=aus
,
,*
"
DL
I
,
1P
I,,e,
• l Brough.
D
ItI u
,
--4#.
v
i
n', n
,4 .
. .o
`
tl it
1'rII
i
_1
,...
8 downloads
244 Views
15MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
=aus
,
,*
"
DL
I
,
1P
I,,e,
• l Brough.
D
ItI u
,
--4#.
v
i
n', n
,4 .
. .o
`
tl it
1'rII
i
_1
,
,
I
I
I
'~I
R
~
~
I
AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF
ORIENTAL RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATIVE MD 21211(301)889-1383 OFFICE,ASOR,711WEST40TH STREET,SUITE354, BALTIMORE, Eric M. Meyers, President James W. Flanagan, First Vice President for
Publications WalterE. Rast, Second Vice Presidentfor Archaeological Policy GeorgeM. Landes,Secretary RogerS. Boraas,Assistant Secretary Holden Gibbs, Treasurer KateGould, Assistant Teasurer Gough W Thompson, Jr.,Chairmanof the Boardof Trustees Norma Kershaw,Directorof Tours MarkGallagher,ASOR Administrator
ASORNewsletter; Editor BiblicalArchaeologist;EricM. Meyers, Editor Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research;WalterE. Rast, Editor Journalof Cuneiform Studies;Erle
W.F.AlbrightInstitute of ArchaeologicalResearch(AIAR). P. O. Box 19096,91 190 Jerusalem,Israel. SeymourGitin, Director JoeD. Seger,President Carol Meyers,First Vice President Second Vice JoyUngerleider-Mayerson, President;Acting Board Chair JohnSpencer,Secretary-Treasurer
Leichty, Editor
O
0
~$:u
OF O9 7
m
co
BaghdadCommittee for the Baghdad
School.
JerroldS. Cooper,Chairman Near EasternStudies,The Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore,MD 21218. American Center of OrientalResearch (ACOR). P. O. Box 2470, JebelAmman, Amman, Jordan. Bert de Vries,Director RobertCoughenour,President LawrenceT. Geraty,Vice President MarjorieCooke, Secretary Anne Ogilvy, Treasurer
Editorfor Books, WalterE. Aufrecht
O•
Biblical
CyprusAmericanArchaeological ResearchInstitute (CAARI). 41 KingPaul Street,Nicosia, Cyprus. StuartSwiny,Director Charles U. Harris,President LydieShufro,Vice President Ellen Herscher,Secretary AndrewOliver,Jr.,Treasurer Damascus Committee. GiorgioBuccellati, Chairman Center for MesopotamianStudies, University of California,405 Hilgard Avenue,Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Archaeologist
P. O. BOXH.M., DUKESTATION,DURHAM,NC 27706 (919)684-3075 Biblical Archaeologist (ISSN 0006-0895) is
published quarterly(March,June,September, December)by the JohnsHopkins University Press for the American Schools of Oriental Research(ASOR),a nonprofit, nonsectarianeducational organization with administrativeoffices at 711West40th Street, Suite 354, Baltimore,MD 21211. Subscriptions.Annual subscriptionrates are $19.95 for individuals and $30 for institutions. There is a special annual rate of $17.95 for students and retirees.Single issues are $7 for individuals and $10 for institutions. In Canadaand Mexico, add $3.40 for annual subscriptionsand $2 for single issues. In other foreigncountries, add $8.40 for annual subscriptionsand $2 for single issues. Ordersshould be sent to the JohnsHopkins University Press, 701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore,MD 21211 (telephone:301-338-6964;telex: 5101012198,JHUPress Jnls). Second-classpostagepaid at Baltimore, MD 21211and additionaloffices. Postmaster:Send addresschanges to Biblical Archaeologist, the JohnsHopkins University Press, 701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore,MD 21211. Copyright? 1990 by the American Schools of OrientalResearch. All rights reserved.No portion of this journalmay be reproducedby any process or technique without the formal consent of the American Schools of Oriental
Researchand the JohnsHopkins University Press.Authorizationto photocopy items for personalor internal use is grantedfor librariesand other users registeredwith the CopyrightClearanceCenter (CCC)TransactionalReportingService, providedthat the copier pay the base fee of $1.00 per copy plus $.10 per page directly to CCC, 27 CongressStreet, Salem, MA 01970. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying,such as copyingfor generaldistribution,for advertisingor promotionalpurposes,for creatingnew collective works, or for resale. 0006-8095/$87 $1.00 + .10
Editor Associate Editor Book Review Editor SeniorEditor Assistant Editor Designer
EricM. Meyers LawrenceT. Geraty JamesC. Moyer Leslie Watkins ToddMcGee LauraHughes
EditorialCommittee WalterE. Aufrecht P.Kyle McCarter EdwardF.Campbell David W.McCreery Carol L. Meyers Douglas L. Esse S. Thomas Parker JamesFlanagan VolkmarFritz JackSasson Neil A. Silberman SeymourGitin MarkS. Smith JoAnn Hackett A. T. Kraabel StuartSwiny Thomas E. Levy L. Michael White
Advertising.Correspondenceshould be addressedto the JohnsHopkins University Press, 701 W 40th Street, Suite 275, Baltimore, MD 21211(telephone:301-338-6982). Biblical Archaeologistis not responsible for errorsin copy preparedby the advertiser. The editor reservesthe right to refuse any ad. Ads for the sale of antiquities will not be accepted. EditorialCorrespondence.Article proposals, manuscripts,and editorial correspondenceshould be sent to the ASOR Publications Office, P.O.BoxH.M., Duke Station, Durham, NC 27706. Unsolicited manuscriptsmust be accompaniedby a self-addressed,stampedenvelope.Foreign contributorsshould furnish international reply coupons. Manuscriptsmust conform to the format used in Biblical Archaeologist,with full bibliographicreferencesand a minimum of endnotes. See recent issues for examples of the properstyle. Manuscriptsmust also include appropriate illustrations and legends. Authorsare responsiblefor obtainingpermission to use illustrations. Composition by LiberatedTypes,Ltd., Durham, NC. Printedby PBMGraphics, Inc., Raleigh,NC. Publisher The JohnsHopkins University Press
Archaeolo Biblical
A Publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Volume 53
Number 2
June 1990
The New Halakhic Letter(4QMMT)and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect
64
Lawrence H. Schiffman A Qumran scholar discusses the historical implications of the soon-to-be-published halakhic document, 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah. Commentary
The EliakimNacarYokanSealImpressions:SixtyYears of Confusionin BiblicalArchaeologicalResearch
74
YosefGarfinkel Confusion caused by the misinterpretation of one inscription provides a good illustration of how difficult it is to integrate material culture and historical events.
The Figureof the Paidagogosin ArtandLiterature Page 74
80
Norman H. Young When Paul used the term paidag6gos (pedagogue)to describe the law until the coming of Christ, he used a metaphor for which there is no agreed upon interpretation. What clues to Paul'smeaning can be found in visual examples of the pedagogue from the ancient world?
KhirbetRosZayit- BiblicalCabul: A Historical-Geographical Case
88
Zvi Gal Evidence gathered from the LowerGalilee survey suggests a possible identification for biblical Cabul and helps outline some of the historical-geographical characteristics of the Lower Galilee during the Iron Age. BA Guide to Artifacts
Page 80
Seashells and Ancient Purple Dyeing
98
I. Irving Ziderman Purple dyeing was a major source of economic prosperity in the ancient Phoenician city-states. A fiber expert from Israel describes the use of seashells in the process.
The Use and Abuse of Archaeology in Current One-VolumeBible Commentaries
104
Victor H. Matthews and James C. Moyer In the third of a series of in-depth book review articles, eight one-volume Bible commentaries are evaluated with an emphasis on their use of archaeological information to illuminate the Bible.
the Authors Introducing BookReviews
Page88
62 116
On the Cover:A pedagogue,seated and holding a staff, looks on while his chargereceives instruction in poetry and music. Photo courtesy of the Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,Berlin (West).
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
61
YosefGarfinkel
Introducingthe
Authors
LawrenceH. Schiffman is Professorof Hebrewand Judaic Studies at New YorkUniversity. Forthe past year he has been a Fellow of the Institute for AdvancedStudies of the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalemand has participatedin a research group focusing on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Dr. Schiffman is a member of the Association for Jewish Studies, the World Union of Jewish Studies, and the Society of Biblical Literature. He also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Biblical Literature as chairman of the section on Qumran. LawrenceH. Schiffman
62
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
A participant in many archaeological excavations at biblical and Neolithic sites, Yosef Garfinkel is a doctoral student at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.He has directed excavations at the pre-pottery, Neolithic B village of Yiftahel in the LowerGalilee and at the pre-pottery,Neolithic A site and Middle Bronze IIa cemetery at Gesher in the central JordanValley. Norman H. Youngis Senior Lecturerin New Testament at AvondaleCollege in Cooranbong,Australia. He received his Ph.D. from Manchester University in 1973. A member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Dr. Young has published numerous articles about New Testament writings. He is the author of Rebuke and Challenge: The Point of Jesus'Parables(Washington,DC: Review & Herald Publishing Company).
Norman H. Young
Zvi Gal
Zvi Gal is a faculty member in the Department of the Land of Israel Studies at the University of Haifa. He received his Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University. Forthe past 15 years he has conducted comprehensive surveys in the LowerGalilee as well as excavations at various sites such as Tel Qarney Hittin and 'TelMador. Dr. Gal has been director of the KhirbetRo' Zayit excavations since 1983. A 1957 graduateof University College (London),I. Irving Ziderman earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Since 1966 he has been Senior Research Scientist at the Israel Fiber Institute in Jerusalem,heading the Laboratoryfor Natural Fiberand CarbohydrateChemistry. Dr. Ziderman serves on executive committees of the IsraelTextile Association and the Israel Association of Concerned Scientists. He is also Associate Editor of Yalkut, a publication of the Israel textile industry.
I. IrvingZiderman
VictorH. Matthews
Victor H. Matthews is Professor of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri State University. He has published several articles in Biblical Archaeologist as well as two books, PastoralNomadism in the Mari Kingdom (American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 3, 1978)and Manners and Customs in the Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 1988).He is co-author,with Don C. Benjamin of Rice University, of a forthcoming volume from Paulist Press titled Old Testament Parallels: Stories and Laws from the Ancient Near East. Currently serving as Book Review Editor for Biblical Archaeologist, James C. Moyer is Professor of Religious Studies and Head of the Department of Religious Studies at Southwest Missouri StateUniversity. He has excavated at Gezer, Raddana,and The City of David. His publications include several articles for Biblical Archaeologist and a co-edited book, with William W.Hallo and Leo G. Perdue, Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the ComparativeMethod (Eisenbrauns,1983).
James C. Moyer
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
63
The
New
Halakhic Letter
and the (4QMMT) the Dead Sea Sect since the initial announcement of the Qumran text titled 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah (Qimron and Strugnell 1985a),it has become clear that this text is very significant for our understandingof the history of Jewishlaw and, in particular, for unravelingthe difficult question of the provenanceof the Temple Scroll and its relationship to the Qumran sectarian corpus.' The text is important for another issue, namely, the origins of the sect and the early history of the Qumran community. This document purports to be a letter from the leaders of the nascent sect to the leaders of the (probablypriestly) establishment in Jerusalem.The text sets out some 20 laws regardingsacrificial law,priestly gifts, ritual purity, and other matters overwhich the writers disagreewith the Jerusalemauthorities. Stated in a polemical manner, these laws clearly represent the views of the foundersof the sect as opposed to those of their opponents, whom the sect calls upon to accept their view. The laws are set within a framework that may allow us to learn much about the ideology of those who authored the text. Such conclusions, together with those that are being gatheredfrom the study of the main body of the document dealing with matters of Jewishlaw, will allow us to drawsome tentative conclusions regardingthe significance of this text for the question of the origins of the Qumran group.
64
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Originsof Schtffman byLawrenceH.
It is important to reiteratethat this document, preservedin six manuscripts,purportsto be a letter. It remains to be determined if it is an actual letter, dating to the earliest days of the Qumrangroup,or if it is an apocryphaltext written years, or even decades, later to express the fundamental reasons for the sect's break,or schism, with the Jerusalem establishment. In any case, as indicated by the number of copies that have survived, this letter was undoubtedly significant in the life of the sect. Wewill have to wait for the full publication of the manuscripts and paleographicstudy to clarify this matter further (see Cross 1961)? In the following pages, I will discuss the substance of the introductory sentence and the concluding paragraphsof this document to analyze its stated ideology.Takinginto consideration the halakhic content of the text, I will also offer some general observationsof the historical significance of 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah. Structureand Content of the 'Txt It is necessary to begin by giving some sense of the overall structure of the text. Forthe purposes of this article, the text can be divided into three sections: an introductorysentence setting out the nature of the letter; a section listing the halakhic disagreementsthat the founders of the groupclaim to have had with the Jerusalemauthorities; and a concluding section that raises several issues related to the group'sschism. In at least one of the manuscripts, the text proper is copied immediately after a 364-day soli-solar calendar of the type known from some of the Qumran scrolls, Enoch and Jubilees (see Talmon 1989)? The opening of the letter contains no designation for the document. The authors use the expression katavnu (twice, once restored), which indicates a written text. Normally the text uses katuv as a rubric for quoting the Hebrew Bible. Alongside the word torah, for
6N
0
the Pentateuch, the Torahis referred to as sefer mosheh, the Book of Moses, or (ha-)sefer,the Book (that is, Bible in the literal sense-Greek ta-Biblion).Actually, no formal term is used to characterizethe text as a whole. Its name, Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,comes from the description of its contents in the concluding section of the text but was not intended to be a title. The Introduction. The initial introductory sentence states that what follows are some of "ourwords"(note the use of the plural form), which are legal rulings (macasim, as in its use in later Palestinian Hebrew;see Qimron and Strugnell 1985a:401, 406, and note 5). These are rulings "wehold to"(restored:'anahnu hoshevim). Further,the text tells us that these rulings concern only two topics, one of which is in the lactna and the second of which concerns
I25m
Opposite page: WadiQumranas seen from the west looking east towardKhirbetQumran and the Dead Sea. Fromthis immense wadi, or stream bed, ran a complex water system leading to the cisterns and ritual baths of the settlement. Qumran was first inhabited after 135 B.C.E. and was destroyedby the Romans in 68 c.E.All photos are used courtesy of LawrenceH. Schiffman.Above: Plan of the period lb ruins at Qumran, which date from the first centuryB.C.E.Note the main entrance (1);the assembly and dining hall (2);the potter'sworkshop(3);the so-called Scriptorium (4);the kitchen area (5), where five fireplaces werefound;and the aqueduct(6).Areasshaded by dots arecisterns.Drawingby KentP Jackson.
BiblicalArchaeologist,June1990
65
the laws of purity (abetter translation would be "ritualsof purification").The lacuna must have contained a term like matanot (gifts to the temple and priests) or qorbanot (sacrifices).Such a term would fit the list of laws that follow (Schiffman 1989:245-46). Fromthis sentence alone one can graspthe fundamental point of the text, the halakhic disagreements between this sect and the Jerusalemestablishment. The Listing of the Laws.In this section the authors list 20 or so matters of Jewishlaw, which, in their view, resulted in the schism and formation of their sect. The key point here is that the fundamental disagreements that led this groupof dissatisfied priests to withdraw from participation in the ritual of the Jerusalem Temple pertained to matters of Jewish law. Indeed, the major conflicts of Second Temple Judaismdid not result from disagreements over messianism and other such theological matters but, rather,from issues of Jewishlaw. This does not mean that there may not have been mixed motives, but I want to emphasize the self-image of the founders of the Qumran sect who saw Jewishlegal matters and interpretationof the Torah'sprescriptions as the causes of the schism. Indeed, the entire sectarian corpus testifies to such reasons for the split, and this text is in perfect accordwith the picture presented by the Zadokite Fragments, for example. The Concluding Section. After the final law, the text turns to the concluding section, which raises several general issues. Beforediscussing these issues, let me first present a detailed outline of this section of the text.? The authors state that, by accepting the rulings listed in the previous section, they have separated (parashnu)from the mainstream of the people (rovha-cam)6and, accordingly,have had to withdraw from participation in these rituals as performedby the majority of the
66
The opening of Cave 1 where bedouins discoveredthe first scrolls in 1947. This cave contained the central writings of the Qumransect: The Manual of Discipline, Pesheron Habakkuk, H6day6t (ThanksgivingHymns), and the WarScroll as well as two scrolls of Isaiah, the Genesis Apocryphon,and numerous sectarian compositions.
people. This assertion is backedup by a general statement that the addressees (plural,we-'attem)know that the members of this dissident group are reliable and honest, meaning that the list of laws is indeed being strictly observed,as stated by the authors. At this point the letter explains its purpose:The sectarians have written to the addressee (now in the singular form) in orderthat "you" will investigate the words of the Torah(termedthe Book of Moses), the Prophets,and David, and the history of the generations. It should be noted that this passage assumes the threefold canon of the Hebrew Scriptures:Torah,Prophets,and Writings.The Writingsare not yet a closed corpus, and the text may specifically be referringto the Book of Chronicles, the primarysubject of which is David. Here the text turns to what is to be found in those biblical documents. The addresseeis told, again in the singular (aftera lacuna), that it was foretoldthat he (the addressee) would turn aside from the path
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
(of righteousness) and, as a result, suffer misfortune. This leads to an adaptationof Deuteronomic material (this passage, to a great extent, is fragmentary). The following texts are quoted: Deuteronomy 31:29 (compareDeuteronomy 9:12, 16, and 11:28)and Deuteronomy 30:1-27 The text of this scroll foretells that, in the end of days,"you"(singular)will return to God (in the first person, as is common in the Temple Scroll;see Yadin 1983a:71-73) and that all this is in accordwith what is written in the Torah(againcalled the Book of Moses) and in the Prophets.The Writings are not mentioned here, probablybecause they do not contain blessings and curses, whereas the earlier reference to the Writings concerned the history of the period of the monarchy,which is discussed in those texts. (Therefollows another lacuna of several lines.) The text now returns to the discussion of the kings, recalling the blessings that were fulfilled during the time of Solomon and his son David and the curses visited on Israel
It appearsthatthisletterwaswrittento
theheadof theJerusalem establishment, knownto us as thehighpriest.
from the days of Jeroboam,son of Nebat, through the time of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah.The writers (plural)now state that, in their view, some of the blessings and curses have come to pass and that this (their own day)is the period of the end of days in which Israel is called upon to repent ratherthan to backslide. Accordingly,the addressee (singular)is exhorted to recall the events surroundingthe reigns of the kings of Israel and to examine their deeds (macasehemah) and to note that those who observedthe laws of the Torahwere sparedmisfortune, and their transgressions were forgiven (partlyrestored).The text states that this was the case with David, whom the addressee is asked to remember.8 The authors (plural)now sum up why they have sent this text to the addressee (singular).Here the phrase "MiqsatMacaseh Ha-Torah" appears,meaning, "someof the legal rulings of (that is, pertaining to) the Torah."The authors state that the letter is intended for the benefit of the addresseeand the nation. The addresseeis said to be wise and to have sufficient knowledge of the Torahto understandthe halakhic matters presented in the letter. The writers then call on the addressee (singular)to mend his ways and remove all incorrect thought, that is, incorrect views on matters of Jewish law. This, the addresseeis told, will lead to rejoicing at the end of this period (of the end of days, be-'aharitha-cet), when he will come to realize that the views of the sect are indeed correct. The addressee's
The Nature of the Addressee One of the interesting features of this text is the manner in which the number (in the grammatical sense) of the addresseeshifts. In the introductory sentence the letter is addressedto an individual ('elekha),but in the list of laws the authors'dispute is with a group ('attem,"you"plural).When the list of laws is concluded and the text returns to its main argument, the singular is again used. The addresseeis admonished to take care so that he will not go the way of the kings of the First Temple period. Here the text is clearly addressing a figure who, because of his station in life, would be able to identify with the ancient kings of biblical Israel. It appearsthat this letter was written to the head of the Jerusalem establishment, known to us
as the high priest? The comparisons with the kings of Judahand Israel must have been particularly appropriate for one who saw himself as almost a royalfigure. True royal trappingswere later taken on by the Hasmoneans who, on their coins, styled themselves as kings. The transition must have been a gradual one, however.10What we must have here is a letter either actually written to or purportingto have been written to a Hasmonean high priest.
A Parallelwith the T'ImpleScroll
One significant parallel between this text and the Temple Scroll (11QT)should be discussed in some detail." Both texts include sections in which Pentateuchal materials referringto the people of Israelare taken to referto the king himself. In
Cave 4 was the source of a largehoard, more than 400 fragmentarymanuscripts that included texts of the Dead Sea sect and numerous othercompositions dating to the Second Templeperiod as well as biblical texts. Among these manuscripts were six copies of 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah(4QMMT).This photo was taken from the ruins of Qumranlooking west.
resultant repentance will be considered a righteous deed, beneficial both for him and for all of Israel (presumably in the eschatological sense).
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
67
Macaseh haswide Ha-Torah 4QMiqsat forthehistoryof ramifications in theHasmonean Judaism period. Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,the quotations of Deuteronomy 31:29 and 30:1-2 appearto be referringexclusively to the king (as can be seen from the text that follows). Deuteronomy 31:29 is in the plural and seems (if the restorations are correct) to have been adaptedto the singular.In this way it was brought into agreement with Deuteronomy 30:1-2, which are in the singular but which, in their original context, clearly referredto the people of Israel.'2It may be that the authors of this document actually understood the singular use of Deuteronomy to referto the king, but the context makes this unlikely. Most probably we are dealing with the adaptation of passages dealing with the people of Israel to their ruler.The same phenomenon is observablein 11QT 59:16 in which the biblical rebuke passages directed in Scripture against the people as a whole are modified to make them referto the king (compareYadin 1983a:269-70 and Schiffman 1987b:255-57). In any case, this usage strengthens our assertion that this text, in its concluding paragraphs,is addressingthe ruler of the nation. There is no mention in this text of the Teacherof Righteousness or any other leader known from the sectarian documents. The official history of the sect presented in the Zadokite Fragments(Damascus Document) claims that the sectarians'initial separationfrom the main body of Israel took place some 20 years before the coming of the teacher.13I do not wish to engage in a discussion of the exact chronological accounting, but I take this passage as indicating that the schism took place some time before the sect came to be led by the teacher. It
68
seems most likely, therefore,that this halakhic letter was written by the collective leadership of the sect in those initial years. Hence, the teacher does not appear.
Inside Cave 11 where the TempleScroll was found as well as the job Targum,the Psalms Scroll, the Paleo-HebrewLeviticus Scroll,and other smaller texts, both biblical and nonbiblical compositions. The size of this cave makes it unlikely that it was used either as a regulardwelling place or as a permanent storageplace for texts. Morelikely, scrolls were put here prior to the destruction of the settlement.
PossibleQumranAllusions Twotantalizingallusionsin the scrollsfromQumranmightbe understoodas referringto this particularletter.Mostimportantis a passagein the Pesheron Psalmsto Psalms37:32-33 (Allegro1968: 42-50; compareStrugnell1970:216, whosecorrectionsmustbe followed). As restoredbyYigaelYadin,this pasthat the sagerefersto a "Torah" Teacherof Righteousnesssent to the WickedPriest.Yadinsuggestedthat this mightbe a referenceto the TempleScroll(1983a:396).It might also be suggestedthat this Torahwas the text of MiqsatMacasehHabut this suggestionseems Torah,14 most unlikely.This text explicitly andvarious uses the term"Torah"
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
synonyms several times, yet it never refersto itself by that name. Unlike the author of the Temple Scroll, who sees his text as a complete Torah, these authors are fully awareof the distinction between the canonical text of the Mosaic Torahand the letter they are writing. In addition, if this halakhic letter is indeed a foundation document, or if it purportsto be such, it would referto a time before the Teacherof Righteousness began to take a leading role in the affairsof the sect. The referencein Pesher on Psalms, and all other accounts that seem to point to events in the life and careerof this sectarian leader,would have had to have taken place after this text purportsto have been penned. In view of these strictures, any attempt to relate the "secondbook of the Torah"mentioned in 4Q Catena (Allegro 1968:67-68; Strugnell 1970:236-48), also mentioned by Yigael Yadin(1983a:396-97; see his restoration),to this text must be discounted. We have to reckon with the probability that Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahcannot be identified with a previously known text. It needs to be emphasized nonetheless that the reference to the Torahsent by the teacher does indicate that such epistles were not out of the question within the chronological and cultural contexts in which the sectarian scrolls were written. That a letter such as this might have been sent is not beyond the realm of possibility.
HistoricalRamifications 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahhas wide ramifications for the history of Judaismin the Hasmonean period. In the 20 or so disputes listed in this text, the view ascribedby the letter to the opponents of the emerging
sect is usually the same as that attributed in rabbinic literature to the Pharisees or the tannaim (mishnaic rabbis).In those cases where tannaitic texts preservethe corresponding Pharisee-Sadduceeconflicts regarding the same matters discussed in Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,the view espoused by the writers of this document is that of the Sadducees.'5 Only one possible explanation can be offeredfor this phenomenon. The earliest members of the sect must have been Sadduceeswho were unwilling to accept the situation that came into being in the aftermath of the Maccabeanrevolt(168-164 B.C.E.). The Maccabees replacedthe Zadokite high priesthood with their own priests, reducing the Zadokites to a subsidiary position for as long as Hasmonean rule lasted. It has long been theorized that this is how the Qumran sect originated. Some disaffected Zadokites separatedthemselves from their brethren in Jerusalem and formed the sect.'6This is why the sect so often refersto itself, or its leaders,as the "Sonsof Zadok."17 If this is true, our text makes clear that "Sonsof Zadok"is to be taken at face value: These were Sadducees who protested the following of Pharisaic views in the Jerusalem Templeunderthe Hasmoneanpriests. This would explain why the writers of this letter constantly assert that their views are known to be correct by the addressees.These halakhic polemics (addressedto a plural opponent, as indicated previously) were aimed at their Sadducean brethrenwho stayed in the JerusalemTemple and accepted the new order.It was they who now followed views known to us from Pharisaic-rabbinicsources and who, in the view of the authors of this
Above: View of the so-called Scriptoriumwhere mudbrick fragmentsof a table more than 5 meters (about 17 feet) long and two smaller tables were found as well as two inkwells. Many scholars believe the scrolls were copied here, but others doubt that the remnants of tables and inkwells were suited for scribes and maintain that most of the scrolls were actually copied elsewhere and broughtto Qumran. Yet4QMMTin six manuscripts, must have been copied at the sectarian center at Qumran.Below: This IronAge cistern dates from the eighth to the when Qumranmay have served as an Israelite military outpost. In the seventh century B.C.E., later Hellenistic period it was included in the complex water system that broughtwater from the wadi to the settlement. This is the deepest cistern and the only round one at the site (see site plan on page 65).
letter, knew very well that they were not practicing the old Sadduceanteachings. This theory has been challenged
because it does not explain the more sectarian or radicaltendencies, including the animated polemics and the hatredfor outsiders, so often
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
69
found in the later sectarian texts. Yet this is precisely the point. It is in these later texts that one sees the results of the schism. After attempts such as this letter to reconcile and win over the Hasmoneans and the remaining JerusalemSadduceesto their system of temple practice, the Qumran Zadokites developed,over time, the sectarian mentality of the despised, the rejected,and the abandoned;so they began to look upon themselves as the true Israel and to condemn and despise all others. All of history, ancient as well as contemporary,was now interpreted
Qumran Wadi
En-gedi Nahal Hever
as figuring and prefiguringthis new history.18 Put another way,the Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahtext is a sectarian document from the earliest stage of the development of the Qumran sect, when its members still looked for a return to a participation in temple worship. It is not even certain that this text postdates the physical, self-imposed exile of the sect. Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahrepresents the halakhic disagreements overwhich the sect was formed. It was later that the Teacherof Righteousness and other leaders, most
70
Pharisees,Sadducees, Essenes, and 4QMMT s Lawrence Schiffman's article demonstrates, 4QMMT, a soon-to-bepublished Qumran text, presents historians with an opportunity to reconsider the origin and interaction of various Jewish sectarian groups. In other words,as more of the Dead Sea Scrolls arepublished, we will likely be better able to understandthe development of the Pharisees, Sadducees,and Essenes. Since several theories now compete to explain some aspects of this history, any new evidence that can be made availableis surely to be welcomed. Accordingto the writer (orwriters)of 4QMMT,in orderto performprecepts (macasim)of the Torah,one Jewishgroupdeclared,"Wehave separatedourselves (parashnu)from the majority of the people."But what group is this? The use of the verb parashnu will no doubt raise questions about the development of the designation Pharisee, which comes from the same root (meaning separatists or, as some suggest, interpretersor specifiers).However,some of the text's positions on halakha (literally, the way to proceed with religious observances) match positions that later rabbinic literature describes as Sadducean rather than Pharisaic. In addition, many scholars-although by no means all scholarsconsider the sectarian texts found at Qumran to be Essene because their concerns resemble those attributedto the Essenes by Philo, Josephus,and Pliny. If all of these observations were true, would this imply that 4QMMT is a PharisaicSadduceanEssene text? Evidently,one needs to consider the possibility that these three groups,and their names, evolvedovertime; the names had somewhat differentconnotations for different writers. Rabbinic literature provides an important source for comparison with Qumran literature, as Schiffman and others have shown. However,Mishna Yadayim,which details some disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees,was compiled by the rabbisperhapstwo or three hundredyears after 4QMMT,so the sense of the names Pharisee and Sadduceemay have developed somewhat. Rabbinic literature evidently avoids the term Essene (although scholars have not reacheda consensus on the Semitic spelling of the Greek term Essene),and the term Sadduceeseems to include more diversepeople in rabbinic texts than in Josephusand the New Testament. In addition, although it remains a fair observationthat the rabbiswere "heirsof the Pharisees,"some rabbiswere not eager to associate themselves with this term (see Tosefta Berakhot 3, 25, which records a curse on Perushim, and Avot de Rabbi Natan A 37, which describes seven kinds of Pharisee, not all favorably).The destruction of the
probablyof the priestly class, developed the sect into what we encounter in the corpus of sectarian texts as a whole. It is for this reason that many of the agreements noted previously between this document and the Temple Scroll exist (Schiffman 1989: 246-50 and forthcoming).We must
in the Sadduceantradition.19If so, Qumran now providesus with an insight into this tradition that has never before been available.
This new text also leads to a reevaluationof some of the older theories regardingthe scrolls. A few of these ramificationswill be sketched out here. With the publication of this bear in mind that disagreements, cer- text, many scholars will no doubt deal with these aspects in detail. tainly in detail, do exist. These two texts cannot be regardedas linearly First, it is apparentthat we must abandontheories that seek to related in any way.Yet, at the same link this sect and its origins with time, the similarities do point to the Hasidim, supposedly a secondthe notion that at least some of the sources of the Temple Scroll also lie century-B.C.E. groupthat was opposed
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Second Temple in 70 C.E.-an event that occurred between the writing of the Qumran texts and the rabbinictexts - may have altered the perspectiveof some writers to the term Pharisee, when taken in the sense of separatist,because the rabbiswere promotingJewishunity. Also, it may be worth noting that Philo,who died around40 C.E.,used the term Essenebut not the terms Phariseeor Sadducee. Therefore,although rabbinicparallelsprovidean essential resource,they cannot be safely retrojected back into previous centuries without allowing for the evolution of terms. If one attempted to use rabbinicterminology to characterize the time in which 4QMMTwas written, the early Hasmoneans would appearto be Pharisees, a description for which there seems to be no evidence. The dating of 4QMMT, then, will be important in placing any sectarian terminology in perspective.JohnStrugnelland ElishaQimron suggested,in their preliminary publications, that the text was written by the Teacherof Righteousness. In his article, Schiffman argues for a date before the teacher. If either of these proposalsis correct,it would remain to date that person or office called the Tacher of Righteousness.Those considerationsaside, it could be arguedthat the highly developedsense of group identity in 4QMMTand the text's severallinks with Mishnaic Hebrewcould suggest a later date that would accordwith a retrospective look at the origin of this sectarian group:in other words, a foundation myth. In anycase, detaileddiscussions of these issues will certainlyfollow the full publicationof the text. It is reasonableto expect that these discussions will significantly advanceour understandingof Jewishgroupsin the Second Templeperiod. Although no entirely adequateaccount of the historyof Pharisees,Sadducees, and Essenes has yet been written, one may usefully consult, in addition to the works cited in Schiffman's article: Albert I. Baumgarten,"The Name of the
Pharisees," Journalof BiblicalLiterature102(1983):411-28;StephenGoranson, "'Essenes': Etymologyfromcasah,"Revuede Qumran11 (1984):483-98; John Kampen,The Hasideans and the Originof Pharisaism:A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees (Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1988);JacobNeusner, The Rabbinic Taditions about the Pharisees (threevolumes, Leiden:E. J.Brill, 1971);Emil Schtirer,The
Historyof theJewishPeoplein theAgeofJesusChrist,revisedandeditedbyGeza Vermes and others (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, volume 1, 1973;volume 2, 1979;
volume3, part1, 1986;volume3, part2, 1987).
- Stephen Goranson
Temple under Hasmonean rule. Further, the nature of the collection, even if it contains texts that are not explicitly sectarian but might have been acceptable to all Jews in Second Temple times, is still that of a subgroup of society in opposition to the political and religious authorities of the time. Conclusion There can be little question that the publication of 4Q Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahwill necessitate the reevaluation of many aspects of Qumran studies. Among these will certainly be the question of Qumran origins and early history. Henceforth, any theory of sectarian origins must place the earliest, preteacher stage of the history of the Qumran sect in the offshoots of intrapriestly contention and must reckon with the Sadducean views of those who formed the sect. It is my profound hope, adapting the words of the concluding section of Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torah,"that you will rejoice in the end when you find some of our words correct. And let it be considered right for you, and lead you to do righteousness and good, and may it be for your benefit, and for that of Israel."
Notes
to Hellenism and devoted itself to a strict observance of ritual law. This designation, which actually described not a sect but a loose agglomeration of people, must be discounted as a solution to the problem of sectarian origins. The attempt by some to see the sect as emerging from some subgroup of the Pharisees certainly must now be rejected. The dominant Essene hypothesis, if it is to be maintained, would require a radical reorientation. It would be necessary to assume that the term Essene came to designate the originally Sadducean sectarians who had gone through a
process of radicalization and were now a distinct sect in the sense derived from the sectarian documents. The notion that the collection of scrolls from Qumran is in no way representative of a sect but must be seen as fairly representing the Judaism of the time must also be rejected?2 There is no question that the origin of the community that collected these scrolls was in a sectarian conflict that sustained the community throughout its existence?1 Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahpreserves evidence that this conflict was with those in control of the Jerusalem
This article was written duringmy tenure as a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem. The supportand help of the Institute and its staff are gratefully acknowledged. A more technical version of this article will appearin the published Proceedings of the InternationalColloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls,which was held in Mogilany,Polandin 1989. 'I have had the privilege of contributing to this debate (Schiffman 1989 and forthcoming),and I want to thank JohnStrugnell and Elisha Qimron for graciously making availabletheir soonto-be-publishededition and commentary of this text. 2Seepage 149 on which Cross dates one of the manuscripts of this work to around 50 to 25 B.C.E.He studies this
manuscript, numbered4Q S135b,on
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
71
Publication of 4QMMT will necessitate the of manyaspectsof Qumran reevaluation studies, amongthemQumran originsandearlyhistory. pages 186-88, and in the summary on page 188 he states that this and other manuscripts of this semicursive type "belongto the late Hasmonean period, or, at latest, to the beginning of the early Herodianera." 3Note that this was not the only calendarknown at Qumran.The daily prayertexts were tied to a luni-solar calendarsuch as that known from tannaitic sources (see Schiffman 1987a: 38-39 and Baumgarten1986). 4SeeZadokite Fragments(also known as Damascus Document) 4:125:14.This text, originally discoveredin the Cairo Genizah at the end of the last century in two medieval manuscripts, was later found in severalcopies in the Qumrancaves. It has been firmly established that this text was important to the Qumran sect. SAphotographof one of the manuscripts containing the conclusion of the text can be found on page 10 of Qimron and Strugnell (1985b). 6CompareProverbs14:28,be-rovcam hadrat melekh. 7Hereberakhahrefersto the blessings promised for the end of days,and qellalah denotes the catastrophicperiod that is to precedethe onset of the eschaton, or the end of days.Compare 11QT 29:9 in which, accordingto the reading by Yadin,yom ha-berakhahrefersto the "Endof Days"(1983b:129).Qimron read yom ha-beri'ah,written bryh (1978:142; compareYadin 1983a:412). I, however, note what may be the lower part of the letter kaf in plate 14* 2 (infraredphotograph;Yadin1977). 8Davidappearsas well in the Zadokite Fragments(DamascusDocument) 5:1-6. Regardingthis passage,compare Schiffman (1975:30-31). 9Qimronand Strugnell (1985a:400) suggest that the letter is from "aleader of the Qumran sect (possiblythe Teacherof Righteousness himself) to the leader of its opponents (possiblyJonathanor Simon)."CompareQimron and Strugnell (1985b:9). I, however,believe that the letter must predatethe Teacherof Righ-
72
teousness, as I will explain later in this article. 10Josephustermed JohnHyrcanus
(1990:159-60). '7See especially Zadokite Fragments (DamascusDocument) 3:20-4:4. '8CompareZadokite Fragments (134-104 B.C.E.)a king (Greek basileus) in Antiquities XIII,viii, 4 (249)and XIII, (Damascus Document) 2:16-3:14. 19Burgmann(1989)asserts this x, 5 (288).On Aristobulus, compare thesis in his title but fails to arguefor it Antiquities XIII,xi, 1 (301).See Schiffman (1987b:258). in a sustained manner,as he deals only halakhic are the with Levitical favoritismin the Temple agreements 11The Scroll. subject of my forthcoming article, a 20Thelatest statement of this view papergiven at the GroningenConference held in September 1989 to be published is that of Golb (1989).This theory has in a volume of Revue de Qumrizndedibeen shown to be impossible by GarciaMartinez (forthcoming),who has excated to those proceedings. amined its underpinningsin detail. 12TargumsPseudo-Jonathanand entire translated the 21Golb(1989)is certainly correct in passage Neophyti in the us that the scrolls preserve plural, reminding 31:1-10) (Deuteronomy whereas TargumOnqelos preservedthe many compositions authoredoutside of the group.I see these, however,as assingular of the Masoretic Text. sembled by the sectariansbecause of '3ZadokiteFragments(Damascus their affinity for or adherenceto the 1:9-10. Document) 14Thissuggestion was raisedby teachings of these texts. On the other Qimron and Strugnell (1985b:9), who hand, the scrolls also preservemuch information about other groups of Jews said that "themss [manuscripts]of in this period:the Pharisees,the SadMMT may well be exemplarsof that letter." ducees, the Hasmoneans, and other 15TheSadduceannature of these groups known only from their literary views was realized as early as 1980 by compositions. Baumgarten(163-64) and is the subject of an article by Y. Sussman to appearin Hebrew in Tarbizand to be included in the English translation in the Qimron Bibliography and Strugnellpublication of 4QMMT. Allegro,J.M. 1968 Qumran Cave 4. I(4Q158-4Q186). Some comment on the use of the term Series:Discoveries in the Judaean Sadduceeis necessary.Despite the dif5. Oxford:ClarenDesertof Jordan ferent pictures of the Sadduceesfound in donPress. the works of Josephusand in rabbinic J.M. Baumgarten, literature,I believe we are dealing here Contro1980 ThePharisaic-Sadducean with one groupthat, as so often happens, versiesaboutPurityandthe Qumran is perceivedand portrayeddifferently in texts. Journalof Jewish Studies various ancient sources. These differing 31: 157-70. 1986 4Q 503 (Daily Prayers)and the Lunar perceptions,as always,result either from Calendar.Revuede Qumran 12: differencesof opinion on the part of the 399-407. authors or from historical development H. Burgmann, in Nonethe regarding group question. The SadduceanTorah." 1989 "11QT: Pp. theless, we see the Sadduceesof Josephus 257-63 in TempleScroll Studies, as the sedoqim of rabbinicliterature, edited by G. J.Brooke.Sheffield: who, it is turning out, are closely related SheffieldAcademicPress. to the bene sadoq ("Sonsof Zadok")who Cross, E M. 1961 The Development of the Jewish apparentlyfounded the Dead Sea sect. 160n the priestly origins of the sect, Scripts.Pp. 133-202 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East:Essaysin see Cross (1969)and compare Schwartz
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Honor of William Foxwell Albright, 1987a The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Early edited by G. E. Wright.GardenCity, History of JewishLiturgy.Pp.33-48 in The Synagoguein LateAntiquity, NY: Doubleday. edited by L. I. Levine.Philadelphia 1969 The EarlyHistory of the Qumran and New York:The American Community. Pp.63-79 in New Schools of OrientalResearchand Directions in Biblical Archaeology, The JewishTheological Seminaryof edited by D. N. Freedmanand J.C. America. Greenfield.GardenCity, NY: 1987b The King,his Guardand the Royal Doubleday. Council in the TempleScroll. ProGarcia-Martinez,E forth- A GroningenHypothesis of Qumran ceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research54: 237-59. coming EarlyOrigins and History.Revue de 1989 The Temple Scroll and the Systems Qumrain. of JewishLawof the SecondTemple Golb, N. Period.Pp. 239-55 in TempleScroll 1989 The Dead Sea Scrolls:A New PerStudies, edited by G. J.Brooke.Shefspective. The American Scholar field: SheffieldAcademic Press. Spring:177-207. forth- Miqsat Macaseh Ha-Torahand the Qimron, E. 1978 Le-Nushlahshel MegillatHa-Miqdash. coming TempleScroll.Revue de Qumran. Leshonenu42: 136-45. Schwartz,D. R. 1990 On TwoAspects of a Priestly View of Qimron, E., and Strugnell,J. Descent at Qumran.Pp. 157-79 in 1985a An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran.Pp.400-07 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, The New York Biblical Archaeology Today,edited University Conferencein Memoryof by J.Amitai. Jerusalem:Israel Yigael Yadin,edited by L. H. SchiffExplorationSociety. 2 and JSPS man. Series:ASOR-JSOT 1985b An Unpublished Halakhic Letter 8. Sheffield:SheffieldAcademic from Qumran.Israel Museum Press. Journal4: 9-12. Strugnell,J. Schiffman,L. H. 1970 Notes en margedu volume V des 1975 The Halakhah at Qumran.Leiden: "Discoveriesin the JudaeanDesert E. J.Brill.
Recent
and
of Jordan." Revue de Qumran 7: 163-276. Talmon,S. 1989 The CalendarReckoningof the Sect from the JudaeanDesert. Pp. 157-85 in The Worldof Qumranfrom Within. Jerusalem:Magnes.(reprint of pp. 162-99 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by C. Rabinand Y.Yadin,1958, Magnes) Vaux,R. de 1956 Fouilles de KhirbetQumrAn.Rapport preliminairesur les 3e, 4e et 5e campagnes(PlanchesIII a'XIII). Revue Biblique 63: 533-77. Yadin,Y. 1977 The TempleScroll, Volume3, Part2: SupplementaryPlates. Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety,Institute of Archaeologyof the Hebrew University,Shrine of the Book. 1983a The TempleScroll, Volume1:Introduction. Jerusalem:IsraelExploration Society,Institute of Archaeologyof the HebrewUniversity,Shrine of the Book. 1983b The TempleScroll, Volume2: Text and Commentary.Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety,Institute of Archaeologyof the HebrewUniversity, Shrine of the Book.
Discoveries Archaeological
Biblical
Research
William G. Dever Does the Bible recordhistoricalevents? Does archaeologyprove the accuracyof the Bible? William Dever believes that we can at last begin to answer these controversialquestions by using archaeologicalevidence from excavations and surveys done in Israel during the last generation, as well as the Hebrew Bible and other ancient texts. His provocative analysis offers the departing point for a new model of ancient Palestine that conforms both to recent archaeologicalwork and the Bible. The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lecturesin Jewish Studies Clothbound, $17.50 Available at your local bookstore or call 1-800-441-4115
UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON PRESS
P.O. Box 50096 * Seattle, WA 98145
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
[
73
Commeary
El/akim/ NaCar The Seal Imressions Yokan Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Research byYosefGarfinkel Archaeological n thewinterof 1928,inhisex-
cavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, F. discovereda W. Albright stamped jarhandle bearing a paleo-Hebrewinscription: 1'lyqmncr ywkn (1928:9). A second stamped handle with the same impression, "EliakimnacarYokan,"was found two years later in Elihu Grant'sexcavations at Beth Shemesh (Albright 1932a:77-78). A few months later, in the summer of 1930, a third, identical seal impression on another jar handle was found at Tell Beit Mirsim (Albright 1932a).Because Eliakim and Yokanare personal names, and because the term nacar was interpreted in accordancewith biblical the seal imparallels as "servant,"
74
pression was understood to mean "belongingto Eliakim servant of Yokan."Twojarhandles with royal (lmlk) stamps were also found at Tell Beit Mirsim in the vicinity of the two Eliakim stamped handles (Albright 1932a).This type of royal stamped handle, now a common find at biblical sites (Welten 1969; Avigad 1979;Lemaire 1981),was at that time known from only seven sites: Jerusalem,Azeka, Tell Judeideh, Tell es-Safi, Tell Sandahana (Maresha),Gezer, and Beth Shemesh. In addition, many handles stamped with seals bearingpersonal names (the so-called private seal impressions) were found at these sites. The royal,private, and Eliakim nacar
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Yokanstamps were all impressed on the same type of double-ridged handles, which were dark,reddish brown in color. Using these three elements Eliakim the servant, Yokanhis master, and the royal stamps -Albright unhesitantly related Yokanto King Jehoiachin,the penultimate king of Judah.Jehoiachinruled for only three months in the year 598/597 B.C.E. and was exiled to Babylon 12 years before the final destruction of the First Templeby Nebuchadnezzar II, a Chaldean who ruled Babylonin the early sixth century B.C.E. With the help of his colleague PereVincent, a French archaeologist and epigrapher,Albright interpreted
ywkn as an abbreviationof Jehoiachin (Albright 1932a:81). Thus, the inscription was taken to mean: "Eliakim steward(orintendant) of King Jehoiachin"(Albright 1932a:84). Albright used the Eliakim nacar Yokanstamped handles as a chronological cornerstone for dating the destruction of the Tell Beit Mirsim layer in which these handles were found (stratumA2) to the year All of these finds, 587/586 B.C.E. the royal stamps exwith together cavatedin this layer,were dated to the same time - shortly before the destruction of the FirstTemple and the Babylonianexile in 587/586 B.C.E. (Albright 1932b).Albright came to the same conclusion with regardto the Beth Shemesh excavations: This picture was taken at TellBeit Mirsim in 1928, the year Albright uncoveredthe first "Grant'srecent excavations have stamped jar handle bearing the paleo-Hebrewinscription l'lyqmncr ywkn (Eliakimnacar Yokan).Thephotograph,taken from the archivefile of the site, is used courtesy of the Israel provedthat the town was occupied Antiquities Authority. in the seventh century, and the disworked at Lachish, located only coveryof the Eliakim stamp furnishes King Jehoiakim,who ruled Judah the final proof that the destruction before Jehoiachin.Aharoni related 14 kilometers (less than 9 miles) was due to the Chaldaeans"(Albright this building to the biblical verse, away.The British archaeologist 1932a: 104).Albright published his "Woeto him who builds his house JamesL. Starkeyconducted six seafirst excavation reportfor Tell Beit sons of excavations at Lachish, from by unrighteousness, and his upper Mirsim almost immediately (1932b), rooms by injustice"(Jeremiah22:13). 1932 until he was murderedby banso it was availableto scholars in the Todaythere is no doubt that jars dits in 1938. The last two IronAge with handles of this type stamped strata at Lachish, stratum II and early 1930s and became one of the most important texts in the history with either royal seals or with seals stratum III,both ended in total of biblical archaeological research. destruction. We now know that bearing personal names were manuIn 1961, 33 years after Albright's facturedin Judahin the eighth censtratum II was destroyedby the initial discovery,a fourth stamped tury B.C.E.They are found in large Babyloniansin 587/586 B.C.E.and numbers in the destruction layers that stratum IIIwas destroyedby the jarhandle with an Eliakim nacar related to the Assyrian king SennaYokanimpression was found by Assyriansin 701 B.C.E. In the 1930s, YohananAharoni at his excavations cherib'scampaignof 701B.C.E. We however,Starkeydated stratum II to at the palace of Ramat Rahel (1964: also now know that Albright'sinter- the destruction of the FirstTemple 33). Aharoni dated the destruction of pretation of the Eliakim nacarYokan in 587/586 B.C.E.and, because of the the palaceto 597 B.C.E. andinterstamped jarhandles -that Yokan presence of numerous royalhandles referredto King Jehoiachin-was and similar pottery, related stratum preted it as having been built by incorrect. Unfortunately, this misIIIto stratum A2 at Tell Beit Mirsim. On the basis of the Eliakim nacar interpretationwas not correctedfor Opposite page: These are three of the four almost 50 years and resulted in a Yokanstamped handles, Albright jar handles that have been found bearing dated the destruction of stratum A2 great deal of confusion over the the Eliakim nacar Yokanseal impression. at Tell Beit Mirsim to 587/586 B.C.E. chronological sequence and stratiLeft:The first jarhandle discovered by William F Albright at TellBeit Mirsimin graphicalanalysis of the archaeology At Lachish, this date was already 1928. ?Jvoyears later, Albright uncoveredan of Judahfrom the time of the "occupied"by stratum II, so a "new" identical seal impression on another jar Divided Monarchy. destruction was invented for stratum handle at TellBeit Mirsim. Center: The jar handle found at Beth Shemesh, by Elihu III- 598/597 B.C.E.,when the BabyGrantin 1930. Right: The jar handle disThe Chronological Bias lonians first took control of the coveredby YohananAharoni at the palace of Ramat Rahelin 1961,33 years afterAlbright's One of the first expeditions to be kingdom of Judah.In this way, first discoveryat TellBeit Mirsim. Photos used influenced by the Tell Beit Mirsim only 12 years separatedstrataII and courtesy of the IsraelAntiquities Authority. excavations was the team that IIIat Lachish.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
75
Sennacherib'sfamous campaign into Judahand the siege of Lachish, well-documented historical events, left no archaeologicalevidence related to them. It is ratherstrange that Starkey,who must have been deeply impressed by Sennacherib's relief from Lachish on display in The British Museum, did not date any layerto the time of this historical event. In his very first description of the excavations,however, Starkeymentioned "evidenceof the presence of Assyrian troops before the city at the beginning of the eighth century B.C."(1934: 183). After the first season of excavation at Lachish, even Albright wrote about "theelaboratefortification of the pre-exilic city and the evidence that it had been besieged by the Assyrians"(1934:24). Why,then, was this idea not developedfurther?
7tvo years afterAlbright'sinitial discovery, Elihu Grantuncoveredanother jarhandle stamped with the Eliakim nacar Yokan impression at Beth Shemesh. This photo, which shows excavation work at Beth Shemesh, is taken from Grant (1929).
After the second and third seasons at Lachish it probablybecame clear that stratum IIIwas very similar to stratum A2 at Tell Beit Mirsim where the Eliakim nacarYokan stamped handles were found. A new scenario was needed, and Starkey soon stated, "Lachish,then, provides the first tangible evidence of the two captivities, which are so difficult to
76
Holladay (1976),and constituted the official version of those days.The earlier date of 701 B.C.E. was supported primarily by Tufnell (1953), Aharoni, and Ruth Amiran (Aharoni and Amiran 1958: 182, note 42), and Benjamin Mazar (1964:295, note 18), who formed a small minority. This controversy,known as "LachishIII," has been discussed so frequently in the literature (Ussishkin 1977)that it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments for and against the two suggestions. The debate was so selfperpetuatingthat the basis of all chronology,namely the Eliakim nacarYokanseal impressions, was virtually forgotten.These objects, the source of the confusion, still enjoyeda consensus of opinion regardingtheir connection with King Jehoiachin. It is rather surprisingthat Aharoni accepted the dating of stratum them to the eighth century B.C.E., but this did not really affect the dat- IIIat Lachish to 701 B.C.E.(1975)but dated the palace from stratum Vaat ing of the sites. Time and again the errorwas repeated:at Beth Shemesh, Ramat Rahel, which revealedthe Beth-Zur,Tell el Full, Tell en-Nasbeh, same material culture, to 597 B.C.E. Ramat Rahel, Gezer, and other sites. because the fourth Eliakim nacar A mysterious gap between the tenth Yokanstamped handle was found there. In so doing, he ignored the and seventh centuries seemed to appearat most of the excavatedsites striking resemblance of the Ramat in Judah.In this way a distortedpic- Rahel palace to the Israelite palace ture emerged, not only of the archae- at Samaria,which was destroyedby the Assyrians in 720 B.C.E. Yigael ology of the kingdom of Judahbut also of other related disciplines such Yadin,who criticized Aharoni on this point, suggested that the Ramat as ancient Hebrew epigraphy,the Rahel palace be dated to the middle historical geographyof the Bible, of the ninth century B.C.E., some 250 and biblical studies. In 1953, a quartercentury after years earlier (1973).However,Yadin the first Eliakim nacarYokanhandle did not discuss the dating of stratum IIIat Lachish, the royalseals, or the was found, Olga Tufnell published Eliakim nacarYokanimpressions. the final excavation reporton the Nahman Avigad was the first Iron Age strata at Lachish. Tufnell
separatein the written narrative" (1937:177).This idea was adoptedby Albright:"Starkey'slatest work at Lachish establishes ... two destructions with the two Chaldaeaninvasions in 598/7 and 588/7"(1937:26). In this way, stratum IIIat Lachish, as well as the royalstamps, were assigned to the time of KingJehoiachin, towardthe end of the First Temple period. Inasmuch as these stamps were very common finds at many sites in Judah,each layer in any new site where they were found was automatically dated to the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E. and not, as it should have been, to the end of the eighth century B.C.E. The royal stamps were associated mainly with the activities of King Josiah.Both Albright (1932b:78) and David Diringer (1949)suggested that some types of royal seals were older, dating
concluded that stratum III was destroyed in 701 B.C.E.and not in 597 B.C.E.as had been previously supposed, and a hot dispute ensued. The 597-B.C.E. date was supported by Albright (1953), G. Ernest Wright (1955), Kathleen Kenyon (1957: 20608), and their followers, including Paul Lapp (1960), Peter Welten (1969), H. Darrell Lance (1971), A. Douglas Tushingham (1970, 1971), and John
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
scholar who suggested severing the accepted link between Yokan and King Jehoiachin- almost 50 years after the first Eliakim nacar Yokan stamped handle was found. By studying other seals bearing the title ncr, he showed that this word was never used for royal officials but only for servants of private individuals (Avigad 1976, 1981). Avigad did not relate this point to the question of
dating either stratum IIIat Lachish or the royal stamps, however.That very year,David Ussishkin published new data from his excavations at Lachish (1976).It now became clear that the various types of royal seals all came from stratum III.By presenting complete jarsand not only handles, he demonstrated that on the same jars some handles were stamped with royal seals while others bore the impressions of private seals (Ussishkin 1976).Ussishkin suggested that the two Eliakim nacarYokanhandles and the two royalhandles found by Albright in the same area in Tell Beit Mirsim all belonged to the same jar.He concluded, "The acceptance of our suggested reconstruction of the Tell Beit Mirsim royalstoragejarsmeans that the Elykim handles antedate Jehoiachin's reign. In that case, Albright's identification of Ywknwith Jehoiachin becomes impossible"(Ussishkin 1976: 11).At this point, however, Ussishkin did not suggest any alternative dates for the royal seals. Foralmost half a century, from 1928 to 1977, confusion over the stratigraphyof the kingdom of Judah persisted. The dating of stratum III at Lachish and the royalstamps was finally solved by evidence from new excavations at Lachish in which Ussishkin (1977)clearly demonstrated that stratum IIIand all the associated royal stamped jarhandles should be dated to 701 B.C.E., that is, to the time of Sennacherib'scampaign. As with the royal seals, Yokan and Eliakim should be dated to the eighth century B.C.E. and, therefore, have nothing to do with King Jehoiachin. Only in the late 1970s, a century after the first royal handles were discovered by Charles Warren in Jerusalem and about half a century after the first Eliakim nacar Yokan handle was found by Albright at Tell Beit Mirsim, was the chronological position of these finds finally resolved. A whole series of studies and dozens of excavation reports had to be revised in the wake of this
In 1961,33 years afterAlbright'sinitial discovery,YohananAharoni discovereda fourth jar handle stamped with the Eliakim nacar Yokanseal impression in his excavations at the palace of Ramat Rahel. This photograph,from the archivefile of the site, is used courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
the term nacar was interpretedas and this explanameaning "servant," tion is still the accepted opinion today (Macdonald1976;Avigad1976). Albright suggested that Eliakim was the stewardof King Jehoiachinwhen he was exiled to Babylon.This idea was later developedby Klein (1937). In 1976, as mentioned previously, Avigadseveredthe connection between Yokanand King Jehoiachin and suggested that Eliakim was the servant of a privateperson. That same year,Ussishkin clearly demonstrated that the so-called private seals were impressed alongside the royal seals on the same jarhandles; he also suggested that the two Eliakim nacarYokanstamped handles and the two royal stamped handles that were found together in the same area of Tell Beit Mirsim had actually come from the same royaljar (1976). This created a new difficulty that Avigadlabeled the "servantof two masters"problem (1979).Avigad wonderedhow it could be possible The Functional Problemthat Eliakim was, on the one hand, A Servantof TwoMasters the servant of a private individual, As stated at the beginning of the Eliakim nacar the first when yet had, on the other hand, the right article, to stamp royaljars,which would Yokanstamped handle was found,
chronological revolution, but from that point on the chronology of the kingdom of Judahwas established on solid ground. One related discipline that was seriously affectedby the whole affair was ancient Hebrew epigraphy.Even after stratum IIIat Lachish, the royal stamps, and the Eliakim nacar Yokanseal impressions were safely dated to 701 B.C.E., many private stamped handles were still mistakenly dated to the seventh and early sixth centuries B.C.E.(Herr 1977;Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels 1979). Only in 1984, seven years after the publication of the results from the new Lachish excavations, were some 120 stamped jarhandles safely reinstated to their original positions in relationship to the royal jars (Garfinkel1984, 1985).However, this solution has given rise to some new, as yet unsolved problems, which I will discuss next.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
77
historical eventsandarchaeology Integrating is an admirable goalbutalsooneof the mostdifficultgoalsto achieve. have been the prerogativeof an official courtier.In other words, how could a royalcourtier carrya seal on which he was described as the servant of a private individual?Avigad consequently questioned whether the Eliakim nacarYokanstamped handles actually came from royaljars. In 1984, Hans Mommsen, Isadore Perlman, and JosephYellin published a new archaeometricresearch on the provenanceof the royaljars. Froman examination of the chemical compositions of some 120 handles with royaland private seal impressions, it became clear that the handles were all producedfrom the same clay and thereforemust have been manufacturedat the same place. The Eliakim nacarYokanstamped handle from the palace at Ramat Rahel also was examined and was shown to have the same chemical composition as the others. This researchprovesthat the handles stamped with Eliakim'sseal are in fact connected to the royaljars.The datawere reinforcedby the geographical distribution of the four Eliakim nacarYokanstampedhandles.Together with about 120 handles stamped with personal names, all from royal jars,they fit well into spatial patterns based on central places and hierarchies theories (Garfinkel1984, 1985).How can the apparentlycontradictoryevidence be explained? WasEliakim a royalofficier, or was he a private servant? Variousinterpretationsof the function of the royaljarshave been put forwardover the years (Avigad 1979).These interpretationssuggest that the jars served as: 1)standard
for marketing goods from royalestates; 3) vessels used in administration, such as tax collection vessels; and 4) storagevessels for military use. Scholars have posited various proposals to explain the presence of private stamps on the jarhandles, suggesting that the seals belonged to: 1)private landlords (this suggestion is problematic, however,because the seals are impressed beside the royalstamps);2) potters employed in the royalworkshop;and 3) royalofficials. It is still unclear which is the best explanation for all the problems connected with the royaljars,the private stamps, and the Eliakim nacarYokanimpressions. Nadav Na'aman(1986: 16)has discussed the problem:"Theprivate stamps may theoretically belong to either royal
volume measurements of the realm (however, the volumes of the complete jars discovered at Lachish vary considerably); 2) wine and oil vessels
salem and his discovery of the royal stamped handles. Since that time, all we have succeeded in solving is their chronological position. The
78
other aspects of the phenomenon remain obscure. The formal and generally accepted conceptual framework was established by Albright about 60 years ago in connection with his excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. It now seems quite amazing that until a decade ago our picture of the chronology and stratigraphyof the period of the kingdom of Judah was fundamentally incorrect. In this article I have tried to show how this mistake occurredand how it persisted for half a centuryundoubtedlybecause of the supposed identification of ywkn with king Jehoiachin.This controversyposes methodological questions about the relationship between archaeological data and historical information. Anson Rainey (1985:73) has written about "themisjudgement of Starkey officials or royal potters ... but the and Albright regardingLachish III title nacar appearingin the seal of and the historical conclusions they ncr would suit deduced from the 'archaeological ywkn 'lyqm hardly not evidence'."As a matter of fact, the did Na'aman explain potters." the be more title nacar would why opposite happened:From "historical suitable for a royalofficial than for a evidence"(ywkn = King Jehoiachin), potter, however,and he ignored the they deduced archaeological conclu"servantof two masters"problem. sions. Integratinghistorical events The Eliakim nacarYokanseal imand archaeology is an admirable pressions are a unique phenomenon, goal, but it is also one of the most and no satisfactory explanation for difficult goals to achieve. The most them has as yet been proposed.It is important thing we can learn from that some the Eliakim nacarYokanepisode is quite possible adequate the of the of function that no archaeological data should explanation and of the title nacar be royaljars categorically integratedinto our may yet appear. picture of biblical history. Albright never excavateda cenConclusion tral biblical site such as Jerusalem, Archaeological researchinto the Samaria,Hazor, Gezer, or Lachish. of started more than worked on a rather small site, He kingdom Judah a century ago with Charles Warren's without much historical background, pioneering excavationwork in Jeru- and ended up establishing the corner-
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
stone of the stratigraphy, chronology, and terminology of biblical archaeology. Unfortunately, when he found the Eliakim nacar Yokan stamped
handles, he made an errorthat was replicated and misled others for many years. This situation underlies the necessity of taking great care when attempting to integrate material culture and history.
Garfinkel,Y. 1984 The Distribution of Identical Seal Impressionsand the Settlement Pattern in JudahbeforeSennacherib's Campaign.Cathedra32:35-53 (in Hebrew). 1985 A HierarchicPatternin the Private Seal-Impressionson the LMLKJar Handles.Eretz-Israel18: 108-15 (in Bibliography Hebrew). Aharoni,Y. Grant,E. 1964 Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Sea1929 Beth Shemesh (Palestine):Progress sons 1961 and 1962. Rome:Univerof the HaverfordArchaeological sity of Rome. Expedition. Haverford,PA:Biblical 1975 Lachish V:Investigations at Lachish: and KindredStudies. The Sanctuaryand the Residency. Herr,L. G. Tel Aviv:Tel Aviv University. 1977 The Scriptsof Ancient Northwest Aharoni,Y.,and Amiran, R. Semitic Seals. Missoula, MT: 1958 A New Scheme for the Subdivision ScholarsPress. of the IronAge in Palestine. Israel Hestrin, R., and Dayagi-Mendels,M. ExplorationJournal8: 171-84. 1979 Inscribed Seals: FirstTemplePeriod: Albright,W F. Hebrew,Ammonite,Moabite,Phoeni1928 The Second Campaignat Tell Beit cian, and Aramaic. Jerusalem:The Mirsim. Bulletin of the American IsraelMuseum. Schools of OrientalResearch31:1-11. Holladay,J.S. 1932a The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest 1976 Of Sherdsand Strata:Contributions Pre-ExilicHistory of Judah,With towardan Understandingof the ArSome Observationson Ezekiel. chaeology of the Divided Monarchy. Journalof Biblical Literature51: Pp. 253-93 in Magnalia Dei. The 77-106. Mighty Acts of God: Essays in the 1932b The Excavationsof TellBeit Mirsim, Bible and Archaeologyin Memory Volume 1: The Potteryof the First of G. Ernest Wright,edited by E M. ThreeCampaigns.Series:Annual of Cross,W E. Lemke,and P. D. Miller. the American Schools of Oriental New York:Doubleday. Research12. New Haven,CT:AmeriKenyon,M. K. can Schools of Oriental Research. 1957 The Evidenceof the SamariaPottery 1934 Archaeologyin Palestine and Syria and its Bearingon Finds at Other during 1933. Bulletin of the AmeriSites. Pp. 198-209 in Samariacan Schools of Oriental Research Sebaste III:The Objects from 53: 22-25. Samaria,edited by J.W Crowfoot, 1937 FurtherLight on the History of G. M. Crowfoot,and K. M. Kenyon. Israelfrom Lachishand Megiddo. London:Palestine ExplorationFund. Bulletin of the American Schools of Klein, S. Oriental Research68: 22-26. 1937 Eliakim,Stewardof Joiachin.Bulletin 1953 Some Recent Publications. Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration of the American Schools of Oriental Society 5: 98-101 (in Hebrew). Research 132:46-47. Lance,H. D. Avigad,N. 1971 The RoyalStampsand the Kingdom 1976 New Light on Nacar Seals. Pp. 294of Josiah.HarvardTheological 300 in Magnalia Dei. The Mighty Review 64: 315-32. Acts of God: Essays in the Bible and Lapp,P.W Archaeologyin Memoryof G. Ernest 1960 LateRoyalSeals from Judah.Bulletin Wright,edited by F M. Cross, W.E. of the American Schools of Oriental Lemke,and P D. Miller. New York: Research 158: 11-22. Doubleday. Lemaire,A. 1979 HebrewEpigraphicSources.Pp.20-43 1981 Classificationdes estampillesRoyales in The WorldHistory of the Jewish Judeennes.Eretz-Israel15:58*-60*. People:The Age of the MonarchiesMacdonald,J. Political History,edited by A. 1976 The Status and Role of the Nacarin Malamat.Jerusalem:MassadaPress. IsraeliteSociety.Journalof Near 1981 Titles and Symbols on HebrewSeals. EasternStudies 35: 147-70. Eretz-Israel15:303-05 (in Hebrew). Mazar,B. Diringer,D. 1964 Sennacherib'sJudaeanCampaign. 1949 The RoyalJar-HandleStamps of AnPp. 286-95 in The Military History cient Judah.Biblical Archaeologist of the Land of Israel in Biblical 12:70-86.
Times, edited by J.Liver.Jerusalem: Maarachoth(in Hebrew). Mommsen, H., Perlman,I., and Yellin,J. 1984 The Provenienceof the LMLKJars. IsraelExplorationJournal34: 89-113. Na'aman,N. 1986 Hezekiah'sFortifiedCities and the LMLKStamps.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research261: 5-21. Rainey,A. F 1985 On "TheIsraeliteFortressat Arad." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research258: 73-74. Starkey,J.L. 1934 Tell ed Duweir:Excavationsin Palestine 1932-3. The Quarterlyof the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 3: 182-83. 1937 Lachishas IllustratingBible History. Palestine ExplorationQuarterly70: 171-79. Tufnell, O. 1953 Lachish III: The IronAge. London: OxfordUniversity Press. Tushingham,A. D. 1970 A RoyalIsraeliteSeal (?)and the RoyalJarHandle Stamps (PartOne). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research200: 71-78. 1971 A RoyalIsraeliteSeal (?)and the RoyalJarHandle Stamps (PartTwo). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research201: 23-35. Ussishkin, D. 1976 RoyalJudeanStorageJarsand Private Seal Impressions.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research223: 1-13. 1977 The Destruction of Lachishby Sennacheriband the Dating of the RoyalStorageJars.TelAviv 4: 28-60. Welten,P. 1969 Die K6nigs-Stempel.Ein Beitragzur Militiarpolitik Judas unterHiskia und Josia. Series:Abhandlungendes Deutschen Paldstinavereins.Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. Wright,G. E. 1955 Review of Lachish III. Journalof Near EasternStudies 14: 188-89. Yadin,Y. 1973 The "Houseof Baal"in Samariaand in Judah.Pp.52-66 in EretzShomron, The ThirtiethArchaeological Convention. Jerusalem:The IsraelExploration Society (in Hebrew;published in English in 1978 as The House of Baalof Ahab and Jezabelin Samariaand that of Athaliah in Judah.Pp. 127-35 in Archaeologyin the Levant:Essays for Kathleen Kenyon,edited by R. Mooreyand P.Parr.Warminster:Aris andPhillips).
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
79
The
Figure of
the
Paidag
os
in
and Literature Art
Variousaspectsof thepedagogue's task
have been preservedin artistic representations, such as this vase painting from Cervetri(Italy).Dating to the fifth century B.C.E., the painting depicts young Hercules being followed by his nurse, Geropso,in the role of pedagogue. The vase is an Attic red skyphos (a two-handled drinkingcup);it is 14.9 centimeters (about 6 inches) tall and 18.2 centimeters (7 inches) wide. Reproduced courtesy of the Staatliches Museum, Schwerin(D.D.R.).
by Norman H. Young hen Paul wrote that the law was our
pedagogueuntil
'VV Christ came but now that faith had arrivedwe are no longer under a pedagogue(Galatians 3:24-25), he used a metaphorwithout parallel in the Greek Bible. Because the term paidagogos is exclusive to Paul in the biblical literature, the commentator is forced to sift through the classical and Hellenistic sources in an effort to elucidate Paul'smeaning.
80
The pedagoguewas a slave guardianappointedby a father to supervise his son's activities and behavior from the time the child woke up in the morning until he went to bed at night (see Longenecker 1982; Lull 1986;Young 1987).A boy came under the pedagogue'scontrol at about age six and remained under his authority until well afterpuberty. Pedagogueshad a reputation for harshness, which was not unwarranted, as the cane, the whip, and
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
the rodwere basic accoutrements of the pedagogue'sart. Severitywas not the universal practice, however. Many pedagoguesfulfilled their role with kindness and endearedthemselves to their chargesin a life-long bond. Nevertheless, whether bad or good, the pedagogue'sadministration alwaysterminatedwhen the boy came of age and became his own master. The manifold nature of the pedagogue'srole has led to considerable differencesof opinion regardingthe interpretationof Paul'ssuggestive
completely accurate,for the pedagogue did much more than simply take the child to school, and he did not always lead but often followed his charge.The Greek biographer and moralist, Plutarch, noted this anomaly and commented that the pedagogue"issaid to lead (agein), though he walks behind them and not before"(Moralia,1008F,see Cherniss 1976: 101).Both the literary sources and the artistic depictions make it quite clear, however,that the pedagoguefrequently led rather than followed his charge,especially when the boy was a very young child. Variousaspects of the pedagogue's task have been preservedin artistic representations.On a vase painting dating to the fifth century B.C.E., Geropso,the nurse of Hercules, is depicted as his pedagoguefollowing him to school. ApparentlyHercules was to have a music lesson, because Geropso is shown carryinga lyre. A Lekythos (a single-handledjug used AncientExamplesof the Pedagogue for oil) shows an actual pedagogue When Socrates asked the youthful doing the identical task (Beck 1975: Lysiswhether anyone ruled (archein) plate 12, figure 68). Such examples over him, he replied that his pedaclarify those texts that use akolougogue, a slave, ruled him. In response thein ("tofollow")3to describe the to the further inquiry as to how the pedagogueaccompanyingthe child to school. However,numerous terpedagogueruled over him, Lysis racotta examples indicate that answered,"Byleading (agon)me to younger boys were led by the hand or school, I suppose."1This common2 were helped along with a gentle hold description is hardly exhaustive or
metaphor. Some scholars have stressed the severity of the pedagogue and thus of the law (Hiibner 1984:33; Betz 1979: 177-78); others, focusing on the benign characterof the pedagogue,have seen the law in more positive terms (Lull 1986:496; Gordon 1989: 153-54). On the other hand, most commentators have emphasized the relevance of the temporarynature of the pedagogue's task for Paul'sanalogy with the law (Burton1921:200; Bruce 1982: 183; Longenecker 1982: 56). It is not the purpose of this article to solve these exegetical difficulties by pinpointing which aspect of the pedagoguefigure Paulintended when he made the analogy in Galatians 3:24-25. I merely want to draw attention to some of the more visual examples of the pedagogue'sfunction in the ancient world in the hope that such illumination will offer valuable clues to Paul'smeaning.
aroundthe shoulder (see, for example, Beck 1975:plate 12, figure65). Thus, those texts that use agein ("to lead")or hegeisthai ("toguide")4are not so contraryto custom as Plutarch would have had us believe. That the nurse of Hercules should be depicted as a pedagogueis not so surprising when one considers that the pedagogue often functioned as a nurse. Ancient authors frequently associated the pedagoguewith the titthe5 or trophos6("nurse"), ("wet-nurse") sometimes calling the pedagoguea trophos7or tropheus8("foster-father"). Although the pedagogue'srole usually began after the nurse had concluded her task (that is, at about age six), there are texts that referto Numerous terracottaexamples show young boys being helped along by their pedagogues. Below left: This terracottafigurefrom Myrina for example, shows a pedagogue (Turkey), leading his charge by the hand. Dating to the Hellenistic era, the figureis 16 centimeters (about 6 inches) tall. It is currentlyhoused in the National ArchaeologicalMuseum,Athens. Reproducedcourtesy of the TA.P service. Below center: This terracottafigurefrom Cyrene(Libya),dating to the Hellenistic period, shows a hooded old man leading five children.It is 13.4centimeters(about5 inches) tall. Reproducedcourtesy of the Musee du Louvre,Paris.Below right: Foundin a tomb on the TamanskiPeninsula along the Black Sea, this terracottafiguredepicts a hooded pedagogue carryinga lyre and gently leading a small boy.Dating to the fourthcenturyB.C.E., it is 14.1centimeters (about 5/2 inches) tall. Reproducedcourtesy of the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
81
the pedagoguehaving charge of a baby?Similarly,accordingto the ancient author Libanius,whenever a child became sick, the pedagogue played the role of nurse (Oration, 58.8-11, see Festugiere 1959:469). There are also terracottaexamples of pedagoguescarryingvery young children (Rostovtzeff1941:1.212, plate XXX,figure 2; Darembergand Saglio 1907:IV.272,figure 5450; Klein 1932:plate 32B)as well as one where the pedagogueis holding the child's rattle. The role of a pedagoguewalking behind his chargewith his charge's lyre in his hand is colorfully described in the following passageby Pseudo-Lucian: We ought thereforeto contrast with the evils associated with women the manly life of a boy. He rises at dawn from his unwed couch, washes awaywith pure water such sleep as still remains in his eyes and after securing his shirt and his mantle with pins at the shoulder "he leaves his father'shearth with eyes bent down"and without facing the gaze of anyone he meets. He is followed by an orderly company of attendants and tutors (paidag6goi), who grip in their hands the reveredinstruments of virtue, not the points of a toothed
82
monly held in low esteem. Pedagogues certainly got drunk;11some no doubt did so habitually. The image of the instructor on terracottafigurines is so like the Silenus/pedagoguecaricaturethat one barely hesitates before identifying each figure as a pedagoguehelping a child with his homework.12 Libanius (Oration, 58.9, see Festugiere 1959: 469) and Aphthonius (Progymnasmata,5.15, see Hock and O'Neil 1986:227) inform us that the pedagoguesometimes performed this task. The ugliness of the pedagogues on these terracottafigures supports the proverbialdreadthat children had of the pedagogue's visage.13 Pedagoguesoften sat in on the lessons of the teacher proper.The famous Duris artist'svase from the fifth century B.C.E. is an excellent example of this (Beck 1975:plate 18, figure 97, plate 19, figures 100 and 101,plate 20, figure 107).The pedagogues sat within earshot of the lessons in music (flute and lyre), poetry, and writing. The classical stemless cup by the Painter of Munich in the MetropolitanMuseum of Art in New Yorkshows a groupof children playing school, accurately reproducing this same kind of scene, including a as was The usually stylized pedagogue Left: on as the Socrates look-alike, portrayed grumpy pedagogueseated nearby. this terracottafigurefrom Corinth. Terracotta Both Aelius Aristides (Oration were modeled after the appearanceof
comb that can caress the hair nor mirrorsthat without artists' aid reproducethe shapes confronting them, but behind him come many-leavedwriting tablets or books that preservethe merit of ancient deeds, along with a tuneful lyre, should he have to go to a music master (Affairsof the Heart, 44, see Macleod 1967:217-19). School began early,as the above referenceto rising at dawn and others'0indicate. Sometimes it was necessary,therefore,for the pedagogue to carrya lamp (Rostovtzeff 1941:1.212,plate XXX,figure 2). The pedagogueput the boy to bed and personally woke him up early for school (Libanius'sOration, 58.8, see Festugiere 1959:469). The pedagoguewas usually stylized as a grumpy Socrateslookalike (see, for example, Beck 1975: plate 12, figure 67). This is because the terracottafigures were modeled after the appearanceof the satyr, Silenus. Socrates and Silenus were often portrayedas having similar features. Silenus was notorious as a bibulous and lecherous old oaf and was thus a natural model for the pedagogue,whom the ancients com-
figures the satyr Silenus. Socratesand Silenus were often portrayedas having similar features. Notoriousas a bibulous and lecherous old oaf, Silenus was a naturalmodel for the pedagogue, whom the ancients generallyheld in low esteem. Dating to the Hellenistic era, the figureis 14 centimeters (almost 5 ? inches) tall and is located in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Reproducedcourtesy of the TA.P service. Right: The tender side of the pedagogueis shown on this terracotta figure,probablymade in Myrina(Thrkey). Thepedagoguehas his arm wrappedaround the boy'sback and is looking on warmly,as if listening to him read. The figureis 11.8centimeters (4? inches) tall and dates to the Hellenistic era. Reproducedcourtesy of The Trusteesof the BritishMuseum, London.The image of the instructoron this and other terracottafiguresis so like the Silenus pedagoguecaricaturethat one barelyhesitates beforeidentifying each as a pedagoguehelping a child with his homework.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
32.15, see Behr 1981: 160-61) and Suetonius (On Grammarians, 23, see Rolfe 1914:429) tell us that the pedagogue often gained knowledge and manumission from the opportunity affordedby such proximity to the teacher.The most celebratedexample of this is the pedagogueRemmius Palaemon, who became a wealthy educator in the time of the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. Such learned former pedagogueswere ridiculed, of course, both in literaturel4 and in art (see Hunter and Marsh 1982: 254 for a reproductionof "a humorous painting of a pedagoguedescribed as a new-style lecturer of the cult of reason"). Despite the system'sshortcomings, children often had a lasting affection for their pedagogues;not infrequently on reaching maturity they manumitted their faithful childhood guides. Funerarytexts dedicated to pedagoguesillustrate the regardwith which their former chargesesteemed them. However, the pedagoguewas also infamous for administering punishment - often all too vigorously.15 The darkeraspect of the pedagogue'scharacteris faithfully depicted in artistic representations. One terracottafrom Myrina (Daremberg and Saglio 1907:IV.272,figure 5449) shows a pedagoguetwisting the ear of a presumably recalcitrant boy.The technique of twisting the ear was a discipline favoredby Chilo, the pedagogueof Cato the Elder's son (Plutarch'sMarcus Cato, 20.4, see Perrin 1914:361), and recommended by Clement of Alexandria (TheInstructor, 1.7, see Robertsand Donaldson 1962: 223). The pedagogue represented by a Hellenistic terracotta figure from Asia Minor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art has what appears to be a strap over his right shoulder, a corrective instrument favored by the pedagogues.16 The crooked staff that the pedagogue is often depicted carrying is a sign of a freedman and is not especially designed as a rod for the back.
Various taskhave aspectsof thepedagogue's beenpreserved in artistic representations.
*b,
To
.?
rt .
**
. *?
L~/,I~? Oo
h~:_/X?/A\
?~~ ~~'.
o '4
..
Q or
3
~t.
Pedagoguesoften sat in duringlessons in the arts. In the scene above,pictured on one side of an Attic red-figuredcup by the Duris painter, a pedagogue(with staff) looks on while his chargereceives formal instruction in poetry and music. The cup dates to the fifth century B.C.E. Reproducedcourtesy of the Staatliche Museen PreussischerKulturbesitz,Berlin (West). Standing at the far left of the scene below, painted on an Attic red-figuredhydria found in a tomb at Camiros (Rhodes)and attributed to the Pig Painter,is the pedagogue,looking on during a music lesson. The hydria (a large, three-handledjar used to carrywater from a fountain) dates to the fifth centuryB.c.E.It is 28.3 centimeters (11inches) tall. Reproducedcourtesy of The Trusteesof the BritishMuseum, London.
AW
'
...
a
*
lbb
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
83
awayfrom an angrypedagogue(on the other side of the vase) who has SeO TAMANSKI his stick raised ready to deliver the PENINSULA punitive blows. There is no doubt that the pedaBlack Sea gogue'sreputation for being zealous with the strapand cane was well .Rome deserved.Children generally had a great dreadof their pedagoguesand secretly desired the opportunity to mock and abuse them.'7 However, GREECE TURKEY there are also numerous texts that *Elitia Myrina speak of the great affection that Athens existed between a child and his pedaCorinth" gogue. Many terracottafigures reveal a gentle side to the pedagogue'sdisCamiroseRHODES position. An example of this is the apparenthabit of placing a tender hand on a boy's shoulder or head MediterraneanSea (Rostovtzeff 1941:1.416,plate L, Cyenee figure 1),which demonstrates that ruthless discipline was not the only EGYPT LIBYA characteristicof the pedagogues. Determining exactly what Paul meant when he referredto the law The staff was too serviceable an inpounded with the crooked staff of as our pedagogue(Galatians3:24) strument, however,and too readyat Smicrines, his harsh pedagogue hand not to have been used to beat requiresa largersurveyof the sources (Epistle,3.7.3-4, see Benner and the disobedient. Alciphron recorded Fobes 1949: 151).There is also a vase than is undertakenhere (see Longenecker 1982;Lull 1986;Young 1987; scene where a naughty boy (on one an example of such a usage where the carousing Charicles had his back side of the vase) is depicted running Gordon 1989).Paul'sanalogy of the Thepedagogue was often depicted as carryinga crookedstaff, a sign of a freedman that was not especially designed as a rod. The staff was too serviceable an instrument, though, and too ready at hand not to have been used to beat chargeswho were disobedient. Left:This red-figuredpelike (a two-handled vessel used to carryliquids) by the OrpheusPainter,from Eldtia (Greece),illustrates the pedagogue'suse of a crookedstaff. Thepelike dates to the fifth It is 28 centimeters (almost 11inches) tall and is located in the National ArchcenturyB.C.E. aeological Museum, Athens. Reproducedcourtesy of the TA.P service. Below: Pedagogues had a reputationfor harshness, which was not unwarranted,as the cane, the whip, and the rod were the basic accoutrementsof his trade.ThisAttic red-figuredskyphosfromRuvo(Italy), for example, shows an angrypedagogue with his stick raised ready to punish a naughty boy, who is running away on the opposite side of the vase. Dating to the fifth centuryB.C.E., the vase is 11.6centimeters (4Y2inches) tall and 10 centimeters (almost 4 inches) in diameter at the base. Reproducedcourtesy of the SoprintendenzaArcheologiadella Puglia, Taranto, Museo Nazionale, Bari.
lip=F~
84
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
pedagogue seems to refer to the period when Israel was under the law as a temporary restrictive protection (or protective restriction) imposed until the coming of Christ. Be that as it may, the picture we get of the pedagogue's role from the terracotta figures and vase paintings in association with the literary references certainly increases our appreciation of the richness of this pauline metaphor and, it is hoped, our understanding of it.
Notes 'Plato, Lysis, 208C (see Lamb 1925: 23).
2Julian,Misopogon, or, Beard-hater, 352C (see Wright 1913: 461); Appian,
Roman History: The Civil Wars,5.4.30 (see White 1913: 191); Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 6.36.2 (see Rolfe 1914: 153),
and On Grammarians, 23 (see Rolfe 1914:429). 3Aristides,Oration, 32.15 (see Behr 1981:160-61);Plutarch,Moralia, 195C (see Babbitt 1931: 159), and Moralia,
1008F(see Cherniss 1976: 101);PseudoLucian,Affairs of the Heart, 44 (see Macleod 1967:217-19). 4Plato,Lysis,208C (see Lamb 1925: 23);Aristides, In Defence of Oratory,189 (see Behr 1973: 385); Julian, Misopogon, or, Beard-hater, 352C (see Wright 1913:
461);Plutarch,Moralia, 1008F(see Babbitt 1931: 159).
5Demosthenes, Oration, 47.56 (see
Murray1939:311);Epictetus,Discourse, 1.11.21-23 (see Oldfather 1925: 83-85);
Philo, Whois the Heir, 295 (see Colson and Whittaker 1932:435), and On The Sacrifice of Abel and Cain, 15 (see Colson and Whittaker 1929: 103). 6Plato,Protagoras,325C-D (see Lamb 1924: 143),and Republic, 373C (see Shorey 1937: 163); Libanius, Oration, 18.289 (see Norman 1969: 475).
'ArtemidorusDaldianus, 1.78 (see White 1975:60). 8Xenophonof Ephesus, 1.14.4 (see Hadas 1953:82); Josephus,Antiquities of the Jews, 9.126-27 (see Marcus 1937:69). 9Martial,Epigram, 11.39 (see Ker 1968:267). '0Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 12 Adams 1919: 13). (see
"Plato, Lysis,223A (see Lamb 1925:
69); Plutarch,Moralia, 4B (see Babbitt 1927: 19). '2Scholarsare divided over the identification of these terracottafigures. Forexample, S. E Bonner (1977:vii, figure 5) has identified the Silenuspedagoguefigure from Eretria(Greece) in the British Museum as a pedagogue, whereas E A. G. Beck (1975:20, note 71) has indicated that the figure is a teacher with a pupil. '1Alciphron,Letter,3.1.3 (see Benner and Fobes 1949: 151);Life of Aesop, 15 (see Daly 1961:37). '4Aristides,In Defence of Oratory, 380 (see Behr 1973:507);see also the referencesin note 13. '5Aristides,In Defence of Oratory, 380 (see Behr 1973:507);Libanius, Orations, 43.9, 58.9 (see Festugiere 1959: 162, 469), Epistle, 1188.3-4 (see Foerster 1903-1923);Quintilian, 1.3.17 (see Butler 1920:61);Martial,Epigram,11.39 (see Ker 1968:267). '6Alciphron,Epistle, 3.7.3-4 (see Benner and Fobes 1949: 151);Libanius, Epistle, 911.2 (see Foerster1903-1923); Pseudo-Callisthenes,Life of Alexander, 1.39.4 (see Kroll 1958:44). '7Dio Chrysostom, Discourse, 72.10 (see Crosby 1951: 185).
Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Betz, H. D.
on Paul's 1979 Galatians:A Commentary
Letterto the Churchesin Galatia. Series:Hermeneia. Philadelphia: FortressPress. Bonner,S. E 1977 Education in Ancient Rome. London:Methuen. Bruce,E 1982 The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: A Commentaryon the Greek Text. Series:The New International Greek TestamentCommentary. Exeter:PaternosterPress. Burton,E. D. 1921 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Series:The International Critical Commentary.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Butler,H. E., translator 1920 Quintilian I. Books I-III.Series: LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Cherniss, H., translator 1976 Plutarch'sMoraliaXIII. Series:Loeb Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Colson, E.H., translator 1962 Philo X. The Embassy to Gaius. Series:LoebClassical Library.CamBibliography bridge,MA, and London:Harvard Adams,C. D., translator University Press and Heinemann. 1919 The Speeches of Aeschines. Series: Colson, E H., andWhittaker,G. H., translators LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, 1929 Philo II. Series:LoebClassical MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Library.Cambridge,MA, and LonPressand Heinemann. don: HarvardUniversity Pressand Heinemann. Babbitt,E.C., translator 1927 Plutarch'sMoraliaI. Series:Loeb 1932 Philo IV Series:LoebClassical Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, Library.Cambridge,MA, and Lonand London:HarvardUniversity don: HarvardUniversity Pressand Press and Heinemann. Heinemann. 1931 Plutarch'sMoraliaIII. Series:Loeb Crosby,H. L., translator Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, 1951 Dio Chrysostom V Discourses LXIand London:HarvardUniversity LXXX.Series:LoebClassical Library. Press and Heinemann. Cambridge,MA, andLondon:Harvard Beck, F.A. G. University Press and Heinemann. 1975 Album of GreekEducation. Sydney: Daly, L. W, translator Cheiron Press. 1961 Aesop without Morals.New York: Thomas Yoseloff. Behr,C. A., translator 1973 Aristides I. Panthenaic Oration and Daremberg,C., and Saglio,E., editors In Defence of Oratory.Series:Loeb 1907 DictionnairedesAntiquitis Grecques Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, et Romaines IV/1(reprinted1969). Graz:AkademischenDruck-und and London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Verlagsanhalt. 1981 P Aelius Aristides. The Complete Festugibre,A. J.,translator Works,volume 2, Orations 17-53. 1959 Antioche paienne et chritienne: Leiden:E. J.Brill. Libanius, Chrysostomeet les moines de Syrie.Paris:editions E.de Boccard. Benner,A. R., and Fobes,F.H., translators 1949 The letters of Alciphron,Aelian and Foerster,R., editor Philostratus. Series:LoebClassical 1903- Libanii Opera. VolumesI-XII.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
85
7-iscover 4bibica1
1923 Lipsiae:B. G. Teubneri. Gordon,T. D. 1989 A Note on HAIAAPrOPOE in Galatians 3.24-25. New Testament Studies 35: 150-54.
Library.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Heinemann. Norman, A. E, translator 1969 Libanius. Selected WorksI. The Hadas,M.,translator Julianic Orations. Series:LoebClas1953 ThreeGreekRomances. New York: sical Library.Cambridge,MA, and The Bobbs-MerrillCompany. London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Hock,R.,andO'Neil,E.,translators 1986 The Chreiain Ancient Rhetoric:The Oldfather,W.A., translator 1925 EpictetusI. The Discourses Book Progymnasmata,volume 1. Series: TextsandTranslations:Greek-Roman I & II. Series:LoebClassical Library. Series. Atlanta, GA: ScholarsPress. Cambridge,MA,andLondon:Harvard Hiibner,H. University Press and Heinemann. 1984 Law in Paul'sThought.English Pack, R. A., editor Translationin Series:Studies of the 1963 Artemidorus:OnirocriticonLibri V New Testamentand Its World.EdinLipsiae:B.G. Teubneri. burgh:T. & T. Clark. Perrin,B., translator 1914 Plutarch'sLivesII. Series:LoebClasHunter,E., and Marsh,P.,editors 1982 The Book of Bible Knowledge. sical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:ScriptureUnion. London:HarvardUniversity Press and Heinemann. Ker,W.C. A., translator 1968 Martial II. Epigrams.Series:Loeb Roberts,A., and Donaldson, J.,editors Classical Library.Cambridge,MA, 1962 The Anti-nicene FathersII. Fathers and London:HarvardUniversity of the Second Century.Reprinted Press and Heinemann. GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans. Klein, A. Rolfe,J.C., translator 1932 Child Lifein GreekArt. New York: 1914 Suetonius II. Livesof the Caesars Columbia University Press. (continued)and the Livesof Illustrious Men. Series:LoebClassical Kroll,G., editor 1958 Historia Alexandi Magni (PseudoLibrary.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Callisthenes).Berlin:Weidmannsche Heinemann. Verlagsbuchhandlung. Lamb,W R. M., translator Rostovtzeff,M. 1924 Plato II. Laches, Protagoras,Meno, 1941 The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World.Oxford: Euthydemus.Series:LoebClassical ClarendonPress. Library.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Shorey,P.,translator 1937 Plato V The Republic, BooksI-V Heinemann. 1925 Plato III. Lysis,Symposium,Gorgias. Series:LoebClassical Library.CamSeries: LoebClassical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:Harvard University Press and Heinemann. bridge,MA, and London:Harvard University Press and Heinemann. Sutton, E. W, and Rackham,H., translators 1942 Cicero III. De Oratore,Books I, II. Longenecker,R. 1982 The PedagogicalNature of the Law Series: LoebClassical Library.Camin Galatians 3:19-4:7. Journalof the bridge,MA, and London:Harvard EvangelicalTheological Society University Pressand Heinemann. 25: 53-61. White, H., translator 1913 Appian'sRomanHistory IV Series: Lull, D. J. 1986 "TheLawwas our Pedagogue": A LoebClassical Library.Cambridge, Study in Galatians3:19-25. Journal MA, and London:HarvardUniverof Biblical Literature105:481-98. sity Press and Heinemann. Macleod,M. D., translator White, R. J.,translator 1967 Lucian VIII.Series:LoebClassical 1975 The Interpretationof Dreams: Oneirocriticaby Artemidorus.Park Library.Cambridge,MA, and London: HarvardUniversity Pressand Ridge,NJ:Noyes Press. Heinemann. Wright,W C., translator 1913 Julian. The Worksof the Emperor Marcus,R., translator 1937 JosephusVI.JewishAntiquities, JulianI. Series:LoebClassical Books IX-XI.Series:LoebClassical Library.Cambridge,MA, and London:HarvardUniversity Pressand Library.Cambridge,MA, and LonHeinemann. don:HarvardUniversity Pressand Heinemann. Young,N. H. 1987 Paidagogos:The Social Setting of a Murray,A. T., translator 1939 Demosthenes V PrivateOrations Pauline Metaphor.Novum TestaXLI-XLIX.Series:LoebClassical mentum 29: 150-76.
.Arhaeologist Eachyear many new discoveriesare made that enrichour understanding of the rootsof Westerntradition. Sinceit firstreportedthe discovery
of theDeadSeaScrollsin 1947,
has been first BiblicalArchaeologist on the scene with fascinatingreports of the latestfield work. Published quarterlyby the JohnsHopkins UniversityPresson behalfof the AmericanSchoolsof Oriental
BAcontinues thistradition Research, of timely,challengingarticlesthat set the pace for scholarsand laypeoplealike. To placeyoursubscriptionor renew a currentsubscription,completethe form below and returnit to the JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,
Journals Division(HUP), Publishing
701W.40thSt.,Suite275,Baltimore, MD 21211.Individualordersmust be prepaidby check or money order
drawnon a UnitedStatesbankor
by VISA or MasterCard.To placean orderby creditcard,dial our toll-free numbe; 1-800-537-JHUP. Maryland residentspleaseadd5%salestax. O $19.95individuals 0 $30.00institutions
O Checkor money-order endosed [ MasterCard O[Visa Card number
date Expiration Name Address City State Country
86
Zip
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
Ros ZayitKhirbet Cabll Biblical A
Case Historical-Geogr by
uchinformation about the historical geography of the Iron Age has been discoveredduring the last two decades through the method known as regional archaeological survey.This method relates the settlement pattern revealedin a given region through geographical, occupational, and historical analyses to the area'senvironmental features and provides a basis upon which to drawhistorical conclusions. The LowerGalilee, located west of the Sea of Galilee between the JezreelValleyto the south and the Upper Galilee to the north, was not comprehensively surveyeduntil the present projectwas initiated in 1974. Our study focused on the Iron Age (1200to 586 B.C.E.), during which time the relationship between Israel and Phoenicia developedand deepened. Of special interest is the event that occurredin the second half of the tenth century B.C.E., during the reign of King Solomon, when the "landof Cabul"was handed over to King Hiram of Tyre(1Kings 9:10-14). This transaction undoubtedly reflects the economic and political exchanges that were taking place in the borderzone between these two kingdoms. Evidence gatheredfrom our survey has helped to clarify this historical-geographicalcase. Now
88
Zvi
Gal
largest pocket valley in the Lower Galilee and has great agriculturaleconomic potential. This pocket valley was not well drainedin ancient times and thereforeflooded in winter, which left a high level of subterraneanwater and enabled dry The LowerGalileeSurvey The surveyof the LowerGalileelwas farming in the summer. This kind of carriedout accordingto the methfarming can still be observedin the eastern part of the valley, where the ods of The IsraelArchaeological local villagers maintain some feaSurvey.Basedon an examinationof every squarekilometer, these meth- tures of traditional agriculture. ods providemaximum data at every The natural oak forests that cover a site of any period. The survey was largeportion of the hills of Nazareth launchedin the EasternLowerGalilee and Alonim are another feature of this subregion. Accordingly,it had in 1974 (Gal 1980).Later,between the largest cluster of ancient sites, 1978 and 1983, the survey was exLower entire to include the including LowerGalilee's largest panded areas were some Galilee; surveyedby tell, Tel Hannathon. the same method, whereas in other SubregionII-Eastern LowerGalilee. The secondsubregion,the Eastern areas selected sites were examined. Consequently, we were able to deter- LowerGalilee,consistsof basalt mine the environmental subregions plateausthat createa rockyarea with limitedagriculturalpotential. and their effects on settlement patThis regionis bisectedbythree terns during various archaeological 1983: wadies,or dryriverbeds:Nahal periods (Gal 38-41). I-The Southern Lower Issachar,Nalal Tabor,andNahal Subregion which streamedin deep Galilee. The main subregion of the Yabne'el, so LowerGalilee comprises the Nazagorges that theirwaterwasnot availableon the plateaus.Addto this reth and Alonim Hills and the Beyt the low annualrainfall,andit seems This north. to the Netopah Valley that the ancienteconomyof this area contains many water sources and fertile lands; thus it seems that subregionwasbasedprimarilyon cattleandgrazing.It is worthnoting irrigatedagriculturewas a common part of the region'sancient economy. that the area'scentral site, Tel RekeS, lies in the deep canyon of Nahal The Beyt Netopah Valley is the
that most of our task has been completed, it is also possible to outline some historical-geographicalcharacteristics of the LowerGalilee during the Iron Age.
Biblical Archaeologist, June 1990
..- ,,.. -1. 1. -_ .. .?I..1.-I....II....1. ''.. .?. .--I. - ..?-- ?I -.' .?. I_ .- -I.I-I? -I_-i- I? ,?. - ..- -, .I :- .;I , - -. ,.. . .._ -.--: ? -I'?.. I :.: -.-, .. -1. ,m?.- I? .I. I.1.I. -:,.1.I-,,.1-I-I. ?,'--?.-- .1.?1 --?-.I- -,.?1 .-j.1?- ?i_%., --.-.?I-.,,1- .-.I'-..-?--1.,?1-,,..,? ,?-. ._ ,.--I-I .-. -,.-I__.? I..I. -..I.?_1.1-?,I.I.-.%...- I1..?I- _,1-.1.,-??_-..1?- -,--I..I.. ; , . . 1...1, ....:1.-. ..I...?1.?I....-.. .?., ? .I. ?' . . ' .. I .-..II I?...-??I?II..I..?1. ...I..?,--I I....I1.?.-,. .I ...?. _..I.?1. .... - . ?I1. .. "...?1.1-1.II. ...??..._.-. -.I.? ?.:1 ..1?...I?--..1 I.1-I...I1..,.?1.I?I.. I.1..?. ,..II-?::I..-. 1 mI..I.:.'I.. . 1 1 . " ? . , 1 ? . , ? . . I I ? , ? , , _ , . .1, . .. .- 1I 1.. I I1-.? . II-.- .? 1 . .1.1 -I . I?. 1?.. I .. .1. I-.1 -.? . 1I _.., I ?'.-. ? II. . ,. I . 1 I. -, .. -I . -1.? . .I ? .I ?.. .I. , .- I. . : :I 1.-. ?: . -1.-% -. ,t-I? ?- I, .-., I ,_1". -- ?,- ?-,.1- ,_: 1-.?i".1, -. ,? -?:. I , 1-'.. , . 1-I ?.,- ?I _,? -'1 I. _-._ --1, 1,%-. ?-I_. - ,_.- . -?_ _--I-' 1?. .T_-.?,1._I_, -?I .-"I ,-I..- ?,,-. 1? ,._.- 1 . I,?.?._._1 -?. _?,-1-_?, -I,.,i .1L"-,- -li-?,.. -I .1 --1'.?1,. -?., '.I, -.- -i1-, -I..1?'_IL.1",. _-I)-... ,' 1."- ' -.I ?-, .1 ,,--.. I ,.I-. ? ? 1 . I .I I ?. .I1 I. ? I 1. ? .I . -I - - . I .1 . . - I . ? - ,- - -. , " . '. I - ? - I ' ,I - - . - I - , -.1 . I ?- , .
Map of the LowerGalilee survey and the area'sthree subregions.
: ?..--.?. . ?, !-??.?? .... ?. ..I...... I.... -?.I. I.I.1-..I...?.. ,-:.. I.1 -,.....-II....-. .?-- ... ?-.?-..-??I I- ,- ?...-?..?;, ?.- .-?.....I.....- ?.......?.. . .I1 ?,_ "I :1, "._-,:"-V .:.?.-,?..,-1 1?-?-!.? ?:, I-,,??? ,_
-
.?
..I ?,?I..I1: I1 ?._.I1-1..I.?I .?.I,. I.1 I.-II?-. ?1?I..- 1.--I?...1I1?,.?..-:-I1.I..-I:?1-..I:I- _-..1,,?-.I..: ,--'?I.,.:I-?,.i.;._ II1.,.. II1:.?-.?I ,.11_II.?.,,I--.I.? -".,?I 1.-- ?..',I_ ?,-v-- ,."_%? I,I-.?_"- ,.-,?'"..?I1.1_--:.'I ,.-I?-.,?.' f, -.._!,1%-I'-?I. ,II?.11.:--',-I.?1._?_"--?,,. -?-_-.LI .,_1.-,?I-I. --I . ?-',?.1--"?.--1, %.-.-r,.V?,-1.-,I_1i ._-,_?I-,?1. ..-,-I ,?tI,..- ?,.I_.-_1 !?,I-'.,v-II-1..,?-1,,? I1..I-, -__-?:I?. -?._I,.I 1- _. -.-1.'I ,_i-1.0I,-. .. :1? . . 1.-I-,?.1 I . .--I ? ..I1--..I? . .I1 .1I?. ,.??.I .-1.I?.I?,:.-?1.I?1I,. :?.I , ?: ?.:. ,?,?.I-"1,:, z-_?.-t,, ? -.?,- , I.1:I?',?-."I_1,- I'"??-.-I_1, i..-7-_,;,?I.. _ ,--I? ,;I-.1-,.,?? .-_" ,-1I _.?-1.I?,._- ?-",,..I ?-,? _.1, .-" I?.,1.-, . .-,I?_, .. -'I,,:?_..-7I, .-1I, I_,..1,?- 1I.??'%.,- ?.,;1 I .1 ,?-?1.I -. ,I~?-t.1,': --,?I1.I ,-,.. ??I,, --. ?,,.IiI-.- ??,I,-I1".. _?, .-, 1?I.-"-,?I-.'_1 ,..- I, -?.1%-'i ?.?I . ? . I.. I?.- .?I. - I1.? 1 ..I? - .I . ,.. ..?1 '.. .- I1. , .I . li.?!. - .: , - ?. 1,. . , I .- ..I ,?'.-I ..1 I . ., . I ,. - -- .?, I- _.-1- ._-,? - I ,. -.?, . -. ,I?1- I- ir-_. , ?-1 -. ,- , -?- .1', _1 ?. ,- , - ? -- ? - _.- ?, _.` --? , . W;,?- ., II_ .I? ,-._I ?.-.1 _-,- . ., ._-,,. . I- 1. ?-I . I.-- ? I- 1??,. ?. - . , , - ._% -? I." -. _."- -. ?-, ., ," .- -I1,. -? -_I?, .S - ,- " r I .,-?. .?._ - .,? _I -, . _.?'i - -,? . .'"
r,:
:d
.
?.
-.
?.I
.
.
1
?. -
.
I.
.
I.
1-
?
:_
.
I.
.
. . .
-
.
?,
.:
.I
.
I
I .
1.
1.
I.
?.
?.
:
-?.
I.
O
I.
.
-
?:,
.
-
?
.
.
.
I.
:
:-
.
1.
'.
._
.
-
?.
.":
I:.
.1
1.
.- .
,
.
.
.1
1.
.
.
?. .
I....
,.
.
.
.?
.,
.-
.
.
I
.I
.
.
?
.
1.
:.
?
I.
.
,_
I.
:
.
?
:
.:
,.:
-
-
.
.1
. . I
.
?
.I
.1
.
I
I.
?.
?
1.
.?,
?,
:
.1
-i?
I.
_,?
.
_?:,
,?:
-
1
?.
?'.
i,
:
,
,?
?
.
I?
-
:
,:
r?
-
".
. -
,_
?;
.
_
-? :.,?_ ,?.
?:.-
?
? *_
,?
?
.
"
7,
,
I
I
.:;-
.
.
_*
,
-?
-
.
:?-
? : '.
?.
-
I.
.-
:_
.
-
.
-?
:
,:.
%_,
.
?,
%-1
-
-
?:
_,;
,-
V
'I
-
:i'l
,
:-
-,
- -
-
"I
?
i?
-
- ? _
:
ir
-
-
?'_
-
-
I_
:?
- ?.,
?
?
".
-
-'it
:
'?
, ,
,;.
1,?
ml?
- "
-.
?`
?.
'_
"I
.-
- w
,
?
.
-, :,
_?
-.
-,
?:,
.I- -,
_
?.
I
.:
_I
:
?-
-
?Z
0
-
;I
:
.
.1
t:
1 ?,
1
:,
?
-
,.
i'
I,
?,
':
i?
?:-
` ? ,:_- ,?
:?
-
;
'71
,
3
?
?
-
?';
-
?
':
: ,.i;
,
?-
_;.
,?
,.
_ .:
"I
'm
.,
-
1.
:,
.
;1'
,
?
.
-
.
-
".",?:-
:_
.
1,
.?,_.
.
-1
.
-?_
,
.,:
?
I
,._?
-
?
1
I
"I,.
?
.-
:,.
:
,
i:-
1,
? I
:
?
?
i'.
-,
,
-
-
.L
?
?-%-.; -
,;?, -
_.
? I , .: T.?: "
1.
?,
?,
_b.
: ._
-1
?
;
1.'?
?,.
. ._,
I ? ? - I
-
_."
,
?.
_
,
..
7
I
,
-.0
,
:
- -
_.
?
. :
?
?
.. 1 1 ? ,
.-
.
'-?i,
.-
,. ,?
_-
?.
" :
%?
?
-
"
_
,
.-
-
1_
?
,._
,:
,
. _ : _?
. ?
?_
"
?_,
I
: 1-
,:.
I!
?
I
?-
-
-
-_
:'_
?_
:
I-
"
._
%-
,
?.
-
:7
I
?
1:
;. I
_?-
1
.1
?v
-
A
,
I
.
I:.
a n
?/
-"I ,
",
,? '.
"
,
.
?'.
?'.
?
D
-i.
.-
,!?
,.?
-
_I-
,
-
-
. -
1". -
. ? :, :
.
_'.
:
?-, .i
:_
-
I!-,
?,
- -
?
,:_
- -
_.
?
i
I
.
;,
-
:.-
-
"
-
.
I.
, ,
?
I
:
I%_
?
I
?,
-
:*,
_Ii
,
I.
?".
t,%
:
,
?.
n , ,:
"I
. t
-
I ,_
? ?;
!:
. , ,.i?
-,;.
?,_
.
?'.
-
-
-.
-
?,
?.'
'.
_?
:
. , ?. -
-,:
-
':-
:
?
_.
_?
-
-,
-,
1-
_?
-L
-
?,
-:
_'.
?`
?:
.,
L_
-
?
:
.:
."
1-?_
,:
-:
.:, :
' .
,?
-
".
-1
-
-_
-
-,;
-
.I
:
?
?
:
- : ? ; .
_.
?
-
?
".,
-?
- ,
?_.
?
i:
!.
.-
-.
.- .
_
?,
-
?
,
?
-,:.
,-4
? 0
?
I.
?
I?l,
:,
-
I
:'-
-
'6
-
?-
?
?,
.
?,.
I ,'?
. :-
-
1 .,L?
q,
_i-
-
:
_:?
?_".
_.
_ _
?-
_
-.
i.
"
:
?
- I ?
i-
-,:
"
.
,
'T
;
:
.
I
7"
-
?
r
?.
_.
j.
I
1.
.
'.-
-1.
?
?.
,.
.
.
:._-,
- - _: _
:
:
?
?
?,
_.
.,
.
i,
f
I.,
1.
I.
.
I.
.,
:
?
,
.
.I
-
._ -,:
.
, -., :
_-
_:,. '
?.
-
:-I
-
?-
_,-
_
1-
,
-
1,
.:
.
.
.-:7 -
?.
':",
?.7
-
_-
-
_i.
-.
;
-
.:
.1
.,
_-,
?
V.
-
-,.
-
.'
,
"
.
.:
.
.:
.I
7 1' -
-,
:
;
?
?,
,
?.
: :
:.
. .
:
?
?t
_?,
i!?_
I
'.
?,
I . : '
'
T?
_?
-.
?.
:
?.
:
,1
?i,
_- i.?,
.:,
.?
?
?-
,-
_.
I."
I.
?_
-,
,
?
.:
?.:
.,
'.
-
t
?-!
.
-;.,-_?-
`
?
-
1.
:
.
.
-
-
_?,
:'
,-
:
.:
,
"
I .
.:
I.
:.,
'?
:
"
.:
1 .,
/
1,
.
?
:
_p
I.
.1
:
1
. . .
.
.:
-
.
.i
:1
I-.
f.-,
?
?',
-
"
-
I.-
1:
:.
.
I
:.
-
.
1.
- I-
:
?:
?.
..
?I.
.
?
.
1
-
?
?
.
I.
:1
.
.
x
I.-
-
.
. .
:_
-?
.-
-.1
.;,
?:
1-
.
-
?-
-
?.:
:
:
I ?:
".
I.
.
.
?.
?.
..
.
.
:,.-
,_-
:
.
:.
I
.
%
1.
?.
.
.
.,:
-
..
:
-
I.
.
re
.,_
_-.
.?
?.
.
1.
I.
_T
.?!
.
'.:-
.:
?.
:
:
.
-
:,
.
I.~
?,
,
'.
,
?
1
:1, ?,
,. ,?-- ?I-1. .?,-.I.-1.: .?:-:.,?",- ?..?I-I'. . ,....1?,-I iL .-,-- I., ..I.II?II?:..1 ---.t:,.-?. .,.,-:,t.-??? .-,III.I???*,,-1?:,--?7 .1? , .1,t,?:.?,? -I-I .-..??.-."_i ? -. . I..?I,.:.I-. . .I.I:. I......?...I?.1.. I?...II..1. . ?..: -,.-??_ ...I.?..1 ?:, -.,? .,? .,?- ,. 2.? .1 II....... . ... 1. -????-?..7?., -,,-I-._i? - .:?,.1.?.,% .I??11 1? ,--?,.-..-.:..--,-..,I.,..-,I-.?1,-.,,.?--?I!I?-,.--.-?,.I?I-II.-?, :, -.-,-?.??.z???": ?-.;. ?, :i-,?--.?.-..?% ??.:.,.I.,.?I.,-,,% -?..-,I...t ,-,-,,?.?-"?.."???I.--.,--:--,;_? -I..1:-,?.?.,..?, _? .1. 11 .?.....,.......I..I...?.I.II..II...I..I..:?...?.:?I.1. .,I. I....,..,....?.II?:..,L .4.....I..?..?.?.?.I?II?..1. :-.?,...,,.,1: --II.?,I-1 ??. .-.:-..I?..,.I?, -.I. -I- ?,, .. ,IIII,-,-,II...:. -.1, ?.?.1?_- _..I ?-,% ,-?.--..?L ? ? : I . ? ., . :: , 1 ; I .. ? . .. I . . . . I . ? . , ? I ? ? . 3 , . ? 1 .1 . i : ? I , ? . ? -, , . :?'- ?, I?. I . I- ?.?_? Ir ?, - - _. . ....,. . .. .? .. " . I.1 - . I. . ?'_. I ,. .I . . .I. I. ...I. I.: ?. . .?: .? : I7. . . A ch i ib -, .- , --? ?I 1. -- ? I-1? _? -i I. H?. .?a z :o? ?:r' ,-. ", -,,,?:,,?r,.,-. P P E R :G A L IL ? E :,
-
.i
I
.
:.1
.
-
I.:
:;
.
I:_
? I -
:,`'.
:
:?
',
:1
-
:
.?,
'1
:
.:
.-
?
-:t
:
.:
:.
?.
?.
?,:.
,.
'.
-
I
1?
-?
:.-
i.
I
_
.
?_
?
!,
-,
? - ,-
.-
.:
:,
. ?
.:
1,
4?.:
,:
:
I.
: 1:
?
:
-?
.
.-
.
?".
.
?.
,:
.
"
.
-
.
?
:
;
:
:
"
-.?,
,?_
I.-
. I I -
.
?
,:%
,
,
"
-,
.
. "
.
.-:
?
. , :
:.
?
,?:
,?
- ?: -
?
-
-
I
:
?
,I.:
."
,
.?
-
?
-,
. ?.
"
_
:
t'?
-
?_.
.
?.
:
?,
?
"
,
? -
:-
?,.
1.
.
?.
I.
.1
.
.
.
.1
I.
`_,
"
:.
.
?.
:
?:.
-
I
.,
I .
.
.
.
,
.
.
I
I.
_.
.? ;
.
-
I.
I
.
1.
:
.:
-
_
1_
.
I
.
.
I
,:
.:
.
.
.
.
:
.
.
:
I.
.
.
I
.1
'.1
H
r
?
.
. 1.
?.
.
.
?.,
J
ifa:.
a
_:
i,
?,
_-
:.,
-,?
.
:
?.-
:
"
?
:.
"
.
,
. _ -
,?
-
:
-
1,
. .,
.
t.
-
.
I -
_,"
-
?.
_. _,I.-
? _ ?_,
'
:-
'?--
J
?.,
Z
:,
,
- -
.
V.,
-?
-
;
.1
_
1
-:?
1.
.
?
.
!i
i
!
1
1
!
j!
!:l
L
.
1.
?,
'
I~
.
.
1
_.
Ii
-
-
:
.1
.:
?
.
-
:
.
-
!
?
?'
?.
I
, .1 :
_ . .?_'-
I
. .
,
?:
._
:
.
: ?,.
i,
?
?
"
:
?
:
.:
-i,:
?;
:
,-
:i
A
:
1.
.
1
:
:?
-
:.
.1:
-
.?
I
.1
,
1.
.1
.:
?
?'.
'.?
I
.?
1,
? ,
z.
-
t.
.
.:
:.
:1?
i
i
1
.1
?
"
:
?
'.
,:
,? ,
.?
.r
:
.
i:!
.
-.1
,
1
fl
_,
1
:
:1
'I
.'
1.
1:
L
'I
.,
!
m
. I-
1
?-
?
:
:?,
1
I
?
_.
-4
-
?
'.?
:i
:_
. .
,
,?
,.-
I."
_.
:;.'
-
-,;
:,;
.
_
A_?
i,
"
`?
!?;
?
?,:.
1:
Z.",
:
:,
"
.
I
, I ? .,-
o
?
:j
;
.?
-1
:
?:
;,?
-
, ? .
-_
.-?:-?,
?
?
:
:
x : ? ,
?
i,
i-
1,
4
.,
-
.
-,
-
.
.
a
.,
, ;'
-,.
-
I-
_,?
-
A
"
. ,-
,
?
_?
"
.,
?
.
-
,
I
.
-
?
_.,i
-.?
W
_
,_
,:.
.:
? ?:;
,?
I
.
-
-?_
?
- ,
-
,?
?:
?
,-
.?
-:
i
? t- -
,:
1:
,
.-
-
-
:
.
-
.
r
:?
:,
_ .
1:
- -
I
.?'
.
-
,
,'?
.1
-
b h k h
e
- :.
,
.
1.
"
?
":-
-.
I
-
i
-
:1
:
?.
;
-.?
:%I'-
.:?
.?
;?
in
'I -
?
.
2.
_.
'"
'i,
,-_
.
, -71-
1
,:
_?
?
?
.
."
-?:,
-,
%?:_
?
,
,:
.
I _1
_,:?!?-
?:,.
_.,
,.:
?
.,
-
A
.1
-
.,
?.
1 1
?;`
S
:.
:-
?
:?
?,'
.
,-
V,
-?
-
,_
?.
:
:-
'.
?._.I ,_-_-___
:,?
,-
_. '-
,
-.
?,
.i:,;
.a
I
I.,-
A
,.-
T.'
_?
-
?.:-. -
?-
?_
?
t
.,
?_
:.,
I
,:_
:
-
.
-
_1
_
.,
I.
-_
? t, .
i-
?._
_.
1
?-,
':
.1
?
_?;.
?-
-
,.
?
?
.,
.1
.
.,
,
,
?,.
?_
?
.
I.
. I.:
.
.
-
.
_.
':.,
:
?:
*;'
1?,
-
t
.1
.:
.
,
-
.?
_?
-1.
?
,
-
,
.- ,_.7
i
-
-
,
:
-
:
_ _
.:, /
:
1.
,.