun

sojourner of Eshmun

WSS 733

1 1

Phoenician

‫גרׁשמן‬

Gerešmun

sojourner of Eshmun

FSL 58.33

Phoenician

‫גרבעל‬

Gerbaʿal

sojourner of Baal

Benz 103; NEE 24.6

1

Phoenician

‫גרגׁש‬

Gergušī

sojourner of Gushi

FSL 42.15

2

Phoenician

‫גרהכל‬

Gerhēkal

sojourner of the temple

Benz 104

4

Phoenician

‫גרחמן‬

Gerḥamon

sojourner of Hammon

FSL 36.12

1

Phoenician

‫גרמלך‬

Germilk

sojourner of Milk

Benz 104; WSS 734

2

Appendix B2

568 Name

‫גרא‬

‫בסי‬

‫אב‬

Transcrip.

‫בעל‬

Bib.

Compare

Benz 104

3

Phoenician ╛╛↜渀屮↜‫גרעׁשתרת‬

Gerʿaštart

sojourner of Lady Ashtarte

Benz 106; WSS 735

3

Gerṣid

sojourner of Sid (city-god of Sidon)

Benz 106

1 1

Phoenician

‫גרצד‬

Phoenician

‫גרצפן‬

Gerṣapōn

sojourner of Zaphon

Benz 106

Phoenician

‫גרׁשד‬

Geršed

sojourner of Shedu

WSS 736

Phoenician

‫גרתבעל‬

Geretbaʿal

she-sojourner of Baal FSL 50.24 (fem.)

Gērāʾ

sojourner of [DN]

1 1

HAE Sam(8).1.30:3; 36.3; BMir(8).3:1; Arad(6).20:2; 27:5; BPHB 138

6

4

Aramaic

‫גרה‬

Gerāh

sojourner of [DN]

WSS 824

1

Phoenician

‫גרא‬

Gerāʾ

sojourner of [DN]

Benz 103

2

Phoenician

‫גרתא‬

Geratʾā

she-sojourner of [DN]

FSL 61.38 (fem.)

1

who belongs to Bes HAE 2.20; 16.15; 22.1; BPHB 94?; 130; Lemaire 211.10: obv.€11?

Besay

12

4

4

1

(Ps 119:94)

Aramaic

‫אלתי‬

ʾIlatay

who belongs to the goddess

Maraqten 70

1

Aramaic

‫דדי‬

Daday

who belongs to Hadad

Maraqten 76

1

Aramaic

‫נני‬

Nanay

who belongs to Nanaya

Maraqten 91; WSS 820

2

Aramaic

‫ססי‬

Sasay

who belongs to Shamash

Röllig, AoF 24 371.8

1

Phoenician

‫בעלי‬

Baʿalay

who belongs to Baal

Benz 94; FSL 30.6

3

Phoenician

‫מלכי‬

Milkay

who belongs to Milk

NEE 26.22

1

ʾAb ‫אחת‬

[the one of] Baal ‫בעל‬ ‫בל‬

Ammonite

1

0

HAE Sam(8).1.12:2

1

2

Baʿal

[the one of] Baal

WSS 729

1

Bēl

[the one of] Bel

NTA 101.17:1

1

1

Ḥûr

[the one of] Horus

WSS 793

‫חר‬

Ḥor

[the one of] Horus

Benz 125

[the one of] Mota ‫אלן‬

Moabite

‫כמׁש‬

Aramaic

‫אל‬

2

HAE Kom(8).11:1

‫חור‬

Maut

0

Maraqten 68; WSS 756 (fem.)

[the one of] Ḥorus HAE 2.14

Ḥōr Phoenician

[the one of the divine] sister

[the one of the divine] uncle

Baʿal

Aramaic

ʾAḥat

1

HAE 1.1

[the one of the divine] father

ʿAm

Aramaic

‫מת‬

No.

sojourner of Melqart

Phoenician

‫חר‬

Epigraphic

Germelqart

Aramaic

‫עם‬

Meaning

Phoenician ‫גרמלקרת‬

1 4

1

BPHB 284

(6)

0

ʾIlōn

the one of god

WSS 897; 898; 899; SAJ 339.46

4

Kamōš

[the one of] Chemosh

WSS 1029

1

ʾEl

[the one of] El

ARI 276.126

1

Names of Confession Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

569 No.

Bib.

Compare

Aramaic

‫דגן‬

Dagān

[the one of] Dagon

BPPS 119

1

Aramaic

‫נׁשך‬

Nušku

[the one of] Nusku

Maraqten 92

1

Aramaic

‫קוס‬

Qaus

[the one of] Qaus

WSS 842

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשמׁש‬

Šamaš

[the one of] Shamash WSS 847

‫אלם‬

ʾElim

[the one of the] gods

FSL 38f.:13

1

Phoenician

‫אמן‬

ʾAmon

[the one of] Amon

FSL 60.36

1

Phoenician

‫מלך‬

Milk

[the one of] Milk

FSL 57.32

1

Phoenician

‫ענת‬

ʿAnat

[the one of] Lady Anat

NEE 25.11

1

Phoenician

‫עׁשתא‬

ʿAštaʾ

[the one of] Lady Ashtarte

NEE 25.11

1

Phoenician

‫עׁשתרת‬

ʿAštart

[the one of] Lady Ashtarte

NEE 25.11

1

Phoenician

‫ׁשפש‬

Šapaš

[the one of] Shapash

Heltzer 284

Phoenician

‫מאס‬

Mēʾis (?) ‫מחדׁש‬

Phoenician

HAE 8.32; 14.53; BPHB 188; 288; 308a, b; FHCB 69.18

from Isis Mēḥodeš

from the new moon (?)

1

1

6

0

Benz 138

1

2.6.3.╇ Son or daughter of god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אפלי‬

ʾAplāya

the inheriting son of [DN]

HAE 1.126

No. 1

Bib. 0

Compare (Jer 2:27)

Aramaic

‫בראבא‬

Barʾabāʾ

the son of the [divine] father

Maraqten 73

1

Aramaic

‫בראם‬

Barʾem

son of the [divine] mother

BPPS 118

1

Aramaic

‫ברעמא‬

Barʿammāʾ

son of the [divine] uncle

Maraqten 74

1

Aramaic

‫ברהדד‬

Barhadad

son of Hadad

Maraqten 73

2

Aramaic

‫בררכב‬

Barrakeb

son of [the cloud] rider

Maraqten 74; WSS 750

2

Aramaic

‫ברעתר‬

Barʿattar

son of Ashtar

WSS 780

1

Aramaic

‫ברצר‬

Barṣūr

son of the [divine] rock

Maraqten 74; BPPS 105

2

Aramaic

‫ברגאיה‬

Bargaʾyāh

son of the loftiness

Maraqten 73

1

Binʾūr

son of the [divine] light

Benz 89

1

Phoenician

‫בנאר‬

Phoenician

‫בנבעל‬

Binbaʿal

son of Baal

Benz 89

1

Phoenician

‫בנחדׁש‬

Binḥodeš

son of the new moon

Benz 89

5

Phoenician

‫בנחף‬

Binḥapi

son of Apis

Benz 89

1

Phoenician

‫בנען‬

Binʿan

son of An (masc. companion of Anat)

Benz 89

1

Phoenician

[‫בנענ]ת‬

Binʿanat

son of Lady Anat

NEE 24.5; 26.31

2

Phoenician

‫בנרׁשף‬

Binrešep

son of Resheph

Benz 89

1

Appendix B2

570 Name

Transcrip.

Ammonite

‫בתאל‬

Phoenician

‫בתאׁשם‬

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Batʾil

daughter of El (?)

WSS 927

1

Batʾašim[a]

daughter of Ashim[a] WSS 715

1

Phoenician

‫בתנעם‬

Batnaʿm

daughter of Naʾm

Benz 102 (fem.)

2

Phoenician

‫בתׁשחר‬

Batšaḥar

daughter of Shachar

FSL 50.24 (fem.)

1

‫פׁשחר‬

Pašḥūr

son of Horus

HAE 1.22; 17.39, 40, 41, 42, 43; Arad(8).54:1; Ar(8).2:1-2; BPHB 329

9

(4)

—

Appendix B3

Names of Praise 3.1.╇ Praise for the greatness of god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יהועלי‬

Yĕhôʿalî

Yhwh is exalted

HAE 10.40

‫יעלי‬

Yaʿalay

[DN] is exalted

No. 1

Bib. —

Compare Ps 97:9 ‫יוע]א[לה‬ (1×) ‫א‬/‫יעלה‬ (2×)

Ammonite

‫אבעל‬

ʾAbīʿal

[my] father is exalted

WSS 878

1

Aramaic

‫אחעל‬

ʾAḥīʿal

[my] brother is exalted

Maraqten 68

1

‫מרעלי‬

Māreʿalî

the lord is exalted

WSS 950

1

Phoenix

‫תנתעלי‬

Tanitʿalî

Tanit is exalted

FSL 27.4 (Tyre)

1

Aramaic

‫אלעלן‬

ʾElʿalān

El is exalted

NTA 26.2:12

1

Aramaic

‫דדעלה‬

Dadʿalē

Hadad is exalted

WSS 784

Ammonite

‫עליהו‬

ʿAlīyāhû

HAE 1.23, 31; 2.17; 16.55, 56, 57; BPHB 305

Yhwh is exalted

1

7

—

Ammonite

‫עליה‬

ʿAlyah

Yhwh is exalted

WSS 874 (fem.)

1

Aramaic

‫עלאל‬

ʿAlīʾēl

El is exalted

NTA 79.11:3

1

‫עליו‬

ʿAlīyau

‫עלא‬

ʿAlāʾ Ammonite

‫אלירם‬

‫אלרם‬

BPHB 44a–f (fem.)

[DN] is exalted ‫עלא‬

ʾElîrām

Moabite

HAE 16.58

Yhwh is exalted

ʿAlāʾ

[DN] is exalted

my god is exalted

‫אלירם‬

ʾElîrām

1

—

‫עלי‬ (1×) 1

11

4

2

—

Ps 99:2 ‫אדנירם‬ (1×)

BPPS 188

[my] god is exalted HAE 1.102, 103; BPHB 97; 199; FHCB 66.16

ʾElīrām

—

WSS 873 (fem.)

HAE 1.82, 83

my god is exalted

1

1

5

—

‫אבירם‬ (2×), ‫אחירם‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫אלרם‬

ʾIlrām

El is exalted

WSS 864; 907; 908; 909; 910; BPPS 164; 165; 170; Heltzer 222

9

Moabite

‫אברם‬

ʾAbīram

[my divine] father is exalted

WSS 1013

1

571

Appendix B3

572 Name

Transcrip.

Aramaic

‫אברם‬

Aramaic

‫אדנלרם‬

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

ʾAbīrām

[my divine] father is exalted

WSS 752

1

ʾAdānlurām

Adon is highly exalted

Maraqten 66; WSS 760

2

Gadrām

Gad is exalted

Maraqten 75 (ARI 379.154)

1

Malikrām

Malik is exalted

Maraqten 87

2

Aramaic

‫גדרם‬

Aramaic

‫מלכרם‬

Phoenix

‫אחרם‬

ʾAḥīrōm

[my divine] brother is exalted

Benz 61 (king of Byblos)

1

Phoenician

‫חרם‬

Ḥirōm

[my divine] brother is exalted

Benz 125 (cf. 1 Kgs 5:15–16)

1

Phoenician

‫מלכרם‬

Milkrōm

Milk is exalted

Benz 140; WSS 1091; WTP 21.45

4

Phoenician

‫ׁשמרם‬

Šemrōm

the [divine] name is exalted

NEE 27.37

1

‫בערא‬

Baʿarāʾ

HAE Sam(8).1.43:2; 45:2; 46:2; 47:1

Baʿal is exalted

4

—

‫מלכירם‬ (1×), ‫יהורם‬ (3×), ‫יורם‬ (3×)

Phoenician

‫בעלרם‬

Baʿalrōm

Baal is exalted

Benz 98; Kition 805.1

3

Phoenician

‫רמבעל‬

Rōmbaʿal

Baal is exalted

Benz 179

2

‫רמה‬

Rāmāh

‫רם‬

Phoenician

‫אדגאי‬

Aramaic

‫רביהו‬

Rabyāhû

Aramaic

BPHB 248; 412

[DN] is exalted

Rōm ʾAdgāʾay

[DN] is exalted Adad is exalted

‫אדקׁשר‬

ʾAdduqašīr

Adad is strong

—

13

15

1

0

1

Maraqten 65

1 1

Śĕrāyāhû

Yhwh rules

HAE 2.22; 13.58; 16.3; 21.96, 101, 102, 103

7

1 (9)

‫ׂשרמלך‬

Śĕrāmelek

the [divine] king rules

HAE 1.108; 21.53

2

—

9

10

‫ׂשררמן‬

Ammonite

‫אלמׁשל‬

Phoenician

‫מׁשל‬

Phoenician

‫כברבע‬

Śarramōn

[Baal] Rimmon rules

Ps 89:8

NTA 106.19:4

‫ׂשׁריהו‬

Phoenician

‫רמיה‬ (1×), ‫רם‬ (3×)

NEE 27.35

HAE 20.2

Yhwh is great

2

—

WSS 1101

1

ʾIlmašal

El rules

WSS 896; 912; SAJ 333.39

3

Mašol

[DN] rules

Benz 143

1

Kaborbaʿ

Baal is mighty

Benz 131

1

3.2.╇ Praise for the goodness of god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אחטב‬

ʾAḥīṭūb

my [divine] brother is good

HAE 1.36

No. 1

Bib. (2)

Compare Ps 100:5

Names of Praise Name

Transcrip. ‫אחטב‬

Aramaic Phoenician

‫בעליטב‬

Meaning

573

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

my [divine] brother is good

NTA 70.7:6

1

Baʿalyaṭūb

Baal is good

FSL 47.21

1

‫עמיטב‬

ʿAmmîṭūb

my [divine] uncle is good

BPHB 245

1

—

‫טבׁשלם‬

Ṭōbšālēm

Shalem is good

HAE 9.6, 7, 8; Lak(6).1.1:2; 7.5–6; BPHB 7; 177a, b

7

—

Aramaic

‫טבׁשלם‬

Ṭābšālem

Shalem is good

Maraqten 82 (WSS 172)

1

‫טבאל‬ ‫טביהו‬

Ṭōbʾēl

El is good

HAE 9.2; BPHB 176a, b

2

2

Ṭōbyāhû

Yhwh is good

HAE 1.62; 7.3; 9.3, 4, 5; Lak (6).1.3:19; 5:9

7

(1) (3)

‫טבא‬ ‫טב‬

Ṭōbāʾ

[DN] is good

HAE 9.1; 11.12; BPHB 397

3

—

Ṭōb

[DN] is good

HAE Gem(7).3:8

1

—

22

8

‫אבנעם‬

ʾAbīnōʿam

[my divine] father is kind

HAE Sam(8).1.[8.2]; 9.2; 10.2; [11.2]

4

(1)

‫אחנעם‬

ʾAḥīnōʿam

[my divine] brother is kind

HAE Sam(8).1.19:4

1

(2) (fem.)

‫נעמאל‬

Nōʿamʾēl

kindness of El

HAE 14.22

1

—

Noʿammilkat

kindness of Milkat / the Queen

Benz 147 (fem.)

Ṣidyerak

Sid (city god of Sidon) is tender

WSS 1098 (Benz 177)

Phoenician

‫נעמלכת‬

Phoenician

‫צדירך‬

Yĕhôtam

Yhwh is perfect / beyond reproach

Phoenician

‫בעלתם‬

Ps 27:4

3 1

1

HAE 1.33

[‫טברמן‬ (1×) Aram.]

1

6

‫יהותם‬

Compare

ʾAḥīṭāb

(3)

—

Baʿaltam

Baal is beyond reproach

Benz 100

1

Tamʾel

El is beyond reproach FSL 60.37 (Tyre)

Tam

[DN] is beyond reproach

WSS 966

1

Phoenician

‫תמאל‬

Ammonite

‫תם‬

Ammonite

‫תמא‬

Tammāʾ

[DN] is beyond reproach

WSS 910

1

Aramaic

‫תמא‬

Tammāʾ

[DN] is beyond reproach

BPPS 148

1

‫זכא‬

Zakāʾ

HAE 11.9

[DN] is pure/ blameless ‫זכא‬

Aramaic

Zakāʾ

[DN] is pure

1

1

—

‫זכי‬ (1×)

WSS 792 (Ammonite?)

1

1

1

Ammonite

‫אליבר‬

ʾIlîbar

my god is pure

WSS 893; 897

2

Aramaic

‫נׁשכבר‬

Nuškubar

Nusku is pure

WSS 825

1

Aramaic

‫אחבר‬

ʾAḥibar

[my divine] brother is pure

Maraqten 67

1

‫יפיהו‬

Yĕpāyāhû

Phoenician

‫תארא‬

Yhwh is beautiful Tōʾarāʾ

1

HAE 11.11

gracefulness of [DN]

Benz 185 (fem.)

0

— 1

Appendix B3

574 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫מנר‬

Mēnīr

[DN] is enlightening

HAE 13.59

Ammonite Aramaic

No. 1

Bib. 0

Compare —

‫מנר‬

Mēnīr

[DN] is enlightening

WSS 948

1

‫מיפע‬

Maypiʿ

[DN] is enlightening (?)

Maraqten 87

1

3.3.╇ Praise that god is alive Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אביחי‬

ʾAbîḥay

my [divine] father is alive

HAE Arad(7).39:11

No. 1

Bib. —

Compare (Ps 18:47)

Ammonite

‫אביחי‬

ʾAbîḥay

my [divine] father is alive

WSS 867 (fem.); 868

2

Moabite

‫אחיחי‬

ʾAḥîḥay

my [divine] brother is alive

WSS 1016

1

‫אדניחי‬ ‫אׁשרחי‬ ‫יהוחי‬ ‫בלתה‬

ʾAdōnîḥay

my lord is alive

HAE 3.24; 13.95

2

—

ʾAšerḥay

Ašer is alive

HAE 14.45

1

—

Yĕhôḥay

Yhwh is alive

HAE 10.31; FHCB 72.21

2

—

6

0

1

0

Biltāh

without [DN is no life]

HAE 2.8 (cf. Ammurite: Mannabalti-el)

(Ps 16:2)

3.4.╇ Call to praise and worship god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫הודויהו‬

Haudûyāhû

praise Yhwh! (pl.)

HAE 3.25; 5.2; 8.14; 13.96; Lak(6).1.3:17; BPHB 145

6

‫הודיהו‬ ‫הודיה‬ ‫הדיהו‬

Haudūyāhû

praise Yhwh!

HAE 5.3, 4

2

—

Haudūyāh

praise Yhwh!

HAE 15.2

1

(3)

Haudūyāhû

praise Yhwh!

2

—

Aramaic Phoenician

‫הללאל‬ ‫הלליהו‬

‫יראויהו‬

No.

HAE 11.5; 21.33

‫הודו‬

Hawdû

praise [DN]! (pl.)

‫חדי‬

Ḥeddai

shout with joy! (sing.) WSS 738; 739?

Bib. 1 (3)

Compare Ps 136:1

WSS 754

1 2

11

7

Hallelʾēl

praise El! (sing.)

HAE 5.21

1

—

Ps 135:1

Hallelyāhû

praise Yhwh!

HAE 5.22

1

—

‫הלל‬ (1×)

2

1

4

(1)

Yĕrʾûyāhû

Ammonite

‫מגראל‬

Phoenician

‫יגראׁשמן‬

worship Yhwh! (pl.)

HAE 10.71, 72; BPHB 51; 175

Ps 34:10

Magorʾil

[one ought to show] fear of El!

WSS 945

1

Yĕgorʾešmun

fear/worship Eshmun! (sing.)

Benz 127

1

Names of Praise

575

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

‫דעואל‬

Dĕʿûʾēl

recognize god! (pl.)

Naveh 3.3:2?

1

Bib. 1

‫מיכיהו‬ ‫מכיהו‬

Mîkāyāhû

who is like Yhwh?

HAE 14.14

Mīkāyāhû

who is like Yhwh?

HAE 13.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31; 14.18; 16.48; Lak(6).1.11:3; BPHB 235; 330; FHCB 86.35; Lemaire 205.4:1

‫מכיה‬

Mīkāyāh

who is like Yhwh?

HAE 53.3

1

5 (4)

18

—

1

—

Compare — Ps 113:5

‫מיכאל‬ (6×)

‫מכאל‬

Mīkāʾil

who is like El?

WSS 938; AMM 36.2:8?

2

‫)?(מכאל‬

Mīkāʾēl

who is like El?

WSS 1119

1

Phoenician

‫מכאל‬

Mikaʾēl

who is like El?

BPPS 97

1

Ammonite

‫מכמאל‬

Mīkamōʾil

who is like El?

WSS 939

1

Edomite

‫מכמאל‬

Mikĕmōʾēl

who is like El?

BPPS 202

1

Aramaic

‫כנבו‬

Kinabū

who is like Nabû

WSS 803

1

Ammonite Aramaic

‫מכא‬

Mîkāʾ

who is like [DN]?

HAE 1.78; 13.18; 18.1; 53.2; BPHB 234

5

(3)

‫מיכה‬ ‫מיכי‬ ‫מכי‬

Mîkāh

who is like [DN]?

HAE 1.72; Lemaire 219.14:3

2

3

Mikay

who is like [DN]?

Lemaire 217.13:6?

1

—

Mākî

who is like [DN]?

HAE 13.19; 16.47; 21.80; Arad(6).110:2; Gaz(7).1:4; NEE 92.79:1; BPHB 290

7

1

‫מיכא‬

Aramaic

‫מנך‬

Manka

who is like [DN]?

Maraqten 88

1

Aramaic

‫מיא‬

Mīʾā

who is like [DN]?

TSF 655.47:1 (= NTA 123.4:1)

1

35

22

‫מיאמן‬

Mîʾāmēn

who is faithful [if not DN]?

HAE 10.25; 13.14, 15, 16; 18.18; 53.1; NEE 92.79:5; BPHB 233

8

—

‫מאמן‬

Mīʾāmēn

who is faithful [if not DN]?

HAE 1.39

1

—

9

0

Aramaic

‫אדקר‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשמהיקר‬

—

ʾAddu[ye]qar

Adad should be honored

Maraqten 66

1

Šemēhyeqar

his name should be honored

Maraqten 103

1

Appendix B4

Equating Names 4.1.╇ Terms of kinship 4.1.1.╇ Equating the divine father with another god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אבבעל‬

ʾAbībaʿal

[my divine] father is Baal

HAE Sam(8).1.2:4

1

Bib. —

Compare ‫אביאל‬ (2×)

Phoenician

‫אבבעל‬

ʾAbībaʿal

[my divine] father is Baal

Benz 54; FSL 23.1

2

Phoenician

‫אביבעל‬

ʾAbîbaʿal

my [divine] father is Baal

Benz 54

1

‫אביהו‬

ʾAbīyāhû

my [divine] father is Yhwh

‫אביה‬

Aramaic

ʾAbīyāh

HAE 1.7, 8, 45; Arad(6).27:6

my [divine] father is Yhwh

‫אביו‬

ʾAbīyau

my [divine] father is Yhwh

‫אבטביה‬

ʾAbīṭōbīyāh

[my] good [divine] HAE 1.6 father is Yhwh

Aramaic

Phoenician

‫אבא‬

‫אבי‬

No.

‫אבחלדי‬ ‫אבנׁשמׁש‬

ʾAbāʾ

4

1 (6)

BPPS 106

HAE 1.9, 10; Sam(8).1.52:2

‫אבימלך‬ (4×) 1

3

—

1

—

ʾAbīḥaldî

[my divine] father is Haldi (deity from Urartu)

NTA 49.5:10

1

ʾAbinušamaš

our [divine] father is Shamash

Benz 55

1

[my divine] father is [DN]

HAE 1.2, 3, 97

3

—

Ammonite

‫אבא‬

ʾAbāʾ

[my divine] father is [DN]

WSS 877

1

Aramaic

‫אבא‬

ʾAbāʾ

[my divine] father is [DN]

Maraqten 65

3

Phoenician

‫אבא‬

ʾAbāʾ

[my divine] father is [DN]

Benz 54; NEE 24.1

1

ʾAbî Aramaic Phoenician

my [divine] father is [DN] ‫אבי‬ ‫אבהא‬

HAE Gez(10).1: Rand; Mur(7).2:2

2

1

ʾAbay

my [divine] father is [DN]

Maraqten 65

1

ʾAbihūʾ

[my divine] father is the one [who is god]

FSL 25f.:3

1

14

576

14

Equating Names Name

Transcrip. ‫אמיאח‬

Phoenician

Phoenician↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫אמעׁשתרת‬

Meaning

577

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

ʾImmîʾaḥ

my [divine] mother is FSL 48.23; 56-57.31 brother

1

ʾImmīʿaštart

[my] mother is Ashtarte

1

Benz 62 (fem.)

4.1.2.╇ Equating the divine brother with another god Name ‫אחאב‬

Transcrip. ʾAḥʾāb

Meaning

Epigraphic

[my divine] brother is father (Röllig: brother of the father)

HAE 1.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 61, 98, 99, 128; 5.11; 8.21; 10.35, 85; 13.94; 14.16; 16.13; 21.5, 32; Ham(9).1; NEE 92.79:12 (corr); BPHB 62; 63; 64; 65; 66a–d; 67; 68; 69; 109; 125; 323; FHCB 63.13; Lemaire 201.2:7f.

No.

Bib.

34

Compare

2

Aramaic

‫אחאב‬

ʾAḥʾab

[my divine] brother is father

CAI 98; WSS 932; BPPS 155

3

Aramaic

‫אחאב‬

ʾAḥʾāb

[my divine] brother is father

BPPS 123

1

Aramaic

‫)?(אחאבו‬

ʾAḥʾabû

BPPS 110 [my divine] brother is father (Heltzer 211, reads: ‫)אחאבר‬

1

Aramaic

‫אחאבי‬

ʾAḥʾabî

[my divine] brother is my father

Maraqten 66

1

Aramaic

‫אחאבה‬

ʾAḥiʾabihu

[my divine] brother is his father

WSS 1103

1

‫אחיאב‬

ʾAḥîʾab

my [divine] brother is father

HAE 1.40, 41; BPHB 74

3

—

‫אחאם‬

ʾAḥīʾēm

[my divine] brother is mother (Röllig: see below)

HAE 21.50

1

—

Moabite

‫אחאם‬

ʾAḥiʾēm

[my divine] brother is mother

BPPS 193

1

Phoenician

‫אחאם‬

ʾAḥiʾēm

[my divine] brother is mother

Benz 61

1

‫אחיאם‬

ʾAḥîʾēm

HAE 1.42; Arad(7).35:3 my [divine] brother is mother (Röllig: my brother has ruled ?)

2

(1)

‫אחאמה‬

ʾAḥīʾimmōh

HAE 1.31, 32; 17.41; BPHB 70; [my divine] brother his mother 71 (Röllig: the divine brother of his mother)

5

—

‫אחיאל‬

ʾAḥîʾēl

my [divine] brother is El

HAE Jer(7).36; Jer(6).37; Naveh 2.2:1; 3.3:4?

4

—

‫אחלי‬

ʾAḥlay

[my divine] brother is my god

1

2

‫חיאל‬

Ḥîʾēl

my [divine] brother is El

BPHB 392 (according to Ges18, 39a, it stands for ‫)אחאלי‬ HAE 21.34

1

1

Appendix B4

578 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אחחר‬

ʾAḥīḥūr

[my divine] brother is Horus

BPHB 73

‫אחמן‬

Phoenician

‫אחמלך‬

ʾAḥīmelek

ʾAḥīmin

[my divine] brother is king

[my divine] brother is Min (Egyp. deity)

No. 1

Bib.

Benz 61

HAE 1.28, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 69; 5.12; 8.35; 10.34, 65; 13.20, 73, 89; 14.32, 56; 16.14; 18.5; Sam(8).1.22:2f.; 23:2; 24:1; 25:2; [26:1]; 27:2; 28:2; 29:2; 48:2; Arad(8).72:2; BPHB 75; 76; 77; 108; 288

Compare

— 1

33

(3)

‫אחימות‬ (1×)

Aramaic

‫אחמלך‬

ʾAḥīmalk

[my divine] brother Malik

Maraqten 67

2

Phoenician

‫חימלך‬

[ʾA]ḥîmilk

my [divine] brother Milk

WSS 733

1

‫אחמלכה‬

ʾAḥīmalkāh

[my divine] brother is queen

NEE 92.79:4 (masc.)

1

—

‫אחימא‬

ʾAḥîmāʾ

my [divine] brother is [king]

HAE Sam(8).1.3:1f.; 32:3; [36:2]; 37:2; 38:2; 39:2

6

—

‫אחימה‬

ʾAḥîmāh

my [divine] brother is [king]

HAE 1.48

1

—

‫אחמה‬

Aramaic

ʾAḥimāh

[my divine] brother is [king]

Maraqten 67; WSS 1104

‫אחיהו‬

ʾAḥīyāhû

my [divine] brother is Yhwh

HAE 1.43, 44, 45, 53, 131; 21.87; RRah(7).1:1; Jer(7).5:2; Lak(6)1.3:17; BPHB 114

‫אחיו‬

ʾAḥīyau

my [divine] brother is Yhwh

HAE 1.46, 47; Nim(8).4

‫אחיו‬

Aramaic

‫חיהו‬

Ḥiyāhû

‫אחא‬

my [divine] brother is Yhwh ‫אחאד‬

Moabite

ʾAḥīyau

ʾAḥāʾ

ʾAḥʾad

[my divine] brother is [DN]

my [divine] brother is Yhwh

10

1

3

2

Maraqten 67

1

1

HAE Qas(8).1:3 [my divine] brother is Adad

3

—

WSS 1015

HAE 1.23, 24; 8.50; 16.27; 21.49; Sam(8).1.51:3; Arad(8).74:2; Arad(8).49:16; 67:4; Msa(7).1:4

1

10

—

Moabite

‫אחא‬

ʾAḥāʾ

[my divine] brother is [DN]

WSS 1014

1

Phoenician

‫אחא‬

ʾAḥāʾ

[my divine] brother is [DN]

NEE 27.42; 27.43

2

‫אחיא‬ ‫אחי‬

ʾAḥīyāʾ

my brother is [DN] HAE 1.39; BPHB 37

2

—

ʾAḥî

my brother is [DN] HAE 1.37, 38; Arad(7).39:6; Lemaire 217.13:3

4

2

123

15

Ammonite Aramaic

‫אחתאב‬ ‫אחתמלך‬

ʾAḥatʾab

[my divine] sister is father

WSS 870 (fem.)

1

ʾAḥatmalik

[my divine] sister is king

WSS 1102 (fem.)

1

Equating Names

579

4.1.3.╇ Equating the divine uncle (on one’s father’s side) with another god Name

Transcrip.

‫עמׁשלם‬

ʿAmmīšālēm [my] uncle is Šalem

‫עמׁשא‬

Aramaic

Meaning

ʿAmmīšēʾ

Epigraphic

No.

HAE Arad(8).59:4

[my] uncle is Sin

Bib.

1

—

1

6

Compare ‫עמיאל‬ (4×), ‫עמיחור‬ (1×), ‫עמיׁשדי‬ (1×)

WSS 846

1

4.2.╇ Equating a personal/tutelary god with another god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אליהו‬

ʾElīyāhû

my god is Yhwh

HAE 1.69, 70, 71, 72, 92; 10.12; 13.11; 14.51; Jer(7).14:1; BPHB 80a–e; 81a, b; 82; 229

No.

Bib.

‫אליה‬ ‫אליו‬

ʾElīyāh

my god is Yhwh

HAE 1.68

1

4

ʾElīyau

my god is Yhwh

PIAP 279.72127:4 (KAgr)

1

—

13

1

Compare Ps 22:11 ‫אליאב‬ (6×), ‫אלימלך‬ (1×)

‫)?(אליעם‬

ʾElîʿam

my god is the [divine] uncle

WSS 1105

1

Phoenician

‫אלעם‬

ʾElīʿam

[my] god is the [divine] uncle

WTP 21.46

1

Phoenician

‫אלבעל‬

ʾElībaʿal

[my] god is Baal

Benz 61; NEE 26.30; EN 19.51

Aramaic

‫אלא‬

ʾElāʾ Ammonite

‫אלהוא‬

[my] god is [DN] ‫אלא‬

ʾIlāʾ

HAE Sam(8).1.38:3

El is [DN]

4

1

WSS 883; 958; Heltzer 241

[my] god is the one HAE Arad(8).69:4 (?) [who is god]

ʾElīhûʾ

1

3

1

(3) (2)

17

18

‫אלמלך‬

ʾIlīmalk

[my] god is the king [Milkom]

BPPS 163

1

Aramaic

‫אלמלך‬

ʾElīmalk

[my] god is Malik

Maraqten 69; NTA 15.1:15

2

Phoenician

‫אלמלך‬

ʾElīmilk

my god is Milk

WTP 21.44

1

Ammonite

4.3.╇ Equating Baal with another god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫בעלא‬

Baʿalāʾ

Baal is [DN]

HAE Sam(8).1.1:7; 3:3; 27:3; 28:3; 31:3; Gem(7).3:6

No.

Moabite

‫בעלא‬

Baʿalāʾ

Baal is [DN]

BPPS 195

Phoenician

‫בעלא‬

Baʿalāʾ

Baal is [DN]

NEE 25.14

6

Bib. —

Compare ‫בעליה‬ (1×) 1

6

1

Appendix B4

580

4.4.╇Equating Yhwh or other major deities with another god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יהואב‬

Yĕhôʾāb

Yhwh is [divine] father

HAE 1.41, 55, 119; 10.20; 14.15; Arad(8).49:9; 59:1; Arad(7).39:10

8

—

‫יואב‬

Yauʾāb

Yhwh is [divine] father

HAE 10.45

1

3

‫יהואח‬

Yĕhôʾāḥ

Yhwh is [divine] brother

HAE 10.21, 22, 23; 16.40; Arad(9).79; BPHB 9; 318

7

(5)

‫יהוא‬

Yēhûʾ

Yhwh is the one [who is god]

HAE 10.19

1

5

‫יהואל‬ ‫יואל‬

Yĕhôʾēl

Yhwh is El

HAE 10.25

1

—

Yauʾēl

Yhwh is El

HAE 10.46

1

15

19

28

Moabite Moabite

No.

Bib.

Compare

‫כמׁשאל‬

Kamōšʾēl

Chemosh is El

WSS 1010

1

‫כמשעם‬

Kamōšʿam

Chemosh is [my divine] uncle

WSS 1010; 1035; Heltzer 268

3

Qausāʾ

Qos is [DN]

WSS 1055 (Aroer)

1

Qaus[?]ʾadōnî

Qos [?] is my lord

WSS 1057

1

Edomite

‫קוסא‬

Edomite

‫קסואדני‬

Edomite

‫קוסאם‬

Qausʾimmī

Qos [?] is my mother

WSS 1056

1

Aramaic

‫נבמרא‬

Nabūmāreʾ

Nabû is [my] lord

TSF 665.59:1

1

Aramaic

‫נממרא‬

Nammāreʾ

Nanay [?] is [my] lord

TSF 655.47:18

1

Aramaic

‫ננא‬

Nanāʾ

Nanay is [DN]

Maraqten 91

1

Aramaic

‫נסחא‬

Nasuḥāʾ

Nasuch/Nusku is [DN]

TSF 655.47:4

1

Sirʾadōnî

Osiris is my lord

NTA 54.6:4′

1

Sāsilî

Shamash is my god

TSF 655.47:21

1

Šēʾadōnî

Sin is my lord

BPPS 141

1

Šēdad

Sin is Adad

Aramaic

‫סיראדני‬

Aramaic

‫ססלי‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשאדני‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשידד‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשלמנרמן‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשמׁשיב‬

Maraqten 102

1

Šalmānrimmān Shalmon is (Haddad-)Rimmon

NTA 84.12:9; 95.15:11

2

Šamšî[ʾā]b

my Shamash is [my divine] father

NTA 42.4:11

1

ʾAddāʾ

Adad is [DN]

Benz 55

2

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜ ‫אׁשמנאדני‬

ʾEšmunʾadōnî

Eshmun is my lord

Benz 70

4

Phoenician ‫אׁשמנאדן‬

ʾEšmunʾadōnī

Eshmun is [my] lord

Benz 70

5

Baʿalmilk

Baal is Milk/king

Benz 96

6

Doʿammilk

Doam is Milk/king

Benz 108

2

Haddāʾ

Haddu is [DN]

FSL 45.19

1

Melqartʾāb

Melqart is [my divine] father

FSL 38.14; 43.17

2

Ṣidmilk

Sid is Milk/king

Benz 177

3

Ešmunī [?]

Eshmun is [DN/El]

FSL 52.25

1

Phoenician

‫אדא‬

Phoenician

‫בעלמלך‬

Phoenician

‫דעמלך‬

Phoenician

‫הדא‬

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫מלקרתאב‬ Phoenician

‫צדמלך‬

Phoenician [‫ׁשמני]?ל‬

Equating Names

581

4.5.╇ Old epithets 4.5.1.╇ Equating Adon with another god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אדניהו‬

ʾAdōnīyāhû

my lord is Yhwh

HAE 1.14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; 13.48; 14.44; 21.93; Qud(8).7:1; BPHB 60a, b; 80a–e;

‫אדניה‬ ‫אדניו‬

ʾAdōnīyāh

my lord is Yhwh

HAE 21.31; EGed(8).2:7

2

1

ʾAdōnīyau

my lord is Yhwh

HAE 1.20; Sam(8).1.42:3

2

—

Ammonite

‫)?(אדנאב‬

Phoenician Phoenician

‫אדנמלך‬ ‫אדנא‬ ‫אדתא‬

No.

Bib.

12

Compare

2

ʾAdōnīʾab

[my] lord is [my divine] father

WSS 862

1

‫אדנבעל‬

ʾAdōnībaʿal

[my] lord is Baal

Benz 56; NEE 24.7

3

‫אדנׁשמׁש‬

ʾAdōnīšamaš

[my] lord is Shamash

Benz 59

2

ʾAdōnīmelek [my] lord is king

HAE 1.21

1

—

ʾAdōnāʾ

[my] lord is [DN]

Lemaire 214.11:4?

1

—

ʾAdattāʾ

[my] lady is [DN]

HAE 1.22 (fem.)

1

—

19

3

Ammonite

‫מראל‬

Māreʾil

[my] lord is El

WSS 879; 949; Heltzer 242; 243

4

Ammonite

‫מרא‬

Māreʾ

[my] lord is [DN]

CAI 21

1

Aramaic

‫מרא‬

Māreʾ

[my] lord is [DN]

WSS 808

1

Aramaic

‫מראהד‬

Māreʾhadd

[my] lord is Hadad

WSS 809

1

Aramaic

‫מריחלד‬

Mārayḥaldi

my lord is Haldi (deity from Urartu)

NTA 26.2:13

1

‫מרדגן‬

Māredagon

[my] lord is Dagon

NEE 27.37

1

Phoenician

4.5.2.╇ Equating Melek with another god Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫מלכיהו‬

Malkīyāhû

my king is Yhwh

HAE 1.114; 13.36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 61; 14.2, 26, 27; 15.20; 53.4(?); Arad(8).40:3; Seb(8).7:1; Arad(7).39:2; Arad(6).24:14; BPHB 33a, b; 97; 185; 211; 236; 238; 268a–g; 269a, b; 388; 405; Lemaire 214.11:5?

‫מלכיו‬

Malkīyau

my king is Yhwh

HAE Nim(8).5

Phoenician ‫מלכׁשמׁש‬ Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜渀屮↜ ‫מלכתבעל‬

‫מלכי‬

Malkî

No.

Milkšamaš

Milk is Shamash

BPPS 98

Milkatbaʿal

the queen is Baal

Benz 140 (fem.)

my king [is DN]

HAE 2.27; 13.35

Bib.

32

1 (8)

1

—

Compare ‫מלכיאל‬ (1×)

1 1

2

Aramaic

‫מלכי‬

Malkay

my king is [DN]

Röllig, AoF 24 371.2:10

Phoenician

‫מלכא‬

Milkāʾ

Milk is [DN]

FSL 62.40 (fem.)

— 1 1

35

10

Appendix B5

Names of Birth 5.1.╇ The distress of infertility Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫אספיהו‬

ʾAsāpyāhû

BPHB 108 Yhwh has taken away [the stigma of childlessness]

1

—

Gen 30:23 ‫אסף חרפה‬

‫אספיו‬

ʾAsāpyau

Yhwh has taken away

HAE 1.125

1

—

‫אביאסף‬ (1×)

Phoen.╅╛↜渀屮 ‫עׁשתרתאסף‬ ‫מכסף‬

Phoenician

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

ʿAštartʾespa

Ashtarte has taken away [the stigma of childlessness]

FSL 63.42

1

Mi[l]k[ʾa]sop

Milk has taken away (?)

WSS 1090

1

‫אספא‬

ʾAsāpāʾ

[DN] has taken away

HAE 1.124

1

—

‫אסף‬

ʾAsāp

[DN] has taken away

HAE 1.120, 123; 10.67; 13.81; BPHB 9?

5

3

‫אספת‬

Phoenician

‫נקמאל‬

Nĕqamʾēl

Phoenician

‫נקמאל‬

ʾAsapti

you, [O goddess], have taken away [the stigma of my childlessness]

El has taken revenge [for the despised mother] Naqomʾēl

Benz 63 (fem.)

HAE Nasb(8).2:1

El has taken revenge

1

8

4

1

—

1

—

Benz 147

1

‫נקם‬

Nāqām

[DN] has taken revenge

2

0

‫לעגיהו‬

Lăʿagyāhû

HAE 12.1 Yhwh has ridiculed [the mother’s despisers]

1

—

‫לעגי‬

Laʿagî

[DN] has ridiculed Lemaire 212.10: rev. 7

1

—

2

0

Aramaic Aramaic Phoenician

‫מראיבב‬ ‫ׁשעיבב‬ ‫יחרבעל‬

Compare

HAE Jer(7).20:1

Māreʾyabab

the lord has triumphed

WSS 810

1

Šēʿyabab

Sin has triumphed

WSS 851

1

Yaḥrebaʿal

Baal has been furious Benz 128

1

582

Names of Birth

583

5.2.╇ Prayers and vows Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫ׁשבאח‬

Šūbaʾaḥ

Come back, O [divine] brother!

‫ׁשבאל‬

Šūbaʾēl

Epigraphic

No.

Lemaire 215.13:3? (wants to restore to ‫)יׁשבאח‬ come back, O god! HAE 5.10; 17.14; Gib(7).1:21; BPHB 351; 352

Bib.

1

—

5

(2)

Compare

Ammonite

‫ׁשבאל‬

Šubʾil

come back, O god!

WSS 973; 974; 975; AMM 36.2:4; BPPS 180 (correction of WSS 976); Heltzer 252

6

Ammonite

‫ׁשבא‬

Šūbāʾ

come back, [O god]!

SAJ 331.33; 333.38

2

Aramaic

‫ׁשבא‬

Šubāʾ

come back, [O god]!

TSF 653.46: obv. 1

1

‫ׁשבי‬

Šōbay

come back, [O DN]!

HAE 1.56; 3.15; 21.2, 3; MHas(7).1:8

‫ׁשבניהו‬

Šūbnayāhû

do come back, O Yhwh!

HAE 2.6; 5.26; 8.12; 13.26, 27, 71; 14.20; 16.61; 21.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 51; Arad(8).60:3; Arad(6).27:4; BPHB 181; 313; 356; 357; 358; 359; 360; 415?

‫ׁשבניה‬

Šūbnayāh

do come back, O Yhwh!

‫ׁשבניו‬

Šūbnayau

‫ׁשבנא‬

5

2

27

1

HAE 14.31; 21.7, 8

3

4

do come back, O Yhwh!

HAE 21.17 A, B

1

—

Šūbnāʾ

do come back, [O DN]!

HAE 10.53; 14.29, 30; 16.70; 21.4, 5, 6, 19; 61.1; BPHB 165; 182; 353?; 354; 355; 414; Lemaire 207.6:4f.′; 219.14:2

17

2

‫יׁשב‬

Yāšūb

[DN] may come back

HAE 16.8

1

—

60

11

‫ׁשעיהו‬

Šĕʿēyāhû

look mercifully at [me], Yhwh!

HAE 21.78

1

0

‫אׁשניה‬

ʾUšnayāh

do present [a child], O Yhwh!

HAE 1.155

1

—

1

—

10

—

Phoenician

‫אׁשניהו‬

ʾUšnayāhû

do present, O Yhwh!

WSS 1070

‫אׁשניו‬

ʾUšnayau

do present [a child], O Yhwh!

HAE 1.156

‫אׁשנא‬

ʾUšnāʾ

do present [a child], [O DN]!

HAE 1.151, 152, 153, 154; 4.10; 11.7; BPHB 13a–c; 121; 122; 260

‫תנאל‬

Tenʾēl

give, O god!

HAE 22.2

Phoenician

‫ׁשאל‬

‫אסרתני‬

Šāʾūl

ʾOsirtenayū

[the] requested

1

12

0

1

0

O Osiris, present him Benz 63 [to me]!

HAE 1.47; 21.1, 86; BPHB 86a, b; 157; 167; 261; 348; 349a, b

1

9

(4)

‫ׁשאלתיאל‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫ׁשאל‬

Šaʾūl

[the] requested

Heltzer 251

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשאל‬

Šaʾīl

[the] requested

BPPS 142

1

Phoenician

‫ׁשאל‬

Šaʾūl

[the] requested

Gibson 34.13 I 4

1

Appendix B5

584 Name

Transcrip. ‫ׁשאלתי‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשאלה‬

Šĕʾilāh

‫יׁשאל‬

‫יׁשאל‬

Baqqūš

Ammonite

‫בקׁשת‬

Šĕʾalah

No.

Yišʾal

[DN] has asked for [the payment of the vow]

‫בקׁש‬

Baqqūš

[she who] was requested of [DN]

1

3

1

— 1

1

Ezra 10:29 Kethiv↜Or

Gibson 65.16:3

1

13

6

3

—

WSS 924; 925

2

1

HAE 2.25 (fem.)

—

‫בקׁשת‬

Baqūšt

[she who] was requested of [DN]

Benz 100 (fem.)

‫בלׂשי‬

Baliśi

[he who] was requested of [DN]

Maraqten 72

1

ʾArūštbaʿal

[she who] was desired from Baal

Benz 69 (fem.)

1

1

4 Aramaic

Compare

WSS 845 (Maraqten 101)

HAE 2.24; 15.6; BPHB 278 [he who] was requested of [DN]

Bib.

Maraqten 101

HAE 14.9; 18.20; BPHB 350

[the object of the] request

[he who] was requested of [DN]

Baqqūšet

Phoenician

Epigraphic I have requested [him]

[DN] has asked for HAE 8.9 [the payment of the vow]

Yišʾal

Phoenician

‫בקׁש‬

Šaʾaltî

[the object of the] request ‫ׁשאלה‬

Aramaic

Meaning

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜ ‫ארׁשתבעל‬

0

Phoenician

‫ארׁש‬

ʾArūš

[he who] was desired from [DN]

Benz 64

5

Phoenician

‫ארׁשת‬

ʾArūšt

[she who] was desired from [DN]

Benz 69 (fem.)

1

‫ענניהו‬

ʿAnānyāhû

Yhwh has responded to me

HAE 14.7

1

(1)

‫ענני‬ (1×)

‫עניהו‬

ʿAnāyāhû

Yhwh has responded to me

Lemaire 201.2:10?

1

(2)

‫עני‬ (2×)

‫עניבעל‬ ‫קוסענל‬

ʿAnîbaʿal

Baal has responded HAE MHas(7).6:1

1

—

Qausʿānalī

Qos has replied to [me]

HAE Arad(6).12:3

1

—

Edomite

‫קוסענל‬

Ammonite

‫ענאל‬

Ammonite

‫ענמות‬

Qausʿanalī

Qos has replied to [me]

WSS 1051A–V

1

ʿAnāʾil

El has responded

AMM 36.2:1, 2

1

ʿAnāmaut

Mot has responded

WSS 875

1 1

Aramaic

‫עני‬

ʿAnî

[DN] has responded

NTA 79.11:4

Phoenician

‫ענא‬

ʿAnāʾ

[DN] has responded

FSL 74.51

1

4 Aramaic

‫הדרקי‬

Aramaic

‫רקי‬

6

Haddraqî

Hadad has accepted [the vowed sacrifice] with pleasure

WSS 751

1

Raqî

[DN] has accepted [the vowed sacrifice] with pleasure

WSS 844

1

Names of Birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

585

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

‫רקין‬

Raqyan

[DN] has accepted [the vowed sacrifice] with pleasure

BPPS 140

1

Aramaic

‫לאל‬

Laʾēl

[vowed] to EL

Maraqten 86 (WSS 1145)

1

Aramaic

‫לקח‬

Luqqaḥ

accepted [by DN] (?)

Maraqten 86

3

Aramaic

‫לקחי‬

Luqqaḥî

accepted [by DN] (?)

ARI 386.219

Aramaic

‫דרׁשיהו‬

Dĕrašyāhû

HAE 4.17, 18; Lemaire 201.2:11? Yhwh has asked for [payment of the vow]

1

0

3

Deut 23:22 ‫דרׁש נדר‬

Aramaic

‫מראיסר‬

Māreʾyasar

the lord has demanded [payment of the vow] (cf. Akkadian esēru)

BPPS 127

1

Phoenician

‫אלצאל‬

ʾAloṣʾel

El has pressed for [the payment of the vow]

NEE 27.33

1

‫פצרי‬

Paṣrî

[DN] has urged [the payment of the vow]

HAE 10.10

1

‫חׁשביהו‬

Ḥăšabyāhû

Yhwh has taken [the vow] into account

HAE 8.64; MHas(7).7:1

2

3 (9)

2

18

0

‫ׁשעריהו‬

Šĕʿaryāhû

Yhwh has charged [the vow to my account]

HAE 5.4; 21.83 (from ‫)ׁשער‬

2

(1)

‫מכר‬

Mākīr

sold [by DN]

HAE 13.31; BPHB 207

2

(2)

Aramaic

‫זבנעדן‬

Aramaic

‫זבנא‬

‫חׁשבניה‬ (2×), ‫חׁשבנה‬ (1×), ‫חׁשבה‬ (1×), ‫חׁשוב‬ (2×)

Zĕbīnʿadān

bought from Adon

Maraqten 78

1

Zĕbīnāʾ

bought from [DN]

Maraqten 78

1

Aramaic

‫זבן‬

Zabīn

bought [from DN]

Maraqten 78

1

Moabite

‫ׂשכר‬

Śākār

wages [from DN]

WSS 1047 (cf. 1 Chr 11:35; 26:4)

1

5.3.╇ Birth oracles Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫אמריהו‬

ʾAmaryāhû

Yhwh has spoken

HAE 1.118, 119, 120, 121; 8.5; 10.93; 13.108; Seb(8).5:1; 6:1; Gib(7).1; BPHB 12a, b; 102a–c; 103; 104; 105; 106; 107; 115; 183; 189; 324; 357

‫אמריו‬

ʾAmaryau

Yhwh has spoken

HAE KAgr(9).9:1

No.

Bib.

Compare

22

3 (6)

Gen 25:22–23

1

—

‫אמראל‬

ʾAmarʾil

El has spoken

WSS 899; 919

2

Moabite

‫אמראל‬

ʾAmarʾēl

El has spoken

WSS 1019

1

Aramaic

‫אלאמר‬

ʾElʾamar

El has spoken

BPPS 111

1

Ammonite

Appendix B5

586 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

‫אמרי‬

ʾImrî

[DN] has spoken

HAE 1.7; 3.4

2

2

25

11

‫אמרא‬

Ammonite

ʾAmrāʾ

[DN] has spoken

Bib.

WSS 918

1

‫קוליהו‬

Qôlyāhû or Qawweleyāhû

Yhwh has spoken

HAE 8.56; Msa(7).3:3; BPHB 340

3

(2)

‫קליהו‬

Qōlyāhû

Yhwh has spoken

HAE 19.2

1

(1)

‫קליו‬

Qōlyau

Yhwh has spoken

HAE Sam(8).6:2

1

—

5

4

‫)?(גדקל‬

Aramaic Aramaic

‫בעלרגם‬

Aramaic Phoenician

‫הגלניה‬

‫בעלנחׁש‬ ‫נחׁש‬

Gad has spoken

1

‫רגם‬

Ragam

[DN] has spoken

Maraqten 100; BPPS 139

2

‫רגם‬

Ragom

[DN] has spoken

WSS 1099

Baal has predicted

[DN] has predicted BPHB 103 ‫אחלכד‬

Aramaic

‫הדדסמני‬

1

Yhwh has revealed HAE 20.2 to me

Nāḥāš

Lemaire 220.15:1

1

—

1

1

1

1

1

—

2

4

‫יגלי‬ (1×)

ʾAḥlakad

[my divine] brother has picked [me by drawing lots]

Maraqten 67

1

Hadadsamānî

Hadad has designated Maraqten 77 me

1

Śōmbaʿal

Baal has designated [me] (?)

EN 19.50

1

‫יזם‬

Yazum

[DN] has intended doing [something with me] (?)

BPPS 145

1

‫זמא‬

Zamaʾ

[DN] has intended doing [something with me] (?)

NEE 25.9; 26.28; 27.33

3

ʾEšmunyaʿad

Eshmun has determined [the date of birth]

Gibson 71.19:1 (Benz 71 Punic)

1

‫ׂשמבעל‬

Phoenician

1

Maraqten 73

Baʿalnāḥāš

Aramaic

Maraqten 75

Baal has spoken

Higlānīyāh

Phoenician

‫קלי‬ (1×)

Baʿalragam

Aramaic

Phoenician ‫אׁשמניעד‬

‫מלאכי‬

Gadqōl

Compare

Malʾākî

my messenger [was HAE Arad(7).97:1 (cf. Punic DN] ‫)בעלמלאך‬

1

1

5.4.╇ Conception and pregnancy Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫פתח‬

Pĕtaḥ

[DN] has opened [the womb]

HAE 8.24; 17.44

No. 2

Bib. —

Compare ‫פתחיה‬ (3×)

‫נפתח‬

Niptaḥ

[the womb] was opened [by DN]

BPHB 326

1

—

‫יפתח‬ (1×)

3

4

Names of Birth Name

Transcrip. ‫יתיר‬

Ammonite

‫רפאיהו‬

Rĕpāʾayāhû

Meaning Yattīr

587

Epigraphic [DN] has broken [the bonds] (from ‫ נתר‬II; in Isa 58:6 in parallel to)

Yhwh has healed

No.

Bib.

Compare

WSS 904

HAE 13.88; 14.8; 18.11; 20.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 21.40; BPHB 292?; 345; 346; 413?

1

14

‫רפיה‬ ‫רפאל‬ (1×)

(5)

Aramaic

‫ירפאל‬

Yirpaʾēl

El has healed

Maraqten 84

1

Aramaic

‫אדרפא‬

ʾAddurapāʾ

Adad has healed

BPPS 108

1

‫רפא‬

Rāpāʾ

HAE 4.16; 5.19(?); 15.10; 16.56; 20.4, 5; Sam(8).1.24:12; BPHB 92; 344; FHCB 88.37

[DN] has healed

10

‫רפוא‬ (1×)

3

Moabite

‫רפא‬

Rapāʾ

[DN] has healed

WSS 1045

1

Aramaic

‫רפא‬

Rapāʾ

[DN] has healed

Maraqten 100; NTA 95.15:11; 101.17:5?

3

‫רפא‬

Rapāʾ

[DN] has healed

NEE 25.8

1

Rapatay

healing of [DN] (?)

Maraqten 101

Phoenician Aramaic

‫רפאי‬

‫רפתי‬

Rĕpāʾî

Phoenician

HAE 13.35, 82; 20.6

[DN] has healed ‫רפאי‬

Rapoʾay

[DN] has healed

1

3

BPPS 103

1

27

‫דמלאל‬ ‫דמליהו‬

Dĕmalʾēl

El has healed

HAE 19.2; BPHB 63; 143?;

Dĕmalyāhû

Yhwh has healed

‫דמלא‬

Damlāʾ

[DN] has healed

Aramaic

‫אסי‬

ʾAsî

— 10

3

—

HAE 4.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 14.1, 47; 21.94; BPHB 144

12

—

HAE 4.6, 7; Sam(8).10:1; Gib(7).1; BPHB 14a, b; 15; 16; 17; 70; 142

10

—

25

0

[DN] is/was my physician

Maraqten 70

‫ׁשכניהו‬

Šĕkanyāhû

Yhwh was present

HAE 10.15; 17.29; 21.24, 25, 26; NEE 92.79:10; BPHB 361a–c; 362a, b

‫ׁשכניו‬

Šĕkanyau

Yhwh was present

PIAP 279.72127:15 (KAgr)

1

8

2 (6)

1

—

9

8

No.

Bib.

5.5.╇ Creation and birth 5.5.1.╇Pregnancy Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫סבכיהו‬

Sĕbakyāhû

Yhwh has woven [the child in the womb]

HAE Lak(6).1.11:4

‫יהובנה‬

Yĕhôbānāh

Yhwh has created [the child]

HAE 13.56; Lak(7/6).22:1

1

—

1

1

2

—

Compare Job 10:11 ‫;סבך‬ ‫סבכי‬ (1×) Gen 2:22

Appendix B5

588 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫יובנה‬ ‫יבנה‬

Yaubānāh

Yhwh has created

HAE 10.49; 13.57; BPHB 25?

3

—

Yaubānāh

Yhwh has created

HAE 13.55

1

—

‫בנענת‬ ‫בניהו‬

Bĕnāʿānat

Anat has created

HAE 20.4

1

—

Bĕnāyāhû

Yhwh has created

HAE 2.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24; 10.75; 16.1; Arad(7).39:9; NEE 92.79:18; BPHB 125; 126; 127; 128; 129; 233

22

6 (6)

‫בנאל‬

Ammonite Aramaic

‫אדבנה‬

No.

Bib.

Compare ‫יבניה‬ (2×) ‫בנוי‬ (4×), ‫בני‬ (9×)

Banāʾil

El has created [the child]

WSS 918; 936?

2

ʾAdbanāh

Adad has created

Maraqten 65

1

Tabnīt

creation of [DN]

Benz 186

2 1

Phoenician

‫תבנת‬

Phoenician

‫בניא‬

Banoyaʾ

[DN] has created

NEE 26.24

Phoenician

‫בנא‬

Banoʾa

[DN] has created

NEE 26.21

1

29

27

‫אלעׂשה‬

ʾElʿāśāh

El has made [the child]

HAE 10.102, 103; 21.26; BPHB 95a, b; 126?; 191a, b?; 356; 361a–c; 362a, b

9

4

‫אלעׂש‬ ‫יועׂשה‬

ʾElʿāśā

El has made

HAE 16.25;

1

—

Yauʿāśāh

Yhwh has made

HAE 10.54; KAgr(9).8:1

2

—

‫יעׂשי‬ (1×), ‫יעׂשיאל‬ (2×)

‫עׂשאל‬

ʿAśāʾēl

El has made

HAE 10.81

1

(4)

‫עׂשהאל‬ ‫עׂשיאל‬ (1×)

‫עׂשיהו‬

ʿAśāyāhû

Yhwh has made

HAE 1.4, 37, 144; 10.44; 16.68, 69, 70, 71; 21.91; 56.6; Lak(6).15:7; NEE 83.77:1; 89.78:4; BPHB 217a–e; 223?; 312; 368

17

(4)

‫עׂשיו‬ ‫עׂשי‬

ʿAśāyau

Yhwh has made

HAE 16.72

1

—

4

—

1

—

13

6

ʿAśay

Moabite

[DN] has made ‫עׂשי‬

ʿAśay

HAE 8.38; 16.67; BPHB 271; 311 [DN] has made

BPPS 201

1

‫עׂשא‬ ‫מעׂשיהו‬

ʿAśāʾ

[DN] has made

BPHB 310

Maʿaśēyāhû

work of Yhwh

HAE 1.77, 116; 10.5, 57; 13.66, 67, 68, 69, 70; 14.6; BPHB 243; 320; FHCB 56.8

‫מעׂשיה‬ ‫מעׂשי‬

Maʿaśēyāh

work of Yhwh

HAE 1.80; 13.65

2

15

Maʿśay

work of [DN]

HAE 5.1; 13.64; Arad(6).22:4; Lemaire 214.11:2?

4

1

55

38

2

—

Aramaic

‫פעלה‬

Păʿalāh

‫מעׂשי‬

Maʿśay

[DN] has made [the child]

work of [DN]

BPHB 326; 327

Job 10:8; Isa 44:2

TSF 655.47:20

1

Job 36:3 ‫אלפעל‬ (1×)

Names of Birth Name

Transcrip. ‫אלפעל‬

Phoenician

Meaning

589

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

ʾElpaʿol

El has made [the child]

Benz 61

1

Phoenician ↜渀屮↜渀屮↜ ‫פעלאבסת‬

Peʿlaʾabast

Bastet has made

Benz 176

2

Phoen. ╅╛↜‫פעלעׁשתרת‬

Peʿlaʿaštart

Ashtarte has made

Benz 176

1

2 ‫אלעבד‬

Aramaic

‫אלקנה‬

ʾElqānāh

Aramaic

‫קניה‬ ‫קניו‬ ‫קני‬ ‫מקנמלך‬

ʾElʿabad

El has made [the child]

El has created [the child]

‫ׁשמׁשקנה‬

Šamašqanah

NTA 42.4:5

1

HAE 1.101

Shamash has created

1

1

7

NTA 42.4:20

1

Qĕnayāh

Yhwh has created

BPHB 150a, b; 341

2

—

Qĕnayau

Yhwh has created

HAE 19.3

1

—

Qanay

[DN] has created

HAE Kom(8).10:1

1

—

1

—

Miqnēmelek creature of the king HAE 13.78

Ammonite

‫מקנמלך‬

Miqnēmalk

creature of Malk

WSS 985

Phoenician

‫מקנמלך‬

Miqnēmilk

creature of Milk

Benz 143

‫מקניהו‬

Miqnēyāhû

creature of Yhwh

HAE 1.57; 13.73, 74, 75, 76, 87; 18.9; Arad(8).60:4; 72:1; BPHB 203; 204; 247; 248; 256; 316?

‫מקניו‬

Miqnēyau

creature of Yhwh

HAE 13.77a, b

‫קנואל‬

Aramaic

Qanūʾēl

creature of El

Ps 139:13

1 1

15

1

1

—

22

8

Maraqten 99

1

‫אליכן‬

ʾElyākīn

El has fashioned [the child]

HAE 21.55

1

—

Ps 119:73; Job 31:15

‫אלכן‬

ʾElyākīn

El has fashioned

NEE 83.77:6; 89.78:3; BPHB 92; 374

4

(1)

also ‫יהויכון‬

‫יוכן‬

Yau⟨yā⟩kīn

Yhwh has fashioned

HAE 1.81

1

[1]

‫יכניהו‬

Yakīnyāhû

Yhwh has fashioned

HAE 10.59

1

[1]

Phoenician

‫יכנׁשלם‬

Yakīnšalim

Shalim has fashioned

‫יכין‬ (2×)

Benz 128

2

‫כניהו‬

Konyāhû

Yhwh has fashioned

HAE 1.88, 96; 11.4, 5, 6; 13.103; Arad(8).49:4; Lak(6).1.3:15; FHCB 79.28a, b

9

[1]

‫כנניהו‬ (2×)

‫כניה‬

Konyāh

Yhwh has fashioned

BPHB 223

1

[1]

‫כנני‬ (1×)

Kunay

[DN] has fashioned

17

6

‫כני‬

Aramaic

WSS 804; NTA 42.4:13

2

‫קדבׂש‬ ‫חצב‬

Qadbeś

Bes has formed

HAE Sam(8).1.1:5

1

0

Egyp.

Ḥāṣāb

[DN] has carved out

HAE 8.62

1

0

Isa 51:1

‫ירימות‬

Yerîmaut

1

12

Aramaic Phoenician

founded by Mot (?) HAE 10.75 (so Zadok, PIAP 61)

‫ׁשואל‬

Šawʾēl

El has founded

BPPS 144

1

‫יסד‬

Yĕsod

foundation of [DN]

Benz 128

1

Appendix B5

590 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫עמליהו‬

ʿAmalyāhû

[laborious] work of HAE 10.96; 56.3 Yhwh

Epigraphic

No. 2

Bib.

2

1

‫אלעדה‬

ʾElʿādāh

El has adorned [the child]

HAE Mur(7).2:3

1

1

‫עדיאל‬ (3×)

‫עדיהו‬

ʿAdāyāhû

Yhwh has adorned HAE 2.23; 3.3; 16.14, 15, 16, [the child] 17, 18; 17.40; Arad(8).58:1; Arad(7).39:7; Arad(6).58:1; BPHB 291; 292; 367a, b

14

1 (5)

‫)?(מעדיה‬ (1×), ‫)?(מעדי‬ (1×)

—

Compare ‫עמל‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫עדאל‬

ʿAdāʾil

El has adorned [the child]

CAI 31

1

Edomite

‫עדאל‬

ʿAdāʾēl

El has adorned [the child]

WSS 1062

1

Phoenician

‫אבעד‬

ʾAbīʿado

[my divine] father has adorned

Benz 55; WSS 724

2

‫עדה‬

ʿAdāh

[DN] has adorned

HAE KAgr(9).2

1

2

‫יעדי‬

Yeʿday

[DN] has adorned

BPHB 206

1

—

17

18

‫ו‬/‫עדא‬ (4×)

5.5.2.╇Deliverance Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫דלתיהו‬

Daltāyāhû

you, O Yhwh, have HAE 4.5 (see PIAP 33) drawn out [the child]

‫דליהו‬

Dĕlāyāhû

Yhwh has drawn out

‫דליו‬

Dĕlāyau

Yhwh has drawn out

Aramaicâ•…â•› ‫ביתאלדלני‬

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

1

—

HAE 2.7; 4.3, 4; 5.21; 14.24; Lak(6).15:4; BPHB 141

7

2 (3)

HAE Haz(8).3:1

1

—

Baytʾeldalanî

Bethel has drawn me out

Maraqten 72

Compare Ps 22:10 ‫גחה‬

1

Aramaic

‫נבודלה‬

Nabûdalah

Nabu has drawn out

Maraqten 90

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשאדלה‬

Šēʾdalah

Sin has drawn out

NTA 70.7:7

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשמׁשדלה‬

Šamašdalah

Shamash has drawn out

Maraqten 103

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשנדלה‬

Šindalah

Sin has drawn out

Maraqten 103

1

‫דלה‬

Dālāh Moabite

‫הצליהו‬

[DN] has drawn out ‫ידלא‬

Hiṣṣīlyāhû

Yidlāʾ

Yhwh has delivered

HAE 4.1, 2; Sam(8).1.38:3 [DN] has drawn out

3

—

WSS 1023

HAE 5.23, 24, 25, 26; 14.11, 12, 48; 16.57; 62.1; Lak(6).1.1:1; Gaz(7).1:4; NEE 92.79:18; BPHB 141; 159; 254; 307a, b

1

12

5

16

—

Ammonite

‫הצלאל‬

Hiṣṣīlʾil

El has delivered

WSS 928; BPPS 170; AMM 27.1:2

3

Moabite

‫יצלבעל‬

Yaṣṣīlbaʿal

Baal has delivered

BPPS 197

1

Names of Birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫הצל‬

Hiṣṣīl

[DN] has delivered BPHB 396 ‫הצל‬

Moabite

‫איץ‬

ʾIṣ

Hiṣṣīl

591

Epigraphic [DN] has delivered

[DN] has accelerated [the birth]

No. 1

Bib.

Compare

—

WSS 1022

1

17

0

1

0

HAE 1.27

Phoenician

‫אצי‬

ʾOṣay

[DN] has accelerated [the birth] (cf. Punic ‫)לעבצא‬

WSS 717 (votive seal)

1

Phoenician

‫יחׁש‬

Yaḥuš

[DN] has accelerated (or: has healed)

NEE 25.8

1

‫ גזא‬or ‫גז‬

Gāzāʾ or Gāz [DN] has severed [me from the umbilical cord]

1

BPHB 341

Phoenician

‫גדעת‬

Gadaʿta

you, O [DN], have severed

Benz 102

Phoenician

‫פרם‬

Parom

[DN] has severed

Benz 177

1 4

1 Aramaic

‫כרעדד‬

Kĕraʿadad

Ps 71:6 ‫( גזז‬2×)

2

Hadad has kneeled Maraqten 85 down [as a midwife] (?)

1

‫גמריהו‬

Gĕmaryāhû

Yhwh has completed [the birth]

HAE 3.26, 27, 28; Arad(8).40:1; Arad(7).31:8; 35:4; Arad(7).38:3; Lak(6).1.1:1; NEE 92.79:17

9

1 (1)

‫גמר‬

Gōmer

[DN] has completed

HAE 21.25; Sam(8).1.50:1; BPHB 137; 193

4

1

13

3

9

—

9

3

No.

Bib.

‫גמר‬

Phoenician

‫גמליהו‬

Gĕmalyāhû

Gamor

[DN] has completed

Yhwh has completed [the birth]

FSL 44.18

HAE 3.22, 23, 24, 25; 4.3; 8.63; 43.2; BPHB 136; 168

1

‫גמליאל‬ (1×), ‫גמלי‬ (1×), ‫גמול‬ (2×)

5.5.3.╇ Divine support for the newborn Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫פקחיו‬

Pĕqaḥyau

Yhwh has opened [the eyes of the child]

HAE 4.6

1

(1)

‫פקחי‬

Paqḥî

[DN] has opened [the eyes]

HAE 1.46

1

—

Aramaic

‫פקחי‬

Paqḥî

[DN] has opened Maraqten 97 [the eyes of the child]

Phoenician

‫פקחי‬

Paqḥî

[DN] has opened [the eyes]

NEE 26.19

Compare

1 1

Appendix B5

592 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫פקח‬

Peqaḥ

[DN] has opened [the eyes]

HAE 2.18; 13.84; 17.36; 57.3; Haz(8).2:1; Lak(6).1.19:2; BPHB 11; 272

10

2

‫רגא‬

Rāgāʾ

[DN] has quieted [the baby]

HAE Arad(8).68:3; Sam(8).1.78:1; Arad(7).31:2

3

—

‫רגע‬

Rāgāʿ

[DN] has quieted

HAE Sam(8).1.1:4

1

—

‫יחועלי‬

Yĕḥawwīʿalay

Phoenician

‫יחומלך‬

Phoenician

‫יחוא‬

Phoenician

‫פתיחו‬

‫חויהו‬

Ḥawwīyāhû

Phoen.╅╇╛↜渀屮‫תוחתרתׁשע‬

‫יחי‬

‫כמׁשיחי‬

8

Bib.

Compare

(1)

4

0

2

—

HAE Sam(8).1.55:2; 60:1 the Exalted brought [the child] to life or shall keep alive

‫יחואל‬ (1× Kethiv), ‫יחיאל‬ (10×)

Yeḥewwimilk

Milk has brought to Benz 127 life or shall keep alive

1

Yeḥewwiʾā

[DN] has brought to Benz 127 life or shall keep alive

1

Pta[ḥ]yeḥewwi Ptah has brought to Benz 177 life or shall keep alive

1

Yhwh brought to life

HAE 16.69

ʿAštartḥewwiti

O Ashtarte, you have brought to life

1

(1)

Benz 175

‫יחיה‬ 1

1

may it [the baby] HAE 16.3 stay alive, [O god]!

Yĕḥî Moabite

No.

—

Kamošyĕḥî

O Kamosh, may it stay alive!

WSS 1032

1

Phoenician

‫מריחי‬

Māreyĕḥî

O lord, may it stay alive!

Benz 143

2

Phoenician

‫יחמלך‬

Yĕḥīmilk

may it stay alive, O Milk!

Benz 128

2

‫בלטה‬

Balṭāh

[DN] brought to life

Aramaic

‫בלט‬

Aramaic

Naveh 8.15

4

12

1

0

Balaṭ

[DN] brought to life

NTA 26.2:14

1

‫אחמן‬

ʾAḥīman

my [divine] brother has counted [the baby among the living]

Maraqten 67 (cf. Sir 40:29)

1

Aramaic

‫חמנן‬

Ḥammanānī

[my divine] uncle has TSF 653.46: obv. 1 counted me [among the living]

1

Aramaic

‫אלמנני‬

ʾElmanānî

El has counted me [among the living]

Maraqten 69

1

Aramaic

‫נס]ח[מנני‬

Nasuḥmananî

Nasuch/Nusku has counted me [among the living]

TSF 653.46: rev. 8

1

Aramaic

‫מנן‬

Manāni

[DN] has counted me Maraqten 88; WSS 807 [among the living]

3

Aramaic

‫מנני‬

Manānî

[DN] has counted me Maraqten 88; NTA 75.9:3 [among the living]

2

Names of Birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

593

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Aramaic

‫מני‬

Manî

[DN] has counted [among the living]

NTA 89.13:7↜′

1

Phoenician

‫ימן‬

Yimne

[DN] has counted or may count [among the living]

NEE 26.27

1

‫יחמליהו‬

Yaḥmolyāhû Yhwh has spared [the child]

HAE 10.57; 21.8

2

‫יחמל‬ ‫חמל‬

Yaḥmol

[DN] has spared

HAE Kom(8).5:1

1

—

Ḥamūl

the escaped

HAE 4.17; 10.98

2

(1)

5

1

‫אצליהו‬

ʾAṣalyāhû

Yhwh has set [the child] aside

HAE 1.136; 1.137

2

0

—

Gen 27:36

5.6.╇ Acceptance of the child; care, naming, and circumcision of the child Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

‫אלנתן‬

ʾElnātān

El has given [the child]

HAE 1.92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 139; 3.26; 13.90; Arad(8).69:6; Arad(6).110:1; Lak(6).1.3:15; 11:2; NEE 89.78:3; BPHB 93

14

Bib.

Compare

2

‫אלנתן‬

ʾIlnatan

El has given [the child]

WSS 904

1

Aramaic

‫אלנתן‬

ʾElnatan

El has given

Maraqten 69

3

Aramaic

‫אבנתן‬

ʾAbīnatan

[my] father has given

Maraqten 65

Ammonite

‫בעלנתן‬

Baʿalnātān

Baal has given

HAE 16.19

1

1

—

Ammonite

‫בעלנתן‬

Baʿalnatan

Baal has given

BPPS 152

1

Moabite

‫בעלנתן‬

Baʿalnatan

Baal has given

WSS 1020

1

Bēlnatan

Baal has given

AMM 36.2:11

1

Ammonite

‫בלנתן‬

Aramaic

‫בעלנתן‬

Baʿalnatan

Baal has given

WSS 1107

1

Phoenician

‫בעליתן‬

Baʿalyaton

Baal has given

Benz 95; WSS 719

9

‫יהונתן‬ ‫יונתן‬

Yĕhônātān

Yhwh has given

HAE 10.32

1

10

Yaunātān

Yhwh has given

HAE 10.51; Sam(8).1.45:3; BPHB 49a, b

3

6

Moabite

‫כמׁשנתן‬

Moabite

‫כמׁשית‬

Aramaic

Kamōšnātān

Kamosh has given

WSS 1034

1

Kamōšyat[on]

Kamosh has given

KAI 180.1 (MZM 275f.)

1

‫אדנתן‬

ʾAddunatan

Adad has given

Maraqten 66

1

‫הדנתן‬

Haddnatan

Hadad has given

WSS 786 (genuine?)

1

‫אׁשמניתן‬

Ešmunyaton

Eshmun has given

Benz 71

9

Phoenician↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫עׁשתרתיתן‬

ʿAštartyetna

Ashtarte has given

Benz 175

2

Ṣidyaton

Sin has given

Benz 177

2

Rešepyaton

Resheph has given

Benz 179

Aramaic Phoenician Phoenician

‫צדיתן‬

Phoenician

‫רׁשפיתן‬

‫נתנמלך‬

Nĕtanmalk

Malk has given

HAE 14.61

2

1

Phoenician

‫יתנמלך‬

Yatonmilk

Milk has given

Benz 130

Phoenician

‫מלכיתן‬

Milkyaton

Milk has given

Benz 139; Kition 805,1

(1) 2 19

Appendix B5

594 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫נתנבעל‬

Nĕtanbaʿal

Baal has given

NEE 40.49 (Phoenician?)

1

—

‫נתניהו‬

Nĕtanyāhû

Yhwh has given

HAE 10.9; 14.58, 59, 60; 16.65; Arad(8).56:1–2; Kom(8).2:1; Arad(6).23:9; BPHB 309

9

4

‫נתניו‬

Nĕtanyau

Yhwh has given

HAE Nasb(8).1:1

1

—

Phoenician

‫יתנבל‬

Phoenician Phoenician Phoenician

‫נתן‬

Bib.

Compare ‫נתנאל‬ (10×)

Yatonbēl

Bel has given

Benz 129

1

‫יתנבעל‬

Yatonbaʿal

Baal has given

Benz 129

1

‫יתנחף‬

Yatonḥapi

Apis has given

Benz 130

3

‫יתנצד‬

Yatonṣid

Sin has given

Benz 130

2

Nātān

HAE 14.50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57; Gem(7).3:7; BPHB 50; 272; 340?; 389

[DN] has given

‫יתן‬

Phoenician

Yaton

‫מתניהו‬

Mattanyāhû

gift of Yhwh

‫מתניה‬

Mattanyāh

gift of Yhwh

Ammonite

No.

‫מתנאל‬

Mattanʾel

[DN] has given

HAE 17.13 A

‫מתן‬

Mattān

gift [of DN]

HAE 1.38, 50, 155; 3.22; 4.8; 8.1; 10.37; 13.41, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100; 14.39, 49; 16.11; 21.97; Msa(7).3:2; BPHB 143

‫מתן‬

2

1

5

1

WSS 933; 952; BPPS 174

gift of Yhwh

‫מתני‬

26

BPHB 263 gift of El

Mattityāhû

Phoenician

8

Benz 129

HAE 1.133; 2.11; 5.3; 13.101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108; 16.26, 73; 18.17; 20.8, 9, 10; Seb(8).9:1; Lak(6)1.1,5; BPHB 196; 260?; 345; 346; FHCB 84.33; 85.34; Lemaire 204.4:2

‫מתתיהו‬

Phoenician

13

3

1

1 (3)

‫מתתה‬ (1×)

22

2

‫מתני‬ (3×), ‫אתנן‬ (1×) ‫אתני‬ (1×)

Matten

gift [of DN]

Benz 143

1

Mattenay

gift [of DN]

Benz 146

1

94

60

‫יהונדב‬

Yĕhônādāb

Yhwh has presented [the child]

HAE 10.42; FHCB 86.35?

2

2

‫אבינדב‬ (4×)

‫נדביהו‬

Nĕdabyāhû

Yhwh has presented [the child]

HAE Arad(7).39:3; PHPB 38; 164; FHCB 70.19

4

—

‫אחינדב‬ (1×)

‫נדביה‬

Nĕdabyāh

Yhwh has presented [the child]

HAE 70.5

1

1

‫עמינדב‬ (5×)

Ammonite

‫אבנדב‬

ʾAbīnadab

[my divine] father has presented

WSS 876 (votive seal)

1

Ammonite

‫אחנדב‬

ʾAḥīnadab

[my divine] brother has presented

WSS 880

1

Ammonite

‫עמינדב‬

ʿAmmînadab

[my divine] uncle has WSS 858; 859 (king); AMM 27.1:1 (king) presented

Ammonite

‫אלנדב‬

ʾIlnadab

El has presented

WSS 900; 901; 902; 903

4

Ammonite

‫יאנדב‬

Yaʾnadab

Ya? has presented

Heltzer 239

1

Ammonite

‫נדבאל‬

Nadabʾil

El has presented

WSS 921; 924; 953; 954; 955; 956; AMM 36.2:4; BPPS 156

8

2

Names of Birth

595

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫נדב‬

Nādāb

[DN] has presented

HAE 1.90; 13.46; BPHB 261; FHCB 73.22

No.

Bib.

4

4

11

17

Compare 19× with ‫זבד‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשנזבד‬

Šinzabad

Sin has presented

TSF 655.47:17

1

Aramaic

‫אליהב‬

ʾElyahab

El has given

Maraqten 68

1

Aramaic

‫גדיא‬

Gaddiyāʾ

Gad has gi[ven] (?)

NTA 85.12:7

1

Aramaic

‫הדיהב‬

Haddyahab

Hadad has given

NTA 54.6:3′

1

Aramaic

‫והבדה‬

Wahabada

Ada (Idum.-Arab. goddess) has given

WSS 790

1

Aramaic

‫סריהב‬

Suryahab

Assur has given

WSS 831

1

‫אׁשאב‬

ʾAšʾāb

the [divine] father has given

HAE 1.143

1

—

‫אשחר‬

ʾAšḥōr

Horus has given

HAE 1.144; Sam(8).1.13:3f.

2

(1)

‫?אׁשבעל‬ (1×), ‫?אׁשבל‬ (1×)

‫אׁשיהו‬

ʾAšyāhû

Yhwh has given

HAE 1.84, 85, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150; 13.38, 64, 86; 16.62; 21.11; Arad(8).40, [7]; [11]; Arad(8).51:1; Arad(7).35:2; Arad(6).17:3; Lak(6).15:6; NEE 92.79:7; BPHB 88; 120; 394

22

—

‫יהואׁש‬ (2×), ‫יואׁש‬ (4×)

‫אׁשיה‬ ‫אׁשא‬

ʾAšyāh

Yhwh has given

HAE 1.86; 2.31

2

—

ʾAšāʾ

[DN] has given

HAE Sam(8).1.22:2; 23:2; 24:1; [25:2]; 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 29:1; 37:3; 39:3; 102:1; Jer(7).15:1

12

—

Ammonite

‫אׁשא‬

ʾAšaʾ

[DN] has given

WSS 920

1

Aramaic

‫אׁשא‬

ʾAšāʾ

[DN] has given

NTA 73.8:9

1

Aramaic

‫אׁשה‬

ʾAšāh

[DN] has given

WSS 1129 (Maraqten 71)

1

‫אׁשי‬ ‫יאוׁש‬

ʾAšai

[DN] has given

BPHB 119; 192

2

—

Yāʾûš

[DN] has given

HAE Lak(6).1.2:1; 3:2; 6:1; BPHB 398?

4

—

‫יאׁש‬

Yāʾūš

HAE 1.95; 10.6, 7; BPHB 180a, b

4

—

‫מאׁש‬

‫מגן‬

[DN] has given ‫יאׁש‬

Aramaic

Mūʾaš

Yaʾūš

given [by DN]

Moabite

‫מאׁש‬

Moabite

‫כמׁשמאׁש‬

Māgān

[DN] has given

WSS 799

1

1

HAE 13.2

—

Mūʾaš

given [by DN]

WSS 1011; 1037; 1038

3

Kamōšmūʾaš

given by Kamosh (?)

WSS 1033

1

[DN] has presented

HAE 3.27; 22.3; Gar(7).2:1

50

9

3

0

Ammonite

‫מגן‬

Magan

[DN] has presented

AMM 31.3

1

Phoenician

‫מגן‬

Magon

[DN] has presented

Benz 133

3

Appendix B5

596 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫מנח‬

Manōăḥ

presented [by DN] HAE 13.2 (cf. Ges18, 696)

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

1

(3)

Compare ‫מנחת‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫מנח‬

Manōḥ

presented [of DN]

WSS 892; 941

2

Moabite

‫מנח‬

Manōḥ

presented [of DN]

WSS 1040

1

1

4

‫נמׂשר‬

Nimśār

handed over [by DN] (?)

HAE 14.20, 21; NEE 92.79:6–7; (Niphal participle from ‫)מסר‬

3

0

‫יחץ‬

Yaḥaṣ

[DN] has selected

NEE 56.61 (from ‫)חצה‬

1

—

Moabite

‫יחץ‬

Aramaic

‫דגנבזי‬

WSS 1025

Yaḥaṣ

[DN] has distributed

Dagānbazî

WSS 1025 Dagon has distributed (?) (from bzy II, DNWSI 1:149)

1

1

2 1

‫בקיהו‬

Buqqyāhû

Yhwh has amply given

HAE Jer(7).5:1

1

1

‫בקי‬

Buqqî

[DN] has amply given

HAE 13.63

1

2

2

3

‫יׁשבע‬

Phoenician

Yišbaʿ

[DN] has generously given

‫יחצאל‬ (1×), ‫יחציאל‬ (1×)

NEE 26.26

1

‫פזרי‬

Pazrî

[DN] has generously given

HAE 17.37

1

0

Ps 112:9

‫פטיהו‬

Pūṭīyāhû

the one whom Yhwh has given

HAE EGed(7/6).1; BPHB 321

2

0

Egyp.

‫פתאס‬

Phoenician

‫ׁשמיה‬

Šemyāh

the one whom Isis has given

‫ׁשמאב‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשמאדד‬

Gibson 72.20:1

HAE Arad(6).110:1

descendant of Yhwh

Aramaic

1

1

0

Šemʾab

descendant of the [divine] father

WSS 1118; Hug 29 (GeldL 1)

2

Šemʾadad

descendant of Adad

Hug 30 (GeldL 5)

1

Šemʾēl

descendant of El

Hug 30 (GeldL 5)

1

Šemzabūl

descendant of the prince [Baal]

Benz 181 (fem.)

1

Šemāʾ

descendant of [DN]

Benz 180 (fem.)

1

‫ל‬â�¨‫א‬â�©‫זרע‬

Zarʿʾēl

seed of El

Maraqten 79

1

‫זרעי‬

Zerʿay

seed [of DN]

NEE 26.19

Phoenician

‫ׁשמאל‬

Phoenician

‫ׁשמזבל‬

Phoenician

‫ׁשמא‬

Aramaic

Putiʾisi

Phoenician

1

‫יברכיהו‬

Yĕberekyāhû Yhwh has blessed HAE Lak(6/7).26:2 or may Yhwh bless

1

1

‫יברך‬

Yĕbarek

[DN] has blessed HAE Lak(6/7).26:2 or, may [DN] bless

2

—

‫ברכיהו‬

Berekyāhû

Yhwh has blessed

9

3 (3)

HAE 2.26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; Gar(7).1:1; Arad(6).22:1; NEE 83.77:4

‫ברכאל‬ (1×)

Names of Birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

597

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Ammonite

[‫אלבר]ך‬

ʾIlbarak

El has blessed

WSS 888

1

Ammonite

‫ברכאל‬

Barakʾil

El has blessed

WSS 863; 926; 943; SAJ 339.46; Heltzer

5

235 (king)

‫מרברך‬

Mārebarek

the lord has blessed

Maraqten 89

1

‫ברכבעל‬

Aramaic Phoenician

Barokbaʿal

Baal has blessed

Benz 101

1

Phoenician ‫ברכׁשמׁש‬

Barokšamaš

Shamash has blessed

Benz 101

1

Phoen.╇╛╛╛↜渀屮 ‫ברכתמלקרת‬

Barkatamelqart you have blessed, O Melqart

Benz 101

1

‫ברכי‬

Berekî ‫ברכא‬

Aramaic

‫ברך‬

[DN] has blessed

Bārūk ‫ברכבעל‬

Aramaic

‫ברכי‬

Phoenician

‫בעליסף‬

Phoenician

‫יסף‬

Yarobʿam

Aramaic

1

‫ירבן‬

—

2

Barikbaʿal

blessed of Baal

Maraqten 74 (ARI 371.76)

Barikî

blessed of [DN]

WSS 779

2

4 1 1

15

13

1

1

‫אביסף‬ (1×), ‫אליסף‬ (2×), ‫יוספיה‬ (1×)

Baʿalyūsep

Baal has added

Benz 95; WSS 732

2

Yūsep

[DN] has added

FSL 48.23; 56f.:31

1

the [divine] uncle has increased or may increase Yarbēnī

HAE 21.58

[DN] has increased or may increase

1

5

1

2

Maraqten 84

1

‫מריבעל‬ ‫מרימות‬

Mĕrîbaʿal

Baal has blessed

HAE Sam(8).1.2:7

1

1

Mĕrêmaut

Mot has blessed

HAE 13,79; [Sam(8).1.33:3]; Arad(8).50:1

3

(2)

‫מריהו‬

Mĕrayāhû

Yhwh has blessed

Lemaire 201.2:7? 10?

1

—

‫מרא‬

‫ברכה‬ (1×)

Maraqten 73; WSS 1108

HAE Sam(8).3:1f.; Sam(8).9:1

[DN] has added [a HAE 15.1 child to the family]

Yōsēp

‫ירבעם‬

[DN] has blessed

blessed [by DN]

Aramaic

‫יסף‬

Barakaʾ

HAE 70.1

‫מרמות‬

Morrāʾ (?)

bless, [O DN]!

FSL 25f.:3

Ammonite ↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫)?(אבדׁשא‬

ʾAbīdiššeʾ

[my divine] father has caused to thrive (?)

BPPS 152

1

Phoenician [‫אלדׁש]א‬

ʾElidiššeʾ

[my] god has caused to thrive

Benz 61 (fem.)

1

Phoenician ╛╛╛‫אׁשמנצלח‬

ʾEšmunṣaloḥ

Eshmun has caused to prosper

Benz 72

2

Phoenician

1

5

3

Phoenician

‫בעלצלח‬

Baʿalṣaloḥ

Baal has caused to prosper

Benz 98

2

Phoenician

‫דעמצלח‬

Doʿamṣaloḥ

Doam has caused to prosper

Benz 108

1

Appendix B5

598 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫)?( יעמס‬

Yaʿmos

[DN] has carried or may carry [on his arm]

Naveh 4.6?

1

—

‫עמסיהו‬

ʿAmasyāhû

Yhwh has carried [the child on his arm]

Naveh 5.7

1

(1)

‫עמס‬

ʿAmōs

who is carried [by DN on his arm]

HAE 56.4; BPHB 22

2

(1)

Ammonite

‫עמסאל‬

Phoen.╅€╛↜渀屮 ‫מלקרתעמס‬

‫עמס‬

Phoenician

No.

Bib.

Compare

ʿAmasʾil

El has carried [the child on his arm]

WSS 917; 955; 964

3

Melqartʿamos

Melqart has carried [on his arm]

Benz 141

1

ʿAmūs

who is carried [by DN on his arm]

Benz 172

1

4

2

‫כלכליהו‬

Kalkōlyāhû

Yhwh has looked after [the child]

HAE 11.3

1

—

‫כלכל‬

Kalkōl

[DN] has looked after

HAE 8.6, 10; 11.2; 21.3; BPHB 222

5

1

6

2

‫יועליהו‬

Yôʿelyāhû

the one for whom Yhwh is useful

HAE 10.52, 53 13.43; NEE 89.78:1; 92.79:9; 16; Lemaire 201.2:3; 219.14:1

8

0

‫מליהו‬

Malyāhû

Yhwh has circumcised

HAE 13.32, 33, 34; BPHB 404

4

0

‫יכיליה‬ (1×)

5.7.╇ Misfortune in the vicinity of birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫איעם‬

ʾAyyaʿam

where is the [divine?] uncle?

HAE 10.82

No. 1

Bib. —

Compare ‫איוב‬ (1×)

Ammonite

‫אינדב‬

ʾAynūdeb

where is the [divine] giver?

WSS 882; AMM 36.2:9; Heltzer 221

3

Moabite

‫אינדב‬

ʾAynūdeb

where is the [divine] giver?

SAJ 421.2

1

Aramaic

‫איעזר‬

ʾAyʿezer

where is the [divine] help?

WSS 766

1

ʾAyyāʾ

where is [DN]

WSS 881

Ammonite

‫איא‬

1

1 Ammonite

‫אוא‬

ʾAwāʾ

where is [DN]? (?)

WSS 879

1 1

Names of Birth

599

5.8.╇ Infant mortality and substitute names Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חבלי‬

Ḥablî (?)

[the genuine] is destroyed

HAE 8.4 (cf. Ḫabil-kēnu)

‫נחמיהו‬

Nĕḥemyāhû

Yhwh has comforted [with the birth of a new child]

HAE 1.130; 8.59; 13.34; 14.14, 15; 16.16; Arad(8).40:1; 59:3; Arad(7).31:3; 36:2; Arad(6).11:5; NEE 92.79:11

‫נחמיו‬

Nĕḥemyau

Yhwh has comforted

HAE 8.17; 10.36, 69; 14.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 16.31; 17.44; 21.38; Arad(6).16:10; 17.1; 8; BPHB 214; 215a, b; 216; 259a–c; 262; 263; FHCB 79.28a, b; Lemaire 215.12:6

‫נחמי‬

Phoenician

‫נחם‬

Naḥa/um

Ammonite

‫ינחם‬

Phoenician

‫נחם‬

‫מנחם‬

[DN] has comforted

Mĕnaḥēm

Bib.

1

0

12

(3)

1

—

Compare

Benz 146

HAE 8.17; 10.36, 69; 14.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 16.31; 17.44; 21.38; Arad(6).16:10; 17.1, 8; BPHB 214; 215a, b; 216; 259a–c; 262; 263; FHCB 79.28a, b; Lemaire 215.12:6

[DN] has comforted

‫נחם‬

Aramaic

Naḥomay

No.

2

27

1 (1)

‫נחמני‬ (1×)

Naḥam

[DN] has comforted

WSS 818; ARI 368.48

2

Yanaḥem

[DN] has comforted or may comfort

WSS 867; 894; 919; 935; 936; 944

6

Naḥum

[DN] has comforted

Gibson 74.21:3 (Benz 147, Punic)

1

comforter [of parents mourning for a deceased child]

HAE 3.32; 8.34; 10.80; 11.2; 13.49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57; 16.12; 17.43; 53.5; Arad(8).72:1; Sam(8).6:5; BMir(8).2:1; Gaz(7).1:1; NEE 92.79:6; BPHB 144; 239; 240; 241; 319; 325; FHCB 83.32?; Lemaire 211.10: obv. 9?

29

1

Ammonite

‫מנחם‬

Manaḥem

comforter

CAI 83; WSS 861; 893; 905; 942; 943; 944; 945; 946; 947; AMM 36.2, 3, 6, 7; Heltzer 241

Aramaic

‫מנחם‬

Menaḥem

comforter

Maraqten 87; WSS 1110

4

‫מנחם‬

Menaḥem

comforter

Benz 141

6

Mĕnaḥemet

[female] comforter

WSS 1053 (fem.)

Phoenician Edomite

‫תנחם‬

‫מנחמת‬

Tanḥūm

HAE 1.24, 35; 12.1; 16.29; 22.3, 4; 62.1; Arad(7).39:4; BPHB 390; 391

comfort

Ammonite

‫תנחם‬

Tanḥum

comfort

WSS 947

Aramaic

‫תנחם‬

Tanḥum

comfort

ARI 368.48

‫מנׁשה‬

Mĕnaššēh

who makes forget [the death of an earlier child]

HAE 13.60, 61

15

1

10

—

‫תנחמת‬ (1×) 1 1

79

8

2

5

Appendix B5

600 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

Compare

Moabite

‫מנׁשה‬

Mĕnaššēh

who makes forget

WSS 1006

1

Phoenician

‫מנׁשי‬

Menaššê

who makes forget

Benz 142

1

‫מנׁש‬ ‫ינׁש‬

Mĕnaš

who makes forget

HAE 13.53

1

—

Yĕnaš

[DN] has made forget

BPHB 198

1

—

4

10

14

(8)

‫יׁשבאב‬ (1×), ‫יׁשבעם‬ (2×), ‫יׁשוב‬ (2×)

1

—

‫מׁשובב‬ (1×), ‫ׁשובב‬ (2×)

15

16

11

4 (4)

‫יׁשא‬

Phoenician

Yaššeʾ

[DN] has made forget NEE 26.25

‫אליׁשב‬

ʾElyāšīb

El has caused [the deceased child] to return

HAE 1.84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90; 21.56; Arad(8).64:2; Arad(7).38:5; 47:1; Arad(6).1:1 et€al. Lak(6).15:8; BPHB 88

‫מׁשיב‬

Mēšīb

who brought [the deceased child] back

BPHB 249

‫ׁשלמיהו‬

Šellemyāhû

Yhwh has replaced HAE 2.26; 5.14; 7.5; 21.53, 54, 55, 56; Gar(7).1:4; Lak(6).1.9:7; [the deceased BPHB 93; 374? child]

‫יׁשיהו‬ (1×), ‫יׁשיה‬ (4×) 1

‫ׁשלמיו‬

Šallemyau

Yhwh has replaced

Hug 29 (GeldL 2)

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשלמאל‬

Šallemʾēl

El has replaced

Maraqten 103; WSS 846?

2

Phoenician

‫אבׁשלם‬

ʾAbišillem

[my divine] father has replaced

Benz 55

1

ʾEšmunšillem

Eshmun has replaced

Benz 73

1

Baʿalšillem

Baal has replaced

Benz 100; Gibson 115.29:1

4

Aramaic

Phoenician╛╛↜渀屮↜渀屮 ‫אׁשמנׁשלם‬ Phoenician

‫ׁשלם‬

‫בעלׁשלם‬

Šallum

substitute [for the deceased child]

Aramaic

‫ׁשלם‬

Phoenician

‫ׁשלם‬

‫ׁשלמה‬ ‫ׁשלמת‬

HAE 1.42, 71; 2.3, 15; 8.27; 13.21, 42; 21.27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50; [Arad(8).44:1]; Gem(7).3:3; Arad(7).35:3; Ser(7).1:3; Lak(6).1.3:20; BPHB 44a–c; 91; 118; 221; 285; 298; 363a–c; 364a–c; 365; 366; 367a, b; 368; 370; 371; 372; 373; 377; 391; 416; Lemaire 204.3:2; 211.10: obv.€10?; 214.11:4

58

14

Šallum

substitute

Maraqten 102; NTA 25.2:10; Hug 29 (GeldL 3)

3

Šallum

substitute

Benz 180; NEE 26.20

9

Šallumā/ōh

his/her substitute

HAE 21.51 (fem.), 52

2

1

Šĕlōmīt

[female] substitute

BPHB 375a–c (fem.)

1

(3)

‫ית‬/‫ׁשלמו‬

Names of Birth

601

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫מׁשלם‬

Mĕšullam

substitute [for the deceased child]

HAE 1.107, 137; 10.14, 68; 13.7, 15, 17a, 24, 68, 72, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90; 14.28, 38; Arad(7).39:3; Arad(6).110:1; BPHB 186?; 250a–c; 251a, b; 252; 253; 254; 255a, b; 256; 257; 258; 295; Lemaire 211.10: rev. 5

37

16

‫מׁשלמיהו‬ (1×), ‫מׁשלמיה‬ (1×)

‫מׁשלמת‬

Mĕšullemīt

[female] substitute

HAE 13.91; NEE 83.77:6 (fem.)

2

1 (2)

‫ית‬/‫מׁשלמו‬

111

47

6

(1) (1)

‫סלא‬

[the deceased child HAE 1.156; 13.76; 15.4; NEE has been] replaced 92.79:2; BPHB 273

Sālūʾ Ammonite Aramaic

No.

Bib.

Sālūʾ

replacement

WSS 958

1

‫סילא‬

Sîlāʾ

replacement (?)

ARI 392.311

1

Sĕlūʾāh

she who is the replacement

HAE 15.5

1

—

‫מסלא‬

Mĕsullāʾ

he who is the replacement

BPHB 242 (Pual participle)

1

—

8

3

1

2

Taḥat

‫סלו‬ (1×)

‫סלא‬

‫סלאה‬

‫תחת‬

Compare

substitute

HAE 22.1

Appendix B6

Secular Names 6.1.╇ Names related to the situation of birth 6.1.1.╇ Related to the process of birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חצי‬

Ḥēṣî

[who was swift] as an arrow

HAE 8.63; 13.29

‫ברקי‬

Barqay

[who was quick] as BPHB 23; 100; 131 a bolt of lightning

Aramaic

‫חׁשי‬

‫ברק‬

Ḥūšay

Baraq

[like] a bolt of lightning

‫צנר‬

Phoenician

‫צנר‬

[like a] waterfall

Benz 177

Porpar

who was shaken to HAE 16.49 and fro

Mōšmaš

‫מׁשׁש‬

Mūšaš (?)

Aramaic

‫בכי‬ ‫צרח‬ ‫יתם‬

Porpar

FHCB 88.37

who was shaken to and fro

the palpated one the palpated one

‫חבׁש‬

3

Ṣinnōr

‫פרפר‬

‫מׁשמׁש‬

(1)

WSS 971; 972; AMM 36.2:3

who was washed away (?)

‫פרפר‬

3

[like a] waterfall

Garpay

Ammonite

—

Ṣinnōr

‫גרפי‬

Ḥabbūš

Bib.

2

‫ברק‬ 3

(2) 3 1

1

—

1

—

WSS 895 (SAJ 179.4, Moabite); BPPS 179

HAE 1.147; 10.19

2

—

BPHB 259a–c

1

—

bandaged (?)

Compare

Maraqten 74; NTA 89.13:2; Röllig, AoF 24 368.1:4

HAE 8.65; Arad(8).57:1; BPHB 127?

the speedy one

Ammonite

No.

Maraqten 79

2

‫מוׁשי‬ (1×) 1

Bĕkî

whiny

HAE 2.3

1

—

Ṣeraḥ

bawling

HAE 8.58

1

—

Yatom

orphan

HAE 10.101; 21.10, 102; BPHB 221; Naveh 7.10

5

(1)

Edomite

‫יתם‬

Yatom

orphan

WSS 1054

1

Phoenician

‫יתם‬

Yatom

orphan

WSS 742

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשכח‬

Šakūḥ

foundling

Maraqten 102

Aramaic

‫כרזי‬

Karīzay

bought in an auction Maraqten 85 (?) (cf. DNWSI 1:535)

1

Phoenician

‫תאם‬

Tōʾam

twin

1

20

Benz 185

602

5 1

Secular Names

603

6.1.2.╇ Related to the day of birth Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫חגי‬

Ḥaggay

[born] on the feast HAE 1.87; 2.9; 5.8; 8.3, 9, 10, 11, day 12, 13, 14; 14.52; 16.30; Lemaire 215.12:2

Epigraphic

No. 13

Bib. 2

Compare ‫חגית‬ (1×) [‫חגיה‬ (1×)]

Aramaic

‫חגי‬

Ḥaggay

[born] on the feast day

AMM 36.2:9

1

Aramaic

‫חגי‬

Ḥaggay

[born] on the feast day

NTA 89.13:9′

1

Phoenician

‫חגי‬

Ḥaggay

[born] on the feast day

Benz 109

1

Ammonite

‫חג‬

Ḥag

[born on the] feast day

WSS 941

1

Phoenician

‫חגת‬

Ḥaggīt

she [who was born] on the feast day

Benz 109

1

‫גׁשמי‬

Gišmî

[born] on a rainy day

HAE 3.32; 14.37

2

(1)

‫גׁשם‬

‫נמטר‬

Nimṭar

[born] on a rainy day

HAE Mur(7).2:1

1

(1)

‫מטרי‬

‫חרף‬

Ḥorep

[born] in autumn

HAE 16.21; BPHB 111; 175

3

1 (1)

‫?חריף‬

‫ׁשלגי‬

Šilgî

[born] on a snowy day

HAE 10.43 (corrected by BPHB 201.195a-d)

1

—

20

7

Aramaic

‫אללי‬

Aramaic

‫כנני‬

ʾUlulay

[born] in [the month of] Ulul

NTA 34.3:16

1

Kanūnay

[born] in [the month of] Kanun

Maraqten 85; NTA 26.2:11; 107.19:3; Röllig, AoF 24 368.1:7

4

6.1.3.╇ The child’s function in the family Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫ׁשם‬

Šēm

descendant

HAE 1.44

‫ׁשם‬

Phoenician

‫נבי‬ ‫צמח‬

descendant

1

Bib. 1

Benz 180

fruit

HAE 10.83; 13.10; 16.66; 21.82

4

(1)

Ṣemaḥ

scion

HAE Arad(8).49:11

1

—

1

—

2

(1)

‫ׁשרׁש‬

Šuršu

Pōʾrat (?)

shoot

Mērab

growth

Aramaic

‫ברעזי‬

Barʿuzzî

WSS 823

root

HAE 14.22 HAE 1.122; 13.17 son of my strength

Compare ‫ׁשמא‬ (2×) 1

Nûbay

Aramaic

‫פארת‬ ‫מירב‬

Šem

No.

1

NTA 53.6:5

1

‫ׁשבע‬

Šebaʿ

fullness [for the family]

HAE 21.18; Sam(8).1.2:6; Arad(7).38:4

3

2

‫ׁשבעת‬

Šibʿat

she who is fullness [for the family]

HAE Jer(7).13:1 (fem.?)

1

—

‫־ׁשבע‬â•”‫בת‬ (1×)

Appendix B6

604 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫ׁשבעת‬

Phoenician

Šibʿat

Epigraphic she who is fullness [for the family]

No.

Bib.

Compare

FSL 62.39 (fem.)

1

13

8

6.1.4.╇ Esteem for the child Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫בצר‬ ‫חורץ‬

Beṣer

golden

HAE 21.12

1

1

Ḥûraṣ

golden (?)

HAE 8.16

1

—

1

—

‫חרץ‬

Phoenician

Ḥarūṣ

golden

No.

Bib.

Heltzer 277

1

‫גלגל‬ ‫עדן‬ ‫עדנה‬

Galgūl

little bell

HAE Arad(8).49:3

ʿEden

bliss

BPHB 293

1

2

ʿAdnāh

bliss

HAE KAgr(9).3

1

1 (2)

‫מעדנה‬

Maʿadnāh

[fem.] bliss

1

—

HAE 14.23 (fem.)

1

2 (1)

HAE 14.1 (fem.)

1

—

Moabite

‫בנעדנן‬

‫נעמה‬

Naʿamāh

‫נאהבת‬

Naʾhābat

the lovely one the beloved one

Aramaic

‫חבב‬

Aramaic

‫מודד‬

‫מׁשר‬ ‫מוקר‬

Benʿadnan

HAE 13.62 (fem.) son of bliss

1

‫נעמי‬

Ḥabib

the beloved one

BPPS 122

1

Mawdād

the beloved one

Maraqten 86

1

the upright one

HAE 14.25

1

—

Mauqīr

the honored one

HAE Gar(7).1:3

1

—

‫מוקר‬

‫עדין‬ (1×), ‫עדינא‬ (1×)

BPPS 194

Mēšar

Aramaic

Compare

Maukir

the honored one

Maraqten 86

1

10

11

6.1.5.╇ Babble names Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫גגי‬ ‫פפי‬

Gagî

babble name (?)

HAE 3.9; FHCB 66.16

2

—

Papî(?)

babble name (?)

HAE 13.54

1

—

2

0

Aramaic

‫בבי‬

Babî

babble name

No.

Bib.

Maraqten 71

Compare

1

Secular Names

605

6.2.╇ Personality traits 6.2.1.╇ Physical and mental traits Name

Transcrip.

‫ׁשמנם‬

Šomnām (?) fatty

HAE 1.40

1

—

‫אבסי‬

ʾAbsî

like [something] fattened

BPHB 59

1

—

‫כרׂשן‬

Karśōn

[with a] thick stomach

HAE Mur(7).2:3

1

—

‫עבל‬

ʿEbal

thick

BPHB 290 (Weippert refers to Arab. ʿabl)

1

(1)

HAE Arad(9).76:5 (?)

1

—

‫קטן‬

Qāṭān

Epigraphic

small ‫גדל‬

Aramaic

‫ׁשפל‬ ‫קרח‬

Meaning

Gadūl

tall

No.

Bib.

Compare ‫מׁשמנה‬ (1×)

[‫ובל‬/‫עי‬ (2×)]

Maraqten 75

1

Šapīl

low

HAE 17.11

1

—

Qōraḥ

bald

HAE Arad(8).49:2; Lak(7/6).26:4

2

3

Aramaic

‫קירח‬

Qayraḥ

bald

Maraqten 99

1

Aramaic

‫קרחא‬

Qarḥāʾ

the bald-headed

BPPS 138; NTA 84.12:11; 89.13:10′

3

‫גבח‬

Gibbeăḥ ‫גבוחא‬

Aramaic

‫גרע‬

‫פסח‬

HAE Gar(7).1:2

bald

Aramaic

Pasĕaḥ

1

—

Gĕbûḥāʾ

the bald-headed

Maraqten 75

1

Gareʿ

shaved

Maraqten 76

1

HAE 17.10; BPHB 370; Lemaire 217.13:7

lame

3

3

‫פסח‬

Paseḥ

lame

NEE 71.70

1

Aramaic

‫עפסח‬

ʾEpsaḥ

lame

NTA 101.17:5

1

Aramaic

‫עור‬

ʿAwir

blind or one-eyed

WSS 836

Ammonite

‫נעה‬ ‫אטר‬

Nōʿāh

swinging

ʾAṭer

crooked ‫עקל‬

Aramaic

‫זכן‬ ‫יבׁש‬

1

1

FHCB 81.29; 81.30; 82.31?

3

2

crooked

NTA 15.1

1

Zākēn

aged

HAE 7.8

1

—

Yābēš

dried out

HAE Lak(6).1.19:5

1

1

‫מרץ‬

Phoenician

‫יפה‬

ʿAqal

1

HAE Sam(8).1 (name of a clan)

Mereṣ

NEE 26.31

ill

[she, the] beautiful HAE 10.62 (fem.)

Yāpāh ‫לבן‬

Aramaic

Laben

white

1

1

—

Maraqten 86

1

‫הׂשרק‬ ‫פארר‬ ‫גחם‬ ‫רצף‬

Haśśōrēq

the red one

HAE Jer(7).5:2

1

—

Pāʾrur

redness

HAE 16.36; 17.1, 2; BPHB 313

4

—

Gaḥam

the blazing one

HAE Arad(7).31:6

1

1

Reṣep

[like] heating stones

BPHB 140

1

—

‫רצפה‬ (1×)

‫ׁשחרחר‬

Šĕḥarḥor

2

—

Cant 1:6

HAE 16.10; 21.23

almost black

‫ׁשוחר‬

Šôḥer

black

WSS 865; 946

2

Edomite

‫חׁשך‬

Ḥašōk

dark

WSS 1059

1

Aramaic

‫אכמא‬

ʾUkkāmāʾ

the black one

WSS 767

1

Ammonite

Appendix B6

606 Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫חם‬ ‫מלח‬

Ḥām

hot

HAE Or(8).4:1

No. 1

Bib. 1

Melaḥ

salty

BPHB 255a, b (or Mallaḥ ‘sailor’)

1

—

‫ׁשקץ‬ ‫מבן‬

Šiqqūṣ

digusting

NEE 89.78:5

1

—

Mabīn

the intelligent one

HAE 13.6

1

—

Compare

‫?יבין‬ (1×)

Edomite

‫חכם‬

Ḥākām

wise

WSS 1058?

1

Aramaic

‫חכם‬

Ḥakkīm

wise

Maraqten 81

1

‫נבל‬ ‫עפצח‬

Nābāl

stupid/noble (?)

HAE 1.124

1

1

ʾEpṣaḥ

cheerful

HAE Sam(8).1.31:2; 90:2

2

—

1

—

36

18

Ammonite

‫)?( חסף‬

‫סרר‬

Ḥāṣūp (?)

Sarar

stubborn (?)

WSS 869

HAE 13.69

cheeky

Aramaic

‫ׁשלה‬

Šelah

quiet

BPPS 145

1

Aramaic

‫חסן‬

Ḥasān

quiet

TSF 655.47:19

1

Aramaic

‫קׁשרא‬

Qašīrāʾ

strong

NTA 49.5:8

1

Aramaic

‫פטט‬

Paṭiṭ

garrulous

NTA 93.12:2′

1

6.2.2.╇Occupation Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

No.

Bib.

‫אגור‬ ‫כרמי‬

ʾAgûr

paid worker

HAE Arad(8).42:1 (?)

1

1

Karmî

wine-grower

HAE 10.13; 11.11; BPHB 71; 224a-c; 225; 226; Lemaire 217.13:2

7

3

‫ציד‬ ‫ערס‬

Ṣayyād

huntsman

HAE Arad(8).52:1

1

—

ʿArās

dough maker

NEE 89.78:6

1

—

10

4

Compare

Aramaic

‫נגר‬

Nager

carpenter

Maraqten 90

1

Aramaic

‫נגׁש‬

Nageš

master

Maraqten 90

1

Aramaic

‫חזרן‬

Ḥuzirān

swineherd (?)

Maraqten 80

1

Phoenician

‫מסכן‬

Misken

beggar

Benz 142

2

6.2.3.╇Origin Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫בוזי‬ ‫בזא‬

Bûzî

the one from Buz

HAE 14.58

No. 1

Bib. 2

Būzāʾ

the one from Buz (?)

HAE Seb(8).1:4

1

—

‫בעלמעני‬

Baʿalmĕʿōnî

the one from Baal-Meʿon

HAE Sam(8).1.27:3

1

—

Compare

Secular Names

607

Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫גדר‬

Gader

the one from [Bet-]Gader

BPHB 253

1

(1)

‫גדרי‬

‫היהדי‬ ‫כׁשי‬

Hayyĕhūdî

the Judean

HAE Sam(8).1.51:3

1

(1)

‫יהודי‬

Kūšî

the Ethiopian

HAE 11.12, 13; 21.89; BPHB 291

4

(3)

Ammonite

‫מצרי‬

‫כׁשי‬

Miṣrî

Kūšî

the Ethiopian

‫מצרי‬

Phoenician

‫מצרי‬

Bib.

Compare

NEE 71.70

1

HAE 13.71, 72; NEE 92.79:10 (with Judean father!); BPHB 244; 245; 246; Lemaire 210.10: obv.€3?

the Egyptian

Aramaic

No.

7

—

Miṣrî

the Egyptian

Maraqten 88

1

Miṣrî

the Egyptian

Benz 142; WSS 1093; FSL 47.21

‫נגבי‬

Nĕgbî

the one from the Negev

HAE 14.2

1

‫נגב‬

Negeb

[the one from] the Negev

HAE 22.4

1

‫קדרי‬

Qedārî

the one from Kedar

HAE 19.1

1

‫קעלתי‬

Qĕʿilātî

the one from Kegila

BPHB 169; 170; 342; 343?

4

‫קרי‬

Qāray

the one from the town

HAE Jer(7).5:3

1

‫ׂשוכי‬

Śōkî

the one from Socoh

HAE 21.19

1 25

3

7

Aramaic

‫חרני‬

Ḥarranî

the one from Harran

Maraqten 82

1

Aramaic

‫ערבי‬

ʿArabî

the Arabian

Maraqten 96

1

Aramaic

‫קדמו‬

Qadmû

the Arabian (?)

WSS 841

1

the one from Kition (Cyprus)

NEE 27.32

1

Phoenician

‫כתי‬

Kitî

Phoenician

‫נכרי‬

Nokrî

the alien

WTP 21.47

1

Phoenician

‫עכי‬

ʿAkkay

the one from Akko

NEE 24.1 (Benz 171)

1

Phoenician

‫פרסי‬

Parsay

the Persian

Benz 177

3

Phoenician

‫צרי‬

Ṣōray

the Tyrian

Benz 178

1

6.3.╇ Comparing the child with animals and plants 6.3.1.╇Animals Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

Epigraphic

‫עופי‬ ‫עפי‬

ʿAupay

like a bird

HAE Kom(8).1:1; 2:1

2

1

ʿAupay

like a bird

HAE 13.16; 16.65; BPHB 309

3

—

Phoenician

‫עפף‬

Aramaic

‫נׁשרי‬

‫בלבל‬ ‫ינה‬

No.

ʿOpep

fluttery (?)

Benz 174

Nišrî

like an eagle

WSS 765

Bib.

Compare ‫יפי‬/‫עו‬ 1 1

Bulbul

nightingale (?)

HAE 2.4; BPHB 123

2

—

Yonāh

pigeon

Lemaire 215.12:7

1

(1)

Appendix B6

608 Name

Transcrip. ‫ינה‬

Ammonite

‫הכוס‬

Hakkaus (?) ‫כוסה‬

Aramaic

Meaning Yōnah

Epigraphic pigeon

HAE Arad(7).38:1

the owl Kûsēh

No.

the owl

Bib.

1

1

—

NTA 42.4:13

1

‫ערב‬ ‫חגלה‬ ‫קראה‬ ‫אפרח‬

ʿOreb

raven

HAE 16.66

1

1

Ḥoglāh

partridge

HAE Sam(8).1 (name of a clan)

1

1

Qōrĕʾāh

partridge

HAE Jer(7).5:1

ʾEproḥ

chick

HAE 1.29, 117, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135; 20.12; BPHB 109; 110; 111; 306

‫בכרי‬

Bikrî

like a young camel

HAE 18.19

Aramaic

‫כפר‬

‫אבל‬

Kĕpīr

ʾIbl

Camel

1

(2)

16

—

1

1 (2)

‫קרא‬

‫בכר‬

BPPS 149 (a camel is carved on the seal)

HAE 11.10

young lion

Compare

BPPS 179

1

1

—

Aramaic

‫כפר‬

Kĕpīr

young lion

Maraqten 85

1

Phoenician

‫כפר‬

Kĕpīr

young lion

Benz 132; WSS 1086; 1087

3

Phoenician

‫לבאי‬

Lābīʾî

like a lion

FSL 27f.:5

‫צבי‬

Ṣĕbî

‫עירא‬

ʿAirāʾ

Moabite

‫יעל‬ ‫ׁשפן‬

HAE KAgr(9).2

male ass ‫עירם‬

ʿIram

foal of an ass (?)

1

1

(2)

1

2 1

ibex

HAE 10.60, 61

2

1

Šāpān

rock badger

HAE 1.52; 3.28; 10.90; 21.97, 98, 99, 100; BPHB 40; 41

9

4

‫ׁשפן‬

Šūʿāl

Šāpān

rock badger

WSS 1046

HAE 1.83, 89, 115, 150; 3.1; 10.16, 89; 14.21, 23; 21.79, 80, 81; Arad(8).49:14; Kom(8).9:1; Jer(7).31:1; Arad(7).38:2; BPHB 142; 378?; 384; 385; 386; 387

fox

‫צביא‬ ‫צביה‬

BPPS 191

Yāʿal

Moabite

‫ׁשעל‬

HAE Mur(7).2:2

gazelle

1

22

(1)

Ammonite

‫ׁשעל‬

Šuʿal

fox

WSS 951; 969; 979

Ammonite

‫ׁשעלי‬

Šuʿalî

like a fox

WSS 980

1

Aramaic

‫ׁשעלא‬

Šuʿalāʾ

the fox

NTA 89.13:10′

1

‫נמׁש‬

Nimšī

‫אמר‬

ichneumon

ʾImmer Ammonite Aramaic Ammonite

lamb

3

HAE 14.17, 18, 19; Asi(10).1; Sam(8).1.56:2; BPHB 242?; 264; 317

8

(1)

HAE Sam(8).1.29:3; BPHB 289

2

8

‫נמׁשי‬

‫אמר‬

ʾImmer

lamb

WSS 873

1

‫אמרן‬

ʾImrān

sheep

NTA 70.7:4

1

‫כבס‬

Kabas

lamb

AMM 36.2:10

1

‫חלדי‬

Ḥelday

mole

HAE 1.20; Arad(7).39:10; Arad(6).27:5; Lemaire 215.12:7

4

2

‫חלד‬ (1×), ‫חלדי‬ (1×)

‫גלל‬

Gālāl

turtle

HAE 1.59; BPHB 135a, b

2

2

‫גללי‬ (1×),

Secular Names Name

Transcrip. ‫חמטט‬

Aramaic

‫עכבר‬

ʿAkbār

Meaning Ḥamṭūṭ

609

Epigraphic lizard

No.

HAE 5.2, 9; 8.55; 16.51, 52, 53, 54; NEE 92.79:11; BPHB 146a, b; 147a-c; 201a, b; 270; 303; 344

mouse

Bib.

Compare

Maraqten 81

1

14

(3)

Ammonite

‫עכבר‬

ʿAkbōr

mouse

WSS 963; AMM 36.2:11

2

Aramaic

‫עכבר‬

ʿAkbār

mouse

Maraqten 96

1

Phoeician

‫עכבר‬

ʿAkbōr

mouse

Benz 171

1

Ammonite

‫אגברת‬

ʾAgboret

female mouse (acc. to AMM 52.131 Hübner)

‫געלי‬

Guʿalî

HAE 3.29, 30

dung beetle ‫געלא‬

Aramaic

Guʿalāʾ

the dung beetle

1

2

(1)

1

‫רימה‬ ‫חגב‬

Rîmāh

worm

Lemaire 215.12:6?

1

—

Ḥāgāb

locust

HAE 8.5, 6, 7, 8; 21.99; Lak(6).1.1:3; BPHB 39; Lemaire 215.12:5; IEJ 51 199.1:1

9

1

‫הגבה‬ ‫פרעׁש‬

Haggābāh (?) the locust (?)

HAE 16.45

1

1

Par↜ʿoš

HAE 1.21; 17.38; BPHB 101a, b

3

5

111

46

flea ‫פרעׁש‬

Phoenician

‫חזר‬

Aramaic

Par↜ʿoš Ḥuzir

flea

‫געל‬

Maraqten 75

Benz 177

swine

1

NTA 93.14:3′; 98.16:1; Röllig, AoF 24

3

368.1.1:12

‫כלבן‬

Aramaic

Kalbân

our dog (?)

NTA 34.3:10

1

6.3.2.╇Plants Name

Transcrip.

Meaning

‫ברׁשה‬

Bĕrōšāh

juniper tree ‫זתא‬

Aramaic

‫דרדר‬

Dardar

Aramaic

‫מרקחתא‬

Zetāʾ

thorn(bush) Marqaḥtāʾ

Epigraphic

No.

HAE 2.32 olive tree

1

—

2

(1)

3

1

Compare

Maraqten 89

FHCB 75.24; Lemaire 217.13:5 perfume

Bib.

Maraqten 89

1

‫?דרדע‬ 1

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments Fig. 2.1.╇ Faust and Bunimovitz 2003: 23 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 2.2.╇ Campbell 2002: 277; fig. 251 (reproduced by permission of American Schools of Oriental Research) Fig. 2.3.╇ Herr and Clark 2001: 40–41 (reproduced by permission of Larry Herr) Fig. 2.4.╇ King and Stager 2001: 29; fig. 3.15 (reproduced by permission of Lawrence Stager) Fig. 2.5.╇ Netzer 1992: 196–97; fig. 6 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society Fig. 2.6.╇ Netzer 1992: 196–97; fig. 7 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 2.7.╇ Stager 1985: 19; fig. 9 (reproduced by permission of BASOR) author: Fig. 2.8.╇ King and Stager 2001: 18; fig. 3.10 LXXIC (fig. (reproduced by permission of Lawrence 3.1) is not a Stager and the Semitic Museum, Harvard roman nuUniversity) meral. What should it be? Fig. 2.9.╇ Geva 1989: appendix: fig. 2 for chap. 6 and should (reproduced by permission of BAR/ 40: 276 be Archaeopress) 40.276 or 40; Fig. 2.10. Riklin 1997: 8–9; fig. 2 (reproduced by 276? permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.1.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after MarquetKrause 1949: pls. 97; LXXIC; 40: 276 Fig. 3.2.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Levy and Edelstein 1972: pl. 19; figs. 13, 10, 16, 19; 14, 1, 5; 15, 1–6; 16, 12 Fig. 3.3.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Levy and Edelstein 1972: pl. 19, figs. 13, 3; 14, 11; 16, 7 Fig. 3.4a.╇ Compiled after A. Mazar and PanitzCohen 2001: 4–5; pl. 56, 1–2; A. Mazar 1997: plan of Areas D and E, Str. II (reproduced by permission of Amihai Mazar) Fig. 3.4b.╇ A. Mazar and Panitz-Cohen 2001: fig. 13 (reproduced by permission of Amihai Mazar)

Fig. 3.5.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 22–26, 84 Fig. 3.6.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 71.1–6; 70.16–21; plan: pl. 94) Fig. 3.7.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 28.2, 6; 45.4; plan: pl. 84 Fig. 3.8.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Y. Aharoni 1973: pls. 52.1–2; 27.6; 28.5; 75.5; plan: pl. 83 Fig. 3.9.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Kletter and Herzog 2003: fig. on pp. 40–41 (reproduced by permission of Raz Kletter) Fig. 3.10.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 2031, 2032, 2396, 2404, 2574, 2848 Fig. 3.11.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 2313, 2316, 2319, 2408, 2539, 2699 Fig. 3.12.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Albright 1943: pl. 6; SN 1552–55; 1817; 1524; 1563; 1570 Fig. 3.13.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after James 1966: figs. 112.1–2; 31.28; 41.32 Fig. 3.14.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after James 1966: figs. 34.1–4; 34.8–14 Fig 3.15.╇ After B. Mazar et al. 1961: figs. 5.11; 6.3–4; 7.1, 4, 8; 8.2, 7, 9; pl. 11 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.16.╇ Compiled after Chambon 1984: 118; plan 2; pls. 66.2; 58.24; 60.12, 19 Fig. 3.17.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Chambon 1984: pls. 11; 63.2.4; 65.3; 66.2; 67.16; 68.5; 69.11; 73.9; 74.7; 48.10; 51.15; 56.15; 57.37; 58.3.78.4 Fig. 3.18.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Chambon 1984: pls. 12; 64.6 Fig. 3.19.╇ Ccompiled by Schmitt after Chambon 1984: 134; pls. 18; 54.12; 53.9; 57.32

610

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments Fig. 3.20.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Chambon 1984: 110; pls. 67.11; 70.1–3; 74.30; 77.910, 16, 19 Fig. 3.21.╇ Reproduced by permission of Paul Jacobs, Mississippi State University Fig. 3.22.╇ Reproduced by permission of Paul Jacobs, Mississippi State University Fig. 3.23.╇ Reproduced by permission of Paul Jacobs, Mississippi State University Fig. 3.24.╇ After Zevit 2001: fig. 3.42 (reproduced by permission of Ziony Zevit) Fig. 3.25.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Yadin 1958: pls. 65, 6–12; 151 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.26.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Yadin 1958: pls. 57, 22, 6; 60, 10; 56, 9; Yadin 1960: pl. 202 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.27.╇ After Yadin 1961: pl. 177 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.28.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Gal and Alexandre 2000: pl. 4, fig. 3.70 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.29.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Gal and Alexandre 2000: pl. 5, figs. 3.81, 90–92 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.30.╇ After Shiloh 1986: figs. 5–7; fig. 20: pl. 22.2; Ariel and de Groot 1996: 339 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.31.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: plan 16; pls. 102.2; 89.23; 90.9; 91.9–10; 92.8; 93.13 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.32.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: plan 10, pls. 102.9; 69.19; 71.1; 73.7; 73.8 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.33.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: plan 11, pls. 74.1–4; 75.7; 76.2, 8, 22–23; 79.12 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.34.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz 1990a: plan 10, pl. 102.4–5; 69.2; 70.19 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.35.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Nissinen and Münger 2009: figs. 3–4 (reproduced by permission of Martti Nissinen and Stefan Münger)

611

Fig. 3.36.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Kletter 2004: fig. 28.36, 3–4.; Ussishkin 2004: 664 (reproduced by permission of David Ussishkin) Fig. 3.37.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Kletter 2004: 2058, fig. 28.36:2; Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.52:9–15 (reproduced by permission of David Ussishkin) Fig. 3.38a. After Ussishkin 2004: fig. 9.32 (reproduced by permission of David Ussishkin) Fig. 3.38b. After Zimhoni 2004: 1860–63, figs.  26.37:9–12, 26.38 (reproduced by permission of David Ussishkin) Fig. 3.39.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.39:6–17; Ussishkin 2004: 478–79; Kletter 2004: fig. 28.40:4; Sass 2004: 2033, fig. 28.21:1 (reproduced by permission of David Ussishkin) Fig. 3.40.╇ After Ussishkin 2004: 471; Zimhoni 2004: fig. 26.35: 1–4; Kletter 2004: fig. 28.39:3 (reproduced by permission of David Ussishkin) Fig. 3.41.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.6; 79–104; 114 Fig. 3.42.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Tufnell 1953: pls. 31.10; 79–104; 115 Fig. 3.43.╇ After Y. Aharoni 1975: fig. 6 Fig. 3.44.╇ After Y. Aharoni 1975: pls. 3.1 and 60 Fig. 3.45.╇ Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan 14 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.46.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Fritz and Kempinski 1983: 41–42; pl. 38A; 150–52 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.47.╇ Compiled after Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 106 A–D; 171.7–8 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.48.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: pls. 149; 170.1 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.49.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan 22, pls. 111.3; 163.3; 164.2; 165.22; 166.1; 166.14 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.50.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan 22, pls. 111.5; 163.14; 165.6–9, 20–21; 166.1, 3, 15, 16 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.51.╇ After Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan 22; pls. 172.13; 164.11 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz)

612

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments

Fig. 3.52.╇ Compiled and redrawn after Fritz and Kempinski 1983: plan 23; pls. 111.2 and 4; 163.12; 166.3 (reproduced by permission of Harrassowitz) Fig. 3.53.╇ After Herzog et al. 1988: 69–70, figs. 5.5; 7.5, 15–17 (reproduced by permission of Zeʾev Herzog) Fig. 3.54.╇ After Loud 1948: fig. 100 Fig. 3.55.╇ After Loud 1948: fig. 101 Fig. 3.56.╇ Zevit 2000: fig. 3.55 (reproduced by permission of Ziony Zevit) Fig. 3.57.╇ After Ussishkin 1989: fig. 4 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.58.╇ After Ussishkin 1989: fig. 5 (reproduced by permission of Israel Exploration Society) Fig. 3.59.╇ Compiled after Schumacher 1908: 121–22; pls. 37–39 Fig. 3.60.╇ Finkelstein, Ussishkin, and Halpern 2006: fig. 33.5 (reproduced by permission of Israel Finkelstein) Fig. 3.61.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.62.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.63.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.64.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.65.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.66.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.67.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.68.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.69.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.70.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago)

Fig. 3.71.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.72.╇ Compiled after Harrison 2004: appendix D (reproduced by permission of The Oriental Institute, Chicago) Fig. 3.73.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Finkelstein et al. 2000a: figs. 11.43–51; 2000b: fig. 12.38:5 (reproduced by permission of Israel Finkelstein) Fig. 3.74.╇ After McCown 1947: fig. 50 Fig. 3.75.╇ Ben-Tor, Portugali, and Avissar 1981: figs. 9–10 (reproduced by permission of Amnon Ben-Tor) Fig. 3.76.╇ Compiled after Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: figs. 15–17 (reproduced by permission of Amnon Ben-Tor) Fig. 3.77.╇ After Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: plan 29 and figs. 15.3 and 6; 16.3, 5–7, 9; 17.3–5; 18.4–6; 17.8; 18.3 (reproduced by permission of Amon Ben Tor) Fig. 3.78.╇ Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: plan 27 (reproduced by permission of Amnon Ben-Tor) Fig. 3.79.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Pritchard 1985: figs. 5 and 177 Fig. 3.80.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Pritchard 1985: figs. 7.8, 178 Fig. 3.81.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Finkelstein 1993: 27, figs. 6.52–54 (reproduced by permission of Israel Finkelstein) Fig. 3.82.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Rast 1978: figs. 30–69; 97a Fig. 3.83.╇ Compiled after P. M. Fischer 1995: figs. 5, 7.1–4 (reproduced by permission of Peter Fischer) Fig. 3.84.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Lenzen, Gordon, and McQuitty 1985: 154–55; fig. 2; pl. 22.2 Fig. 3.85.╇ Compiled by Schmitt using Daviau et al. 2003: Tell Jawa Artefact Database, vols. 1–2 (reproduced by permission of P. M. M. Daviau) Fig. 3.86.╇ Compiled by Schmitt using Daviau et al. 2003: Tell Jawa Artefact Database, vols. 1–2 (reproduced by permission of P. M. M. Daviau) Fig. 3.87.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Yassine 1984: figs. 1–4 Fig. 3.88.╇ After Yassine 1988: 84–89, fig. 6

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments Fig. 3.89.╇ Compiled and redrawn by Schmitt after Potts, Colledge, and Edwards 1985: 203–4; fig. 11; pls. 41–42 Fig. 3.90.╇ Herr 2006: fig. 1 (reproduced by permission of Larry Herr) Fig. 3.91.╇ Herr 2006: fig.3 (reproduced by permission of Larry Herr) Fig. 3.92.╇ Drawing by Schmitt Fig. 3.93.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan 1971: figs. 86–87 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.94.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan and Porath 1993: plan 12; figs. 42.1.4.5.9 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.95.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: plan 2:10, figs. 3.69.4; 3.71.5; 3.72.4; 3.75; 3.76 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.96.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: plan 2.12; figs. 3.88:7–9, 17; 3.89.4, 10 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.97.╇ After Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: plan 2.7 (reproduced by permission of Israel Antiquities Authority) Fig. 3.98.╇ Redrawn and compiled by Schmitt after Dothan and Freedman 1967 Fig. 3.99.╇ Compiled after Stone and Zimansky 1999: 43, figs. 43 and 86.5 (reproduced by permission of Elizabeth C. Stone) Fig. 3.100.╇ Compiled after Stone and Zimansky 1999: 47–49, figs. 52, 86.1 (reproduced by permission of Elizabeth C. Stone) Fig. 3.101.╇ Compiled after Stone and Zimansky 1999: 50, figs. 55 and 86.4 (reproduced by permission of Elizabeth C. Stone) Fig. 3.102.╇ Mazzoni in Cecchini and Mazzoni 1998: 171, figs. 5, 22–23; p. 208, fig. 4 (reproduced by permission of Serena Maria Cecchini) Fig. 5.1.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 305b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.2.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 312a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.3.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 317c (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.4.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 312b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)

613

Fig. 5.5.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 297a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.6.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 297b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.7.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 301a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.8.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 301b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.9.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 289 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.10.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 286 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.11.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 287 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.12.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 288b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.13.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 288c (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.14.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 331ac (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.15.╇ After Welten 1969: 40 Z II B2 Fig. 5.16.╇ After Welten 1969: 40 S II A1 Fig. 5.17.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 293a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.18.╇ Drawing by Schmitt Fig. 5.19.╇ Sass 1993: 85 Fig. 5.20.╇ After Cross 1999: 43 Fig. 5.21.╇ After Welten 1969: 36 Fig. 5.22.╇ After Welten 1969: 36 Fig. 5.23.╇ After Welten 1969: 36 Fig. 5.24.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 282c (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.25.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 315b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.26.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 316 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.27.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 315a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.28.╇ Sass 1993: 96 Fig. 5.29.╇ Sass 1993: 95 Fig. 5.30.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 290 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.31.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 331b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.32.╇ Sass 1993: 144 Fig. 5.33.╇ Hübner 1993: 11 Fig. 5.34.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 211c (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel)

614

Illustration Sources: Acknowledgments

Fig. 5.35.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 213 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.36.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 241bc (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.37.╇ Sass 1993: 99 Fig. 5.38.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 226b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.39.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 247b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.40.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 274d (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.41.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 249 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.42.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 246 (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.43.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 250a (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.44.╇ Keel and Uehlinger, GGG 250b (reproduced by permission of Othmar Keel) Fig. 5.45.╇ Sass 1993: 226 Fig. 7.1.╇ After Macalister 1912: 1.325–31, pls. 56.17, 84–85 Fig. 7.2.╇ After Guy and Engberg 1938: 17–119, fig. 143 and pls. 68.9–20; 69.1–4; 164–68

Fig. 7.3.╇ After McCown 1947: 82–83, fig. 19.1 Fig. 7.4.╇ After McCown 1947: 102, fig. 11 Fig. 7.5.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 21–22, fig. 10; Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: 135–36, 197–98 Fig. 7.6.╇ After Tufnell 1953: 239–40, fig. 28 Fig. 7.7.╇ After Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 5 Fig. 7.8.╇ After Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 10 Fig. 7.9.╇ After Mackenzie 1912–13: pl. 10 Fig. 7.10.╇ After Tufnell 1953: 179–87 Fig. 7.11.╇ Compiled by Schmitt after Holland 1977: figs. 7–9 Fig. 7.12.╇ Compiled after E. Mazar and B. Mazar 1989: 50–53, plan 20, pls. 25–29 (reproduced by permission of E. Mazar) Fig. 7.13a. After Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: fig. 11 Fig. 7.13b. Compiled by Schmitt after Crowfoot, Crowfoot, and Kenyon 1957: fig. B, figs. 13–33 Fig. 7.14.╇ Illustration by Schmitt

Bibliography Abusch, T., and Toorn, K. van der 1999 Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx. 2002 Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Towards a History and Understanding of Babylonian Witchcraft Beliefs and Literature. Ancient Magic and Divination 5. Leiden: Brill. Achenbach, R. 1991 Israel zwischen Verheissung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu DeuteÂ� ronomium 5–11. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23, Theologie 422. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ackerman, S. 1987 “And the Women Knead Dough”: The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in SixthCentury Judah. Pp. 109–24 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992 Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. HSM 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1998 Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. Anchor Bible Reference Library 17. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 2003 At Home with the Goddess. Pp. 455–68 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. G. W. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2008 Household Religion, Family Religion, and Women’s Religion in Ancient Israel. Pp. 127–58 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell. Aharoni, M. 1993 Arad: The Israelite Citadels. Pp. 82–87 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Aharoni, Y. 1973 Beer-Sheba I. Excavations at Tell Beer-Sheba: 1969–1971 Seasons. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 2. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. 1975 Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V). Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 4. Tel Aviv: Gateway. 1981 Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1984 Das Land der Bibel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Ahlström, G. W. 1984 An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religions in Ancient Palestine. Studia Orientalia 55: 117–245. Albertz, R. 1974 Weltschöpfung und Menschenschöpfung: Untersucht bei Deuterojesaja, Hiob und in den Psalmen. Calwer theologische Monographien A 3. Stuttgart: Calwer.

615

616

Bibliography

1978a Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon. Calwer theologische Monographien A 9. Stuttgart: Calwer. [Repr. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.] 1978b Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog. ZAW 90: 348–74. 1994 A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1995 Wieviel Pluralismus kann sich eine Religion leisten? Zum religionsinternen PluraÂ� lismus im Alten Israel. Pp. 193–213 in Pluralismus und Identität, ed. J. Mehlhausen. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 8. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag. 1996 Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 8/1. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1997 Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 8/2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2003 Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century b.c.e. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2004 Religious Practices of the Individual and Family: Israel. Pp. 429–30 in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide, ed. S. I. Johnston. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2008 Family Religion in Ancient Israel and Its Surroundings. Pp. 89–112 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell. Albright, W. F. 1932 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 1: The Pottery of the First Three Campaigns. AASOR 12. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1933 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 1a: The Bronze Age Pottery of the Fourth Campaign. AASOR 13. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1938 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 2: The Bronze Age. AASOR 17. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1939 Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beth Mirsim. Pp. 107–20 in Mélanges syriens offerts à M. R. Dussaud. Biblithèque archéologique et historique 30/1. Paris. Geuthner. 1943 The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 3: The Iron Age. AASOR 21–22. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1953 Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. The Ayer Lectures of the Colgate-Rochester Divinity School 1941. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Albright, W. F., and Kelso, J. L. 1968 The Excavation at Bethel (1934–1960). AASOR 39. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. Amiran, R. 1953 The Tumuli West of Jerusalem: Survey and Excavations. IEJ 8: 205–27. 1971 Hakiramikah Hakedumah Shal Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. ʾAmr, A.-J. 1988 Ten Human Clay Figurines from Jerusalem. Levant 20: 185–96. Anderson, G. 1987 Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance. HSM 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Bibliography

617

Anderson, W. 1979 A Stratigraphic and Ceramic Analysis of the Late Bronze and Iron Age Strata of Sounding Y at Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Ariel, D. T., and de Groot, A. 1996 Excavations at the City of David IV: Various Reports. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Arneth, M. 2000 Sonne der Gerechtigkeit: Studien zur Solarisierung der Jahwe-Religion im Lichte von Psalm 72. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische RechtsÂ� geschichte 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Assmann, J. 1990 Maʾat: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im Alten Ägypten. Munich: Beck. 1991 Magische Weisheit: Wissensformen im ägyptischen Kosmotheismus. Pp. 241–57 in Weisheit: Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation III, ed. A. Assmann. Munich: Fink. 1997 Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. New Haven, CT: Harvard University Press. 2003 Die Mosaische Unterscheidung. Munich: Hanser. 2006 Kulte und Religionen: Merkmale primärer und sekundärer Religion(serfahrung) im Alten Ägypten. Pp. 269–80 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter. Aufrecht, W. E. 1989 A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 4. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. 1999 Ammonite Texts and Language. Pp. 163–88 in Ancient Ammon, ed. B. MacDonald and R. W. Younker. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 17. Leiden: Brill. Austin, J. L. 1975 How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Avigad, N. 1966 Two Phoenician Votive Seals. IEJ 16: 243–51. 1989 Another Group of West-Semitic Seals from the Hecht Collection. Michmanim 4: 7–21. 1993 Makmish. Pp. 932–33 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Avigad, N.; Heltzer, M.; and Lemaire, A. 2000 West Semitic Seals: Eight–Sixth Centuries b.c.e. The Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Collection B. Haifa: University of Haifa. Avigad, N., and Sass, B. 1997 Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bachelot, L., and Fales, F. M., eds. 2005 Tell Shiuk Fawqani 1994–1998, vol. 2. History of the Ancient Near East: Monograph 4/2. Padua: S.A.R.G.O.N. Badre, L.; Gublel, E.; Al-Maqdissi, M.; and Sader, H. 1990 Tell Kazel (Syria): Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1978–1987. Preliminary Reports. Berytus 38: 9–124.

618

Bibliography

Badre, L.; Gubel, E.; Capet, E.; and Panayot, N. 1994 Tell Kazel (Syrie) Rapport Préliminaire sur les 4e–8e Campagnes de Fouilles (1988– 1992). Syria 71: 259–346. Bagnall, R. S. 1993 Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Barnett, R. D. 1982 Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Qedem 14. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology. Beck, P.  1982 The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud). Tel Aviv 9: 3–68. 1993 Early Bronze Age ‘Bed Models’ Reconsidered. Tel Aviv 20: 33–40. Beckman, G. M. 1983 Hittite Birth Rituals. 2nd ed. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 29. Wiesbaden: HarÂ� rassowitz. Beer, G., and Galling, K. 1939 Exodus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1st series 3. Tübingen: Mohr. Begrich, J. 1934 Das priesterliche Heilsorakel. ZAW 52: 81–92. [Repr. pp. 217–31 in J. Begrich. GeÂ� sammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei 21. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964.] Beit-Arieh, I., ed. 1995 Ḥorvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Negev. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University 11. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Ben-Ami, D. 2006 Early Iron Age Cult Places: New Evidence from Tel Hazor. Tel Aviv 33: 121–33. Bendor, S. 1996 The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ʾAb) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7. Jerusalem: Simor. Bennet, C. M., and Bienkowski, P. 1995 Excavations at Tawilan in Southern Jordan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2008 Zoomorphic Vessels from Tel Miqne–Ekron and the Different Styles of Philistine Pottery. IEJ 58: 24–47. 2010 Philistine Iconography: A Wealth of Style and Symbolism. OBO 241. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ben-Shlomo, D., and Press, M. D. 2009 A Reexamination of Aegean-Style Figurines in Light of New Evidence from Ashdod, Askelon, and Ekron. BASOR 353: 39–74. Ben-Tor, A. 1989 Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–58, Text. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1996 Tel Hazor, 1996. IEJ 46: 262–68. Ben-Tor, A., and Portugali, Y. 1987 Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Qedem 24. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Bibliography

619

Ben-Tor, A.; Portugali, Y.; and Avissar, M. 1981 The First Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish, 1978–1979: Preliminary Report. IEJ 31: 137–64. Benz, F. L. 1972 Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Berlinerblau, J. 1991 The Israelite Vow: Distress or Daily Life? Bib 72: 548–55. 1993 The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm in the Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique. JSOT 60: 3–26. 1995 Some Sociological Observations on Moshe Greenberg’s Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. JNSL 21: 1–14. 1996 The Vow and the ‘Popular Religious Groups’ of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry. JSOTSup 210. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Bernett, M., and Keel, O. 1998 Mond, Stier, und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell). OBO 161. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bertholet, A. 1907 Magie. Pp. 1840–50 in vol. 3 of RGG. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr. 1926 Das Dynamistische im Alten Testament. Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Biggs, R. D. 1967 ŠÀ.ZI.GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Texts from Cuneiform Sources. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin. Biran, A. 1994 Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1998 Sacred Spaces of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan. BAR 24/5: 38–45, 70. Biran, A., and Aviram. J., eds. 1993 Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bird, P. A. 1987 The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus. Pp. 397–419 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1991 Israelite Religion and Faith of Israel’s Daughters: Reflections on Gender and Religious Definition. Pp. 97–108 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. D. D. Jobling, L. Peggy, and G. T. Sheppard. Cleveland: Pilgrim. Black, J., and Green, A. 2004 Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. London: British Museum. Blenkinsopp, J. 1997 The Family in First Temple Israel. Pp. 48–103 in Families in Ancient Israel: The Family, Religion, and Culture, ed. L. G. Perdue. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

620

Bibliography

Bliss, F. J., and Macalister, R. S. A. 1902 Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Bloch-Smith, E. 1992a Burials: Israelite. Pp. 785–89 in vol. 1 of ABD. New York: Doubleday. 1992b Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2002 Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space. Pp. 83–94 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2005 Maṣṣebōt in the Israelite Cult. Pp. 28–39 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark. Blum, E. 1998 Beschneidung II: Bibel. Pp. 1355–56 in vol. 1 of RGG. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2008 Die Kombination I der Wandinschrift vom Tell Deir ʿAlla: Vorschläge zur ReÂ� konstruktion mit historisch-kritischen Anmerkungen. Pp. 573–601 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt— FS R. Albertz, ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Bodel, J., and Olyan, S. M. 2008a Comparative Perspectives. Pp. 276–82 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell. Bodel, J., and Olyan, S. M., eds. 2008b Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell. Bonatz, D. 2000 Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal. Mainz: von Zabern. Bordreuil, P. 1986 Catalogue des sceaux ouest-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. 1993 Le répertoire iconographique des sceaux araméens inscrits et son évolution. Pp. 74– 100 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Borghouts, J. F. 1971 The Magical Text of Papyrus Leiden I 348. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 51. Leiden: Brill. 1978 Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts. Nisaba 9. Leiden: Brill. Borowski, O. 2003 Daily Life in Biblical Times. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 5. Leiden: Brill. Bourke, S. J. 1989 Pella: Early Bronze–Iron Age Periods. Pp. 414–24 in vol. 2/2 of Archaeology of Jordan, ed. D. Homés-Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters.

Bibliography

621

Bourke, S. J., et al. 2003 Preliminary Report on the University of Sydney’s Eighteenth and Nineteenth Seasons of Excavations at Pella (Tabaqat Faḥl) in 1996–97. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 47: 335–88. Bousset, W. 1906 Das Wesen der Religion. Halle: Gebauer-Schwetzschke. Braemer, F. 1982 L’architecture domestique du Levant à l’âge du fer. Recherche sur les civilisations 8. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. Braudel, F. 1980 On History. London: Weinfeld & Nicolson. Brenner, A. 1992 The Hebrew God and His Female Complements. Pp. 56–71 in A Feminist Companion to World Mythology, ed. C. Larrington. London: Pandora. Brentjes, B. 1983 Alte Siegelkunst des vorderen Orients. Leipzig: Seemann. Bretschneider, J. 1991 Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jahrtausend. AOAT 229. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Briend, H., and Humbert, J.-B. 1980 Tell Keisan: Une cite phénicienne en Galilée. OBOSA 1. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Paris: Gabalda. Brug, J. F. 1985 A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. British Archaeological Reports International Series 265. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Brueggemann, W. 1997 Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy: Minneapolis: Fortress. Buhl, M. L., and Holm-Nielsen, E. 1969 Shiloh. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z. 1993 Beth Shemesh. Pp. 249–53 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. 2009 The Archaeology of Border Communities: Renewed Excavations at Beth Shemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age. Near Eastern Archaeology 72/3: 114–42. Burch, T. K. 1974 Some Demographic Determinants of Average Household Size: An Analytic Approach. Pp. 91–102 in Household and Family in Past Time, ed. P. Laslett and R. Wall. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press. Burns, J. B. 1998 Female Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age: A Study in Text and Artifact. Andrews University Seminary Studies 36: 23–49. Butterweck, C. 1988 Eine phönizische Beschwörung. Pp. 435–37 in Weisheitstexte, Mythen und Epen, ed. D. O. Edzard. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 3/3. Gütersloh: GüterÂ� sloher Verlag.

622

Bibliography

Cahill, J., and Tarler, D. 1993 Tell el-Ḥammah. Pp. 561–62 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Callaway, J. A. 1965 The 1964 ʿAi (et-Tell) Excavations. BASOR 178: 13–40. 1983 A Visit with Ahilud: A Revealing Look at Village Life When Israel First Settled the Promised Land. BAR 9/5: 42–53. 1993a Ai. Pp. 39–45 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. 1993b Raddana, Khirbet. Pp. 1253–54 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Callaway, J. A., and Cooley, R. E. 1971 A Salvage Excavation at Raddana. BASOR 201: 9–19. Campbell, E. F. 1993 Shechem: Tell Balatah. Pp. 1345–54 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. 2002 Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâtah. Vol. 1. ASOR Archaeological Report 6. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Capet, E., and Gubel, E. 2000 Tell Kazel: Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200–612 b.c.). Pp. 425–57 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters. Cartledge, T. M. 1992 Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup 147. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Cecchini, S. M., and Mazzoni, S. 2000 Tell Afis (Siria). Egitto e Vicino Oriente 22: 1–103. Cecchini, S. M., and Mazzoni, S., eds. 1998 Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sull’ acropolis 1988–1992. Pisa: ETS. Chambon, A. 1984 Tell el-Farʿah 1: L’Age du Fer. Recherche sur les Civilisations Memoires 31. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations / CNRS. 1993 Farʿah, Tell el: Late Bronze Age to the Roman Period. Pp. 439–40 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Childs, B. S. 1974 The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. London: SCM / Philadelphia: Westminster. 1985 Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM. Cholidis, N. 1992 Möbel in Ton: Untersuchungen zur archäologischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Terrakottamodelle von Tischen, Stühlen und Betten aus dem Alten Orient. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Clark, D. R. 2003 Bricks, Sweat and Tears: The Human Investment in Constructing a “Four Room” House. Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 34–43. Coats, G. W. 1999 Exodus 1–18. FOTL 2A. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Bibliography

623

Cogan, M. 1974 Imperialism and Religion in Assyria, Judah and Israel in the 8th and 7th Centuries b.c.e. SBLMS 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 1993 Judah under Assyrian Hegemony: A Re-examination of Imperialism and Religion. JBL 112: 403–14. Cohen, R., and Yisrael, Y. 1995 Iron Age Fortresses at ʿEn Ḥazeva. BA 58: 223–35. 1996 ʿEn Ḥazeva: 1990–1994. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 15: 110–16. 1997 Haḥapirot beʿein-ḥazebah/tamar hamikrʾait weharumit. Qadmoniot 112: 78–92. Collon, D. 1988 First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum. Conrad, J. 1980 Welche Bedeutung hatte die Familie für die Religion Altisraels? TLZ 105: 481–88. Cook, S. A. 1930 The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeology. Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1925. London: Oxford University Press. Cornelius, I. 2004 The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah, c. 1500–1000 b.c.e. OBO 204. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2007 A Terracotta Horse in Stellenbosch and the Function of Palestinian Horse Figurines. ZDPV 123: 28–36. Crawford, T. G. 1992 Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age. American University Studies 7, Theology and Religion 120. New York: Peter Lang. Cross, F. M. 1999 King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery. BAR 25/2: 42–45. 2006 Personal Names in the Samaria Papyri. BASOR 344: 75–90. Crowfoot, J. W., and Crowfoot, G. M. 1938 Samaria–Sebaste II: Early Ivories from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Crowfoot, J. W.; Crowfoot G. M.; and Kenyon, K. M. 1957 Samaria–Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Crowfoot, J. W.; Kenyon, K. M.; and Sukenik, E. L. 1942 Samaria–Sebaste I: The Buildings of Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Crüsemann, F. 1969 Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1978 “. . . er aber soll dein Herr sein” (Gen 3,16): Die Frau in der patriarchalischen Welt des Alten Testaments. Pp. 13–106 in Als Mann und Frau geschaffen: Exegetische Studien zur Rolle der Frau, ed. F. Crüsemann and H. Thyen. Kennzeichen 2. Gelnhausen: Burckhardt. Cryer, F. H. 1991 Der Prophet und der Magier: Bemerkungen anhand einer überholten Diskussion. Pp.  79–88 in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: FS S.  HerrÂ� mann, ed. R. Liwak and S. Wagner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

624

Bibliography

Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-historical Investigation. JSOTSup 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Curtis, J., and Green, A. 1997 Excavations at Khirbet Khatuniyeh. Saddam Dam Report 11. London: British Museum. Cunningham, G. 1997 Deliver Me from Evil: Mesopotamian Incantations 2500–1500 b.c. Studia Pohl: Series Major 17. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Dahm, U. 2003 Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel: Ein Kultur- und religionswissenschaftlicher Beitrag. BZAW 327. Berlin: de Gruyter. Daviau, P. M. M. 1993 Houses and Their Furnishings in Bronze Age Palestine: Domestic Activity Areas and Artefact Distribution in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. JSOT and ASOR Monograph Series 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2001 Family Religion: Evidence for the Paraphernalia of the Domestic Cult. Pp. 199–229 in The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of P. E. Dion, vol. 2, ed. J. W. Wevers and M. Weigl. JSOTSup 325. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2006 Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine in Its Landscape: Iron Age Towns, Forts, and Shrines. ZDPV 122: 14–30. 2007 Stone Altars Large and Small: The Iron Age Altars from Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan). Pp. 125–49 in Bilder als Quellen / Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, ed. S. Bickel et al. OBO Special Volume. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Daviau, P. M. M., and Dion, P. E. 2002 Khirbet el-Mudeina. AJA 106: 446–48. Daviau, P. M. M., and Steiner, M. 2000 A Moabite Sanctuary at Khirbat al-Mudayna. BASOR 320: 1–21. Daviau, P. M. M., et al. 2003 Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, vols. 1–2. CHANE 11/1–2. Leiden: Brill. 2006 Excavations and Survey at Khirbat al-Mudayna and Its Surroundings: Preliminary Report of the 2001, 2004, and 2005 Seasons. ADAJ 50: 259–83. Davies, G. I., ed. 1991 Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dejkstra, M. 2001 Women and Religion in the Old Testament. Pp. 164–88 in Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Religion and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah, ed. B. Becking, M. C. A. Korpel, and K. J. H. Vriezen. Biblical Seminar 77. Sheffield: Continuum. Dessel, J. P. 1988 An Iron Age Figurine from Tel Halif. BASOR 269: 59–64. Deutsch, R. 1999 Messages from the Past: Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Isaiah through the Destruction of the First Temple. Tel Aviv: Achaeological Center. 1994

Bibliography

625

2003a Biblical Period Hebrew Bullae: The Josef Chaim Kaufman Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. 2003b A Hoard of Fifty Hebrew Clay Bullae from the Time of Hezekiah. Pp. 45–98 in Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, ed. R. Deutsch. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Deutsch, R., and Heltzer, M. 1994 Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1995 New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1997 Windows to the Past. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. 1999 West Semitic Epigraphic News of the 1st Millenium b.c.e. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Deutsch, R., and Lemaire, A. 2000 Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Mussaieff Collection. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center. Dever, W. G. 1970a Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964–66 Seasons. Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem 1. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. 1970b Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet El-Khôm. HUCA 40–41 (1969–70) 139–204. 1990 Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1991 Women’s Popular Religion, Suppressed in the Bible, Now Revealed by Archaeology. BAR 17/2: 61–5. 1995 “Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?” Part II: Archaeology and the Religions of Ancient Israel. BASOR 298: 37–58. 2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 2005 Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Dever, W. G., et al. 1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967–70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College. 1986 Gezer IV: The 1969–1971 Seasons in Field IV: The Acropolis. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology. Dietrich, M., and Loretz, O. 1990 Mantik in Ugarit: Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen – NeÂ� kromantie. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syren-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 3. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2005 “Weihen” (ʿly Š) von pgr, Ochsen und Gegenständen in KTU 6.13, 6.14 und 6.62. UF 37: 227–39. Dion, P. E., and Daviau, P. M. M. 2000 An Inscribed Incense Altar of Iron Age II at Ḥirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan). ZDPV 116: 1–13. Dijk, J. van 1973 Une incantation accompagnant la naissance de l’homme. Or n.s. 42: 502–7.

626

Bibliography

Di Vito, R. A. 1993 Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: Designation and Conception of the Personal God. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Dohmen, C. 2004 Exodus 19–40. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Doll, P. 1985 Menschenschöpfung und Weltschöpfung in der alttestamentlichen Weisheit. SBS 117. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Donner, H. 1986 Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen, vol. 2. ATD Ergänzungsreihe 4/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Donner, H., and Röllig, W., eds. 1979 Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. 3rd–4th eds. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2002 Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dor, S. 1996 The Relationship between the Dwelling Place and the Family in Ancient Israel. ErIsr 25 (Aviram volume): 151–57, 93*–94*. Dorneman, R. H. 1983 The Archaeology of Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum. Dothan, M. 1971 Ashdod II: The Second and Third Season of Excavations—1963, 1965; III: Soundings in 1967. ʿAtiqot 9–10. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 1993 Ashdod. Pp. 93–102 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D. 2005 Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969). Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 24. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dothan, M., and Dothan, T. 1992 People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan. Dothan, M., and Freedman, D. N. 1967 Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations. ʿAtiqot 7. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dothan, M., and Porath, Y. 1982 Ashdod IV: The Fourth Season of Excavations. ʿAtiqot 15. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 1993 Ashdod V: The Fourth–Sixth Seasons of Excavations, 1968–1970. ʿAtiqot 13. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Dothan, T. 1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 1990 Ekron of the Philistines, Part I. BAR 16/1: 26–36. 2003 The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Interactions. Pp. 189–211 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Bibliography

627

Dothan, T., and Gitin, S. 1993 Miqne, Tel (Ekron). Pp. 1051–59 in Vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Douglas, M. 1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1970 Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff. 1972a Deciphering a Meal. Daedalus 1972/winter: 61–81. 1972b Self Evidence: Henry Myers Lecture. Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute: 27–44. 1999 Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004 Jacob’s Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duhm, B. 1875 Die Theologie der Propheten als Grundlage für die Innere Entwicklungsgeschichte der israelitischen Religion. Bonn: Marcus. Durham, J. I. 1987 Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word. Durkheim, É. 1981 Die elementaren Formen des religiösen Lebens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Orig. pub., 1899] Ebach, J., and Rüterswörden, U. 1977 Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament. UF 9: 57–70. 1980 Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament, Part 2. UF 12: 205–20. Ebertz, M., and Schultheis, F. 1986 Einleitung: Populäre Religiosität. Pp. 11–52 in Volkfrömmigkeit in Europa, ed. M. Ebertz and F. Schultheis. Beiträge zur Soziologie populärer Religiosität 14. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. Eggler, J., and Keel, O. 2006 Corpus der Siegel Amulette aus Jordanien: Vom Neolithikum bis zur Perserzeit. OBOSA 25. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Eichrodt, W. 1964 Theologie des Alten Testaments, vols. 2–3. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Eissfeldt, O. 1945–48â•… ‘Mein Gott’ im Alten Testament. ZAW 61: 3–16. Ellens, D. L. 2008 Women in the Sex Texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 458. New York: T. & T. Clark. Elliger, K. 1962 Teraphim. Pp. 690–91 in vol. 6 of RGG. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1966 Leviticus. HAT 1/4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Engle, J. R. 1979 Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age and Asherah and Asherim. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Engnell, I. 1952 Pesaḥ-Maṣṣōt and the Problem of “Patternism.” Orientalia Suecana 1: 39–50.

628 Eshel, I. 1995

Bibliography

Two Pottery Groups from Kenyon’s Excavations on the Eastern Slope of Ancient Jerusalem. Pp. 1–157 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eshel, I., and Prag, K., eds. 1995 Excavations by K.M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farber, W. 1989 Schlaf, Kindchen, Schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale. Mesopotamian Civilizations 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Faust, A. 1999a Differences in Family Structure between Cities and Villages of the Iron Age II. Tel Aviv 26: 233–52. 1999b Socioeconomic Stratification in an Israelite City: Hazor VI as a Test Case. Levant 31: 179–90. 2000 The Rural Community in Ancient Israel during the Iron Age II. BASOR 317: 17–39. Faust, A., and Bunimovitz, S. 2003 The Four Room House: Embodying Iron Age Israelite Society. Near Eastern Archaeology 66: 22–31. Fichtner, J. 1956 Die etymologischen Ätiologien in der Namengebung der geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments. VT 6: 372–96. 1965 Zum Problem Glaube und Geschichte in der israelitisch-jüdischen Weisheitsliteratur (1951). Pp. 9–17 in J. Fichtner, Gottes Weisheit: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, ed. K. D. Fricke. Arbeiten zur Theologie 2/3. Stuttgart: Calwer. Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1993 Shiloh: Renewed Excavations. Pp. 1366–70 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. 1996 The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View. Levant 28: 177–87. 2000a Omride Architecture. ZDPV 116: 114–38. 2001 The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link. Levant 33: 105–15. 2005 Megiddo. Tel Aviv 23: 170–84. Finkelstein, I., ed. 1993 Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv University Monograph Series. Jerusalem: Graphit. Finkelstein, I.; Ussishkin, D.; and Halpern, B., eds. 2000 Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. 2 vols. Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 18. Jerusalem: Graphit. 2006 Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. 2 vols. Tel Aviv University Monograph Series 24. Tel Aviv: Emery & Claire Yass. Fischer, A. A. 2005 Tod und Jenseits im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Bibliography

629

Fischer, I. 2001 Ruth. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Fischer, P. M. 1991 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1989. First Season Preliminary Report. ADAJ 35: 67–104. 1993 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1991. Second Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 37: 279–305. 1994 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1992. Third Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 38: 127–45. 1995 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1993. Fourth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 39: 93–119. 1996 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1994. Fifth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 40: 101–10. 1997 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1995–1996. Sixth and Seventh Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 41: 129–45. 1998 Tell Abu Al-Kharaz: The Swedish Jordan Expedition 1997. Eighth Season Preliminary Excavation Report. ADAJ 42: 213–23. Fohrer, G. 1966 Teraphim. P. 1952 in vol. 3 of Biblisch-Historisches Handwörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1969 Geschichte der israelitischen Religion. De Gruyter Lehrbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1973 History of Israelite Religion, trans. D. E. Green. London: S.P.C.K. Forster, B., ed. 1993–96â•… Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2 vols. Bethesda, MD: CDL.  Fortes, M. 1965 Some Reflections on Ancestor Worship in Africa. Pp. 122–42 in African Systems of Thought, ed. M. Fortes and G. Dieterlen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fowler, J. D. 1988 Theophoric Personal Names: A Comparative Study. JSOTSup 49. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Fowler, M. D. 1984 Concerning the ‘Cultic Structure’ at Taanach. ZDPV 100: 30–34. Franken, H. J., and Steiner, M. L. 1990 Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 2: The Iron Age Extramural Quarter on the South-East Hill. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frankfort, H. 1939 Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum. Frazer, J. G. 1910 Totemism and Exogamy. London: Macmillan. 1922 The Golden Bough. London: Macmillan. 1989 Der goldene Zweig: Das Geheimnis von Glauben und Sitten der Völker. Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1928. Reinbek: Rowohlt. [Original, 1928]

630

Bibliography

Freud, S. 1989 Totem und Tabu (1912–1913). Pp. 287–444 in Sigmund Freud: Studienausgabe, vol. 9. 5th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. Frey-Anthes, H. 2007 Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiwesen und Grenzgänger: Vorstellungen von “Dämonen” im Alten Israel. OBO 227. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Friedl, C. 2000 Polygynie in Mesopotamien und Israel: Sozialgeschichtliche Analyse polygamer Beziehungen anhand rechtlicher Texte aus dem 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. AOAT 277. Münster: Ugarit. Friedrich, J., and Röllig, W. 1999 Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. 3rd ed., M. G. A. Guzzo, and W. R. Mayer. AnOr 55. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Fritz, V. 1977 Tempel und Zelt: Studien zu Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift. WMANT 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1985 Einführung in die biblische Archäologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1990a Kinneret: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell el-ʿOrēme am See Gennesaret 1982–1985. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1990b Die Stadt im Alten Israel. Beck’s Archäologische Bibliothek. Munich: Beck. 1993 Open Cult Places in Israel in the Light of Parallels from Prehistoric Europe and PreClassical Greece. Pp. 182–87 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem. June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1999 Kinneret: Excavations at Tell el-ʿOreime (Tel Kinrot): Preliminary Report on the 1994–1997 Seasons. Tel Aviv 26: 92–115. Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A. 1983 Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Ḫirbet el-Mšāš (Tēl Māśōś). Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Fritz, V., and Münger, S. 2002 Vorbericht über die zweite Phase der Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOreme) am See Gennesaret 1994–1999. ZDPV 118: 2–32. Fritz, V., and Vieweger, D. 1996 Vorbericht über die der Ausgrabungen in Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOreme) 1994 und 1995. ZDPV 112: 81–99. 1999 Tel Kinrot—1996. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 19: 15*, 21–22. [Heb.]. Fustel de Coulanges, N. D. 1963 The Ancient City: A Study of the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome. Repr., New York: Doubleday. [original, 1873] Gal, Z., and Alexandre, Y. 2000 Horvat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. IAA Reports 8. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.

Bibliography

631

Galling, K. 1941 Beschriftete Bildsiegel des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. vornehmlich aus Syrien und Palästina. ZDPV 64: 121–202. Galling, K., ed. 1937 Biblisches Reallexikon. HAT 1/1. Tübingen: Mohr. 1977 Biblisches Reallexikon. 2nd ed. HAT 1/1. Tübingen: Mohr. Gerstenberger, E. S. 1980 Der bittende Mensch: Bittritual und Klagelied des Einzelnen im Alten Testament. WMANT 51. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1988 Psalms, Part I, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. FOTL 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1993 Das 3. Buch Mose / Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1996 Welche Öffentlichkeit meinen das Klage- und das Danklied? Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 11: 69–89. 2001 Theologien im Alten Testament: Pluralität und Synkretismus alttestamentlichen GottesÂ�glaubens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Gesenius, W.; Kautzsch, E.; and Bergsträsser, G. 1962 Hebräische Grammatik. 28th ed. Hildesheim: Olms. [orig., 1909] Geus, C. H. J. 1976 The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. Studia Neerlandica 18. Assen: Van Gorcum. Geva, S. 1989 Hazor, Israel: An Urban Community of the 8th Century b.c.e. British Archaeological Reports International Series 543. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.  Gibson, John C. L. 1982 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3: Phoenician Inscriptions, Including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon. Gilbert-Peretz, D. 1996 Ceramic Figurines. Pp. 29–134 in Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, vol. 4: Various Reports, ed. D. T. Ariel and A. de Groot. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Gitin, S. 1989 Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and Typology. ErIsr 20 (Yadin volume): 52–67. 1990 Ekron of the Philistines Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World. BAR 16/2: 33–42, 59. 1993 Seventh Century b.c.e. Cultic Elements at Ekron. Pp. 248–58 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem. June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 2002 The Four Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective. Pp. 95– 124 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2003 Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeological Record in Iron Age II: The “Smoking Gun” Phenomenon. Pp. 279–95 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

632

Bibliography

Gitin, S., and Cogan, M. 1999 A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 49: 193–202. Gitin, S., and Dothan, T. 1987 The Rise and Fall of Ekron of the Philistines. BA 50: 197–222. Gitin, S.; Dothan, T.; and Naveh, J. 1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron. IEJ 47: 1–16. Givon, S. 1999 The Three-Roomed House from Tel Harassim, Israel. Levant 31: 173–77. Gjerstad, E. 1934 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927– 1931. Vol. 1. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. 1935 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927– 1931. Vol. 2. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Gjerstad, E., et al. 1937 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927– 1931. Vol. 3. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Glock, A. E. 1993 Taanach. Pp. 1428–33 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Gogel, S. L. 1998 A Grammar of Epigraphical Hebrew. SBL Resources for Biblical Studies 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Golka, F. W. 1994 Die Flecken des Leoparden: Biblische und afrikanische Weisheit im Sprichwort. ArÂ�beiÂ� ten zur Theologie 78. Stuttgart: Calwer. Gottwald, N. K. 1981 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel. 2nd ed. MaryÂ� knoll, NY: Orbis. Grabbe, L. 1993 Leviticus. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 2004 Review of Leviticus as Literature, by Mary Douglas. Journal of Ritual Studies 18: 157–61. Graesser, C. F. 1974 Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine. BA 35: 34–65. Grant, E. 1929 Beth Shemesh (Palestine): Progress of the Haverford Archaeological Expedition. HavÂ� erford: Haverford College Press. 1931–1932â•… Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine): 1928–1929–1930–1931, vols. 1–2. Haverford: Haverford College Press. 1934 Rumeileh: Being Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), vol. 3. Haverford: Haverford College Press. Grant, E., and Wright, G. E. 1938 Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), vol. 4. Haverford: Haverford College Press. 1939 Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), vol. 5. Haverford: Haverford College Press. Greenberg, M. 1983 Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bibliography

633

Gressmann, H. 1913 Mose und seine Zeit. FRLANT 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Grohmann, M. 2006 ‘Du hast mich aus meiner Mutter Leib gezogen’: Geburt in Psalm 22. Pp. 73–97 in “Du hast mich aus meiner Mutter Leib gezogen,” ed. D. Dieckmann, and D. ErbeleKüster. Biblisch-theologische Studien 75. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Gross, W. 2000 Die alttestamentlichen Gesetze zu Brache-, Sabbat-, Erlass- und Jubeljahr und das Zinsverbot. Theologische Quartalschrift 180: 1–15. Gröndahl, F. 1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Grünschloss, A. 2006 Jenseits von “primärer” und “sekundärer” Religion. Pp. 251–66 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter. Grünwaldt, K. 1992 Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift. BBB 85. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. Gubel, E. 1993 The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic. Pp. 101–29 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gunkel, H. 1910 Genesis. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1921 Die Urgeschichte und die Patriarchen (Das erste Buch Mosis). Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Guy, P. L. O., and Engberg, R. M. 1938 Megiddo Tombs. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Hachlili, R. 1971 Figurines and Kernoi. Pp. 125–35 in Ashdod II/III: The Second and Third Season of Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967, ed. M. Dothan. ʿAtiqot 9–10. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 1992 Burials: Ancient Jewish. Pp. 789–94 in vol. 1 of ABD. New York: Doubleday. Hachlili, R., and Killebrew, A. 1983 Jewish Funerary Customs during the Second Temple Period in the Light of the Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis. PEQ 115: 109–32. Harrison, T. P. 2004 Megiddo 3: Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations. Oriental Institute Publication 127. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Hartenstein, F. 2003 Religionsgeschichte Israels: Ein Überblick über die Forschung seit 1990. Verkündigung und Forschung 48: 2–28. Hartley, J. F. 1992 Leviticus. WBC 4. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

634

Bibliography

Hasel, G. F. 1992 Sabbath. Pp. 849–56 in vol. 5 of ABD. New York: Doubleday. Haussig, H. W. 1965 Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient. Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1/1. Stuttgart: Klett. Heide, M. 2002 Die theophoren Personennamen der Kuntillet-ʿAgrūd Inschriften. WO 32: 110–20. Helck, W. 1971 Betrachtungen zur grossen Göttin und den mit ihr verbundenen Gottheiten. Religion und Kultur der alten Mittelmeerwelt in Parallelforschungen 2. Munich: Oldenbourg. Heltzer, M. 1999 The Recently Published West Semitic Inscribed Stamp Seals: A Review Article. UF 31: 199–224. Hempel, J. 1936 Gott und Mensch im Alten Testament: Studie zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit. 2nd ed. BWANT 38. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Herr, L. G. 2000a “Deinem Haus gebührt Heiligkeit, Jhwh, alle Tage”: Typen und Funktionen von Sakralbauten im vorexilischen Israel. BBB 124. Berlin: Hain. 2000b Excavation and Cumulative Results at Tall al-ʿUmayri. Pp. 7–20 in Madaba Plains Project, vol. 4: The 1992 Season at Tall al-ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies, ed. L. G. Herr, L. T. Geraty, .Ø S. LaBianca, and B. Younker. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. 2006 An Early Iron Age I House with a Cultic Corner at Tall al-ʿUmayri, Jordan. Pp. 61– 73 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Herr, L. G., et al. 1999 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 1998. ADAJ 43: 99–114. 2000 Madaba Plains Project 4: The 1992 Season at Tall al-ʿUmayri and Subsequent Studies. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press. 2001 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 2000. ADAJ 45: 237–52. Herr, L. G., and Clark, D. R. 2001 Excavating the Tribe of Reuben: A Four-Room House Provides a Clue to Where the Oldest Israelite Tribe Settled: BAR 72/2: 36–47, 64–66. 2003 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 2002. ADAJ 47: 279–94. 2005 Mādāba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall al-ʿUmayrī, 2004. ADAJ 49: 245–60. Herrmann, C. 1994 Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Mit einem Ausblick auf ihre Rezeption durch das Alte Testament. OBO 138. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2002 Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel II. OBO 184. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hertzberg, H. W. 1964 Die Samuelbücher. ATD 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography

635

Herzog, Z. 1984 Beer-Sheba II: The Early Iron Age Settlements. Tel Aviv University, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 7. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of ArchaeÂ� ology. 1992a Administrative Structures in the Iron Age. Pp. 223–30 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1992b Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age. Pp. 231–74 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1994 Tel Michal. Pp. 1036–41 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. 1997 Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications. Jerusalem: Emery and Claire Yass Archaeological Press. 2001 The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History of Religion in Judah. Pp. 156–78 in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Herzog, Z.; Rapp, G.; and Negbi, O. 1988 Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Tel Aviv University, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 8. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology. Herzog, Z., et al. 1984 The Israelite Forttress at Arad. BASOR 254: 1–34. Hestrin, R. 1987 The Lachish Ewer and the ʾAsherah. IEJ 37: 212. Hoffmann, H.-D. 1980 Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 66. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Hoftijzer, J., and Jongeling, K. 1995 Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik 21/1–2. Leiden: Brill. Holladay, J. S., Jr. 1987 Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach. Pp. 249–99 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1992 House, Israelite. Pp. 308–18 in vol. 3 of ABD. New York: Doubleday. 1995 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron IIA–B (ca. 1000–750 b.c.e.). Pp. 368–98 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File. 1997 Four-Room House. Pp. 337–42 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia in the Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holland, T. A. 1977 A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Clay Figurines, with Special Reference to Jerusalem Cave 1. Levant 9: 121–55. Houtman, C. 1993 Exodus, vol. 1. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos. 2000 Exodus, vol. 3. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos.

636

Bibliography

Hubert, H., and Mauss, M. 1989 Entwurf einer allgemeinen Theorie der Magie. Pp. 43–179 in Soziologie und Anthropologie 1, ed. M. Mauss. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [Orig., 1902–3] Hübner, U. 1989 Das Fragment einer Tonfigurine vom Tell el-Milḥ: Überlegungen zur Funktion der sog. Pfeilerfigurinen in der israelitischen Volksreligion. ZDPV 105: 47–55. 1992 Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Kultur und Religion eines transjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 1993 Das ikonographische Repertoire der ammonitischen Siegel und seine Entwicklung. Pp. 130–60 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Huffmon, H. B. 1965 Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hug, V. 1993 Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh. s.v. Chr. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 4. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. Hurowitz, V. A. 1992 I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. ASOR Monograph Series 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2005 Yhwh’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple. Pp. 63–110 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark. Ibrahim, M. M., and van der Kooij, G. 1997 Excavations at Tall Dayr ʿAllā: Seasons 1987 and 1994. ADAJ 41: 95–113. Jacobs, P. 2001 Reading Religious Artifacts: The Shrine Room at Judahite Tell Halif. Journal of Biblical Studies 2. http:// journalofbiblicalstudies.org.Issue2./Articles/Tell_Halif/multi╉ .html. Jacobsen, T. 1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jahnow, H. 1923 Das Hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung. BZAW 36. Giessen: de Gruyter. 1994 Die Frau im Alten Testament. Pp. 30–47 in H. Jahnow et al., Feministische Hermeneutik des Ersten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. James, F. W. 1966 The Iron Age at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VI–IV. Museum Monographs. Philadelphia: University Museum. Jamieson, A. S. 2000 Identifying Room Use and Vessel Function: A Case Study of Iron Age Pottery from Building C2 at Tell Ahmar, North Syria. Pp. 259–303 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters.

Bibliography

637

Janowski, B. 1989 Rettungsgewissheit und Epiphanie des Heils: Das Motiv der Hilfe Gottes “am Morgen” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 2001 Jenseitsvorstellungen II/2. Pp. 406–7 in vol. 4 of RGG. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2003 Konfliktgespräche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Janssen, J. J., and Rosalind, M. 1990 Growing up in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon. Jeffers, A. 1996 Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 8. Leiden: Brill. Jeremias, J., and Hartenstein, F. 1999 “Jhwh und seine Aschera”: “Offizielle Religion” und “Volksreligion” zur Zeit der klassischen Propheten. Pp. 79–138 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale Aspekte, ed. B.  Janowski and M.  Köckert. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 15. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag. Jirku, A. 1912 Die Dämonen und ihre Abwehr im Alten Testament. Leipzig: Deichert. Johnston, S. I., ed. 2004 Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Joüon, P., and Muraoka, T. 1991 A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Kaiser, O., ed. 1982–2001â•… Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. 3 vols. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. Karageorghis, V. 1987 La Nécropole d’Amathonte Tombes 113–367: The Terracottas. Ètudes Chypriotes 9. Nicosia: Nicolaou. 1993 The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus II: Late Cypriote II- Cypro-Geometric III. NiÂ�cosia: Imprinta. Keel, O. 1972 Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen. Zurich: Benzinger Verlag / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1977 Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und Sach 4. SBS 84–85. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1980 Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes. OBO 33. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1984 Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen. 3rd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1995 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina and Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Einleitung. OBOSA 10. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

638

Bibliography

Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Katalog, vol. 1. OBOSA 13. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1998 Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 261. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Keel, O., and Uehlinger, C. 1998 Göttinnen: Götter und Gottessymbole. 4th ed. Questiones Disputatae 134. Freiburg: Herder. Kempinski, A. 1989 Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel. Materialien zur Allgemeinen und vergleichenden Archäologie 40. Munich: Beck. 1993 Tel Masos. Pp. 986–89 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Kempinski, A., and Niemeier, W. A. 1994 Excavations at Kabri: Preliminary Report of 1992–1993, Seasons 7–8. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Kempinski, A., and Reich, R., eds. 1992 The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Kenyon, K. M. 1974 Digging up Jerusalem. London: Benn. Kertzer, D. I. 1991 Household History and Sociological Theory. Annual Review of Sociology 17: 155– 79. Khalifeh, I. A. 1988 Sarepta II: The Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods of Area II, X.  Publications de l’Université Libanaise: Section des Études Archéologiques 2. Beirut: Catholic Press SAL. Kim, T.-K. 2008 Frömmigkeit und Weisheit: Untersuchungen zum religiösen Geschehen zwischen Gott und dem einzelnen Menschen in der Weisheitstradition. Diss.Theol. Münster. King, P. J., and Stager, L. E. 2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Kletter, R. 1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. British Archaeological Reports International Series 636. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2001 Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Ashera. Pp. 179–216 in Studies in Archaeology of Iron Age Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2004 Clay figurines. Pp. 2058–83 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at LaÂ�chish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University – Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Kletter, R., and Herzog, Z. 2003 Hermaphrodita be Jehudah? Zelamit kentaur mitkupat habrezel be Tel Beer-Sheba. Qadmoniot 127: 40–43. 1996

Bibliography

639

Kletter, R., and Ziffer, I. 2007 In the Field of the Philistines: Cult Furnishings from the Favissa of a Javneh Temple. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum. Knauf, E. A. 1988 Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Koehl, R. B. 1985 Sarepta III: The Imported Bronze and Iron Age Wares from Area II, X. Publications de l’Université Libanaise: Section des Études Archéologiques 2. Beirut: Catholic Press SAL. Körting, C. 1999 Der Schall des Schofar: Israels Feste im Herbst. BZAW 285. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kottsieper, I. 1997 El—ferner oder naher Gott? Zur Bedeutung einer semitischen Gottheit in verschiedenen sozialen Kontexten im 1. Jtsd.v.Chr. Pp. 25–74 in Religion und Gesellschaft: Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des Antiken vorderen Orients, ed. R. Albertz. AOAT 248. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 1998 Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Aram–DaÂ� maskus und Israel in der 1. Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus. Pp. 475–500 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf ”: Studien zum alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. FS Oswald Loretz, ed. M. Dietrich and I Kottsieper. AOAT 250. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2001 Eine Tempelbauinschrift aus Ekron. Pp. 189–90 in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Ergänzungslieferung, ed. O. Kaiser. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. Krahmalkov, C. R. 2001 A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Handbook of Oriental Studies 1/54. Leiden: Brill. Kraus, H. J. 1989 Psalmen II. 6th ed. BKAT 15/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Krebernik, M. 1984 Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla: Untersuchungen zur ältesten keilschriftlichen LiÂ� teratur. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 2. Hildesheim: Olms. Kreuzer, S. 1983 Der lebendige Gott: Bedeutung, Herkunft und Entwicklung einer alttestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnung. BWANT 116. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Kronholm, T. 1982 Polygami och monogami i Gamla testamenet: Med en utblick over den anbtiken judendomen och Nya testamentetet. Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 47: 48–92. Kühn, D. 2005 Totengedenken bei den Nabatäern und im Alten Testament: Eine religionsgeschichtÂ� liche und exegetische Studie. AOAT 311. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Kühne, H. 1989–90â•… Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad Dūr-katlimmu, 1985–1987. AfO 36–37: 308–21. Kuhnen, H.-P. 1990 Palästina in Griechisch-römischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie 2/2. Munich: Beck.

640

Bibliography

Kutsch, E. 1986 Trauerbräuche und Selbstminderungsriten im Alten Testament. Pp. 78–95 in Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, ed. E. Kutsch. BZAW 168. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lambert, W. G., and Millard, A. R. 1969 Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford: Clarendon. [Repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999] Lamon, R. S., and Shipton, G. M. 1939 Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925–34: Strata I–V. Oriental Institute Publication 42. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Lamprichs, R., and al-Saʿad, Z. 2003 Tall Juḥfiyya—An Archaeological Site in Northern Jordan: A Preliminary Report on the 2002 Field Season. ADAJ 47: 101–16. 2004 Tall Juḥfiyya—An Iron Age Site and Its Surroundings in Northern Jordan: A Preliminary Report on the 2002–2003 Field Season. ADAJ 48: 171–80. Lanczkowski, G. 1981 Begegnung und Wandel der Religionen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchÂ�gesellÂ� schaft. Landesmuseum Württemberg, ed. 2009 Schätze des Alten Syrien: Die Entdeckung des Königreichs Qatna. Stuttgart. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Lang, B. 1972 Die weisheitliche Lehrrede: Ein Untersuchung von Sprüche 1–7. SBS 54. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1983 Persönlicher Gott und Ortsgott: Über Elementarformen der Frömmigkeit im alten Israel. Pp. 271–301 in Fontes atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner, ed. M. Görg. Ägypten und Altes Testament 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2002 Jahwe, der biblische Gott: Ein Porträt. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Lapp, P. 1964 Tell Taanek. BASOR 173: 4–44. 1969 The 1968 Excavations at Tell Taʿanek. BASOR 309: 41–68. Laslett, P. 1974 Introduction: The History of Family. Pp. 2–89 in Household and Family in Past Time: Comparative Studies in the Size and Structure of the Domestic Group over the Last Three Centuries in England, France, Serbia, Japan and Colonial North America, with Further materials from Western Europe, ed. P. Laslett and R. Wall. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press. LeBlanc, S. 1971 An Addition to Naroll’s Suggested Floor Area and Settlement Population Relationship. American Antiquity 36: 210–11. Lehmann-Jericke, K. 1997 Terracotta Figurines (Bey 020 Preliminary Report of the Excavations, 1995). Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 2: 143–50. Lemaire, A. 1983 Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques. Semitica 33: 17–31. 2001 Nouvelles tablettes araméennes. Haute études orientales 34. Geneva: Droz.

Bibliography

641

Khirbet el-Qôm and Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. Pp. 231–38 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lemaire, A., and Yardeni, A. 2006 New Hebrew Ostraca from the Shephela. Pp. 197–223 (and 20 plates) in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Publications of the Institute for Advanced Studies 1. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lemche, N. P. 1985 Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy. VTSup 37. Leiden: Brill. Lenzen, C.; Gordon, R. L.; and McQuitty, A. M. 1985 Excavations at Tell Irbid and Beit Ras. ADAJ 29: 151–59. Lernau, H. 1995 Faunal Remains from Cave I in Jerusalem. Pp. 201–8 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lescow, T. 1993 Das Buch Maleachi: Texttheorie – Auslegung – Kanontheorie. Arbeiten zur Theologie 75. Stuttgart: Calwer. Leuenberger, M. 2008 Segen und Segenstheologien im alten Israel: Untersuchungen zu ihren religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen Konstellationen und Transformationen. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 90. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1958 Anthropologie Structurale. Paris: Plon. 1962 La Pensée Sauvage. Paris: Plon. 1964 Mythologiques I: Le Cru et le Cuit. Paris: Plon. 1966 Das Wilde Denken. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 1967 Strukturale Anthropologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 1981 Mythologica I: Das Rohe und das Gekochte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Levy, S., and Edelstein, G. 1972 Cinq années de fouilles a Tel ʿAmal (Nir David). RB 79: 325–67. Levy, T. E., et al. 2005 Iron Age Burial in the Lowlands of Edom: The 2004 Excavations at Wādī Fīdān 40, Jordan. ADAJ 49: 443–87. Lewis, T. J. 1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. HSM 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2000 terāpîm. Pp. 765–78 in vol. 8 of ThWAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Lipiński, E. 1986 The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and Goddess. IEJ 36: 87–96. Loretz, O. 1978 Vom kanaanäischen Totenkult zur jüdischen Patriarchen- und Elternehrung. JahrÂ� buch für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 3: 149–204. 2006

642 1982 1990 1992 2002

Bibliography Ugaritisch-biblisch mrzḥ “Kultmahl. Kultverein” in Jer 16.5 und Am 6.6. Pp. 87–93 in Künder des Wortes. FS Schreiner, ed. L. Ruppert. Würzburg: Echter Verlag. Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanäische Götter und Religion im Alten Testament. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Die Teraphim als “Ahnen-Götter-Figur(in)en” im Lichte der Texte aus Nuzi, Emar und Ugarit. UF 24: 133–78. Ugaritisch a͗p (III) und syllabisch-keilschriftlich abi/apu als Vorläufer von hebräisch ʾab/ʾôb “(Kult/Nekromantie-)Grube”: Ein Beitrag zu Nekromantie und Magie in Ugarit, Emar und Israel. UF 34: 481–518.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. Oriental Institute Publication 62. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Macalister, R. A. S. 1912 The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905 and 1907–1909. 3 vols. London: Murray. Mace, D. R. 1953 Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study. London: Epworth. MacKay, D. 1995 Tel Miqne–Ekron. Report of the 1994 Spring Excavations in Field IISW: The Olive Oil Industrial Zone of the Late Iron Age II, Text: Data Base and Plates. Jerusalem: American Schools of Oriental Research / Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University. Mackenzie, D. 1911 Excavations at Ain Shems. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 1: 41–94. 1912–13â•… Excavations at Ain Shems. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 2: 1–100. Magen, Y.; Misgav, H.; and Tsfania, L. 2004 Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 1: The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions. Judea and Samaria Publications. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Mähner, S. 1992 Ein Namen- und Bildsiegel aus ʿĒn Šems (Beth Schemesch). ZDPV 108: 68–81. Maier, C., and Dörrfuss, E. M. 1999 “Um mit ihnen zu sitzen, zu essen und zu trinken”: Am 6,7; Jer 16,5 und die Bedeutung von marzeaḥ. ZAW 111: 45–57. Malinowski, B. 1986 Mutterschaft und Inzestversuchung (1927). Pp. 129–33 in Schriften zur Anthropologie. Schriften in vier Bänden 4/2. Frankfurt am Main: Syndikat. Manor, D. W. 2009 A Holy Bowl from a Priest’s House? Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology 72/3: 138. Mansour, S. 2005 Figurines and Iron Age Objects from ʿAmman Citatel. ADAJ 49: 541–55. Maraqten, M. 1988 Die Semitischen Personennamen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus Vorderasien. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 5. Hildesheim: Olms. Marquet-Krause, J. 1949 Les Fouilles de ʿAi (et-Tell) 1933–1935. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 45. Paris: Geuthner.

Bibliography

643

Marsman, H. J. 2003 Women in Ugarit and Israel: The Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. OTS 49. Leiden: Brill. Matsushima, E., ed. 1993 Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East: The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitake, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Matthews, V. H., and Benjamin, D. C. 1993 Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 b.c.e. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Maul, S. 1994 Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der baÂ�bylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). Baghdader Forschungen 18. Mainz: von Zabern. May, H. G. 1935 Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult. Oriental Institute Publications 26. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Mazar, A. 1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile I. Qedem 12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1982 The ‘Bull Site’: An Iron I Open Cult Place. BASOR 247: 27–42. 1985 Excavations at Tell Qasile II. Qedem 20. Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1986 Excavations at Tell Qasile, 1982–1984: Preliminary Report. IEJ 36: 1–15. 1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000–586 b.c.e. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. 1992 Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age. Pp. 161–87 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1997 Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Qedem 37. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1999 The 1997–1998 Excavations at Tel Reḥov: Preliminary Report. IEJ 49: 1–42. Mazar, A., and Kelm, G. L. 1993 Tel Batash. Pp. 152–57 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Mazar, A., and Panitz-Cohen, N. 2001 Timnah (Tel Batash) II.  Qedem 42. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mazar, B. 1951 Excavations at Tell Qasile: Preliminary Report. IEJ 1: 61–76; 125–40; 194–218. 1993 ʿEn Gev: Excavations on the Mound. Pp. 409–11 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Mazar, B., et al. 1961 ʿEn Gev. IEJ 11: 192–93. 1964 ʿEin Gev Excavations in 1961. IEJ 14: 1–49. Mazar, E., and Mazar, B. 1989 Excavations in the South of the Temple Mount: The Ophel of Biblical Jerusalem. Qedem 29. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

644

Bibliography

Mazzoni, S., ed. 1992 Tell Afis e l’età del Ferro. Seminari di Orientalistica 2. Pisa: Giardini e Stampatori. Mazzoni, S., and Cecchini, S. M., eds. 1995 Tell Afis (Siria). Pisa: ETS. McCown, C. C. 1947 Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, vol. 1: Archaeological and Historical Results. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research. McGeough, K. M. 2003 Locating the Marzihu Archaeologically. UF 35: 408–20. McKay, J. W. 1973 Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, 732–609 b.c.e. London: Allenson. McLaughlin, J. L. 2001 The Marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature. VTSup 86. Leiden: Brill. McNicoll, A. W., et al. 1992 Pella in Jordan, vol. 2: The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella, 1982–1985. Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 2. Canberra: Australian National Gallery. Meyers, C. 1988 Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press. 1991 ‘To Her Mother’s House’: Considering a Counterpart to the Israelite Bêt ʾāb. Pp. 39– 51 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: FS Norman K. Gottwald, ed. D. D. Jobling, L. Peggy, and G. T. Sheppard. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim. 1997 The Family in Ancient Israel. Pp. 1–47 in Families in Ancient Israel, ed. L. G. Perdue et al. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 2002 From Household to House of Yahweh: Women’s Religious Culture in Ancient Israel. Pp. 277–303 in Congress Volume: Basel, 2001, ed. A. Lemaire. Leiden: Brill. 2003a Everyday Life in Biblical Israel: Women’s Social Networks. Pp 185–204 in Life in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. Averbeck and D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL. 2003b Material Remains and Social Relations: Women’s Culture in Agrarian Households of the Iron Age. Pp. 425–44 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors: From the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2005 Household and Holiness: The Religious Culture of Israelite Women. Minneapolis: Fortress. Michel, D. 2004 Der Hebräische Nominalsatz: Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax, vol. 2. NeuÂ� kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Milgrom, J. 1983 Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36. Leiden: Brill. 1991 Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday. 2000 Leviticus 17–22. AB 3a. New York: Doubleday. 2001 Leviticus 23–27. AB 3b. New York: Doubleday.

Bibliography

645

Miller, P. D. 1985 Israelite Religion. Pp. 201–37 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. D.  A. Knight and G.  H. Tucker. SBL Centennial Publications.  Philadelphia: Fortress / Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1993 Things Too Wonderful: Prayers of Women in the Old Testament. Pp. 237–51 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: FS N. Lohfink SJ, ed. G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. Mc Evenue, Freiburg: Herder. 2000 The Religion of Ancient Israel. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge / Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Mitchell, C. W. 1983 The Meaning of brk ‘To Bless’ in the Old Testament. SBLDS 95. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Mol, H. 1976 Identity and the Sacred: A Sketch for a New Social-Scientific Theory of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell. Moore, R. D. 1990 God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories. JSOTSup 95. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Moorey, P. R. S. 2003 Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moortgat, A. 1940 Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Mann. Morgan, L. H. 1877 Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilisation. New York: Holt. Morgenstern, J. 1963 The “Bloody Husband” (?) (Ex 4,24–26) Once Again. Hebrew Union College Annual 34: 35–70. Moscati, S., ed. 1988 The Phoenicians. Milan: Bompiani. Mowinckel, S. 1953 Religion und Kultus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1961 Åwän und die individuellen Klagepsalmen. Psalmenstudien 1.  Amsterdam: Schippers. [Orig., 1921] 1966 Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psalmdichtung. Psalmenstudien V. Repr. Amsterdam: Schippers. [Orig., 1924] Nakhai, B. Alpert 2001 Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Nakhai, B. Alpert; Dessel, J. P.; and Wisthoff, B. L. 1993 Tell el-Wawiat. Pp. 1500–1501 in vol. 4 of NEAHL.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Naroll, R. 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population: American Antiquity 27: 587–89.

646

Bibliography

Naumann, R., et al., eds. 1950 Tell Halaf II: Die Bauwerke. Berlin. Naveh, J. 2000 Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions. Pp. 1–14 in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shilo, vol. 6: Inscriptions, ed. D. T. Ariel. Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Keter. 2001 Hebrew Graffiti from the First Temple Period. IEJ 51: 194–207. Naveh, J., and Shaked, S. 1985 Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill. 1993 Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes. Nave-Herz, R. 2002 Familiensoziologie. Pp. 148–52 in Wörterbuch der Soziologie, ed. G. Endruweit and G. Trommsdorf. 2nd ed. Uni-Taschenbuch 2232. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius. 2007 Familie heute: Wandel der Familienstrukturen und Folgen für die Erziehung. 3rd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Negbi, O. 1993 Israelite Cult Elements in Secular Contexts of the 10th Century b.c.e. Pp. 221–30 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Nelson, R. D. 2002 Deuteronomy. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Netting, R. McC.; Wilk, R.; and Arnould, E., eds. 1984 Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley: University of California Press. Netzer, E. 1992 Domestic Architecture in the Iron-Age. Pp. 193–201 in The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, ed. A. Kempinski and R. Reich. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Niehr, H. 1990 Der höchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher Jhwh-Glaube im Kontext syrisch-kanaanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. BZAW 190. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1999 Auf dem Weg zu einer Religionsgeschichte Israels und Judas: Annäherung an einen Problemkreis. Pp. 57–78 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale AsÂ� pekte, ed. B. Janowski and M. Köckert. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 15. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag. 2003 The Changed Status of the Dead in Yehud. Pp. 136–55 in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. R. Albertz and B. Becking. Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: Van Gorcum. Nissinen, M., and Münger, S. 2009 “Down the River . . .”: A Shrine Model from Tel Kinrot in Its Context. Pp. 129–44 in In a Timeless Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. E. Kaptijn and L. P. Petit. Archaeological Studies Leiden University 19. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Bibliography

647

Noth, M. 1927 Gemeinsemitische Erscheinungen in der israelitischen Namengebung. ZDMG n.s. 6: 1–45. 1928 Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. BWANT 46. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1961 Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus. ATD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1962 Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Nunn, A. 2000 Der figürliche Motivschatz Phöniziens: Syriens und Transjordaniens vom 6. bis zum 4.Jh. v. Chr. OBOSA 18. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Olmo Lete, G. del, and Sanmartín, J. 1996–2000â•… Dictionario de la lengua ugarítica. 2 vols. Aula Orientalis Supplementa 7–8. Barcelona: Ausa. Olyan, S. M. 1988 Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SLBMS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1994 “And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman”: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Journal of the History of Sexuality 5: 179–206. 2004 Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008 Family Religion in Israel and the Wider Levant of the First Millenium b.c.e. Pp. 113– 26 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell. Ornan, T. 1993 Mesopotamian Influence on West Semitic Inscribed Seals. Pp. 52–72 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2001 Ištar as epicted on a Find from Israel. Pp. 235–56 in Studies in Archaeology of Iron Age Israel and Jordan, ed. A.  Mazar. JSOTSup 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Orthmann, W. 1971 Untersuchungen zur Späthethitischen Kunst. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur AltertumsÂ� kunde 8. Bonn: Habelt. Otten, H. 1961 Eine Beschwörung der Unterirdischen aus Bogazköy. ZA 20: 114–57. Otto, A. 2006 Alltag und Gesellschaft zur Spätbronzezeit: Eine Fallstudie aus Tell Bazi (Syrien). SuÂ� bartu 19. Brussels: Brepols. Otto, E. 1988 pāsaḥ/paesaḥ. Pp. 659–82 in vol. 6 of ThWAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Otto, S. 2001 Jehu, Elia und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen. BWANT 152. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Pakkala, J.; Münger, S.; and Zangenberg, J. 2004 Kinneret Regional Project: Tel Kinrot Excavations. Tel Kinrot – Tel el-ʿOrēme – Kinneret: Report 2/2004. Vantaa: Tummavuoren kirjapaino Oy.

648

Bibliography

Parayre, D. 1993 A propos des sceaux ouest-sémitiques: Le rôle de l’iconographie dans l’attribution d’un sceau à une aire culturelle ou à un atelier. Pp. 27–51 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Parker, B. 1949 Cylinder Seals from Palestine. Iraq 11: 1–42. Pedersen, J. 1914 Der Eid bei den Semiten. Strassburg: Trübner. Perdue, L. G. 1997 Israelite and Early Jewish Family: Summary and Conclusions. Pp. 163–221 in Families in Ancient Israel: The Family, Religion and Culture, ed. L. G. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, and C. Meyers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Person, R. F., Jr. 2002 The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Studies in Biblical Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Petrie, W. M. F. 1928 Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 48. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Pettinato, G. 1966 Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern. 2 vols. Studi Semitici 21–22. Rome: Università di Roma. Pham, X. H. T. 1999 Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 302. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Pilz, E. 1924 Die weiblichen Gottheiten Kanaans: Eine archäologische Studie. ZDPV 47: 129–68. Pinch, G. 1993 Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Podella, T. 1986 Ein mediterraner Trauerritus. UF 18: 263–69. 1988 Grundzüge alttestamentlicher Jenseitsvorstellungen. BN 43: 70–89. 1989 Ṣôm-Fasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenen Gott im Alten Testament. AOAT 224. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. 1996 Das Lichtkleid Jhwhs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt. FAT 15. Tübingen: Mohr. 1997 Nekromantie. Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 120–33. 1998 Ahnenverehrung III. Pp. 227–28 in vol. 1 of RGG. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2002 Totenrituale und Jenseitsbeschreibungen: Zur anamnetischen Struktur der Religionsgeschichte Israels. Pp. 530–61 in Tod, Jenseits und Identität: Perspektiven einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Thanatologie, ed. J. Assmann and R. Trauzettel. VeröffentÂ� lichungen des Instituts für Historische Anthropologie 79. Freiburg: Alber. Porada, E. 1948 Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, vol. 1: The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library. Bollingen Series 14. New York: Pantheon.

Bibliography

649

Porten, B., and Yardeni, A. 1989 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, vol. 2: Contracts. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Porter, J. R. 1967 The Extended Family in the Old Testament. Occasional Papers in Social and Economic Administration. London: Edutext. Potts, T. F.; Colledge, S. M.; and Edwards, P. C. 1985 Preliminary Report on a Sixth Season of Excavations by the University of Sydney at Pella in Jordan (1983–84). ADAJ 29: 181–210. Prag, K. 1995 Summary of the Reports on Caves I, II and III and Deposit IV. Pp. 209–20 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 4: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and Isolated Burials Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pressler, C. 1993 The View of Woman Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. BZAW 216. Berlin: de Gruyter. Preuss, H. D. 1987 Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. Kohlhammer Urban-Taschenbücher 383. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1991–92â•… Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Preuss, J. 1923 Biblisch-talmudische Medizin: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Heilkunde und der Kultur überhaupt. Berlin: Karger. Pritchard, J. B. 1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through Literature. American Oriental Series 24. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. 1954 Ancient Near Eastern Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1975 Sarepta: A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Philadelphia: University Museum. 1978 Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City: Excavations at Sarafand, Lebanon, 1969– 1974, by the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Princeton: PrinceÂ� ton University Press. 1985 Tell es-Saʿidiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966. Philadelphia: University Museum. 1988 Sarepta IV: The Objects from Area II, X. Publications de l’Université Libanaise: Section des Études Archéologiques 2. Beirut: Catholic Press SAL. Pritchard, J. B., and Tubb, J. N. 1993 Tell es-Saʿidiyeh. Pp. 1295–300 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Propp,W. H. C. 1999 Exodus 1–18. AB 2. New York: Doubleday. Prosic, T. 2004 The Development and Symbolism of Passover until 70 c.e. JSOTSup 414. London: T. & T. Clark.

650

Bibliography

Rad, G. von 1961 Die Anrechnung des Glaubens zur Gerechtigkeit. Pp. 130–35 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. 2nd ed. Theologische Bücherei 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. 1962 Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 3rd ed.; vol. 2, 4th ed. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. 1964 Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. ATD 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rast, W. E. 1978 Taanach 1: Studies in the Iron Age Pottery. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Ratschow, C. H. 1947 Magie und Religion. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Rattray, S. 1987 Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible. Pp. 537–44 in Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers. SBLSP 26. . Rendtorff, R. 1975 El, Ba‘al und Jahwe: Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von kanaanäischer und israelitischer Religion (1966). Pp. 172–87 in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. ThB 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. Rattray, S. 1987 Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms, and Family Structure in the Bible. Pp. 537–44 in 1987 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-Third Annual Meeting, December 5-8, 1987, ed. K. H. Richards. SBLSP 26: Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rechenmacher, H. 1997 Personennamen als theologische Aussagen: Die syntaktischen und semantischen Strukturen der satzhaften theophoren Personennamen in der hebräischen Bibel. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 50. St. Ottilien: EOS. Reichert, A. 1977 Kultgeräte. Pp. 189–94 in Biblisches Reallexikon, ed. K. Galling. 2nd ed. HAT 1/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Renz, J., and Röllig, W. 1995–2003â•… Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. in 4. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchÂ�gesellschaft. Riklin, S. 1997 Bet Aryé. ʿAtiqot 32: 7–20. [Heb.; Eng. summary, pp. 37*–38*] Ringgren, H. 1988 Israelite Religion, trans. David E. Green. Brown Classics in Judaica. Lanham, MD / London: University Press of America. [Orig., 1963] Ritner, R. K. 1993 The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 54. Chicago: Oriental Institute. 2008 Household Religion in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 171–96 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. The Ancient World: Comparative Histories. Oxford: Blackwell. Rittig, D. 1977 Assyrisch-babylonische Kleinplastik magischer Bedeutung vom 13.–6. Jh. v. Chr. MünÂ�chener vorderasiatische Studien 1. Munich: Uni-Druck.

Bibliography

651

Robinson, G. 1988 The Origins and Development of the Old Testament Sabbath: A Comprehensive Exegetical Approach. Beiträge zur Biblischen Exegese und Theologie 21. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Röllig, W. 1997 Aramaica Haburensia II: Zwei datierte aramäische Urkunden aus Tall Šeḥ Ḥamad. AoF 24: 366–74. Römheld, K. F. D. 1992 Von den Quellen der Kraft (Jdc 13). ZAW 104: 28–52. Rose, M. 1975 Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomistische Schultheologie und die Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit. BWANT 106. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Rost, L. 1943 Weidewechsel und altisraelitischer Festkalender. ZDPV 66: 205–15. Rothenberg, B. 1973 Timna: Das Tal der biblischen Kupferminen. Neue Entdeckungen der Archäologie. Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe. 1993 Timnah. Pp. 1475–86 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Rouillard, H. 1999 Rephaim. Pp. 692–700 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Routledge, B. 2004 Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Rowe, A. 1930 The Topography and History of Beth Shean 1. Philadelphia: University Museum. 1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shean 2/1. Philadelphia: University Museum. Rowley, H. H. 1956 The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London: SCM. Rudolph, K. 1992 Geschichte und Probleme der Religionswissenschaft. Studies in the History of Religions 53. Leiden: Brill. Rudolph, W. 1955 Chronikbücher. HAT 1/21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sader, H. 2005 Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon. Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 11. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra. Sass, B. 1993 The Pre-exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism. Pp. 194–256 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2004 Vessels, Tools, Personal Objects, Figurative Art and Varia. Pp. 1983–2057 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.

652

Bibliography

Satlow, M. L. 2001 Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scharbert, J. 1982 Bēyt ʾāb als soziologische Grösse im Alten Testament. Pp. 213–37 in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: FS J.  P. M.  Ploeg, ed. W.  C. Delsman. AOAT 211. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Schloen, J. D. 2001 The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonalism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schlund, C. 2005 “Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden.” WMANT 107. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Schmidt, B. B. 1994 Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. FAT 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996] Schmidt, W. H. 1985 Einführung in das Alte Testament. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schmitt, R. 1994 Philistäische Terrakottafigurinen: Archäologische, ikonographische und religionsÂ� geschichtliche Beobachtungen zu einer Sondergruppe palästinischer Kleinplastik der Eisenzeit. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen. 1999 Philistäische Terrakottafigurinen. UF 31: 576–676. 2000 Das Problem der Deutung von Terrakottafigurinen aus Palästina/Israel. Pp. 44–55 in Texte und Steine, ed. A. Leinhäupl-Wilke, S. Lücking, and J. M. Wiegand. Biblisches Forum Jahrbuch 1999. Münster: Biblisches Forum. 2001 Bildhafte Herrschaftsrepräsentation im eisenzeitlichen Israel. AOAT 283. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2004 Magie im Alten Testament. AOAT 313. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 2006 Die nachexilische Religion Israels: Bekenntnisreligion oder kosmotheistische Religion? Pp. 147–57 in Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der ReligionsÂ� geschichte des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Wagner. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2008 Ashdod and the Material Remains of Domestic Cults in the Philistine Coastal Plain. Pp. 159–70 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity, ed. J. Bodel and S. M. Olyan. Oxford: Blackwell. Schorch, S. 2003 Die Propheten und der Karneval: Marzeach – Maiomoumas – Maimuna. VT 53: 397–415. Schroer, S. 1987 In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament. OBO 74. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schumacher, G. 1908 Tell el-Mutesellim: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom Deutschen VeÂ� rein zur Erforschung Palästinas Veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, vol. 1: Fundbericht. Leipzig: Haupt.

Bibliography

653

Schwemer, D. 2007 Abwehrzauber und Behexung: Studien zum Schadenzauberglauben im alten Mesopotamien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schwiderski, D. 2004 Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften, vol. 2. Fontes et Subsidia ad Biblica pertinentes 2. Berlin: de Gruyter. Segal, J. B. 1976 Popular Religion in Ancient Israel. JJS 72: 1–22. Seger, J. D. 1972 Tel Halif. IEJ 22: 161. 1977 Tel Halif. IEJ 27: 45–47. 1979 Tel Halif. IEJ 29: 247–49. 1980 Tel Halif. IEJ 30: 223–26. 1983 Investigations at Tell Halif, Israel, 1976–1980. BASOR 252: 1–23. 1993 Tel Halif. Pp 553–59 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Seger, J. D., and Borowski, O. 1977 Tel Halif. BA 40: 156–66. Sellin, E. 1893 Das Subjekt der altisraelitischen Religion. neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 4: 441–79. 1904 Tell Taannek. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 50. Vienna: Sohn. Seybold, K. 1978 terafîm. Pp. 1057–60 in vol. 2 of THAT. Munich: Chr. Kaiser / Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. 1996 Die Psalmen. HAT 1/15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Shalem, D., and Gal, Z. 2000 A Sounding at Iron Age Turʿan, Lower Galilee. ʿAtiqot 39: 105–11. Shiloh, Y. 1970 The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. IEJ 20: 180– 90. 1980 The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas, and Population Density. BASOR 239: 25–35. 1984 Excavations at the City of David I, 1978–1982: Interim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 1986 A Group of Hebrew Bullae from the City of David. IEJ 36: 16–38. 1993 Megiddo: Iron Age. Pp. 1012–25 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Smend, R. 1899 Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. 2nd ed. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck. Smith, M. S. 1990 The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. San Francisco: Harper. Smith, R. H. 1993 Pella. Pp. 1174–80 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society  / Carta.

654

Bibliography

Smith, W. R. 1899 Die Religion der Semiten. Tübingen: Mohr. 1967 Die Religion der Semiten. Repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Spencer, H. 1874 The Principles of Sociology. London: Williams & Norgate. 1877 Die Principien der Sociologie. Stuttgart: Vetter. Spieckermann, H. 1982 Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. FRLANT 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spronk, K. 1986 Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Stade, B. 1887–88â•… Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 2 vols. Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen 1/6: 1–2. Berlin: Grote’sche Verlag. Stager, L. E. 1985 The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. BASOR 260: 1–35. Stamm, J. J. 1968 Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAG 44. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. [Orig., 1939] 1980 Beiträge zur hebräischen und altorientalischen Namenskunde, ed. J. J. Stamm and A. Klopfenstein. OBO 30. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stern, E. 1982 The Material Culture of Palestine in the Persian Period. Warminster: Aris & Philips / Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1987 Excavations at Tell Dor: A Canaanite-Phoenician Port-City on the Carmel Coast. Qadmoniot 20: 66–81. [Heb.] 1993 Tel Kedesh. P. 860 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL.  Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society  / Carta. 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (782–332 b.c.e.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Stern, E., and Beit-Arieh, I. 1979 Tel Kedesh. Tel Aviv 6: 1–25. Stern, E., et al. 1995 Excavations at Dor, Final Report. Volume 1b Areas A and C: The Finds. Qedem Reports 2. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Stipp, H.-J. 1995 Simson, der Nasiräer. VT 45: 327–69. Stol, M. 2000 Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting. Cuneiform Monograph 14. Groningen: Styx. Stolz, F. 1970 Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem. BZAW 118. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1996 Einführung in den Biblischen Monotheismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchÂ� gesellschaft.

Bibliography

655

Stone, E. C., and Zimansky, P. E. 1999 The Iron Age Settlement at ʿAin Dara, Syria: Survey and Soundings. British Archaeological Reports International Series 786. Oxford: Hedges & Archaeopress. Stone, K. 1996 Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 234. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Sundermeier, T. 1980 Die “Stammesreligionen” als Thema der Religionsgeschichte: These zu einer “TheoÂ� logie der Religionsgeschichte.” Pp. 159–67 in Fides pro mundi vita. Missionstheologie heute: Hans-Werner Gensichen zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H.-J. Becken, B. H. Willeke, and T. Sundermeier. Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen 14. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. 1988 Nur gemeinsam können wir leben: Das Menschenbild schwarzafrikanischer Religionen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. 1992 The Meaning of Tribal Religions for the History of Religion: Primary Religious Experience. Scriptura 10: 1–9. 1995 Religionswissenschaft versus Theologie? Zur Verhältnisbestimmung von ReligionsÂ� wissenschaft und Theologie aus religionswissenschaftlicher Sicht. Pp. 189–206 in Religionswissenschaft oder Theologie des Alten Testaments? ed. I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1999 Was ist Religion? Religionswissenschaft im theologischen Kontext: Ein Studienbuch. Theologische Bücherei 96. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag. Tambiah, S. J. 1968 The Magical Power of Words. Man n.s. 3/2: 175–208. 1990 Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality. Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thiel, J. F. 1984 Religionsethnologie: Grundbegriffe der Religionen schriftloser Völker. Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum 33. Berlin: Reimer. Theuer, G. 2000 Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien–Palästinas. OBO 173. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thiselton, A. C. 1974 The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings. Journal of Theological Studies 25: 283–99. Thomsen, M.-L. 1987 Zauberdiagnose und Schwarze Magie in Mesopotamien. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Publication 2. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. Tigay, J. H. 1987 Israelite Religion: The Onomastic Evidence. Pp. 157–94 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. Timm, S. 1989 Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten. ÄgypÂ�ten und Altes Testament 17. Darmstadt: Harrassowitz. 1993 Das ikonographische Repertoire der moabitischen Siegel und seine Entwicklung: Vom Maximalismus zum Minimalismus. Pp. 161–93 in Studies in the Iconography of

656

Tita, H. 2001

Bibliography Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Gelübde als Bekenntnis: Eine Studie zu den Gelübden im Alten Testament. OBO 181. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Toorn, K. van der 1994 From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. The Biblical Seminar 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1996a Ancestors and Anthroponyms: Kinship Terms as Theophoric Elements in Hebrew Names. ZAW 108: 1–11. 1996b Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Ancient Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Leiden: Brill. 1997 Ein verborgenes Erbe: Totenkult im frühen Israel. Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 105–20. 1999 Magic at the Cradle: A Reassessment. Pp. 139–47 in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. T. Abush and K. van der Toorn. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx. 2002 Israelite Figurines: A View from the Texts. Pp. 45–62 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2003 Nine Months among the Peasants in the Palestinian Highlands: An Anthropological Perspective on Local Religion in the Early Iron Age. Pp. 393–410 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Toorn, K. van der, and Lewis, T. J. 1999 Teraphim. Pp. 844–50 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Triebel, L., and Zangeberg, J. 2003 Hinter Fels und unter Erde: Beobachtungen zur Archäologie und zum kulturellen Kontext jüdischer Gräber im hellenistisch-jüdischen Palästina. Pp. 447–87 in Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien auf dem Weg zu einer Archäologie es Neuen Testaments, ed. S. Alkier and J. Zangenberg. Tübingen: Francke. Tropper, J. 1989 Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. AOAT 223. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1999 Spirit of the Dead. Pp. 806–9 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. 2000 Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Tsukimoto, A. 1985 Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien. AOAT 216. KeÂ�veÂ� laer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Tubb, J. N. 1993 Tell es Saʿidiyeh. Pp. 1297–1300 in vol. 3 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta.

Bibliography

657

Tufnell, O. 1953 Lachish III: The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. 1984 Studies on Scarab Seals, vol. 2: Scarab Seals and Their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium b.c., with contributions by G. T. Martin and W. A. Ward. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Turner, V. W. 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Lewis Henry Morgan Lecture 1966. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Tylor, E. B. 1873 Die Anfänge der Cultur: Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung der Mythologie, Philosophie, Religion, Kunst und Sitte. 2 vols. Leipzig: Carl Winter. Uehlinger, C. 1990 Ein ʿnh-förmiges Astralkultsymbol auf Stempelsiegeln des 8./7. Jhs. Pp. 322–30 in Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel III: Die frühe Eisenzeit, ed. O. Keel, M. Shuval, and C. Uehlinger. OBO 100. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1993 Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestinian Religions of Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions. Pp. 257–88 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Fribourg : Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ussishkin, D. 1974 Tombs from the Israelite Period at Tel ʿEton. Tel Aviv 1: 109–27. 1989 Schumacher’s Shrine in Building 338 at Megiddo. IEJ 39: 148–72. 1993 Fresh Examination of Old Excavations: Sanctuaries in the First Temple Period. Pp. 67–85 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology Jerusalem, June–July 1990, ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Ussishkin, D., ed. 2004 The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994). 4 vols. Tel Aviv University Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Vaughn, A. G. 1999 Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler Account of Hezekiah. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Vaux, R. de 1993 Tell el Farʿah: Identification and History. P. 433 in vol. 2 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Veijola, T. 1996 The History of the Passover in the Light of Deuteronomy 16,1–8. Zeitschrift für AltÂ� orientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 2: 53–75. Veldhuis, N. 1991 A Cow of Sîn. Library of Oriental Texts 2. Groningen: Styx. Vorländer, H. 1975 Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und Alten Testament. AOAT 23. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1986 Aspekte von Volksreligiosität im Alten Testament. Concilium 22: 281–85.

658

Bibliography

Vrijhof, P., and Waardenburg, J., eds. 1979 Official and Popular Religion: Analysis of a Theme for Religious Studies. Religion and Society 19. The Hague: Mouton. Wach, J. 1944 Sociology of Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1951 Religionssoziologie, trans. of 4th Eng. ed. H. Schoeck. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wagner, A. 1997 Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen im biblischen Hebräisch an der Nahtstelle zwischen Handlungsebene und Grammatik. BZAW 253. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wagner, A., ed. 2006 Primäre und sekundäre Religion als Kategorie der Religionsgeschichte des Alten Testaments. BZAW 364. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wakita, S.; Wada, H.; and Nishiyama, S. 2000 Tell Mastuma: Change in Settlement Plans and Historical Context. Pp. 535–57 in Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, ed. G. Bunnens. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7. Louvain: Peeters. Walmsley, A. G., et al. 1993 The Eleventh and Twelfth Seasons of Excavations at Pella, 1989–1990. ADAJ 37: 165–240. Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. 1990 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wampler, J. 1947 Tell en-Nasbeh, vol. 2: The Pottery. Berkeley: Palestine Inst. of Pacific School of Religion. Watzinger, C. 1929 Tell el-Mutesellim: Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät des Deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft vom Deutschen Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas Veranstalteten Ausgrabungen, vol. 2: Die Funde. Leipzig: Haupt. Weimar, P. 1980 Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5. OBO 32. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weippert, H. 1988 Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archäologie 2/1. Munich: Beck. 1990 Review of Frau und Göttin, by Urs Winter. ZDPV 106: 185–88. Weippert, M. 1997 Synkretismus und Monotheismus (1990). Pp. 1–24 in Jahwe und die anderen Götter: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in ihrem syrisch-palästinischen Kontext, ed. M. Weippert. FAT 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wellhausen, J. 1887 Reste Arabischen Heidentums. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1927a Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 6th ed. Berlin: Reimer. 1927b Reste Arabischen Heidentums. Berlin: de Gruyter. [Reprint of 1887] Welten, P. 1969 Die Königs-Stempel: Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden: HarÂ� rasÂ�sowitz.

Bibliography

659

Wenning, R. 1991a Grab. Pp. 942–46 in vol. 1 of Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. M. Görg and B. Lang. 3 vols. Zurich: Benzinger. 1991b Wer war der Paredros der Aschera? Notizen zu Terrakottastatuetten in eisenzeitÂ� lichen Gräbern. Biblische Notizen 59: 89–97. 1997 Bestattungen im königszeitlichen Juda. Theologische Quartalschrift 177: 82–93. 1998 Bestattung II. Pp. 1363–64 in vol. 1 of RGG. 4th ed. 2005 “Medien” in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Juda. Pp. 109–50 in Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der PalästinaÂ�archäologie, ed. C. Frevel. FAT 2/11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wenning, R., and Zenger, E. 1990 Tod und Bestattung im biblischen Israel: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtÂ� liche Skizze. Pp. 285–303 in Ihr alle aber seid Brüder: FS Adel Theodor Khoury, ed. L.  Hagemann and E.  Pulsfort. Religionswissenschaftliche Studien 14. Würzburg: Echter / Altenberge: Telos. Westbrook, R. 2003–5 Polygamy. Pp 600–602 in vol. 10 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. Westermann, C. 1963 Das Loben Gottes in den Psalmen. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1974 Weisheit im Sprichwort (1971). Pp. 149–61 in Forschung am Alten Testament: GeÂ� sammelte Studien, vol. 2. Theologische Bücherei 55. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. 1978a Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church, trans. Keith R. Crim. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1978b Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen. Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wette, W. M. L. de 1842 Lehrbuch der hebräisch-jüdischen Archäologie nebst einem Grundrisse der hebräischjüdischen Geschichte. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Vogel. Willett, E. A. R. 1999 Women and Household Shrines in Ancient Israel. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tucson: University of Arizona. 2008 Infant Mortality and Women’s Religion in the Biblical Periods. Pp. 1–21 in The World of Women in Ancient and Classical Near East, ed. B. A. Nakhai. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Williamson, H. G. M. 2003 The Family in Persian Period Judah: Some Textual Reflections. Pp. 469–85 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever, and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wimmer, D. H. 1987 Tell Ṣāfūṭ Excavations, 1982–1985: Preliminary Report. ADAJ 31: 159–74. 1989 Safut. Pp. 512–15 in vol. 2/2 of Archaeology of Jordan, ed. D. Homés-Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters. Winter, U. 1983 Frau und Göttin. OBO 53. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

660 1987

Bibliography Frau und Göttin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt. 2nd ed. OBO 53. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Wöhrle, J. 2011 The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision. Pp. 71–87 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. R. Achenbach, R.  Albertz, and J.  Wöhrle. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wolff, H. W., 2002 Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. 7th ed. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. Wright, D. P. 1987 The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wright, G. E. 1965 Shechem. London: Duckworth. Yadin, Y. 1958 Hazor I: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1960 Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1961 Hazor III–IV: Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958. Plates. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1972 Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (Joshua 11:10). Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970. London: Oxford University Press. Yassine, K. 1984 The Open Court Sanctuary from the Iron Age I at Tell el-Mazār Mound A. ZDPV 100: 108–18. 1988 Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports. Amman: Department of Archaeology, University of Jordan. 1989 Mazar (Tell el-). Pp. 381–84 in vol. 2.2 of Archaeology of Jordan, ed. D.  HomésFredericq and J. B. Hennessy. Leuven: Peeters. 1992 Mazar, Tell el-. Pp. 645–46 in vol. 2 of ABD. Yorburg, B. 1975 The Nuclear and Extended Family: An Area of Conceptual Confusion. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 6: 5–14. Yon, M., and Sznycer, M. M. 1991 Une inscription phénicienne royale de Kition (Chypre). Pp. 791–823 in Comptes rendus de séances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris: Boccard. Zadok, R. 1988 The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28. Leuven: Peeters. Zertal, A. 1993 Ebal, Mount. Pp. 375–77 in vol. 1 of NEAEHL. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Carta. Zevit, Z. 2001 The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London: Continuum. 2003 False Dichotomies in Descriptions of Israelite Religion: A Problem, Its Origin, and a Proposed Solution. Pp. 223–35 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past:

Bibliography

661

Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Zimhoni, O. 2004a The Pottery of Levels V and IV. Pp. 1643–788 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass PubliÂ� cations. 2004b The Pottery of Levels III and II. Pp. 1789–899 in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994), vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv University Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass PubliÂ� cations. Zimmerli, W. 1979 Ezechiel. 2 vols. 2nd ed. BKAT 13/1–2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Zorn, J. R. 1993 Tell en-Nasbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods. 4 vols. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.  Zwickel, W. 1989 Über das angebliche Verbrennen von Räucherwerk bei der Bestattung des Königs. ZAW 101: 266–77. 1990 Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte. OBO 97. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1994 Der Tempelkult in Kanaan und Israel: Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte Palästinas von der Mittelbronzezeit bis zum Untergang Judas. FAT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 1999a Der Salomonische Tempel. Mainz: Zabern. 1999b Religionsgeschichte Israels: Einführung in den gegenwärtigen Forschungsstand in den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Pp. 9–56 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale Aspekte, ed. B. Janowski and M. Köckert. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 15. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser / Gütersloher Verlag. Zwingenberger, U. 2001 Dorfkultur der frühen Eisenzeit in Mittelpalästina. OBO 180. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Index of Authors Abusch, T.â•… 388 Achenbach, R.â•… 397, 610, 655 Ackerman, S.â•… 7, 10, 15, 49–50, 53–54, 57, 225, 297, 371, 430, 474, 477 Aharoni, Y.â•… 80, 82, 116, 123–25, 232, 236–67 Ahlström, G. W.â•… 62 Albertz, R.â•… 1, 3–5, 7–8, 11, 15–18, 42, 46–47, 51, 53–54, 56–57, 63–64, 223, 225, 229, 237, 245–46, 248, 252, 256, 262, 266, 268–69, 273, 276, 278, 280, 282–85, 292, 298–99, 305–6, 314, 319, 327, 331, 333–35, 338, 345, 349–50, 357, 369, 389, 391, 395, 401–3, 409, 411, 414, 416, 421–22, 425, 428, 433, 460, 474–75, 477, 482, 485, 491 Albright, W. F.â•… 28, 62, 66, 73, 85–87, 126 Alexander, C. S.â•… 36 Alexandre, Y.â•… 108 Amiran, R.â•… 69, 73, 75, 235 ʾAmr, A. J.â•… 63–64 Anderson, G.â•… 211 Ariel, D. T.â•… 111 Arneth, M.â•… 373 Arnould, E.â•… 23 Assmann, J.â•… 52, 388, 427 Aufrecht, W. E.â•… 258, 293 Austin, J. L.â•… 410 Avigad, N.â•… 133, 232, 248, 258, 266, 267, 271, 272, 276, 279, 282, 284–85, 292–93, 307, 327, 369, 406 Avissar, M.â•… 159 Bachelot, L.â•… 258 Badè, W. F.â•… 157 Badre, L.â•… 209–10 Barnett, R. D.â•… 210, 383 Beckman, G. M.â•… 269, 389–90 Beck, P.â•… 68, 392 Begrich, J.â•… 273, 416 Beit-Arieh, I.â•… 64, 67, 69–71, 73, 112, 236–37 Ben-Ami, D.â•… 103–4, 232

Bendor, S.â•… 22–23, 25, 42 Bennet, C. M.â•… 189–90 Ben-Shlomo, D.â•… 67–69, 193, 195, 197, 199, 232, 436 Ben-Tor, A.â•… 70, 103–4, 159, 161–64 Benz, F. L.â•… 254, 258, 288, 306, 313, 316, 320, 353, 359 Berlinerblau, J.â•… 50–51, 54, 271–72, 404–6, 409, 490 Bernett, M.â•… 233 Bertholet, A.â•… 410, 435 Bienkowski, P.â•… 189–90 Biggs, R. D.â•… 422 Biran, A.â•… 69, 233, 238 Bird, P. A.â•… 8–9, 53, 269, 297, 474 Birnbaum, S. A.â•… 66, 466 Black, J.â•… 383 Blenkinsopp, J.â•… 33, 49, 57 Bliss, F. J.â•… 226 Bloch-Smith, E.â•… 59, 64, 67, 73, 134, 140, 170, 236–37, 429–30, 437–40, 444, 447–48, 453–54, 456–57, 460, 469 Blum, E.â•… 354, 394 Bodel, J.â•… 7–8, 54, 57, 477 Bordreuil, P.â•… 375 Borghouts, J. F.â•… 64, 71, 389–90 Borowski, O.â•… 31, 101, 269 Bourke, S. J.â•… 186, 189 Bousset, W.â•… 435 Braemer, F.â•… 26, 31 Braudel, F.â•… 17 Braulik, G.â•… 455 Brenner, A.â•… 395 Brentjes, B.â•… 375 Bretschneider, J.â•… 68 Briend, H.â•… 69, 211 Brueggemann, W.â•… 2 Brug, J. F.â•… 69 Buhl, M. L.â•… 169 Bunimovitz, S.â•… 22, 26, 28, 32–33, 39, 41, 92

662

Index of Authors Burch, T. K.â•… 33, 34 Callaway, J. A.â•… 74, 164–65 Campbell, E. F.â•… 28, 32, 223 Capet, E.â•… 209–10 Cartledge, T. M.â•… 409 Cecchini, S. M.â•… 216–18 Chambon, A.â•… 94–95, 97, 233 Childs, B. S.â•… 2, 393, 399, 402, 421 Cholidis, N.â•… 68 Clark, D. R.â•… 28–29, 190, 192 Coats, G. W.â•… 393 Cogan, M.â•… 239, 369 Cohen, R.â•… 67, 69–71, 73, 78, 235 Colledge, S. M.â•… 170, 187 Collon, D.â•… 69, 375, 382, 384 Conrad, J.â•… 4 Cook, S. A.â•… 62 Cooley, R. E.â•… 164, 165 Cornelius, I.â•… 63, 66 Crawford, T. G.â•… 410 Cross, F. M.â•… 11, 352, 357, 365, 374 Crowfoot, G. M.â•… 380–81, 383, 444, 447, 466, 468 Crowfoot, J. W.â•… 380–81, 383, 444, 447, 466, 468 Crüsemann, F.â•… 325, 395 Cryer, F. H.â•… 388, 429, 469, 470 Curtis, J.â•… 218 Dahm, U.â•… 399–400 Daviau, P. M. M.â•… 7, 14–15, 57, 58–59, 69, 71–74, 176, 178–79, 182, 186, 227, 232–33, 474 Dessel, J. P.â•… 102, 172 Deutsch, R.â•… 248–49, 258, 260, 263–64, 267, 289, 291–92, 315, 317–18, 364 Dever, W. G.â•… 10, 12–13, 15, 32–34, 49, 53–54, 95, 99, 172, 220, 222–24, 238, 269, 297, 368, 386, 468, 474, 477 Dietrich, M.â•… 456 Dijk, J. J. vanâ•… 391 Dion, P.-E.â•… 69, 71, 176, 186, 232 Di Vito, R. A.â•… 350–51 Dohmen, C.â•… 421 Doll, P.â•… 338 Donner, H.â•… 269, 320, 369 Dornemann, R.â•… 65, 67, 176 Dothan, M.â•… 68, 193, 195, 197, 199, 203–5, 238

663

Dothan, T.â•… 68–69, 195, 199, 201, 203, 205, 227, 232, 238, 239 Douglas, M.â•… 388, 394–95, 403, 418, 420, 422–25, 427, 491 Duhm, B.â•… 1, 474 Durham, J. I.â•… 393 Durkheim, E.â•… 388 Ebertz, M.â•… 50 Edelstein, G.â•… 76–77 Edwards, P. C.â•… 170, 187 Eggler, J.â•… 258, 369, 379–81, 385 Eichrodt, W.â•… 2, 474 Eissfeldt, O.â•… 2 Ellens, D. L.â•… 422–23 Elliger, K.â•… 61, 418, 424–25 Engberg, R. M.â•… 439–40 Engle, J. R.â•… 62–63 Eshel, I.â•… 73, 462–63, 466, 468 Fales, F. M.â•… 258 Farber, W.â•… 269, 389–90, 392 Faust, A.â•… 22, 26, 28, 32–33, 39–43, 476 Fichtner, J.â•… 246, 336 Finkelstein, I.â•… 88, 108, 134, 141, 155, 157, 169 Fischer, A. A.â•… 429 Fischer, I.â•… 397–98 Fischer, P. M.â•… 176–77 Fohrer, G.â•… 48, 60–61, 387, 477 Fortes, M.â•… 430 Fowler, M. D.â•… 170, 172, 245, 251, 253, 257, 270, 286, 300, 311, 324, 340, 348, 355, 357–58 Franken, H. J.â•… 462–63, 468 Frankfort, H.â•… 422 Frazer, J. G.â•… 410, 423, 435 Freedman, D. N.â•… 68, 203, 204 Friedl, C.â•… 395, 397 Fritz, V.â•… 112–14, 125–30, 220, 232, 235 Fustel de Coulanges, N. D.â•… 429 Galling, K.â•… 62, 393 Gal, Z.â•… 108, 172 Gerstenberger, E. S.â•… 2, 6, 53, 57, 335, 394, 397, 399, 414–16, 418, 421–22, 424–25, 435, 474, 477, 482 Geva, S.â•… 36–37, 39, 57–58, 106 Gibson, J. C. L.â•… 258 Gilbert-Peretz, D.â•… 68, 210

664

Index of Authors

Gitin, S.â•… 48, 70, 193, 195, 205–6, 223, 238–39, 241 Givon, S.â•… 225 Gjerstad, E.â•… 66, 69 Glock, A. E.â•… 169–70 Gogel, S. L.â•… 349 Golka, F. W.â•… 336 Gordon, R. L.â•… 177 Gottwald, N. K.â•… 22, 25, 33, 37, 42–43, 476 Grabbe, L. L.â•… 420 Grant, E.â•… 92–93 Green, A.â•… 218, 383 Greenberg, M.â•… 49 Gressmann, H.â•… 393 Gröndahl, F.â•… 246, 251, 365 Groot, A. deâ•… 111 Gross, W.â•… 402 Grünschloß, A.â•… 52 Grünwaldt, K.â•… 395, 399, 401 Gubel, E.â•… 209–10, 376, 380 Gunkel, H.â•… 393, 395, 397 Guy, P. L. O.â•… 439, 440 Hachlili, R.â•… 66, 68, 203, 437, 457, 461 Halpern, B.â•… 141, 157 Harrison, T. P.â•… 141–42, 144–48, 151–53, 155 Hartenstein, F.â•… 16, 54 Hartley, J. F.â•… 423 Heide, M.â•… 249 Helck, W.â•… 63 Heltzer, M.â•… 248–49, 258, 263, 289, 317–18, 364 Hempel, J.â•… 1, 474 Herr, L. G.â•… 28–29, 136, 170, 190, 192, 220, 233 Herrmann, S.â•… 71, 381, 383, 392 Hertzberg, H. W.â•… 437 Herzog, Z.â•… 69, 71, 84, 132–33, 137, 140, 236, 383 Hestrin, R.â•… 62 Hoffmann, H.-D.â•… 245 Holladay, J. A.â•… 11–13, 15, 22, 26, 28, 32–33, 36–37, 49–50, 55, 58, 82, 136–37, 141, 173, 220–21, 223, 228–30, 240, 468, 474, 477 Holland, T. A.â•… 62, 65–67, 462–63 Holm-Nielsen, E.â•… 169 Horkheimer, M.â•… 21 Hubert, H.â•… 388 Hübner, U.â•… 63, 258, 274, 376, 379, 384

Hug, V.â•… 258, 289 Humbert, J.-B.â•… 69, 211 Hurowitz, V. A.â•… 237 Jacobsen, T.â•… 2 Jacobs, P.â•… 101–2 Jahnow, H.â•… 399, 434–35 James, F. W.â•… 87–88, 90–91, 388 Jamieson, A. S.â•… 207–8 Janowski, B.â•… 267, 302, 311, 416, 429, 469 Jeffers, A.â•… 388, 429, 469–70 Jeremias, J.â•… 16, 54 Jirku, A.â•… 435 Joüon, P.â•… 349 Karageorghis, V.â•… 66–68 Keel, O.â•… 63, 65–66, 68–69, 71, 73, 233, 237, 258, 291, 367, 368–71, 374, 377–86, 392, 421, 469 Kelm, G. L.â•… 77 Kelso, J. L.â•… 85 Kempinski, A.â•… 125–30, 135, 137, 139, 209, 220 Kenyon, K. M.â•… 66, 444, 447, 462, 466, 468 Kertzer, D. I.â•… 22–24, 43, 475 Khalifeh, I. A.â•… 211 Killebrew, A.â•… 437, 457, 461 Kim, T.-K.â•… 336, 338 King, P. J.â•… 22, 31, 34, 43–44, 220, 269, 296, 303, 395, 470 Kletter, R.â•… 59, 62, 64–66, 68, 73, 80, 84–85, 92, 116–17, 120, 157, 195, 226, 232, 236, 383, 481 König, R.â•… 21 Kottsieper, I.â•… 195, 326, 337, 354 Kraus, H. J.â•… 456 Krebernik, M.â•… 269, 389 Kreuzer, S.â•… 329 Kronholm, T.â•… 395 Kühn, D.â•… 429, 460–61 Kühne, H.â•… 218 Kutsch, E.â•… 434 Lambert, W. G.â•… 276 Lamon, R. S.â•… 136, 140 Lamprichs, R.â•… 183–84 Lance, H. D.â•… 99 Lanczkowski, G.â•… 3, 53, 477 Lang, B.â•… 53, 57, 336

Index of Authors Lapp, P. W.â•… 169–70 Laslett, P.â•… 22–24, 38, 475 LeBlanc, S.â•… 32–33 Lehmann-Jericke, K.â•… 209 Lemaire, A.â•… 248–49, 258, 260, 263–64, 267, 275, 288, 291, 306, 315, 318, 358 Lemche, N. P.â•… 25 Lenzen, C.â•… 177 Lernau, H.â•… 463 Leuenberger, M.â•… 16–17, 49, 52, 54, 410–12, 477 Lévi-Strauss, C.â•… 420, 423, 425 Levy, S.â•… 76–77, 461 Lewis, T. J.â•… 60–61, 429–30, 433, 456, 458, 469, 493 Lipiński, E.â•… 63 Loretz, O.â•… 61, 430, 432, 435, 456, 457, 470–71 Loud, G.â•… 134–35, 141–42, 144–48, 151–53 Macalister, R. A. S.â•… 70, 99, 226, 439 MacKay, D.â•… 206 Mackenzie, D.â•… 92, 439, 448–49 Magen, Y.â•… 406–9 Mähner, S.â•… 353 Manor, D. W.â•… 93 Mansour, S.â•… 176 Maraqten, M.â•… 258, 275, 283, 289, 306, 308 Marquet-Krause, J.â•… 74–75 Marsman, H. J.â•… 395, 397–98 Matsushima, E.â•… 51 Mauss, M.â•… 388 May, H. G.â•… 62, 69, 138–42, 285, 413 Mazar, A.â•… 67–70, 77–78, 133, 165, 170, 197, 220, 230, 232, 235 Mazar, B.â•… 93–94, 463, 466 Mazar, E.â•… 463, 466 Mazzoni, S.â•… 209, 215–18 McCown, C. C.â•… 157, 440, 444 McGeough, K. M.â•… 458 McKay, J. W.â•… 369 McLaughlin, J. L.â•… 458 McNicoll, A. W.â•… 187 McQuitty, A. M.â•… 177 Meyers, C.â•… 9–11, 16, 23–25, 33–34, 37, 53, 57, 64, 225–26, 247, 269, 277, 294, 297, 395, 474–76 Michel, D.â•… 349 Milgrom, J.â•… 403, 418, 420–25 Millard, A. R.â•… 276

665

Miller, P. D.â•… 6, 15, 49, 53, 269, 474, 477 Misgav, H.â•… 407–9 Mitchell, C. W.â•… 410 Mol, H.â•… 56 Moorey, P. R. S.â•… 64–66, 68, 226, 468 Moortgat, A.â•… 375 Morgan, L. H.â•… 388 Moscati, S.â•… 67, 461 Mowinckel, S.â•… 410, 435 Münger, S.â•… 112, 115, 155 Muraoka, T.â•… 349 Nakhai, B. Alpertâ•… 13–15, 57, 166, 172, 223, 474 Naroll, R.â•… 32–33 Nave-Herz, R.â•… 21, 43, 54, 336, 351, 475, 485 Naveh, J.â•… 195, 239, 249, 285, 420 Negbi, O.â•… 14, 58, 134, 137, 140–41, 477 Nelson, R. D.â•… 292 Netting, R. McC.â•… 23 Netzer, E.â•… 31–33 Niehr, H.â•… 52, 354, 379, 430, 477, 493 Niemeier, W. A.â•… 209 Nishiyama, S.â•… 208 Nissinen, M.â•… 112, 115 Noth, M.â•… 245–46, 250–53, 255, 257, 264, 267–68, 270, 274, 276–77, 283, 286, 290, 295, 300–301, 303–4, 307, 312, 315, 320, 322, 327–28, 332, 341, 349–50, 352–53, 363, 393, 402–3, 421, 424–25, 482, 483 Nunn, A.â•… 207, 215 O’Connor, M. P.â•… 349 Olyan, S. M.â•… 7–8, 16, 45, 49, 54, 57, 371, 424, 429–30, 434–36, 458, 470, 474, 477, 482 Ornan, T.â•… 376, 379 Orthmann, W.â•… 291 Otto, A.â•… 207–8, 415–16, 419 Pakkala, J.â•… 112, 155 Parayre, D.â•… 368, 373, 376 Parker, B.â•… 370 Pedersen, J.â•… 410 Perdue, L. G.â•… 22, 25 Person Jr., R. F.â•… 292 Petrie, W. M. F.â•… 62, 370 Pettinato, G.â•… 274 Pilz, E.â•… 62 Podella, T.â•… 373, 429–31, 434–35, 469–70

666

Index of Authors

Porada, E.â•… 375, 384 Porath, Y.â•… 195, 203 Porten, B.â•… 396–97 Porter, J. R.â•… 22, 26 Portugali, Y.â•… 70, 159, 161–64 Potts, T. E.â•… 170, 187 Prag, K.â•… 73, 462–63, 468 Pressler, C.â•… 398 Press, M. D.â•… 68, 193, 436 Preuss, H. D.â•… 2, 336, 437 Pritchard, J. B.â•… 58, 62, 67, 165, 167–69, 209, 211, 221 Propp, W. H. C.â•… 393 Prosic, T.â•… 399 Rad, G. vonâ•… 2, 47, 265, 388, 421, 425, 429, 474, 477 Rast, W. E.â•… 170 Rechenmacher, H.â•… 245, 251, 255, 268, 304, 349 Reichert, L.â•… 74 Reich, R.â•… 220 Rendtorff, R.â•… 354 Renz, J.â•… 12, 66, 239, 248–49, 251–52, 254, 264, 266–68, 270–72, 276, 280, 282, 284, 288–89, 292, 294, 302, 306–7, 311–12, 318, 321, 323, 326, 329, 344, 353, 365, 396, 412–13, 460, 463, 466 Riklin, S.â•… 39 Ringgren, H.â•… 47, 477 Ritner, R. K.â•… 7, 64, 388, 392, 394 Rittig, D.â•… 384 Robinson, G.â•… 401 Röllig, W.â•… 12, 66, 239, 248–49, 251–52, 254, 258, 264, 266–72, 276, 280, 282, 284, 288–89, 292, 294, 302, 306–7, 311–12, 318, 320–21, 323, 326, 329, 344, 353, 365, 396, 412–13, 460, 463, 466 Römheld, K. F. D.â•… 274 Rost, L.â•… 460 Rothenberg, B.â•… 72, 235 Rouillard, H.â•… 432 Routledge, B.â•… 176 Rowe, A.â•… 87 Rowley, H. H.â•… 1, 474 Rudolph, W.â•… 47, 307 Sader, H.â•… 258 Saller, R.â•… 38

Sass, B.â•… 117, 120, 248, 258, 266, 267, 271–72, 276, 279, 282, 284–85, 293, 307, 327, 369, 374–76, 379, 381–82, 384, 406 Saʿad, Z. al-â•… 183–84 Scharbert, J.â•… 22, 395 Schloen, J. D.â•… 25–26, 32–33, 38–39, 41–42, 294, 476 Schlund, C.â•… 399–400 Schmidt, B. B.â•… 429–30, 435–56, 458, 469 Schmitt, R.â•… 7, 10, 17, 52, 57, 61, 63–69, 99, 112, 122, 134, 167, 169–70, 179, 182, 193, 195, 197, 203–5, 226, 229, 231, 274, 367–68, 370, 373–74, 376, 378, 383, 386, 388, 410–11, 415–18, 422, 427, 429–30, 436, 470, 479, 493 Schroer, S.â•… 63, 65–66, 460–61 Schultheis, F.â•… 50 Schumacher, G.â•… 137–39, 141, 370 Schwemer, D.â•… 388 Schwiderski, D.â•… 258 Segal, J. B.â•… 49 Seger, J. D.â•… 100–102 Sellin, E.â•… 1, 169–70, 474, 482 Seybold, K.â•… 60–61, 456 Shalem, D.â•… 172, 340, 377 Shiloh, Y.â•… 13, 22, 28, 33, 108, 111–12, 135, 168–69, 249, 271, 383 Shipton, G. M.â•… 136, 140 Smend, R.â•… 47, 477 Smith, M. S.â•… 65 Smith, R. H.â•… 186 Smith, W. R.â•… 388, 410, 423–24, 429, 432, 435 Spencer, H.â•… 429 Spieckermann, H.â•… 369–70 Spronk, K.â•… 429–30, 432, 435, 456, 458, 469, 493 Stade, B.â•… 1, 474 Stager, L. E.â•… 22, 28–29, 31–37, 42–44, 220, 269, 395 Stamm, J. J.â•… 251–52, 265, 267, 294, 312, 316, 350, 352–53, 483 Steiner, M.â•… 186, 232, 462–63, 468 Stern, E.â•… 71, 112, 140, 207, 220, 371 Stol, M.â•… 269, 280, 389, 391 Stolz, F.â•… 4, 6, 15–16, 53, 278, 474, 477, 482 Stone, E. C.â•… 212, 214–15, 424 Sukenik, E. L.â•… 66, 444, 466, 468 Sundermeier, T.â•… 51–52, 387, 414, 423, 426–27, 430, 477

Index of Authors Sznycer, M. M.â•… 258 Tambiah, S. J.â•… 410 Theuer, G.â•… 378 Thiel, J. F.â•… 430 Thiselton, A. C.â•… 410 Thomsen, M.-L.â•… 388 Tigay, J. H.â•… 245, 339–40, 348, 363 Timm, S.â•… 258, 376, 384 Tita, H.â•… 271, 409 Toorn, K. van derâ•… 5–7, 14–16, 22, 25, 34, 42–44, 53, 57, 60–62, 65, 225, 269–70, 280, 297, 350, 387, 389, 393, 395, 398, 419, 423, 429–30, 432–33, 437, 455, 457, 474, 476–77, 493 Tropper, J.â•… 60, 251, 429, 432, 469–70 Tsfania, L.â•… 407–9 Tsukimoto, A.â•… 455 Tubb, J. N.â•… 165, 167 Tufnell, O.â•… 73, 122, 382, 440, 447–49, 459, 469 Turner, V. W.â•… 434 Tylor, E. B.â•… 388, 410, 429 Uehlinger, C.â•… 63, 65–66, 68, 237, 367–71, 374–76, 378–82, 384, 386, 392, 469 Ussishkin, D.â•… 116–17, 120, 134 35, 137–41, 155, 157, 468 Vaux, R. deâ•… 94 Veijola, T.â•… 399 Vieweger, D.â•… 112 Vorländer, H.â•… 2–5, 7, 49, 53, 474, 477 Vrijhof, P.â•… 50 Wach, J.â•… 51–53 Wada, H.â•… 208 Wagner, A.â•… 52, 410, 477 Wakita, S.â•… 208 Waltke, B. K.â•… 349 Wampler, J.â•… 157 Watzinger, C.â•… 139 Weimar, P.â•… 393

667

Weippert, H.â•… 11, 63, 93, 136, 140, 164, 220, 223, 225, 229, 466, 474 Weippert, M.â•… 3, 8, 11, 15 Wellhausen, J.â•… 1, 393, 399 Wenning, R.â•… 63, 65, 68, 429–30, 437–39, 447–49, 453–60 Westbrook, R.â•… 395 Westermann, C.â•… 2, 325–36, 410 Wilk, R.â•… 23 Willett, E. A. R.â•… 9–10, 14, 16, 57, 82, 98, 128, 173, 224, 294, 392, 474 Williamson, H. G. M.â•… 26 Wimmer, D. H.â•… 189 Winter, U.â•… 57, 62–63 Wisthoff, B. L.â•… 172 Wöhrle, J.â•… 395 Wolff, H. W.â•… 395 Wright, G. E.â•… 92–93, 99, 370, 418, 459 Yadin, Y.â•… 28, 73, 103–6, 380, 460 Yardeni, A.â•… 249, 275, 396–97 Yassine, K.â•… 176, 184, 186 Yisrael, Y.â•… 67, 69–71, 73–74, 235 Yon, M.â•… 258 Yorburg, B.â•… 42 Zadok, R.â•… 249, 251, 267, 271, 280, 288–89, 304, 318, 320, 323, 332, 352–53, 365 Zangenberg, J.â•… 112, 155, 457 Zenger, E.â•… 429–30, 439 Zertal, A.â•… 235 Zevit, Z.â•… 13–15, 50–51, 53, 68, 70, 75, 94, 103–4, 124–25, 135–37, 139, 170, 220, 222–23, 232, 236, 466, 468, 474 Ziffer, I.â•… 68, 73, 195, 232 Zimansky, P. E.â•… 212, 214–15 Zimhoni, O.â•… 116–17, 120 Zimmerli, W.â•… 281, 391 Zwickel, W.â•… 18, 49, 57, 69–71, 74, 94, 104, 133, 135–36, 140, 164–65, 170, 176, 184–85, 204–5, 220–21, 223, 232, 235–37, 456, 466 Zwingenberger, U.â•… 173, 224

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחאבה‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחאבו‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחאבי‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחאד‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 577‬אחאם‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 577‬אחאמה‬ ‫‪ 300, 537‬אחבן‬ ‫‪ 573‬אחבר‬ ‫‪ 548‬אחז‬ ‫‪ 548‬אחזי‬ ‫‪ 306, 548‬אחזיהו‬ ‫‪ 352, 487, 514,‬אחחר‬ ‫‪578‬‬ ‫‪ 572–73‬אחטב‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחי‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחיא‬ ‫‪ 353, 514, 577‬אחיאב‬ ‫‪ 352, 356, 514,‬אחיאל‬ ‫‪577‬‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 514,‬אחיאם‬ ‫‪577‬‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחיהו‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחיו‬ ‫‪ 574‬אחיחי‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחימא‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחימה‬ ‫‪ 312, 331, 556‬אחיעזר‬ ‫‪ 301, 331, 540‬אחיקם‬ ‫‪ 311, 331, 554‬אחיׁשחר‬ ‫‪ 541‬אחיׁשע‬ ‫‪ 356n, 487, 514,‬אחלי‬ ‫‪577‬‬ ‫‪ 275, 389n, 586‬אחלכד‬ ‫‪ 577‬אחמה‬ ‫‪ 255, 352, 360n,‬אחמלך‬ ‫‪364, 578‬‬ ‫‪ 352, 353n, 364,‬אחמלכה‬ ‫‪366–67, 578‬‬ ‫‪ 352, 578, 592‬אחמן‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 606‬אגור‬ ‫‪ 580‬אדא‬ ‫‪ 588‬אדבנה‬ ‫‪ 572‬אדגאי‬ ‫‪ 317, 332, 562‬אדמעזי‬ ‫‪ 581‬אדנא‬ ‫‪ 360, 514, 581‬אדנאב‬ ‫‪ 360, 581‬אדנבעל‬ ‫‪ 580‬אדניה‬ ‫‪ 360, 581‬אדניהו‬ ‫‪ 581‬אדניו‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬אדניחי‬ ‫‪ 572‬אדנלרם‬ ‫‪ 514, 581‬אדנמלך‬ ‫‪ 558‬אדננר‬ ‫‪ 559‬אדנעז‬ ‫‪ 555‬אדנפלט‬ ‫‪ 558‬אדנרי‬ ‫‪ 581‬אדנׁשמׁש‬ ‫‪ 554‬אדנׁשע‬ ‫‪ 593‬אדנתן‬ ‫‪ 575‬אדקר‬ ‫‪ 572‬אדקׁשר‬ ‫‪ 557‬אדרמלך‬ ‫‪ 587‬אדרפא‬ ‫‪ 562‬אדׁשרי‬ ‫‪ 364–65, 366, 581‬אדתא‬ ‫‪ 318, 563‬אהלבעל‬ ‫‪ 563‬אהלמלך‬ ‫‪ 598‬אוא‬ ‫‪ 562‬אוהל‬ ‫‪ 558‬אורא‬ ‫‪ 558‬אוראל‬ ‫‪ 558‬אוריהו‬ ‫‪ 535‬אזן‬ ‫‪ 535‬אזני‬ ‫‪ 535‬אזניו‬ ‫‪ 578‬אחא‬ ‫‪ 352–53, 577‬אחאב‬

‫‪668‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ʾAlep‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬אב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 576‬אבבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 564‬אבגיל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬אבדכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬אבדׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 362, 576‬אבהא‬ ‫‪ 352, 576‬אבחלדי ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אבטביה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אביאסף‬ ‫‪ 576‬אביבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 576‬אביה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 514, 576‬אביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 576‬אביו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬אביחי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬אביקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬אבנדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬אבנעם‬ ‫‪ 352, 576‬אבנׁשמׁש ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬אבנתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אבסי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬אבעד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬אבעדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬אבעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬אבעזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬אבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 540‬אבקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אבראס‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אברבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אברגד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אבריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571–72‬אברם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554‬אבׁשוע‬ ‫‪] 562‬א[בׁשורי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬אבׁשלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬אגברת‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫‪669‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 552‬אלׁשמר‬ ‫‪ 554‬אלׁשע‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬אלתי‬ ‫‪ 353, 364, 514,‬אמיאח‬ ‫‪577‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬אמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 363, 556‬אמעזר‬ ‫‪ 353, 363, 367,‬אמעׁשתרת ‬ ‫‪577‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬אמץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬אמצאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אמר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬אמרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬אמראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬אמרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 274–75, 585‬אמריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274, 585‬אמריו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אמרן‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתאסר ‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתבעל ‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתמסכר ‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתספר ‬ ‫‪ 566‬אמתעׁשתרת ‬ ‫‪ 321–22, 566‬אמתׁשמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬אני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 587‬אסי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 582‬אספת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬אסרחם‬ ‫‪ 552‬אפלדׂשגב ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264n, 285n, 323,‬אפלי‬ ‫‪569‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אפסח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬אפרח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬אצבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 286‬אצול‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 591‬אצי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 286, 593‬אצליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬ארא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 558‬אריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬אריו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬ארמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ארׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ארׁשת‬

‫ אליסמך‬ ‫ אליסף‬ ‫ אליעז‬ ‫ אליעם‬ ‫ אליצר‬ ‫ אליקם‬ ‫ אלירב‬ ‫ אלירם‬ ‫ אליׁשב‬

‫‪331, 485, 547‬‬ ‫‪290, 597‬‬ ‫‪331, 485, 559‬‬ ‫‪356, 360, 579‬‬ ‫‪317, 331, 562‬‬ ‫‪306, 450‬‬ ‫‪303, 545‬‬ ‫‪326, 571‬‬ ‫‪267, 295–96, 483,‬‬ ‫‪600‬‬ ‫‪ 302, 541‬אליׁשע‬ ‫‪ 589‬אלכן‬ ‫‪ 536‬אללחז‬ ‫‪ 603‬אללי‬ ‫‪ 569‬אלם‬ ‫‪ 356, 360–61n,‬אלמלך‬ ‫‪579‬‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬אלמנני‬ ‫‪] 316–17, 562‬א[למעז‬ ‫‪ 327, 572‬אלמׁשל‬ ‫‪ 568‬אלן‬ ‫‪ 293, 594‬אלנדב‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלנורי‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלנר‬ ‫‪ 287, 593‬אלנתן‬ ‫‪ 305, 331, 547‬אלסמך‬ ‫‪ 334, 557‬אלסמכי‬ ‫‪ 553‬אלסתר‬ ‫‪ 278, 589‬אלעבד‬ ‫‪ 590‬אלעדה‬ ‫‪ 331, 559‬אלעז‬ ‫‪ 315, 332n, 559‬אלעזן‬ ‫‪ 254–55, 305, 546‬אלעזר‬ ‫‪ 571‬אלעלן‬ ‫‪ 356, 360, 487,‬אלעם‬ ‫‪514, 579‬‬ ‫‪ 588‬אלעׂש‬ ‫‪ 484, 588‬אלעׂשה‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬אלף‬ ‫‪ 311, 555‬אלפלט‬ ‫‪ 278, 588–89‬אלפעל‬ ‫‪ 585‬אלצאל‬ ‫‪ 331, 562‬אלצר‬ ‫‪ 552‬אלקה‬ ‫‪ 589‬אלקנה‬ ‫‪ 571‬אלרם‬ ‫‪ 552‬אלׂשגב‬ ‫‪[ 552‬אל]ׂשגב‬ ‫‪ 299, 534‬אלׁשמע‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 594‬אחנדב‬ ‫‪ 559‬אחנ]ו[רי‬ ‫‪ 328, 367, 573‬אחנעם‬ ‫‪ 571‬אחעל‬ ‫‪ 562‬אחצר‬ ‫‪ 331, 540‬אחקם‬ ‫‪ 572‬אחרם‬ ‫‪ 568‬אחת‬ ‫‪ 366, 487, 514,‬אחתאב‬ ‫‪578‬‬ ‫‪ 353n, 366, 578‬אחתמלך‬ ‫‪ 605‬אטר‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬איא‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬איוב‬ ‫‪ 557‬אילן‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬אינדב‬ ‫‪ 293, 598‬איעזר‬ ‫‪ 254, 293, 598‬איעם‬ ‫‪ 282, 333, 591‬איץ‬ ‫‪ 605‬אכמא‬ ‫‪ 568‬אל‬ ‫‪ 577‬אלא‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלאור‬ ‫‪ 539‬אלאמן‬ ‫‪ 549‬אלאמץ‬ ‫‪ 585‬אלאמר‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלאר‬ ‫‪ 263, 301, 540‬אלבא‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬אלבעדי‬ ‫‪ 356, 579‬אלבעל‬ ‫‪ 597‬אלבר]ך[‬ ‫‪ 549‬אלגבר‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬אלדׁש]א[‬ ‫‪ 349, 362n, 579‬אלהוא‬ ‫‪ 550‬אלה]ל[אי‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬אלהלי‬ ‫‪ 558‬אלהנר‬ ‫‪ 546‬אלהעזר‬ ‫‪ 300, 536‬אלזכר‬ ‫‪ 300, 538‬אלחנן‬ ‫‪ 267, 302, 541‬אליאר‬ ‫‪ 265n, 573‬אליבר‬ ‫‪ 544‬אלידן‬ ‫‪ 579‬אליה‬ ‫‪ 595‬אליהב‬ ‫‪ 356, 361, 487,‬אליהו‬ ‫‪514, 579‬‬ ‫‪ 579‬אליו‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬אליכן‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ 593‬בעלנתן‬ ‫‪ 536‬בעלסכר‬ ‫‪ 564‬בעלעדן‬ ‫‪ 547‬בעלעוׁש‬ ‫‪ 560‬בעלעז‬ ‫‪ 556‬בעלעזר‬ ‫‪ 536‬בעלפלס‬ ‫‪ 597‬בעלצלח‬ ‫‪ 274, 586‬בעלרגם‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬בעלרם‬ ‫‪ 296, 600‬בעלׁשלם‬ ‫‪ 535‬בעלׁשם‬ ‫‪ 535‬בעלׁשמע‬ ‫‪ 552‬בעלׁשמר‬ ‫‪ 573‬בעלתם‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬בערא‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בצל‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בצלאל‬ ‫‪ 604‬בצר‬ ‫‪ 596‬בקי‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬בקיהו‬ ‫‪ 272, 584‬בקׁש‬ ‫‪ 272, 584‬בקׁשת‬ ‫‪ 569‬בראבא‬ ‫‪ 279‬בראיה‬ ‫‪ 569‬בראם‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברגאיה‬ ‫‪ 264, 323, 486,‬ברהדד‬ ‫‪569‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬ברך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬ברכא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596–97‬ברכאל‬ ‫‪ 596‬ברכבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬ברכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 596‬ברכיהו‬ ‫‪ 597‬ברכׁשמׁש ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬ברכתמלקרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬ברעזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברעמא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברעתר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ברצר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬בררכב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬ברק‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 248n, 284, 602‬ברקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬ברׁשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 367, 570‬בתאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 570‬בתאׁשם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 570‬בתנעם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 486, 570‬בתׁשחר‬

‫‪ 302, 540‬ביתלפן‬ ‫‪ 557‬בכא[ל[‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬בכי‬ ‫‪ 608‬בכרי‬ ‫‪ 568‬בל‬ ‫‪ 607‬בלבל‬ ‫‪ 267, 302, 541‬בלגי‬ ‫‪ 285n, 592‬בלט‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬בלטה‬ ‫‪ 593‬בלנתן‬ ‫‪ 584‬בלׂשי‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬בלתה‬ ‫‪ 360–61n, 561‬במלך‬ ‫‪ 588‬בנא‬ ‫‪ 278, 588‬בנאל‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנאר‬ ‫‪ 264, 569‬בנבעל‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנחדׁש‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנחף‬ ‫‪ 588‬בניא‬ ‫‪ 278, 484, 588‬בניהו‬ ‫‪ 604‬בנעדנן‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנען‬ ‫‪ 323, 569‬בנענ]ת[‬ ‫‪ 365, 588‬בנענת‬ ‫‪ 569‬בנרׁשף‬ ‫‪ 322–23, 392, 568‬בסי‬ ‫‪ 577‬בעדא‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬בעדאל‬ ‫‪ 349n, 557‬בעדיהו‬ ‫‪ 556‬בעזראל‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬בעל‬ ‫‪ 358, 579‬בעלא‬ ‫‪ 300, 536‬בעלזכר‬ ‫‪ 538‬בעלחן‬ ‫‪ 538‬בעלחנן‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬בעלי‬ ‫‪ 358, 363, 488,‬בעליה‬ ‫‪514, 579‬‬ ‫‪ 538‬בעליחן‬ ‫‪ 573‬בעליטב‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬בעליסף‬ ‫‪ 541‬בעליׁשע‬ ‫‪ 593‬בעליתן‬ ‫‪ 275, 586‬בעלמלאך‬ ‫‪ 359, 580‬בעלמלך‬ ‫‪ 606‬בעלמעני‬ ‫‪ 266, 274–275,‬בעלנחׁש‬ ‫‪389n, 586‬‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪670‬‬ ‫‪ 367, 584‬ארׁשתבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשאב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287n, 595‬אׁשבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אשחר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬אׁשיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 595‬אׁשיהו‬ ‫‪ 580‬אׁשמנאדן ‬ ‫‪ 358–59, 487,‬אׁשמנאדני ‬ ‫‪514, 580‬‬ ‫‪ 543‬אׁשמנחלץ ‬ ‫‪ 275, 586‬אׁשמניעד ‬ ‫‪ 593‬אׁשמניתן ‬ ‫‪ 305, 546‬אׁשמנעזר ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬אׁשמנצלח ‬ ‫‪ 543‬אׁשמנשלך ‬ ‫‪ 600‬אׁשמנׁשלם ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 583‬אׁשנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 583‬אׁשניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 583‬אׁשניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 271, 583‬אׁשניו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬אׁשרחי‬ ‫‪ 544‬אׁשרׁשלח ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬אתאל‬ ‫‪] 313, 557‬א[תבעל ‬ ‫‪Bet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬בבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדאל‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדאׁשמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בדבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬בדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדיו‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדמלכם ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדמלקרת ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בדעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬בוזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬בזא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 545‬בחנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬בידאל‬ ‫‪ 282, 590‬ביתאלדלני ‬ ‫‪ 537‬ביתעלידע ‬ ‫‪ 313, 557‬ביתאלעׁשני ‬ ‫‪ 561‬ביתאלרעי ‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫‪671‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬הודיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬הוׁשע‬ ‫‪ 542‬הוׁשע]א[ל ‬ ‫‪ 542‬הוׁשעיה ‬ ‫‪ 302, 542‬הוׁשעיהו ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬היהדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬הכוס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬הללאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬הלליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 591‬הצל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 282, 590‬הצלאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 282, 333,‬הצליהו‬ ‫‪590‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬הרבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬הׂשרק‬ ‫‪Waw‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬והבדה‬ ‫‪Zayin‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬זבן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬זבנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272n, 585‬זבנאדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265, 328, 573‬זכא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265, 328, 573‬זכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬זכן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬זכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 536‬זכראל‬ ‫‪ 536‬זכרב]על[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 536‬זכריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬זכריו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬זמא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 308, 552‬זמר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 308, 552, 560‬זמרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 316, 560‬זמריהו‬ ‫‪ 596‬זרע⟩א⟨ל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬זרעי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬זתא‬ ‫‪Ḥet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬חבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬חבב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬חבה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 553‬חבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 309, 553‬חביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 294, 599‬חבלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬חבׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬חג‬

‫‪ 567–68‬גרצפן‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרׁשד‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרׁשמן‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרתא‬ ‫‪ 322, 568‬גרתבעל‬ ‫‪ 603‬גׁשמי‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Dalet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬דגן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬דגנבזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬דדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬דדעלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬דדרחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬דלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 282, 333, 590‬דליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 282, 590‬דליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 256, 282, 484,‬דלתיהו‬ ‫‪590‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 277, 587‬דמלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 277, 587‬דמלאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 277, 291n, 587‬דמליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬דעואל‬ ‫‪ 538‬דעמחנא ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 359, 580‬דעמלך‬ ‫‪ 597‬דעמצלח ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬דרדר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 252, 272, 483,‬דרׁשיהו‬ ‫‪585‬‬ ‫‪He‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬האמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬הגבה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 274, 586‬הגלניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬הדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 557‬הדבעד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬הדגבר‬ ‫‪] 552‬הד[דיחוט ‬ ‫‪ 275, 586‬הדדסמני ‬ ‫‪ 556‬הדדעזר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬הדדערי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬הדיהב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬הדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 555‬הדיסעי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬הדנתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 556‬הדעדר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272n, 584‬הדרקי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬הודו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬הודויהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬הודיה‬

‫‪Gimel‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬גאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 543‬גאליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גבוחא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גבח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬גבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 550‬גברי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬גבריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬גגי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬גדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬גדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬גדיא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 564‬גדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 564‬גדיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546, 605‬גדל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬גדליה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 304, 545‬גדליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גדעת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬גדקל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬גדר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬גדרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 252, 283, 334,‬גזא‬ ‫‪591‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬גלגל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬גלל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גמול‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 291n, 591‬גמליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 591‬גמר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬גמריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬גנא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬געלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬געלי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 567‬גראהל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גראל‬ ‫‪ 567‬גראׁשמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרגׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 567‬גרהכל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרחמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬גריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬גרמלך‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרמלקרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬גרע‬ ‫‪ 366, 568‬גרעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬גרצד‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪ 290, 596‬יברכיהו‬ ‫‪ 605‬יבׁש‬ ‫‪ 545‬יגדל‬ ‫‪ 545‬יגדליהו‬ ‫‪ 329; 574‬יגראׁשמן‬ ‫‪ 561‬ידבעל‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬ידו‬ ‫‪ 590‬ידלא‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬ידניהו‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידע‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידע⟩א⟨ל‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידעיה‬ ‫‪ 300, 537‬ידעיהו‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידעיו‬ ‫‪ 537‬ידעמלך‬ ‫‪ 362n, 580‬יהוא‬ ‫‪ 357, 580‬יהואב‬ ‫‪ 535‬יהו⟨א⟩זן‬ ‫‪ 357, 514, 580‬יהואח‬ ‫‪ 306, 548‬יהואחז‬ ‫‪ 357, 488, 514,‬יהואל‬ ‫‪580‬‬ ‫‪ 558‬יה[ו]אר‬ ‫‪ 587‬יהובנה‬ ‫‪ 267, 302, 541‬יהוזרח‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬יהוחי‬ ‫‪ 556‬יהוחיל‬ ‫‪ 556‬יהוחל‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬יהוטר‬ ‫‪ 551‬יהויקם‬ ‫‪ 303, 545‬יהוירב‬ ‫‪ 306, 550‬יהוכל‬ ‫‪ 288, 594‬יהונדב‬ ‫‪ 593‬יהונתן‬ ‫‪ 284n, 302, 540‬יהוסחר‬ ‫‪ 564‬יהועדן‬ ‫‪ 315, 560‬יהועז‬ ‫‪ 331, 556‬יהועזר‬ ‫‪ 571‬יהועלי‬ ‫‪ 555‬יהופלט‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬יהוצדק‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬יהורם‬ ‫‪ 535‬יהויׁשמע‬ ‫‪ 301, 540‬יהוקם‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬יהוׁשע‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬יהותם‬ ‫‪ 357, 580‬יואב‬ ‫‪ 535‬יו⟨א⟩זן‬ ‫‪ 357, 580‬יואל‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬חנמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חננאל‬ ‫‪ 538‬חננב]על[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 538–39‬חנניהו‬ ‫‪ 366, 538‬חנעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬חסדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬חסדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬חסדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חסן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬חסף‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬חפצבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬חצב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 248n, 284, 602‬חצי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬חר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬חרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬חרני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬חרף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬חרץ‬ ‫‪ 266, 272, 483,‬חׁשביהו ‬ ‫‪585‬‬ ‫‪ 272, 585‬חׁשבניה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬חׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬חׁשך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 363–64, 550‬חתעזת‬ ‫‪Ṭet‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬טב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬טבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬טבאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 327–28, 573‬טביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 327–28, 573‬טבׁשלם‬ ‫‪Yod‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 287, 595‬יאוׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזן‬ ‫‪ 535‬י⟨א⟩זנאל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 535‬יאזניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 539‬יאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬יאנדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 541‬יאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬יאׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 263, 301, 539‬יבחראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬יבנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬יברך‬

‫‪672‬‬ ‫‪ 609‬חגב‬ ‫‪ 603‬חגי‬ ‫‪ 608‬חגלה‬ ‫‪ 603‬חגת‬ ‫‪ 539, 574‬חדי‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬חויהו‬ ‫‪ 538‬חונן‬ ‫‪ 568‬חור‬ ‫‪ 604‬חורץ‬ ‫‪ 536‬חזא‬ ‫‪ 536‬חזאל‬ ‫‪ 549‬חזג‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬חזק‬ ‫‪ 313, 556‬חזקיהו‬ ‫‪ 609‬חזר‬ ‫‪ 606‬חזרן‬ ‫‪ 356, 577‬חיאל‬ ‫‪ 578‬חיהו‬ ‫‪ 556‬חילא‬ ‫‪ 578‬חימלך‬ ‫‪ 319, 564‬חכל‬ ‫‪ 276, 319, 564‬חכליהו‬ ‫‪ 606‬חכם‬ ‫‪ 556‬חלא‬ ‫‪ 608‬חלדי‬ ‫‪ 313, 556‬חליו‬ ‫‪ 543‬חלץ‬ ‫‪ 302–3, 543‬חלציהו‬ ‫‪ 563‬חלק‬ ‫‪ 563‬חלקא‬ ‫‪ 318–19, 563‬חלקיהו‬ ‫‪ 319, 563‬חלקיו‬ ‫‪ 606‬חם‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬חמדא‬ ‫‪ 367, 545‬חמדן‬ ‫‪ 609‬חמטט‬ ‫‪ 318, 331, 351n,‬חמיאהל‬ ‫‪367, 563‬‬ ‫‪ 320, 351n, 367,‬חמיעדן‬ ‫‪564‬‬ ‫‪ 285, 593‬חמל‬ ‫‪ 592‬חמנן‬ ‫‪ 539‬חן‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנא‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנה‬ ‫‪ 538‬חנון‬ ‫‪ 539‬חני‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬חניאל‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬חניהו‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫‪673‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬כלב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבא‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬כלבאלם ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבי‬ ‫‪ 561‬כלבידאל ‬ ‫‪ 316, 561‬כלבידׁשמׁש ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬כלבן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬כלבת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 598‬כלכל‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬כלכליהו ‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬כמראלה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬כמׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬כמׁשאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬כמׁשאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 545‬כמׁשדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 311, 554‬כמׁשוע‬ ‫‪ 538‬כמׁשחסד ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 592‬כמׁשיחי‬ ‫‪ 541‬כמׁשיׁשע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬כמׁשית‬ ‫‪ 595‬כמׁשמאׁש ‬ ‫‪ 593‬כמׁשנתן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬כמׁשעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 487, 514,‬כמׁשעם‬ ‫‪580‬‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬כמׁשצדק ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬כנבו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬כני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬כניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬כניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬כנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬כסלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 319, 563‬כסליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬כפר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬כרזי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 281n, 606‬כרמי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬כרעדד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬כרׂשן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬כׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬כתי‬ ‫‪Lamed‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬לאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬לבאי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬לבן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264n, 582‬לעגי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 271, 582‬לעגיהו‬

‫‪ 305, 547‬יעׁש‬ ‫‪ 605‬יפה‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬יפיהו‬ ‫‪ 267, 541‬יפעהד‬ ‫‪ 251n, 276, 586‬יפתח‬ ‫‪ 263, 282, 590‬יצלבעל‬ ‫‪ 551‬יקמיה‬ ‫‪ 306, 551‬יקמיהו‬ ‫‪ 536‬ירא‬ ‫‪ 329, 574‬יראויהו‬ ‫‪ 299, 536‬יראיהו‬ ‫‪ 597‬ירבן‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬ירבעם‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬ירחב‬ ‫‪ 539‬ירחם‬ ‫‪ 301, 539‬ירחמאל‬ ‫‪ 546‬ירחעזר‬ ‫‪ 280, 346, 589‬ירימות‬ ‫‪ 551‬ירם‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬ירמאל‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬ירמיהו‬ ‫‪ 360–61n, 551‬ירמלך‬ ‫‪ 585‬ירפאל‬ ‫‪ 600‬יׁשא‬ ‫‪ 272, 584‬יׁשאל‬ ‫‪ 583‬יׁשב‬ ‫‪ 596‬יׁשבע‬ ‫‪ 534‬יׁשמע‬ ‫‪ 299, 534‬יׁשמעאל‬ ‫‪ 542, 555‬יׁשע‬ ‫‪ 542, 555‬יׁשעא‬ ‫‪ 555‬יׁשעאל‬ ‫‪ 542‬יׁשעה‬ ‫‪ 542‬יׁשעיה‬ ‫‪ 302, 542‬יׁשעיהו‬ ‫‪ 544‬יׁשפט‬ ‫‪ 587‬יתיר‬ ‫‪ 602‬יתם‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתן‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנבל‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנבעל‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנחף‬ ‫‪ 593‬יתנמלך‬ ‫‪ 594‬יתנצד‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Kap‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬כבס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬כברבע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬כוסה‬

‫‪ 301, 330, 539‬יואמן‬ ‫‪ 558‬יואר‬ ‫‪ 588‬יובנה‬ ‫‪ 538‬יוחנן‬ ‫‪ 541‬יויׁשע‬ ‫‪ 589‬יוכן‬ ‫‪ 593‬יונתן‬ ‫‪ 316, 560‬יוסתר‬ ‫‪ 556‬יועזר‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬יועליהו‬ ‫‪ 588‬יועׂשה‬ ‫‪ 305, 547‬יועׁש‬ ‫‪ 551‬יוקם‬ ‫‪ 326, 572‬יורם‬ ‫‪ 586‬יזם‬ ‫‪ 592‬יחוא‬ ‫‪ 552‬יחוט‬ ‫‪ 592‬יחומלך‬ ‫‪ 285, 341n, 592‬יחועלי‬ ‫‪ 536‬יחזא‬ ‫‪ 536‬יחזבעל‬ ‫‪ 299, 536‬יחזיהו‬ ‫‪ 549‬יחזק‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬יחי‬ ‫‪ 320, 564‬יחלבעל‬ ‫‪ 593‬יחמל‬ ‫‪ 285, 593‬יחמליהו‬ ‫‪ 592‬יחמלך‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬יחץ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬יחציאל‬ ‫‪ 254, 582‬יחרבעל‬ ‫‪ 591‬יחׁש‬ ‫‪ 550‬יכל‬ ‫‪ 550‬יכלא‬ ‫‪ 550‬יכליו‬ ‫‪ 360n, 550‬יכלמלך‬ ‫‪ 589‬יכניהו‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬יכנׁשלם‬ ‫‪ 306, 549‬ילא‬ ‫‪ 593‬ימן‬ ‫‪ 607–8‬ינה‬ ‫‪ 600‬ינׁש‬ ‫‪ 589‬יסד‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬יסף‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬יעדדאל‬ ‫‪ 590‬יעדי‬ ‫‪ 608‬יעל‬ ‫‪ 571‬יעלי‬ ‫‪ 598‬יעמס‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬מריהו‬ ‫‪ 592‬מריחי‬ ‫‪ 360, 514, 581‬מריחלד‬ ‫‪ 290, 346, 597‬מרימות‬ ‫‪ 547‬מרסמך‬ ‫‪ 571‬מרעלי‬ ‫‪ 605‬מרץ‬ ‫‪ 609‬מרקחתא‬ ‫‪ 600‬מׁשיב‬ ‫‪ 572‬מׁשל‬ ‫‪ 295, 601‬מׁשלם‬ ‫‪ 296, 601‬מׁשלמת‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬מׁשמׁש‬ ‫‪ 554–55‬מׁשע‬ ‫‪ 314, 557‬מׁשען‬ ‫‪ 555‬מׁשפט‬ ‫‪ 312, 555‬מׁשפטאל‬ ‫‪ 604‬מׁשר‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬מׁשׁש‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬מת‬ ‫‪ 567‬מתא‬ ‫‪ 567‬מתי‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתן‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתנאל‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתני‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתניה‬ ‫‪ 287, 484, 594‬מתניהו‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתע‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעי‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעאל‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעדד‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעהדד‬ ‫‪ 543‬מתעׁשא‬ ‫‪ 594‬מתתיהו‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Nun‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬נאהבת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬נבודלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נבוׂשגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬נבוׁשרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬נבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬נבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 548‬נבלאחז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬נבמרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נבׂשגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נגבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 554‬נגהי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬נגר‬

‫‪ 361, 546‬מלכיעזר ‬ ‫‪ 361, 555‬מלכיצדק ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬מלכירם‬ ‫‪ 541‬מלכיׁשע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬מלכיתן‬ ‫‪ 355, 558‬מלכמאור ‬ ‫‪ 355, 564‬מלכמגד ‬ ‫‪ 560‬מלכמעז ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 361, 558‬מלכנר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 572‬מלכרם‬ ‫‪ 361, 514, 581‬מלכׁשמׁש ‬ ‫‪ 353n, 581‬מלכתבעל ‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬מלקרתאב ‬ ‫‪ 598‬מלקרתעמס ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬מנח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬מנחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 296, 599‬מנחמת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬מני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מנך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬מנן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬מנני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 574‬מנר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬מנׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599–600‬מנׁשה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 600‬מנׁשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬מסכן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 601‬מסלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מעדנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬מעז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬מעזיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬מעׂשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬מעׂשיה‬ ‫‪ 251, 278, 333,‬מעׂשיהו ‬ ‫‪588‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬מצרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 306, 551‬מקמיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 333, 589‬מקניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 589‬מקניו‬ ‫‪ 279, 360–61n,‬מקנמלך ‬ ‫‪484, 589‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581, 597‬מרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360, 581‬מראהד‬ ‫‪ 254, 582‬מראיבב ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 585‬מראיסר‬ ‫‪ 541‬מראיׁשע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356, 581‬מראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 597‬מרברך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬מרדגן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 290, 597‬מריבעל‬

‫‪674‬‬ ‫‪ 585‬לקח‬ ‫‪ 585‬לקחי‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Mem‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 323, 365, 569‬מאס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬מאׁש‬ ‫‪ 319, 333, 335,‬מבטחיהו ‬ ‫‪485, 563‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬מבן‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬מגדליהו ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 595‬מגן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬מגראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬מהרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מודד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬מוקר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 365, 569‬מחדׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬מחסא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬מחסיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬מחסיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 330, 575‬מיאמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיכה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מיכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 545‬מיפלל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 574‬מיפע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬מירב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מכא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 330, 575‬מכאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 575‬מכיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 330, 575‬מכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 330, 575‬מכמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 582‬מכסף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 585‬מכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266, 275, 586‬מלאכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬מלח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫;‪ 291–93, 394, 484‬מליהו‬ ‫‪598‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬מליך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬מלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 581‬מלכא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 558‬מלכאר‬ ‫‪ 549‬מלכגבר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568, 581‬מלכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 255, 361, 514,‬מלכיהו‬ ‫‪581‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 361, 581‬מלכיו‬

‫‪675‬‬ ‫‪ 366, 565‬עבדבעלת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדה‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדהדד ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדחורן ‬ ‫‪ 321, 341n, 565‬עבדחיל ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדחמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדחר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 321, 333, 335,‬עבדיהו‬ ‫‪485, 565‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדיו‬ ‫‪ 321, 565‬עבדירח ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדכדאה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדלא‬ ‫‪ 366, 565‬עבדלבאת ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדמלך ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדמלכת ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדמלקרת ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדמסכר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדסכן‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדסלם ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדעׁשתר ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדעׁשתרת ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדפעם ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדפתח ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדרחבן ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדרׁשף ‬ ‫‪ 321, 565‬עבדׂשהר ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדׁשמׁש ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדתנת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עביד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬עבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 567‬עגלא‬ ‫‪ 322, 567‬עגלהדד ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 265, 322, 483,‬עגליו‬ ‫‪567‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬עדאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 307, 551‬עדד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 590‬עדה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 280, 590‬עדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬עדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬עדנה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬עויד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עופי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬עור‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 546‬עותי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עז‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזא‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪ 594‬נתן‬ ‫‪ 594‬נתנבעל‬ ‫‪ 287, 594‬נתניהו‬ ‫‪ 594‬נתניו‬ ‫‪ 593‬נתנמלך‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Samek‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 587‬סבכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 484, 587‬סבכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 601‬סילא‬ ‫‪ 358, 514, 580‬סיראדני ‬ ‫‪ 577‬סירבעדי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 601‬סלא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 296, 601‬סלאה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סמך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סמכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 547‬סמכיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 548‬סמכיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 562‬סנעיד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬ססי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 356n, 358, 514,‬ססלי‬ ‫‪580‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬ססנורי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬סעדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 267, 305,‬סעדיהו‬ ‫‪548‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 305, 548‬סעדיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 267, 548‬סערי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 254, 267, 548‬סעריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬סריהב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬סרר‬ ‫‪ʿAyin‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 566‬עבדא‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאבסת ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאדד ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאיו‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדא]ל[ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאלם ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאמן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאס‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאסר ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדאׁשמן ‬ ‫‪ 565‬עבדבעל ‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬נגׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 595‬נדב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נדבאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 594‬נדביה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 594‬נדביהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 307, 551‬נהל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 563‬נוי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318, 563‬נויה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 318, 563‬נויו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נוראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נוריה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬נחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 599‬נחמי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬נחמיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 599‬נחמיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274–75, 586‬נחׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נכרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 603‬נמטר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬נממרא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬נמׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288–89, 596‬נמׂשר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬ננא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 559‬ננורי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 568‬נני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬נסחא‬ ‫‪ 592‬נס[ח]מנני ‬ ‫‪ 562‬נסחמעזי ‬ ‫‪ 267, 311, 554‬נסחנגהי ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬נעה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬נעמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬נעמה‬ ‫‪ 328, 366, 573‬נעמלכת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 322, 566‬נעריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 586‬נפתח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נצראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 552‬נצרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 582‬נקם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 270, 282, 582‬נקמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרא‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרבע]ל[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נריה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 315, 559‬נריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 559‬נרׁשבׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬נׁשך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 328, 573‬נׁשכבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬נׁשרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 314, 558‬נתביהו‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 543‬פדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 360–61n, 543‬פדמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 544‬פדן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 288, 596‬פזרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬פטט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 289, 596‬פטיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 546‬פלאיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 546‬פלדעזר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬פלט‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 285n, 542‬פלטה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 542‬פלטי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 302, 542‬פלטיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 545‬פליה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 545‬פלל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301–2, 540‬פנאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 540‬פניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬פסח‬ ‫‪ 278, 589‬פעלאבסת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 278, 588‬פעלה‬ ‫‪ 278, 589‬פעלעׁשתרת ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 604‬פפי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 272, 585‬פצרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 537‬פקדיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 561‬פקדיהד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 300, 537‬פקדיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 592‬פקח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 591‬פקחי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 484, 591‬פקחיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 283, 591‬פרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬פרסי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 609‬פרעׁש‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬פרפר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 264, 323, 486,‬פׁשחר‬ ‫‪570‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 596‬פתאס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 276, 586‬פתח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 251n, 276, 586‬פתחיה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 592‬פתיחו‬ ‫‪Ṣade‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬צבי‬ ‫‪ 539‬צדאׁשמׁש ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬צדירך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 593‬צדיתן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 359, 580‬צדמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬צדק‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬צדקא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 555‬צדקאל‬

‫ ‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬עמסאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬עמסיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 579‬עמׁשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 352, 514, 579‬עמׁשלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ענא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ענאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬עני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬עניבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬עניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 584‬ענמות‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 256, 273, 584‬ענניהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬ענת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עפי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬עפף‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬עפצח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬עקל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬ערב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬ערבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 606‬ערס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 251, 278, 588‬עׂשיהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬עׂשיו‬ ‫‪ 557‬עׁשנא]ל[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬עׁשתא‬ ‫‪ 538‬עׁשתרחן ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬עׁשתרת‬ ‫‪ 570, 582‬עׁשתרתאסף ‬ ‫‪ 564‬עׁשתרתג ‬ ‫‪ 285, 592‬עׁשתרתחות ‬ ‫‪ 593‬עׁשתרתיתן ‬ ‫‪ 550‬עׁשתרתלאת ‬ ‫‪ 560‬עׁשתרתעז ‬ ‫‪ 547‬עׁשתרתעזר ‬ ‫‪ 539‬עׁשתרתצב ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 304, 546‬עתיהו‬ ‫‪ 558‬עתרסמך ‬ ‫‪ 314, 558‬עתרסמכי ‬ ‫‪ 556‬עתרעזר ‬ ‫‪ 312, 556‬עתרעזרי ‬ ‫‪ 605‬פארר‬ ‫‪ 603‬פארת‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדא‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדאל‬ ‫‪ 543‬פדה‬ ‫‪ 543–44‬פדי‬

‫‪Pe‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪676‬‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזאל‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזבעל‬ ‫‪ 306, 550‬עזזיהו‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזי‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזיא‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזיהו‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזיו‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזם‬ ‫‪ 560‬עזמלך‬ ‫‪ 305, 312, 547‬עזר‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרא‬ ‫‪ 546‬עזראל‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרבעל‬ ‫‪ 313, 556‬עזריאל‬ ‫‪ 546‬עזריה‬ ‫‪ 305, 546‬עזריהו‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזריו‬ ‫‪ 266n, 301, 331,‬עזריקם‬ ‫‪341n, 540‬‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרמלך‬ ‫‪ 546‬עזרנאל‬ ‫‪ 311, 540‬עזרקם‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרׁשמׁש‬ ‫‪ 547‬עזרתבעל‬ ‫‪ 561‬עינאל‬ ‫‪ 608‬עירא‬ ‫‪ 608‬עירם‬ ‫‪ 609‬עכבר‬ ‫‪ 607‬עכי‬ ‫‪ 571‬עלא‬ ‫‪ 571‬עלאל‬ ‫‪ 571‬עליה‬ ‫‪ 263, 326, 571‬עליהו‬ ‫‪ 326, 571‬עליו‬ ‫‪ 323, 568‬עם‬ ‫‪ 557‬עמד‬ ‫‪ 557‬עמדיה‬ ‫‪ 313–14, 332,‬עמדיהו‬ ‫‪349n, 485, 557‬‬ ‫‪ 332, 557‬עמדיו‬ ‫‪ 573‬עמיטב‬ ‫‪ 594‬עמינדב‬ ‫‪ 280, 590‬עמליהו‬ ‫‪ 557‬עמן‬ ‫‪ 313–14, 557‬עמנואל‬ ‫‪ 313–14, 332, 485,‬עמנויהו‬ ‫‪557‬‬ ‫‪ 332, 557‬עמניהו‬ ‫‪ 291, 598‬עמס‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬

‫‪677‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪ׁ 583‬שבי‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבנא‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבניה‬ ‫‪ׁ 271, 583‬שבניהו‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבניו‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שבע‬ ‫‪ׁ 603–4‬שבעת‬ ‫‪ׁ 589‬שואל‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שוחר‬ ‫‪ׁ 555‬שועא‬ ‫‪ׁ 267, 311, 554‬שחר‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שחרחר‬ ‫‪ׁ 559‬שחרנורי‬ ‫‪ׁ 358, 488, 514,‬שידד‬ ‫‪580‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 602‬שכח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 246n, 267, 483‬שכניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 268, 277, 390,‬שכניהו‬ ‫‪587‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 268, 277, 484,‬שכניו‬ ‫‪587‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שלגי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 606‬שלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 295–96, 600‬שלם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 600‬שלמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 295–96, 600‬שלמה‬ ‫‪ׁ 295–96, 600‬שלמיהו ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 600‬שלמיו‬ ‫‪ׁ 556‬שלמנעזרי ‬ ‫‪ׁ 349, 358, 488,‬שלמנרמן ‬ ‫‪514, 580‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 296, 600‬שלמת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 596‬שמא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 596‬שמאב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289, 596‬שמאדד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 596‬שמאל‬ ‫‪ׁ 289n, 575‬שמהיקר ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289, 596‬שמזבל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289n, 341n, 537‬שמידע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 289, 596‬שמיה‬ ‫‪ׁ 580‬שמני]?ל[ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שמנם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמע‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעאל‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעבעל ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעיה‬ ‫‪ׁ 299, 535‬שמעיהו ‬

‫‪ 606‬קׁשרא‬ ‫‪ 562‬קתרא‬ ‫‪ 536‬ראיהו‬ ‫‪ 327, 572‬רביהו‬ ‫‪ 284, 592‬רגא‬ ‫‪ 586‬רגם‬ ‫‪ 294, 592‬רגע‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬רחביהו‬ ‫‪ 303, 544‬רחבעם‬ ‫‪ 539‬רחם‬ ‫‪ 609‬רימה‬ ‫‪ 572‬רם‬ ‫‪ 572‬רמבעל‬ ‫‪ 572‬רמה‬ ‫‪ 567‬רעדד‬ ‫‪ 276, 587‬רפא‬ ‫‪ 276, 587‬רפאי‬ ‫‪ 276, 587‬רפאיהו‬ ‫‪ 587‬רפתי‬ ‫‪ 605‬רצף‬ ‫‪ 584‬רקי‬ ‫‪ 585‬רקין‬ ‫‪ 593‬רׁשפיתן‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪Reš‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Sin‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 552‬שגב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 552‬שגבי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 607‬שוכי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 585‬שכר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 586‬שמבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 320, 564‬שראל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 327, 572‬שריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 360n, 572‬שרמלך‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׂ 327, 572‬שררמן‬ ‫‪Šin‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 549‬שאגבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 590‬שאדלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 258, 580‬שאדני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 583‬שאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 584‬שאלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 584‬שאלתי‬ ‫‪ׁ 272n, 583‬שאלתיאל ‬ ‫‪ׁ 543‬שאמתע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שבאח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 256, 271, 583‬שבאל‬

‫‪ 555‬צדקי‬ ‫‪ 311–12, 555‬צדקיהו‬ ‫‪ 312, 555‬צדקרמן‬ ‫‪ 562‬צורי‬ ‫‪ 317, 562‬צוריהדד‬ ‫‪ 606‬ציד‬ ‫‪ 561‬צלא‬ ‫‪ 561‬צלנני‬ ‫‪ 561‬צלתי‬ ‫‪ 603‬צמח‬ ‫‪ 248n, 248, 602‬צנר‬ ‫‪ 553‬צפן‬ ‫‪ 553‬צפניה‬ ‫‪ 308–9, 553‬צפניהו‬ ‫‪ 284, 602‬צרח‬ ‫‪ 607‬צרי‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪Qop‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 279, 392, 489,‬קדבׂש‬ ‫‪589‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 301, 540‬קדם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קדמו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קדרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 319, 564‬קוה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 274, 586‬קוליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 569‬קוס‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 580‬קוסא‬ ‫‪ 358n, 580‬קוסאדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 353n, 358n., 514,‬קוסאם‬ ‫‪580‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 549‬קוסגבר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 273, 584‬קוסענל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קטן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קירח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 252, 586‬קליהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 586‬קליו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קנואל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קני‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קניה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 589‬קניו‬ ‫‪ 358n, 580‬קסואדני ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קעלתי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 608‬קראה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 266n, 301, 341n,‬קרבאור‬ ‫‪541‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 540‬קרבאר‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קרח‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 605‬קרחא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 607‬קרי‬

‫‪Index of Ancient Personal Names‬‬ ‫‪Taw‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 602‬תאם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תארא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 588‬תבנת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 601‬תחת‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תמא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 573‬תמאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 548‬תמכא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 547‬תמכאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 256, 271, 583‬תנאל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 295, 599‬תנחם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 571‬תנתעלי‬ ‫‪ 320n, 564‬תנתׁשבע ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 320, 334, 564‬תקוה‬

‫‪ׁ 608‬שעל‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שעלא‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שעלי‬ ‫‪ׁ 272, 585‬שעריהו‬ ‫‪ׁ 557‬שעׁשני‬ ‫‪ׁ 544‬שפט‬ ‫‪ׁ 555‬שפטבעל‬ ‫‪ׁ 303, 544‬שפטיהו‬ ‫‪ׁ 312, 332n, 555‬שפטן‬ ‫‪ׁ 605‬שפל‬ ‫‪ׁ 608‬שפן‬ ‫‪ׁ 569‬שפש‬ ‫‪ׁ 606‬שקץ‬ ‫‪ׁ 603‬שרׁש‬

‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬

‫‪678‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 535‬שמעיו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 308, 552‬שמריהו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 308, 552‬שמריו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 572‬שמרם‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 569‬שמׁש‬ ‫‪ׁ 590‬שמׁשדלה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 358, 580‬שמׁשיב‬ ‫‪ׁ 332, 556‬שמׁשעדרי ‬ ‫‪ׁ 344n, 556‬שמׁשעזר ‬ ‫‪ׁ 589‬שמׁשקנה ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 590‬שנדלה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 595‬שנזבד‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 555‬שעבעל‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 556‬שעזרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 254, 582‬שעיבב‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ׁ 583‬שעיהו‬

Index of Textual Sources Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Genesis 1:26–28â•…347n 1:27â•… 279, 484 1:28â•…290 2:7â•… 279, 280, 347n 2:18–24â•…280 2:22â•… 278, 587 2:24â•…398 3:16â•…281 4:1â•… 246–47n, 278, 280, 484 4:23â•…396 4:25â•…246–47n 4:26â•…247n 5:3â•…247n 5:29â•…246–47n 9:25–27â•…411–12 11:30â•…270 12:1â•…43 15:6â•…265 16â•…396 16:2â•…270 16:11â•… 246–47n, 251, 266, 273, 389 16:13â•…354 16:15â•…247n 17â•… 292, 389 17:12â•… 247, 292, 392–94, 489 17:19â•… 247n, 273 17:23–27â•…395 17:25â•…394 18:1–16â•… 273, 275 18:10â•… 273, 277, 389 18:14â•… 273, 389 19:37–38â•…247n 20:17–18â•… 275, 389

Genesis (cont.) 20:17â•…276 20:18â•…270 21:1–2â•… 275, 389 21:1â•…273 21:4â•… 247, 292, 392–94, 489 21:6â•…246n 21:8â•… 294, 392–93 21:19â•…284 21:20, 22â•… 313 21:33â•…355 23:1–20â•…436–37 23:2â•…434 24:7â•…411 24:15â•…397 24:40â•…43 24:53â•…398 24:60â•… 398, 411 25:1–6â•…396 25:5â•…411 25:7–11â•…436 25:9â•…434 25:21â•… 270–71, 389–90 25:22–23â•…585 25:22â•… 273, 281, 389 25:23â•… 273, 389 25:25–26â•…246–47 25:26â•…308n 26:3â•…313 26:24â•…313 26:34–35â•…397 26:34â•…396 27:1–40â•… 410–11, 413, 490–91 27:36â•… 246, 286n, 308n, 593 27:46â•…397

679

Genesis (cont.) 28:6–9â•…397 28:9â•…396 28:15â•…314 28:20–22â•… 404, 406 28:20â•…314 29â•…396 29:9â•…397 29:22â•…398 29:31–32â•… 275, 389 29:31â•… 270, 276 29:32–35â•…247n 29:32â•…273 29:33–35â•…246n 30:1–2â•… 270, 389 30:1–24â•…396 30:5–24â•…246n 30:6–21â•…247n 30:17â•… 272, 275, 389 30:22â•… 272–73, 275–76, 389 30:23â•… 270, 582 30:24â•…290 31:3â•…314 31:5â•… 314, 333n 31:19â•…60 31:29â•…333n 31:30–32â•…61 31:34–35â•…60 31:42â•…333n 32:1â•…411 32:10â•…333n 34â•…292 34:11–12â•…398 34:19, 26â•… 25 35:3â•…314 35:8â•… 437, 458

680 Genesis (cont.) 35:16–18â•…281 35:17â•… 247, 390 35:18â•…246–47n 35:20â•… 460, 493 35:29â•… 434, 436 36:1–5â•…396 37:34â•…434 37:35â•… 431, 436 38:3–5â•…247n 38:6–26â•…398 38:27–30â•…246–47n 38:28â•… 281, 390 38:29–30â•…247n 39:2–3â•…314 39:21, 23â•… 314 41:45â•…247n 42:19, 33â•… 25 43:23â•…333n 44â•…351 44:5â•…274 45:11, 18â•… 25 46:1, 3â•… 333n 46:14â•…320 46:23â•…25 46:26–27â•…33 46:26â•…279 46:31â•…476 47:30â•…432 48:14–21â•… 411, 413 48:21â•…314 49:22â•…317 49:24â•…313 49:29–31â•…437 50:7–8â•…25 50:10â•…435 50:14–26â•…436 50:17â•…333n Exodus 1:5â•…33 1:15–20â•…281 1:15â•…390 2:10â•…247n 2:15–22â•…397 2:22â•…246–47n 3:8â•…263n 3:10–12â•…262n 4:24–26â•… 393–94, 489

Index of Textual Sources Exodus (cont.) 4:25â•…292 6:6â•…263n 6:23â•… 255, 320n, 362n 6:24â•…270 12:1–13:16â•…399n 12:1–13â•… 399–400, 490 12:7–24â•…419 12:14–20â•…400 12:21–23â•… 399, 419, 491 12:43–49â•…395 12:43–50â•…400 13:5â•…263n 13:11–16â•…403 13:11â•…263n 13:21â•…314 14:30â•…263n 15:13â•…263n 18:1–7â•…397 18:3–4â•…246n 18:4â•…255 18:8–10â•…263n 19–20â•…267 19–24â•…262n 20:2â•…262n 20:8–11â•… 401, 490 21:8â•…303 21:17â•… 411, 491 22:15–16â•…398 22:18â•… 422, 492 22:28â•…403 22:28–29â•…402 22:30â•… 420, 491 23:10–11â•… 401–2, 490 23:12â•…401 23:14–17â•…421 23:15â•…402–3 23:19â•… 402, 421, 490–91 24:11â•…314 24:17â•…265 30:16â•…408 33:3, 5â•… 314 33:12â•…300n 34:10–26â•…421 34:18–20â•… 402–3, 490 34:21â•…401 34:22â•… 402, 490 34:26â•… 402, 421, 490–91

Leviticus 1:4â•…266 5:9â•…418 7:11–17â•…404 7:18â•… 265–66, 272, 459, 483 9:23â•…265 10:6â•…434 11â•… 420–21, 491 12–14â•… 415, 417 12:1–8â•… 424, 492 12:1–5â•…247 12:2â•… 286, 391 12:3â•… 292, 393–94 12:4â•…286 12:5â•…391 14â•…417–18 14:33–53â•…491 15â•…424 16â•…49 17:4â•… 265, 272 18:3–4â•…423 18:6–16â•…26n 18:6–18â•… 422, 492 18:6â•…423 18:22â•… 423–24, 492 18:23â•… 422, 492 19:7â•… 266, 459 19:9–10â•… 421, 492 19:19â•… 425, 492 19:20â•…303 19:23–25â•…422 19:26â•…274 19:27â•…434 19:28â•… 431, 434–35 19:31â•…470 20:6â•…470 20:9â•… 411, 491 20:11–17â•…492 20:13â•… 423–24, 492 20:15–16â•… 422, 492 21:1â•…431 21:2â•…423 21:5â•…435 21:10â•…434 22:12â•…26 22:18–19â•…404 22:23–25â•…266 23:1–3â•…401 23:4–8â•…399n–400

Index of Textual Sources Leviticus (cont.) 25:1–7â•… 402, 490 25:8–55â•…402 25:25–28â•…44n 25:48–49â•…303 Numbers 1:14â•…290 3â•…403 5â•…49 5:2â•…431 6:11â•…431 6:24–26â•…412 8:17–18â•…403 9:1–14â•…399n 9:10â•…431 10:35â•…301 11:12â•…353 12:10â•…417n 14:3–31â•…263n 14:14â•…314 15:1–11â•…404 15:5â•…459 18:15–16â•…294n 18:15â•…403 18:20â•…319 18:27â•…265 19â•…49 19:11â•…459 20:29â•…435 21:2â•… 403, 490 21:6–9â•…382 23:22â•…265n 24:8â•…265n 25:1–10â•…397 25:2â•…456 25:14â•…295 26:21â•…285 26:30â•…293n 27:1–11â•…44 28:9–10â•…401 28:16–25â•…399n 30â•… 271, 404 30:3â•… 404, 490 33:52â•…61 34:23â•…311 36â•…397

Deuteronomy 1:30, 33â•… 314 3:20â•…263n 4–5â•…267 4:19â•… 321, 369, 378 5:12–15â•… 401, 490 5:26â•…329 6:10â•…263n 6:11â•…279 6:12, 21â•… 262n 6:23â•…263n 7:1â•…263n 7:2–4â•…397 7:6–7â•…263 7:8â•… 263n, 303 8:15â•…382 9:3â•…314n 9:26â•…263n 10:9â•…319 12â•…4 12:5–7â•…404 12:10â•…263n 12:11–12â•…404 12:11â•…268n 12:12â•…319 13:6â•… 263n, 303 13:7–12â•… 4, 18, 475 14:1â•… 324, 434–35 14:3–21â•… 420, 491 14:21â•… 421, 491 14:23â•…268n 14:27â•…319 14:29â•…319 15:1–11â•…401 15:15â•… 263n, 303 15:19–23â•… 402, 490 16:1–8â•… 18, 399–400n, 475, 490 16:2, 6, 11â•… 268n 17:3â•…321 18â•… 470, 494 18:1–2â•…319 18:10â•…274 18:11â•… 61, 417 19:3, 14â•… 263n 20:1â•…314 21:8â•…303 21:15–17â•… 23, 396–97 21:23â•…436

681 Deuteronomy (cont.) 22:5â•…424 22:9–11â•… 425, 492 22:21â•…42n 22:29â•…398 23:18â•…271 23:22–24â•… 404, 490 23:22â•… 252n, 272, 483, 585 24:18â•… 263n, 303 24:19–22â•… 421, 492 25:5–10â•… 395, 397, 489 25:5â•… 22, 26 25:6â•…398 25:9â•… 26, 398 25:19â•…263n 26:1–11â•… 4, 18, 402–3, 475, 490 26:2â•…268n 26:8â•…262n 26:14â•… 5, 432, 455–56, 494 27:16â•…411 27:21â•…422 28:3–6â•…56 28:16–19â•…56 30:1–10â•…292 31:3â•…314n 31:8â•…314 31:16â•…432 32:5â•…324 32:6â•… 278–79, 351n 32:8–9â•…354 32:18â•…351n 34:8â•…435 Joshua 1:13â•… 263n, 288 3:10â•…329 5:2–3â•…393 5:2–9â•…394 5:10–12â•…399n 7â•…53n 7:6â•…434 7:14â•… 25–26n, 275 7:17â•…26n 7:18â•…25–26n 7:24â•…26 17:2â•…293n 19:14â•…276 24:10â•…263n

682 Judges 2:10â•…432 4:14â•…314n 5:3â•…334n 5:5â•… 262n, 334n 6:13â•…314 8:30â•…396 8:32â•…43 9:1â•…43 9:5â•…328 11:1–12:7â•…276 11:30–31â•… 403, 490 11:39–40â•…9 13â•…273–75 13:2â•… 270, 288, 413 13:3â•… 266, 389 13:5â•…389 13:21â•…266 13:24â•…247n 14:3â•…393 14:10â•…398 15:18â•…393 17â•… 3, 10 17–18â•…44 17:2â•…410–12 17:4–5â•…60–61 17:7–8â•…233 18:14–20â•…60–61n 18:22â•…37 21:20–21â•…9 1 Samuel 1â•… 10, 489–90 1:2â•…396 1:4–8â•…389 1:9–11â•…404 1:10–11â•…389 1:11â•… 271, 403 1:17â•… 273, 389, 411 1:19–20â•… 275, 389 1:19â•…273 1:20â•…246–47n 1:21–29â•…294 1:21â•…415 1:23â•…283 2:13â•…415 3:1â•…43n 4:4â•…383 4:12â•…434

Index of Textual Sources 1 Samuel (cont.) 4:19–22â•… 265, 268n, 281 4:21â•…246n 9–10â•…457 10:20–21â•…275 11:1–2â•…274 14:6â•…393 14:41â•… 334n, 389 14:50â•…328 15:23â•…60–61n 17:26â•… 329, 393 17:36â•… 329, 393 17:43â•…322 18:17–30â•…396 18:25â•…393 18:27â•…393 19:8–24â•…61 19:13, 16â•… 60n 20â•… 472, 494 20:5â•… 377, 457 20:6â•… 5, 43n, 457 20:18, 24, 27â•… 377 20:28–29â•…43n 20:34â•…377 23:2, 6â•… 389 24:22â•…25 25:1â•…434 25:38–43â•…396 25:43â•… 289, 328 28â•… 416, 470–71, 491, 494 28:3â•…434 28:13â•… 61, 433 31:4â•…393 31:12–13â•…437 31:13â•… 434–35, 437 2 Samuel 1:11–12â•…434–35 1:19–27â•…435 1:20â•…393 2:8â•…287n 2:30–32â•…25 3:2–5â•…396 3:14â•…393 3:22–39â•…436 3:28–29â•…417n 3:31â•…434 3:33–35â•…435 5:15â•…263

2 Samuel (cont.) 5:24â•…314n 6:2â•…383 6:6–7â•…262n 6:20–23â•…270 7:14â•…351n 12:15–25â•…296 12:24â•…246–47n 14:2â•…434 14:7â•…25 15:7–8â•… 403, 490 18:18â•… 460, 493 19:1–9â•…25 19:5â•…434 21:18â•…278 22:29â•… 315, 558 22:30â•…317 23:33â•…353 1 Kings 1:30â•…334n 3:1â•…396 4:12â•…289 6:36â•…317 8:12â•…268n 8:16â•…262n 8:54â•…283 9:10–14â•…108n 11:3â•…396 11:5â•…366 11:11–13â•…396 12:28–29â•…262n 12:28â•…265 12:31–32â•… 236, 239 13:30â•…434 16:31–33â•…245 16:31â•…313 17:17–24â•… 296, 416, 491 22:51â•…326 2 Kings 1:2–4â•…238 1:3â•…358 3:1â•…326 3:27â•…403 4:1–7â•…416 4:8–10â•…273 4:8–17â•… 416, 491 4:8–37â•…396

Index of Textual Sources 2 Kings (cont.) 4:16â•… 273, 277, 389 4:18–24â•…296 4:18–37â•… 416, 491 4:23â•… 377, 401 4:32–37â•…296 5:1–19â•…416 5:17–19â•…341n 5:18â•…358 5:27â•…417n 6:1–7â•…416 8:16, 21â•… 326 11:2â•…320n 13:14–19â•…416 15:5â•… 328, 417n 16:17–18â•…401 18:18â•…270 19:4, 16â•… 329 20:1–11â•…416 22:20â•…432 23:5â•… 321, 369, 378 23:7â•…63 23:10â•… 404, 490 23:11â•…65 23:17â•…460 23:21–23â•…399n 23:24â•…60–61n Isaiah 1:2â•…324 1:4â•…434 1:8â•…281n 1:13–14â•…377 1:13â•…401 3:3â•…274n 3:18â•… 321, 344n 4:1â•…270 5:2â•… 279, 281n 6:1â•…264 6:2â•…382 6:3â•…265 6:5â•…314 7:14â•… 247n, 268n, 313 8:3â•… 247n, 396 8:14â•…25 8:18â•… 253, 268n 8:19–20â•… 433, 470 8:19â•…61 9:5â•…351n

Isaiah (cont.) 11:8â•…307n 14:9–11â•…432 14:29â•…382 16:9â•…432 22:16â•…279 26:14â•…432 26:17–18â•…281 26:19â•…432 30:6â•…382 31:4â•…307 32:12â•…434 37:16â•…383 38â•…416 38:18â•…432 40:11â•…307 41:9–10â•… 306, 549 41:10â•…313 42:20â•…284 43:1â•… 279, 303 43:2, 5â•… 313 44:2â•… 279, 588 44:21â•…279 44:22–23â•…303 44:24â•…279 45:12â•…279 46:3â•…291 48:20â•…303 49:1â•…277 49:2â•…553 49:5â•…277 49:10â•…307 49:14–15â•…353 49:26â•…313 51:1â•… 280, 589 51:10â•…263n 51:14â•…431 52:9â•…303 54:1–2â•…270 56:4–6â•…460–61 57â•…10 60:16â•…313 63:15–16â•…300n 63:16â•…351n 64:7â•… 279, 351n 64:8â•…300n 65â•…10 65:3–5â•… 458–59, 462, 469, 494

683 Isaiah (cont.) 65:8â•…290 65:20â•… 294, 296 65:23â•…296 66:9â•…281 66:13â•…353 Jeremiah 1:5â•… 279, 390, 484 1:8â•…313 1:18â•…562 1:19â•…313 2:23â•…358 2:27â•… 281, 324, 348, 569 3:4, 19â•… 351n 4:5–6â•…317 4:29â•…317 6:26â•…434 7â•…10 7:4â•…50 7:9â•…358 7:16â•…53n 7:17–18â•…8 7:18â•… 49, 349, 364, 369 7:31–32â•… 404, 490 8:2â•…321 8:17â•…274n 9:16, 19â•… 434 9:24â•…393 12:16â•…358 14:19â•…365n 15:20â•…313 16:5–8â•…458 16:6â•…434 16:19â•…315 19:6â•… 404, 490 19:11–14â•… 404, 490 20:11â•…313 20:14â•…412 20:15â•… 247, 281, 286, 390–91 23:36â•…329 30:11â•…313 31:19â•…434 32:7–9â•…44n 32:12â•… 290, 317 34:5â•…456 36:26â•…313 38:6â•…361

684 Jeremiah (cont.) 38:22â•…435 41:4–5â•…435 41:5â•…434 42:11â•…314 44â•…10 44:15–19â•… 403, 490 44:15–23â•… 12, 49, 53n 44:17–18â•…404 44:17–19â•… 349, 364, 369 44:19â•…8 44:21â•…404 44:25â•… 271, 349, 364, 369, 403 46:28â•…313 Ezekiel 7:18â•…434 8â•…10 8:11â•…70 8:14â•…8 13:17–21â•… 416–17, 491 16:4â•… 281, 391 16:5â•…287 16:17â•…61 21:26â•…60–61n 24:17â•…434 27:31â•…434 28:10â•…393 32:16â•…434 32:17–32â•…432 43:7–9â•…456 45:21–24â•…399n 46:1, 3â•… 401 46:23â•…317 Hosea 1:2–3â•…396 1:4â•…289n 1:4–9â•…247n 1:6â•… 287, 391 2:1â•…329 2:13â•… 377, 401 3:4â•…60–61n 5:7â•…318 11:1â•…324 11:2â•…358 12:4â•…308n 13:1â•…358

Index of Textual Sources Hosea (cont.) 13:4â•…263n Joel 4:17, 21â•… 268n Amos 3:2â•…300n 5:16â•…434 6:7â•…458 Jonah 2:10â•…404 Micah 3:11–12â•…262n Habakkuk 2:3â•…319 3:19â•… 313, 556 Zephaniah 1:4â•…358 Haggai 1:1â•…272n Zechariah 2:14–15â•…268n 10:2â•… 60–61n, 470 Malachi 1:6â•…351n 2:10â•…351n 2:14–15â•…399 3:20â•…373 Psalms 2:4â•…264 2:7â•… 264, 323, 351n 3:4â•… 307, 551 3:6â•… 305, 547 3:8â•… 301, 303, 540–41 4:2â•… 303, 332n, 544, 555 4:4â•…546 5:2â•… 300, 537 5:3â•…332 6:5â•… 303, 543 6:6â•…432

Psalms (cont.) 7:2â•…335n 8:5â•… 300, 536–37 9:5â•…555 10:4â•…252n 10:13â•…252n 11:1â•…335n 13:2, 4â•… 300 13:6â•… 283, 318, 337 16:2â•… 332, 574 16:5â•…319 17:2â•… 300, 536 17:8â•… 308, 316n, 552 18:2â•… 313, 556 18:3â•…288 18:19â•… 314, 557 18:26â•… 301, 539 18:29â•…302 18:36â•…305 18:47â•… 328, 574 22:4–6â•… 8n, 335n 22:5â•…263n 22:9–10â•…414 22:10–11â•… 8n, 333–34, 337, 485 22:10â•… 281–82, 319, 390, 590 22:11â•… 252n, 255, 579 22:17â•… 419, 491 22:24–27â•… 8n, 335n 22:26â•…404 22:28–32â•…335n 22:32â•…8n 23:1â•…332 23:2â•… 264, 307, 318, 551, 563 23:4â•… 313–14, 557 25:2â•…318 25:5â•…332n 25:20â•…335n 26:1â•…318 26:2â•… 304, 545 26:11â•… 303, 543 27:1â•… 315, 558 27:4â•…573 27:5â•… 308, 553, 563 27:9â•…332n 27:10â•…335n 28:1â•…332

Index of Textual Sources Psalms (cont.) 28:7â•… 315, 337, 559 29:10â•…264 30:2â•…282 30:10â•…431 30:11â•… 299, 534, 538, 546 31:2â•… 303, 335n, 542 31:5â•… 316, 332, 562 31:6â•…561 31:7â•… 300, 318, 337 31:8â•…536 31:15â•…318 31:17â•…541 32:2â•…265 32:7â•… 316, 560 33:10–12â•…327 33:20â•…564 34:10â•…574 35:1â•… 303, 545 35:2â•…301 35:27â•… 255n, 304 36:8â•…316n 37:7â•…276 38:16â•… 320, 332 39:13â•… 310, 321, 567 39:14â•…541 40–41â•…306 40:17â•… 255n, 304, 545 40:18â•… 311, 555 41:3â•…328 41:4â•… 305, 548 41:11â•…550 42:3â•…329n 42:11â•…300 43:1â•… 303, 544 43:2â•… 332n, 337 43:4â•…564 44:2–4â•…334 44:10â•… 314n, 365n 44:27â•…305 46:6â•…267 46:7–12â•…265 46:8, 12â•… 314 47:9â•…264 48:5–8â•…265 51:14â•…305 51:16â•…332n 54:3â•… 303, 544 54:6â•… 305, 313, 332, 556

Psalms (cont.) 56:5â•…318 56:10–11â•…314 56:10â•…557 56:12â•…318 56:13â•…404 57:2â•… 316, 561 57:3â•…283 58:5–6â•…274n 59:5â•…300 59:9â•…264 59:11â•…540 59:18â•… 315, 332n 60:3â•…365n 60:12â•… 314n, 365n 60:13â•…305 61:4â•… 317, 337, 562 61:5â•…316n 61:6–9â•…404 62:3â•… 317, 562 62:6â•… 276n, 320, 564 63:8â•…316n 65:8–9â•…327 66:7â•…327 66:13–15â•…404 68:17â•…268n 69:19â•… 301, 303, 540, 543 70:5â•… 255n, 304 71:5–6â•…414 71:5–7â•… 334, 337, 485 71:5â•… 319, 337, 563 71:6â•… 253n, 283, 305, 332n, 390, 591 71:18â•…334 72:5, 17â•… 373 73:13â•…265 73:23â•… 305, 548 73:26â•…319 74:1â•…365n 74:2â•… 263n, 334 74:20â•…300n 77:6, 12â•… 8n 77:14–21â•…8n 77:16â•…263n 78:48â•…419 79:9â•…305 80:2â•… 267, 302 80:9–12â•…334 80:15â•…300n

685 Psalms (cont.) 80:18â•…324 82â•…354 84:3â•…328–29n 86:12â•…332 86:16â•… 302, 306, 540, 550 88:2â•…332n 88:5â•…431–32 88:11–14â•…432 88:12â•…431 88:14â•…267 88:18â•…431 89:4â•…263 89:8â•… 327, 572 89:21–38â•… 262n, 334 89:27–28â•…351n 89:39â•…365n 89:48â•…279 90:14â•…267 91:4â•…316n 91:5–6â•… 419, 491 94:17â•…431 94:18â•…305 97:9â•… 327, 571 99:2â•… 327, 571 100:5â•…572 103:11â•…549 103:13â•… 351n, 539 103:19â•…327 104:1â•…255n 106:10â•…263n 106:28â•…456 107:22â•…404 109:1â•…332n 112:4â•…541 112:9â•… 288n, 596 113:4â•…327 113:5â•… 330, 575 113:7â•…307 113:9â•…270 114:1â•…262n 115:17â•…431 116:14–19â•…404 118:6â•…314 118:14â•… 316, 552, 560 119:9â•…265 119:73â•… 279, 589 119:94â•…568 119:105â•…315

686 Psalms (cont.) 119:116–17â•…305 119:153â•…300 121:1â•…540 121:4â•…308 131:2â•…276n 132:2, 5â•… 313 135:1â•… 329, 574 135:8–12â•…327 135:21â•…268n 136:1â•… 329, 574 139:10â•…306 139:13â•… 277–78, 390, 484, 589 140:8â•…311 141:8â•… 320, 554 142:6â•… 319, 563 143:1â•… 299, 535 143:5â•…8n 143:8â•… 267, 318 143:12â•… 310, 321, 565 146:3–5â•…327 146:9â•… 307, 551 147:6â•…307 Job 1:1â•…293 1:20â•…434 2:11–13â•…436 3:1–10â•…275 3:8â•…412 4:6â•… 319, 563 10â•…335 10:3â•…337 10:8–11â•… 278–80, 390–91, 484 10:8–12â•… 337, 347n 10:8â•…588 10:11â•…587 10:21–22â•…431 11:4â•…265n 15:14â•…265 16:19â•…312 17:13â•…432 26:5–7â•… 431, 432 31:15â•… 278–79, 390, 589 33:22â•…431 36:3â•… 278, 588 42:14â•…247n

Index of Textual Sources Proverbs 2:18â•…432 3:1–12â•…337 3:5â•… 337–38, 486 3:9–12â•…339 3:12â•…351n 9:18â•…432 10:3â•… 338, 486 10:22â•…338 10:29â•… 337–38, 486 11:1, 20, 28â•… 338 12:2â•… 338, 486 12:22â•…338 13:14â•…337 14:2â•…338 14:26â•… 337, 486 14:27â•…337 14:31â•… 337–38, 486 15:3â•… 338, 486 15:8â•…339 15:11â•… 338, 431 15:16, 25â•… 338 15:29â•…337–39 15:33â•…337 16:2â•…338 16:3â•… 337, 486 16:5–9â•…337–38 16:20â•… 337, 486 16:33â•…338 17:3â•…338 17:5â•… 337–38, 486 17:15â•…338 18:10â•…337–38 18:22â•…337 19:3â•…338 19:14â•…337 19:17, 21â•… 338 19:23â•…337 20:9â•…265 20:10â•…338 20:12â•… 337–38, 486 20:13â•…284 20:22–23â•…338 20:25â•… 404, 490 20:27â•…338 21:2â•…338 21:3â•…339 21:16â•…432 21:30â•… 338, 486 21:31â•…338

Proverbs (cont.) 22:2â•…337–38 22:4â•…337 22:19â•… 337, 486 22:22–23â•…338 23:17â•…338 25:1â•…336 25:21–22â•…338 26:11, 17â•… 322 27:20â•…431 28:25â•…337–38 29:13â•…337–38 29:25â•…337 31:2â•… 271, 389, 404 31:10–31â•…396 Ruth 1:15–16â•…398 2:3â•…318 2:4â•…314 2:20â•…410 3:10â•…410 3:13â•…303 4:3–4â•…318 4:4â•…44n 4:9–12â•…411 4:11–12â•…398 4:13–15â•…247 4:13â•… 275, 389 4:14–17â•… 281, 390 4:17â•… 247–48n, 286 Canticles 1:6â•…605 1:10â•…318n 3:4â•… 281, 390 8:5â•… 281, 390 Qoheleth 5:3–6â•… 404, 490 9:4–6â•…432 9:4â•…322 10:11â•…274n Lamentations 1:9, 11â•… 300n 2:6â•…401 2:7â•…365n 2:20â•…300n 3:24â•…319

Index of Textual Sources Lamentations (cont.) 5:1â•…300n 5:22â•…365n Daniel 6:20â•…311 6:21, 27â•… 329n Ezra 2:9â•…328n 2:49â•…322 6:19–22â•…399–400n 8:4â•…320 8:33â•…267n 9–10â•…397 10:23â•…276 10:29â•…584 Nehemiah 2:1–5â•… 437, 455 2:5â•…432 3:6â•…322 3:10â•…272

Nehemiah (cont.) 3:23â•…273 6:14â•…267n 9:4–5â•…271n 9:5â•…271–72n 10:5â•…271n 10:11–13â•…271n 10:32â•…402 11:7â•…312 11:24â•…276 12:14â•…271n 13:23–30â•…397 1 Chronicles 2:46â•…253n 2:47â•… 307, 328 3:24â•…273 4:3â•…289n 4:9â•…247n 4:35â•…309 7:2â•…309 7:13â•…288 7:16, 23â•… 247n

687 1 Chronicles (cont.) 7:39â•…211 8:11–12â•…278 8:21â•…279 8:33â•…287n 11:35â•…353 12:6â•…358 23:17â•…303n 24:16â•…276 25:11â•…279 26:3â•…320 2 Chronicles 11:21â•…396 16:12â•…470 16:14â•…456 21:19â•…456 26:16–21â•…417n 30â•…399n 30:1–31:1â•…400 35:1–19â•…399–400n 35:25â•…434

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 22–25â•…431 Jubilees 48:2â•…394 49â•…400 49:3, 15â•… 419 Judith 8:5â•…434 10:3–4â•…434

1 Maccabees 6:49â•… 402, 490 6:53â•… 402, 490

Sirach (cont.) 25:14â•…396 26â•…396

2 Maccabees 7:27â•…293 7:28â•…393

Tobit 3:7–9â•… 419, 491 4:12â•…397 4:17â•… 456, 494 5:17â•…411 6:1–9â•… 419, 491 6:11–12â•…397 7:13–14â•…398 7:13â•…411

Sirach 1â•…336n 7:33â•… 432, 456, 494 22:12â•…435 24â•…336n

688

Index of Textual Sources

New Testament Matthew 26:17–19â•…400 Mark 5:1–20â•…432

Mark (cont.) 14:12–25â•…400 15:42–47â•…437 16:1â•…437

Luke 1:59–66â•…247 2:21â•…247 22:7–23â•…400 24:1â•…437

Extrabiblical Sources Rabbinic Literature b. Ketub. 8bâ•… 437 b. Šabb. 134a â•… 247 152bâ•…454 m. Nid. 10:4â•… 454 m. Pesaḥ. 5:5–9 â•… 400 10:8â•…400 m. Šabb. 23:5â•… 437 Pesiq. Rab. 17â•… 418 Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 48â•… 247 Tg. Pseudo–Jonathan on Exod 4:26â•… 394 Ancient Near East ANET 320â•…335n 654â•…351n KAI 2.81â•…406n 24.10–11, 13â•… 351 27â•…269 37.B8â•…275 49.15â•…320 66â•…405–6 80.2â•…320n 109â•…406 180.1â•… 554, 593 181.5â•…335n 202.A12â•…307 202.B24â•…321 229â•…408 277.8–9â•…433

KTU 1.6 VI 45–48â•… 433 1.14 I 36–37â•… 347n 1.14 IV 31–43â•… 405 1.15 II 16–28â•… 347n 1.21â•…458 1.22 IIâ•… 405 1.113â•…433 1.114â•…458 3.9â•…458 4.642â•…458 TUAT 2.320–47â•…337n 2.620â•…405 3.320–46â•…354 3/2.625–26 (Atramhasis I 90–306)â•… 276 Latin and Greek Writings Josephus Ant. 1.237â•…462n 2.14.6â•…419 8.8.1â•… 402, 490 13.211–12â•… 461, 493 14.10.6â•… 402, 490 16.2â•… 402, 490 J.W. 4.531â•…462n Philo Questiones in Exodum 1.10â•… 400

Index of Sites and Place-Names Ai (et-Tell)â•… 13, 34–36, 74–76, 164, 173, 222, 229, 242, 496, 518 ʿAin Daraâ•… 212–15 Ain Shemsâ•… 448, 453 Ajia Iriniâ•… 66 Akkoâ•…370 Ammanâ•…67n Aphekâ•…193 Aradâ•… 11, 13, 69–71n, 220–22, 232, 234, 236–37, 240–41, 243–44, 254, 266–68, 289, 301, 403, 413, 481, 490 Arbēlaâ•… see Irbid Arslan Tašâ•… 269, 383 Ashdod (Esdūd)â•… 65, 67–69n, 193, 195–207, 226, 228–30, 232, 242 Ashkelonâ•…201 Azorâ•…436 Beersheba (Bīr es-sebaʿ)â•… 9, 12–14, 28, 32, 57n, 68, 70–71, 80–86, 93, 157, 175, 224–25n, 233n, 383, 479, 502, 518–19 Beirutâ•…209 Beit Aryeh (Ḥirbet Hudash)â•…39–40 Beit Lei (Ḥirbet Beit Layy)â•… 13, 413 Bethel (Bētīn)â•… 13, 84–85, 237, 245, 265, 322, 483, 519 Bethlehemâ•…457 Bethsaidaâ•… 232–33, 241, 243 Beth-shean (Tell el-Ḥiṣn)â•… 69, 87–91, 133, 173–75, 370, 436, 496, 499–500, 502, 519 Beth-shemesh (Ḥirbet er-Rumēle)â•… 69, 92–93, 175, 377, 437, 439, 446–48, 450–52, 454, 502–3, 520–21 Bētīnâ•…see Bethel Bīr es-sebaʿâ•…see Beersheba Bull Site (Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīle)â•… 13, 44, 222, 234–35, 237, 244 Daḥret eṭ-Ṭawīleâ•…see Bull Site Danâ•… 11, 13, 58, 69–70n, 221–22, 232–33, 237–38, 240–41, 243–44

Deir ʿAllaâ•… 354 Deir el-Mirâ•…39 Dūr-katlimmuâ•…see Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad Ebal (Mount Ebal/el-Burnāṭ)â•… 13, 235 ʿEin Gev (Ḥirbet el-ʿĀšīq)â•… 93–94, 500, 521 Ekron (Tel Miqne/Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿ)â•… 48, 71, 112, 193, 195, 201, 203–7, 223, 228–30, 238, 240–42, 244, 480 En-gediâ•…412 ʿEn Ḥazevaâ•… 67, 69–71n, 73–74, 235, 244 Esdūdâ•…see Ashdod et-Tellâ•… see Ai Gezer (Tell Ğazarī)â•… 69–71, 77, 99, 193, 373, 439, 441 Gilgalâ•…416 Haranâ•… 368, 370, 376, 515 Ḥatarikkaâ•…see Tell Afis Hazrakâ•…see Tell Afis Hazor (Tell el Qedaḥ)â•… 4, 11–13, 28, 32, 36–37, 39n, 41n, 57–58, 67, 73, 102–7, 173, 175, 222, 226, 230, 232–33, 243, 380, 383, 417, 460n, 471, 496, 500, 523 Hebronâ•… 92, 432, 461 Ḥirbet Beit Layyâ•… see Beit Leiâ•…413 Ḥirbet el-ʿĀšīqâ•…see ʿEin Gev Ḥirbet el-Mudēyineâ•… 69, 71, 186, 192–93, 227–29, 232–33, 243 Ḥirbet el-Muqannaʿâ•…see Ekron Ḥirbet el-Mušāšâ•…see Tel Masos Ḥirbet el-Qômâ•… 12, 249, 260 Ḥirbet er-Rumēleâ•… see Beth-shemesh Ḥirbet Hudashâ•…see Beit Aryeh Ḥirbet Jamaʿinâ•… 39 Ḥirbet Jarishâ•… 39 Ḥirbet Khatuniyehâ•… 218–19 Ḥirbet Maltaâ•… 39 Ḥirbet Meshashâ•… 34, 36

689

690

Index of Sites and Place-Names

Ḥirbet Raddanaâ•… 13, 34–35, 164–65, 222, 498, 632 Ḥirbet Raʾs ez-Zētūnâ•…see Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit Ḥirbet Sēlūnâ•…see Shiloh Ḥorvat Qitmitâ•… 67, 69–71n, 73, 235–37, 240, 244 Ḥorvat Radumâ•… 233n Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit (Ḥirbet Raʾs ez-Zētūn)â•…69, 108–110, 174, 499–500, 532 Ḥorvat ʿUzzaâ•… 233n Irbid (Arbēla)â•… 13, 177–78 Jerichoâ•… 13, 294n, 377, 461 Jerusalemâ•… 4, 13, 18, 58, 61–63, 68, 73, 108– 12, 157, 175, 220–22, 235, 237, 243–44, 249, 262n, 264–65, 267–68, 278, 285, 290, 316, 321, 328, 334, 336, 370, 377, 382–83, 403, 428, 432, 437, 439, 454, 460, 462–69, 472, 481, 490, 494, 503, 524 Kabriâ•… 189, 209 Karatepeâ•…354 Kedeshâ•…see Tel Kedesh Ketef Hinnomâ•… 17n, 412 Kinneret (Tell el-ʿOrēme)â•… 73n, 112–16, 155n, 173–74, 233n, 500–501, 524 Kuntillet ʿAjrûdâ•… 13, 17n, 222, 233n, 249, 268, 392, 412–13 Lachish (Tell ed-Duwēr)â•… 13, 67, 69–71n, 73, 75, 116–25, 135, 159, 164, 174, 211, 220, 222, 225–26, 230, 233, 243, 268, 278, 294n, 328, 382, 437, 439–40, 446–49, 453–54, 459, 499, 503–4, 524–26 Lahavâ•…see Tel Halif Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim)â•… 11, 13–14n, 62, 67, 69–76, 94n, 125, 133–57, 164, 170, 173–74, 178, 211, 220, 222, 226–28, 233–34n, 240, 242, 244, 290, 370, 376, 382, 439–40, 442, 454, 481, 497–99, 501, 528–31 Meironâ•…294n Mizpaâ•…see Tell en-Naṣbeh Mount Carmelâ•… 416 Mount Ebal/el-Burnāṭâ•…see Ebal Mount Gerizimâ•… 406–8, 481, 490

Nachshonimâ•…370 Nimrudâ•… 258n, 263, 383 Ophrahâ•…44 Pella (Ṭabaqāt Faḥl)â•… 170, 186–89, 192, 235 Qatnaâ•…see Tell Mišrife Qumranâ•…419 Ramat Rahelâ•… 432 Rimmonâ•… see Tel Halif Samʾalâ•… 351, 354 Samariaâ•… 13, 58, 66–68, 70, 220, 222, 243, 265, 279, 326, 352n, 357n, 380–81, 383, 444, 446, 458, 466–69, 472, 494 Sarafandâ•… see Sarepta Sarepta (Sarafand)â•… 207, 209, 211–12, 221n, 226, 416 Sfireâ•…354 Shechem (Tell Balatâh)â•… 28–29, 31, 94, 223 Shiloh (Ḥirbet Sēlūn)â•… 13, 168–69, 249, 271, 383, 404, 498, 533 Silwanâ•… 396, 413, 461 Simyraâ•…see Tell Kazel Šiqmonaâ•…370 Ṣumuraâ•…see Tell Kazel Taanach (Tell Taʿanek)â•… 54n, 69, 169–72, 174, 192, 222, 235, 378, 500, 533 Ṭabaqāt Faḥlâ•…see Pella Tall al-ʿUmērīâ•… 13, 28, 30, 190–92 Tall Šēḥ Ḥamad (Dūr-katlimmu)â•… 218 Tawīlānâ•… 189–90, 192 Teimaâ•…408 Tel ʿAmalâ•… 76–78, 174, 178, 499 Tel Batash (Tell el-Baṭāšī/Timnah)â•… 72, 77–80, 225, 235, 237, 244, 502, 518 Tel Danâ•…see Dan Tel Dorâ•… 207n Tel Halif (Lahav/Rimmon)â•… 9, 14, 57n, 99–102, 155, 175, 225, 503, 521–22 Tel Kedesh (Tell Qedes)â•… 13, 112, 174, 500 Tel Masos (Ḥirbet el-Mušāš)â•… 9, 14, 35, 57n, 125–33, 173–74, 185, 227–28, 242, 496, 504, 526–27 Tel Miqneâ•…see Ekron Tel Qashish (Tell el-Qassīs)â•… 159–60, 499, 531

Index of Sites and Place-Names Tel Reḥov (Tell eṣ-Ṣarem)â•… 165, 170, 174, 222, 232, 243, 481, 499, 532 Tel Wawit (Tell el-Wawiyat)â•… 13, 172, 222 Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Tell Abūâ•‚Ḥaraz)â•…176–77, 192 Tell Abūâ•‚Ḥarazâ•…see Tell Abu al-Kharaz Tell Afis (Ḥatarikka/Hazrak)â•… 209, 215–18 Tell Ahmarâ•… 208 Tell Balatâhâ•…see Shechem Tell Baziâ•… 207–8, 219 Tell Beershebaâ•…see Beersheba Tell Beit Mirsimâ•… 11–13, 28, 32, 34–35, 38, 71, 85–89, 93, 126, 175, 502, 519 Tell ed-Duwērâ•…see Lachish Tell el-Baṭāšīâ•…see Tel Batash Tell el-Farʿah North (Tirzah)â•… 9, 11, 13–14, 32, 35–36, 38, 57n, 94–99, 222, 224n, 232–33, 243, 499–500, 521 Tell el-Farʿah Southâ•… 380 Tell el-Ḥammahâ•… 106–8, 174, 499 Tell el-Ḥiṣnâ•… see Beth-shean Tell el-Mazārâ•…see Tell Mazar Tell el-Mutesellimâ•…see Megiddo Tell el-ʿOrēmeâ•… see Kinneret Tell el-Qassīsâ•…see Tel Qashish Tell el Qedaḥâ•…see Hazor Tell el-Wawiyatâ•…see Tel Wawit Tell en-Naṣbehâ•… 12–13, 32, 35–36, 38, 67n, 68, 70, 73n, 93, 157–59, 440, 443–45, 454, 501, 504, 531–32 Tell es-Safiâ•… 193 Tell es-Saʾīdīyehâ•… 13, 32, 58, 165–69, 225, 501, 532 Tell eṣ-Ṣaremâ•…see Tel Reḥov Tell ʿĒtūnâ•… 13, 436, 468 Tell Ğāwaâ•…see Tell Jawa Tell Ğazarīâ•…see Gezer Tell Ğemmeâ•… 370

691

Tell Ğuḥfīyaâ•…see Tell Juhfiyya Tell Halafâ•… 208 Tell Ḥuwēlifaâ•…see Tel Halif Tell Irbidâ•…see Irbid Tell Jawa (Tell Ğāwa)â•… 7, 14–15, 58, 176, 178–83, 192, 226–27, 474 Tell Judeidehâ•… 193 Tell Juhfiyya (Tell Ğuḥfīya)â•…182–84 Tell Kabriâ•…see Kabri Tell Kazel (Simyra/Ṣumura)â•… 207, 209–11, 219, 227 Tell Keisanâ•… 207, 209, 211, 224 Tell Makmišâ•…see Tell Michal Tell Mastumaâ•… 208, 224 Tell Mazar (Tell el-Mazār)â•… 4, 11, 173–74, 176, 184–87, 225, 258, 497, 526–27 Tell Michal (Tell Makmiš)â•… 73, 132–34, 174, 230, 232, 243, 481, 499, 531 Tell Mišrife (Qatna)â•… 460–61n Tell Qasileâ•… 67–70, 72–73, 133, 193, 197, 207, 230–31, 233, 240, 243 Tell Qedesâ•…see Tel Kedesh Tell Qiriâ•… 4, 8, 11, 13, 70, 73, 159–64, 173–74, 228–29, 242, 498, 501, 532 Tell Ṣāfūṭâ•…189 Tell Taʿanekâ•…see Taanach Timnahâ•… see Tel Batash Timnah Valleyâ•… 234, 237 Tirzahâ•… see Tell el-Farʿah North Troyâ•…69 Turʿanâ•… 172, 501, 533 Vered Jerichoâ•…see Jericho Wādī Fīdānâ•… 461 Yavnehâ•… 68, 73, 195, 232

Index of Subjects Adad (see also Hadad)â•… 289, 317, 332, 358, 509–10, 516, 543, 558, 562, 565, 567, 572, 575, 578, 580, 587–88, 593, 596 Aliensâ•… 321–22, 395, 421, 475, 492, 607 Altarsâ•… 70–72, 135, 175, 207–8, 227–32, 235– 38, 240, 242–44, 478, 480–81, 499–504, 518, 524–26, 530–31 â•… candelabriumâ•… 69, 71, 232 â•… hornedâ•… 135–37, 174, 206, 220, 223, 499, 501, 530 Amuletsâ•… 71–72, 446–48, 471, 478–79, 491, 493, 497–98, 502, 518, 529–30, 532 Anatâ•… 321, 323, 340, 346, 365–66, 508, 512, 514, 565, 569, 588 Ancestorsâ•… 61, 225–26, 405, 432–33, 457, 459, 470–72, 493, 504, 525 â•… cult (see also Dead)â•… 5, 61, 207–8, 350, 429–30, 456 â•… figurinesâ•… 61, 65, 72, 117, 205, 219, 226, 462, 469 Angelsâ•… 65, 394, 419 Anthropologyâ•… 17–18, 388, 410, 429–30 Apotropaic â•… figurineâ•… 84, 208, 384, 454, 479, 502, 519 â•… functionsâ•… 211, 382–83, 385–86, 456 â•…magicâ•…71–72 â•… rites/ritualsâ•… 46, 281, 292, 323, 387, 391–94, 398, 417–20, 477, 479, 489 Asherahâ•… 4, 10, 12, 55, 62–64, 243, 364, 371, 379 Ashtarteâ•… 62, 210, 269–70, 278, 285, 312, 314, 343, 345–46, 353, 363–64, 366, 371, 406, 511–12, 514, 538–39, 547, 550, 556, 558, 560–61, 564, 566, 568–69, 577, 582, 589, 592–93 Astralizationâ•… 63, 321, 368, 371, 373, 378 Astral symbols/deitiesâ•… 321, 369–79, 515 Atonementâ•… 265, 393, 408, 483 Baalâ•… 63, 210, 238, 245, 254, 263–66, 274, 282, 290, 296, 300–301, 314–27, 342–49, 352,

354, 356, 358–60, 367, 380, 456, 508–10, 512, 535–42, 547, 552, 555–69, 572–73, 576, 579–82, 584, 586, 590, 593–97, 600, 606 Bamāh (see also Cult places)â•… 123–24, 232–33, 236 Beit ʾābâ•… 24–25, 33, 39–40, 43, 475–76 Birthâ•… 246–48, 269–73, 277–86, 293, 297, 482–84 â•… namesâ•… 252–57, 345–46, 582–601 â•… naming feastâ•… 247–48, 286–91 â•…oraclesâ•…273–75 â•…ritualsâ•…388–93, 489–90 â•…weaningâ•…293–94, 392–93 Blessingâ•… 56, 252, 289–90, 339, 346, 387, 391, 398–99, 406, 410–13, 421–22, 490–91, 596–97 Burial practices (see also Graves)â•… 436–55, 471–73 â•… giftsâ•… 12, 456, 471, 493 Canaanite rites/religionâ•… 47–48, 369, 377, 387, 421–22, 429 Centralizationâ•… 18, 223, 400, 402, 490 Chaosâ•… 420, 431 Cherubimâ•… 84, 86, 383–85, 479, 488 Circumcisionâ•… 247, 286–93, 387, 392–95, 400, 426–28, 484, 489, 492, 593, 598 Clanâ•… 5–6, 24–26, 43–45, 53, 136, 457, 476 Covenantâ•… 56, 394, 411, 460 â•… Book ofâ•… 401–2, 411 Creationâ•… 3, 251, 277–80, 330, 333–35, 337–38, 346–47, 391, 422, 484–86, 587–90 Cult placesâ•… 220–44 â•…domesticâ•…224–28 â•… local high placesâ•… 230–33, 243, 457 â•… work-related cult placesâ•… 71, 112, 174–75, 203–5, 228–29, 242, 480, 532–33 Cursesâ•… 387, 397–98, 410–13, 490–91 Davidâ•… 25, 61, 247n, 263, 328, 396, 435, 457

692

Index of Subjects â•…Davidic Kingdomâ•…334 Deadâ•…429–73 â•… cultâ•… 5, 429–30, 456, 480 â•…commemorationâ•…457–69 â•…memorialâ•…460–62, 493 â•…mourningâ•…433–36 Demonsâ•… 269, 387, 392, 394, 419–20, 491 Diasporaâ•… 5, 18, 292, 397, 400–401, 427–28, 492 Diseases/crisis/illnessâ•… 331–36, 413–18, 491 Divinationâ•… 61, 226, 244, 274–75, 369, 388, 470–71, 500, 523 Elâ•…354–56 Elephantineâ•… 248, 250, 258, 286, 395–97 Ethicsâ•… 50, 335, 338, 421 Exclusionâ•… 11, 422 Exileâ•… 18, 250, 266–68, 292, 394–95, 397, 400–401, 421, 427, 483, 489–90, 492 Exodusâ•… 245, 262–63, 268, 330, 334, 393, 421, 483 Familyâ•… 21–23, 41–45, 480 â•… extendedâ•… 22–23, 26, 34, 38–44, 223–28, 242, 454 â•… jointâ•… 22–23, 25–26, 33–46, 228–29, 242–43, 472–73, 475–76 â•… nuclearâ•… 22–23, 25–26, 33–34, 38–46, 223–29, 242, 434, 454, 471–73, 475–76 â•… pater familiasâ•… 44, 46, 407, 410–11, 418, 434, 455–56 â•…stemâ•…23, 475–76 Fertility/Infertilityâ•… 10, 13, 62–68, 264, 269–71, 275–77, 345–46, 389–90, 417, 421–22, 484, 582 Figurinesâ•…60–72 â•…animalâ•…66 â•… Ashdodaâ•… 68, 193, 195, 198–99, 205–7 â•…femaleâ•…62–65, 226 â•… horse-and-riderâ•… 63, 65–66, 72, 80, 100, 102, 111, 114, 117, 175–76, 211–12, 214–15, 226, 236, 446–48, 453, 462–63, 478, 503, 522, 524 â•… Judean pillar (JPF)â•… 10, 14, 62–68, 92–93, 121–22, 159, 175, 236, 368, 390, 446, 448, 478–79, 502–4, 518–27 â•… maleâ•… 65–66, 72, 462 â•…Philistine terra-cottaâ•…193–95 Firstfruitsâ•… 402–3, 421–22, 490

693

Firstlings (see also Sacrifices)â•… 339, 402–3 Food â•… consumptionâ•… 23–24, 44–46, 59–60, 173–75, 224, 227–32, 234–39, 242–44, 420, 463–64, 468–69, 475, 478–79, 496–98, 500, 502 â•… preparationâ•… 58–60, 225, 227, 229–30, 232, 234, 242–44, 463–64, 496, 499–503 Funerary meals and feastsâ•… 457–59 Godsâ•…508–14 â•… goddessesâ•… 62–65, 344, 363–67, 370–71, 488, 509, 514 â•…familyâ•…350–53, 356–63 â•… nationalâ•… 55, 340, 356–59, 377 â•… personalâ•… 331–36, 358–65, 579 â•… tutelary (see also personal)â•… 354–56, 360, 579 Graves/Tombs (see also Burial practices)â•… 436–58, 460–62, 468 â•…inscriptionsâ•…413–14 â•…typesâ•…436–49 Hadadâ•… 264, 267, 275, 283, 311, 317, 321–23, 342–43, 346–47, 358, 360, 486, 509–10, 512, 539, 541, 543, 549, 552, 555–57, 561–62, 565, 567–69, 571, 581, 584, 586, 591, 593, 595 Harvest feastsâ•… 402–3, 490 Holinessâ•… 93, 225, 262n, 265, 401, 425, 459 Holiness Codeâ•… 400, 402, 411, 470, 490 Homosexualityâ•… 423–24, 492 Householdâ•… 23–24, 41–45 Houses (types)â•… 26–34 â•… second storyâ•… 29, 32, 176, 182, 225, 227, 479 Identityâ•… 56, 333 â•… familyâ•… 400, 432–33, 437, 455, 471–72, 493 â•…Jewishâ•…292 â•… national/ethnicâ•… 18, 330, 395, 397, 421, 427, 437, 461, 492–93 â•… religiousâ•… 395, 400–401, 421, 427, 489–90, 492–93 Images (divine) (see also Figurines)â•… 60–61, 64, 193, 210, 219, 226, 379, 427 Impurityâ•…see Purity Infant mortalityâ•… 293–97, 392, 484, 599 Infertilityâ•… see Fertility Inheritanceâ•… 23, 323, 437, 483, 569

694

Index of Subjects

Integration/Reintegrationâ•… 247, 287, 292, 360, 392, 415 Intercessionâ•… 3, 299, 389, 416 Isisâ•… 289, 323, 340, 343–44, 365–66, 448, 508, 513–14, 557, 565, 569, 596 Jeroboamâ•… 265, 290 Justiceâ•… 303–4, 311–12, 332, 361, 367, 544–45, 555 Kernoiâ•… 69–70, 72, 172–74, 206–7, 496–501, 519, 529–32 Kingshipâ•… 47, 245, 262, 264, 307, 323, 330, 373, 405, 483 Levitesâ•… 266, 319, 399–400, 403 Libation (see also Offerings)â•… 70, 72, 174–75, 404, 479, 481 Lineageâ•… 40–45, 224, 434, 471–73, 480 lmlk-stampsâ•… 92, 372–74, 502, 515, 520 Magicâ•… 48–49, 64, 226, 387–88, 410, 417, 427, 479 Manticâ•… 61, 75, 226, 274–75, 389 Marriageâ•… 395–99, 419, 426, 489 â•…intermarriageâ•…397–98 â•…levirateâ•…26, 397–98 â•…monogamyâ•…395–97, 489 â•…polygamyâ•…396–97 â•…polygynyâ•…395–97, 489 Masksâ•… 61, 105–6, 226, 417, 471, 500, 523 Maṣṣebāhâ•… 61, 101, 123–24, 170, 174, 190, 230, 233, 235, 240, 243–44, 460–61, 532 Maṣṣotâ•… 325, 387, 399–403 Miniature altarsâ•… 70–72, 502, 518 Mixed creaturesâ•… 382–86 â•… Besâ•… 6, 10, 276, 279, 322–23, 340, 342, 344, 346, 381–82, 392, 440, 489, 508, 516, 568, 589 â•… Griffinâ•… 373, 383, 516 â•… Horusâ•… 264, 323, 343–44, 352, 381, 448, 508, 511, 513, 516, 565, 568, 570, 578, 595 â•…Lamassuâ•…383–84, 516 â•…scorpion-manâ•…384, 517 â•… sphinxâ•… 82, 84, 86, 379, 382–85, 488, 502, 516, 519 â•… sun-disc (winged)â•… 316, 368, 370, 372–74, 378, 384–86, 488, 515 â•… Uraeusâ•… 382–83, 385, 488, 516

Model furnitureâ•… 68–69, 175, 221 Monolatryâ•… 362, 488 Monotheismâ•… 342–43, 388, 427 Mosesâ•… 393–94, 397 Motâ•… 280, 290, 323, 342, 346–48, 362, 487, 508, 510, 568, 584, 589, 597 Mourningâ•…433–36 Necromancyâ•… 61, 106, 226, 459, 462, 469–71, 494 Necropolisâ•… 431, 439, 493 New Moonâ•… 365, 377, 401, 457, 472, 512, 569 â•… interluniumâ•… 455, 457, 473 Offerings (see also Sacrifices)â•… 72, 402–4, 479, 483 â•… burntâ•… 125, 499, 501, 530–31 â•… drink/foodâ•… 71, 173–75, 206, 225, 227, 230, 239, 242–44, 392, 415, 479 â•… dryâ•… 71–72, 173–74, 479, 481, 496–501, 503–4 â•… incenseâ•… 243–44, 175–77, 227, 239, 242–44 Pantheonâ•…486–87 Passoverâ•… 6, 8–9, 387, 395, 399–400, 419, 427–28, 489–90, 492 Peaceâ•… 68, 336, 402, 426, 458 Piety â•… familialâ•… 53, 246, 256, 300, 331–36, 338, 412, 436, 460 â•… personalâ•… 3–5, 54, 245, 248, 336–39, 367–86 Pilgrim/Pilgrimageâ•… 8, 13, 325, 400, 485, 490 Polytheismâ•… 339, 342–48, 362–63, 487–88 Prayersâ•… 271–72, 255–57, 583–85 â•… confessionâ•… 252–55, 259, 309–25, 332–35, 554–70 â•… lamentationâ•… 270, 299–315, 331–34, 337–38, 413–15, 434–35, 489 â•… praiseâ•… 255, 325–30, 485, 571–75 â•… thanksgivingâ•… 252–57, 259, 282, 298–309, 355, 404, 413–15, 484, 534–53 Pregnancyâ•… 10, 64, 252, 270, 273, 275–81, 285–86, 297, 389–90, 484, 489, 586–87 â•… pregnant women (figurine)â•… 95, 211 Priestsâ•… 5, 18, 49–51, 233–40, 243–44, 273, 297, 322, 389, 400–401, 417–18, 480–82, 491, 567 Propertyâ•… 271, 290, 397, 426, 437

Index of Subjects Prophetsâ•… 5, 18, 47–52, 273, 281, 358, 415–17, 470 Protective Spiritsâ•… 380–81 Purity/Impurityâ•… 265, 328, 418, 420, 425 â•… period of impurityâ•… 247, 286, 292, 391–92 â•… purification ritesâ•… 203, 417–18, 482, 489, 491 Queen of Heavenâ•… 12, 49, 349, 364, 369–70, 403–4, 490 Qosâ•… 273, 340, 342, 345–46, 508, 511, 549, 580, 584 Reform/Reformersâ•… 51, 55, 274, 319, 398, 403, 428, 490 â•… Josianicâ•… 3, 18, 61, 237, 274, 348 Religion â•… internal religious pluralismâ•… 3, 46, 52–56, 223, 368–69, 386, 477, 481, 492 â•…localâ•…44, 53 â•… officialâ•… 4–5, 54–55, 262–69, 351, 369, 409, 417–18 â•…popularâ•…49–51 â•…primary/secondaryâ•…51–52 Rĕpāʾîmâ•… 432, 470 Reproductionâ•… 21, 44–46, 475–76 Reshephâ•… 347, 362, 513, 566, 569, 593 Sabbathâ•… 18, 387, 401–2, 416, 427–28, 460, 489–90, 492 Sabbatical yearâ•… 401–2 Sacrificesâ•… 18, 265–66, 272–73, 297, 339, 400, 454, 456–59, 483, 584–85 â•… animalâ•… 66, 165, 272, 389, 408 â•… bloodâ•… 4, 6, 482 â•…humanâ•…403 Sanctuariesâ•… 4–7, 44, 60–61, 133, 220–24, 240–41, 265–66, 286, 389, 403–4, 409, 480–81, 490, 496, 499, 523, 531 â•… gateâ•… 230–33, 243, 415, 532 â•… regionalâ•… 234–37, 244, 271, 273 â•… supraregional and stateâ•… 237–39, 244 Saulâ•… 272n, 328, 416, 437, 457, 470, 494 Sealsâ•… 71–72, 248–50, 260–62, 367–86, 498, 507, 515–17, 530 Šĕʾōlâ•… 431–32, 454 Seraphimâ•… 368, 382, 385–86, 488 Servantsâ•… 23–24, 34, 38, 229, 242, 309, 480

695

â•… of a deityâ•… 259, 310, 321–22, 325, 333, 335, 364, 366–67, 406, 565–67 Shamashâ•… 65, 316, 332, 340–45, 358, 361, 376, 378, 508, 511, 513, 515, 539, 547, 556, 559, 561, 566, 568–69, 576, 580–81, 589–90, 597 Shavuotâ•…325 Shrinesâ•… 220–24, 239–41, 480–81 â•… domestic/houseâ•… 101, 227–28, 242, 277, 479, 496, 527 â•… local and villageâ•… 123–25, 173–74, 207, 230–33, 243–44, 496, 499, 523–24, 531 â•… miniatureâ•… 54n, 67–68, 72, 95, 173–74, 207, 243–44, 478, 497, 499, 501, 521, 528, 531 â•… neighborhoodâ•… 75–76, 229–30, 242, 477, 496, 498, 518, 532 â•… palaceâ•… 135–40, 234, 244, 499, 501, 531 Sin (god)â•… 280, 343, 358, 375–77, 488, 511, 515, 543, 549, 556–57, 559, 562, 579–80, 582, 590, 593–95 Sinaiâ•… 245, 262, 265–68, 330, 483 Slavesâ•… 23–24, 208, 229, 395–96, 413, 475 Socializationâ•… 21, 44–45, 475–76 Sociologyâ•… 17–18, 21, 24 Sojourners â•… of a deityâ•… 259, 310, 321–22, 325, 567–68 â•… of the temple/tentâ•… 266, 567 Spirits of the deadâ•… 433, 435, 461, 470, 494 Standsâ•… 59, 68–69, 72, 173–75, 242–44, 496–504, 518–33 Sukkot (see also Harvest feasts)â•… 325 Syncretismâ•… 47–48, 369, 371, 477 Taboosâ•… 420–26, 459, 489, 491–92 Templeâ•… 13, 47–48, 67–73, 103, 203–4, 220–24, 230–44, 460, 480–81, 487–88, 513 â•… Dan (Tel)â•… 237–38, 481 â•… Jerusalemâ•… 4, 63, 237, 267–69, 334, 400–401 â•…modelsâ•…see Shrines, miniature â•…Samariaâ•…406–9 â•… Second Templeâ•… 400, 427–28, 490–93 Tĕrāpîmâ•… 60–61, 470–71 Theophanyâ•… 254, 266–68, 548 Throne/Enthronementâ•… 68, 193, 209, 264–65, 301, 379, 405 â•… of cherubsâ•… 316, 383 Tombsâ•…see Graves

696

Index of Subjects

Tripod cups (perforated)â•… 70, 72, 165–66, 174–77, 180, 219, 241, 243–44, 478, 496, 500–502, 519, 521, 523, 532 Vassal statesâ•… 264, 369, 378 Vesselsâ•… 58–59, 172–75, 207–8, 221–22, 227–40, 242–44, 438, 440, 453–54, 463–64, 469, 496, 527 â•… anthropomorphicâ•… 68, 72, 453, 462 â•… composite libationâ•… 70, 72, 453–54, 498, 532 â•… miniatureâ•… 73, 75, 226, 502, 518, 532 â•… zoomorphicâ•… 68, 72, 226, 446, 453, 478, 497, 499–503, 518, 520–21, 523, 528–29, 531–32 Votive â•… figurinesâ•… 72, 175, 193, 219, 221, 226, 228, 230–32, 234, 242–44, 415, 462, 466 â•… inscriptionsâ•… 405–9, 466, 481 â•… objectsâ•… 64–66, 68, 72–75, 175, 219, 221, 228, 232, 235–37, 239–44, 469, 481

â•… practicesâ•… 174–75, 219, 227, 240–41, 479, 481 Vowsâ•… 46, 252, 266, 271–73, 294, 297, 389, 403–10, 483–84, 489–90, 583–85 Wisdomâ•… 1–2, 48, 276, 336–38, 396, 432, 486 â•…Proverbsâ•…336–39 Womenâ•… 8–11, 270–73, 277, 388–93, 479, 488 â•… baʾălat ʾōbâ•…470–71 â•… female ritual specialistsâ•… 416–17, 491 â•… midwivesâ•… 247, 281–83, 297, 333–34, 390–92, 591 â•…wailingâ•…434–36, 472 Yhwhâ•… 262–69, 356–58 Zionâ•… 50, 245, 262, 264–65, 330, 386, 483