The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 190 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive...

Author: Steven W. Holloway | Lowell K. Handy

38 downloads 1073 Views 23MB Size Report

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

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

190

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, Tamara C. Eskenazi, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press Sheffield

The Pitcher is Broken Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom

edited by Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 190

Copyright © 1995 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield, S11 9AS England

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Midsomer Norton, Somerset

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-525-6

CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations List of Contributors Tributes to Gosta Ahlstrom G.W. Ahlstrom: A Bibliography (Conclusion), by Hans G. Ahlstrom and Lowell K. Handy Doctoral Dissertations Directed by Gosta W. Ahlstrom at the University of Chicago

9 12 13 18 21 39 44

ROGER W. ANDERSON, JR Zephaniah ben Cushi and Cush of Benjamin: Traces of Cushite Presence in Syria-Palestine

45

PETER Ross BEDFORD Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the 'Delay' in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple

71

EHUD BEN ZVI Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of the Term 'Israel' in Post-Monarchic Biblical Texts

95

JANICE E. CATRON Temple and bamah: Some Considerations

150

DIANA V. EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam: A Trio of 'Bad Guy' Characters Illustrating the Theology of Immediate Retribution

166

CARL D. EVANS Cult Images, Royal Policies and the Origins of Aniconism

192

6

The Pitcher is Broken

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN AND YITZHAK ZILBERMAN Site Planning and Subsistence Economy: Negev Settlements as a Case Study

213

MARGARET M. GELINAS United Monarchy-Divided Monarchy: Fact or Fiction?

227

ROBERT D. HAAK 'Cush' in Zephaniah

238

LOWELL K. HANDY Historical Probability and the Narrative of Josiah's Reform in 2 Kings

252

STEVEN w. HOLLOWAY Harran: Cultic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Implications for Sennacherib's 'Letter to Hezekiah' in 2 Kings

276

JOEL S. KAMINSKY Joshua 7: A Reassessment of Israelite Conceptions of Corporate Punishment

315

PETER THEODORE NASH Ruth: An Exercise in Israelite Political Correctness or a Call to Proper Conversion?

347

JOHN J. SCHMITT Samaria in the Books of the Eighth-Century Prophets

355

MARK S. SMITH Anat's Warfare Cannibalism and the West Semitic Ban 368

368

JOHN R. SPENCER Priestly Families (or Factions) in Samuel and Kings

387

JOEL SWEEK The Monuments, the Babel-Bibel Streit and Responses to Historical Criticism

401

Contents

7

Gosta Ahlstrom's History of Palestine

420

THOMAS L. THOMPSON CHARLES TED VEHSE Long Live the King: Historical Fact and Narrative Fiction in 1 Samuel 9-10 Index of Biblical References Index of Subjects Index of Modern Authors

435 445 458 466

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

This volume of essays forms an inclusio with the Festschrift in honor of Gosta W. Ahlstrom, edited by W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer, in 1984. Boyd and John were among the first generation of Gosta's students at the University of Chicago; we were among the last. These essays were solicited from scholars who studied with Gosta both formally at the University of Chicago and informally through his lectures, publications, correspondence and friendship. It was the intention of the editors that these essays reflect the authors' diversity of interests and thereby honor Gosta's investment in and encouragement of virtually every aspect of ancient Near Eastern research. To this end, all contributors were requested to submit specimens of their current research, with the sole exception of T.L. Thompson, whose review of Gosta's place in the academic study of Syro-Palestinian history was assigned him by the editors. The final collection of texts succeeds, we believe, in capturing something of Gosta's restless curiosity and willingness to cross disciplinary boundaries in quest of exact knowledge. Our appreciation for the work of the authors is heartfelt. The editors would also like to acknowledge those who expressed a desire to contribute, but whose schedules, obligations, or, in some cases, health, would not allow them to meet the deadlines to which we rather stringently held them. By including the tributes read by colleagues and students at his memorial service in Joseph Bond Chapel of the University of Chicago, January 27 1992, it is hoped that something of the richness of his personality and the indomitable vitality of his spirit is communicated to those who knew him not. As of June 1994, the bibliography of Ahlstrom's publications from 1984 to the present is complete as regards all major essays and monographs. The list of dissertations that he chaired is a genealogical tree through which one can trace a portion of his legacy to the world of scholarship. The title of the volume derives from the book of Qoheleth (12.6). Although it is a portion of the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures that

10


Gbsta never formally treated in his publications, it is nevertheless appropriate for his memorial. The metaphor reflects the suddenness of death and the irreparable sense of loss. He who held knowledge for us to draw from is no more and cannot be restored. In Gosta's case, it also serves as a double entendre expressive of his methodological iconoclasm, a paronomasia which would have pleased the honoree. For those who never had the honor of Gosta Ahlstrom's acquaintance, a few words are in order. In the classroom, Professor Ahlstrb'm could thoroughly intimidate the neophyte by puncturing a carefully wrought presentation with a few probing questions fired with deadly marksmanship. What the canny student learned in his presence was to watch the eyes: they always twinkled. Gosta relished his field of study and, having a proper Uppsala academic heritage, loved to defend his positions and vigorously challenge those held by others. The secret, one came to understand, was not to shrivel in the face of his inquisition (unless one was patently in the wrong), but to defend one's conclusions with skill and alacrity. Gosta was always listening; should the argument turn out to have been thoroughly investigated and ably defended, he was prepared to change his mind, and acknowledge that change in word and print. At the heart of Gosta's method of inquiry were a few simple notions: one must work from primary documents—however intractable the language—and explore texts with a watchmaker's eye for detail; one must never forget that the texts and artifacts under inquiry are rooted in the realia of the ancient world, and do not readily impart their secrets in the idioms of the twentieth century CE; if an idea wins popular scholarly acceptance it is suspect until proven accurate; and if a scholar has publicized an analysis out of shallow academic ambition without an unflinching commitment to historical fidelity, the analysis is not merely unsound, but is immoral. Gosta did not strive to create a 'School of Ahlstrb'm' through professorial indoctrination, but was invariably willing to allow his students to pursue their own interests once he was satisfied that the avenue of research was fruitful and that the researcher was qualified, linguistically and otherwise, to bring the project to fruition. Gosta's cramped office at the Divinity School and, following his retirement, his faculty carrel in Joseph Regenstein library, was always open to impromptu needs for academic advising and, most of the time, was occupied seven days out of the week. At the heart of Gosta's spirit was an elan vital that expressed itself

Preface

11

through an awesome capacity to enjoy life with his family, colleagues, friends and students. The justly famous annual student parties held at the Ahlstrom townhouse, energized by Gosta's ebullient humor, and his eager willingness to travel hundreds of miles to attend weddings and other rites of passage—we all have our tales—are monuments to the depths of his humanity and his own existential desire for friendship that grew in intensity even as the sands of his life were running out. For the excellence of his scholarly example and his loyal and generous friendship, tables raised up in the wilderness, we offer these tributes in his memory. In addition, we, the contributors and all the students, formal and informal, wish to thank his wife and family—Ria, Pernille and Hans—for their felicitous share in the life of Gosta Ahlstrom, and for providing us with access to Gosta's records and photographs, together with their enthusiastic support for this volume. We also thank David J.A. Clines and the staff at Sheffield Academic Press for accepting this project and bringing it to completion. Lowell K. Handy Steven W. Holloway

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editors are grateful to Princeton University Press for permission to publish a slightly altered quotation from 'A Dispute Over Suicide', translated by J.A. Wilson, inANET, pp. 406-407; to Ms Jerri Hays Olson for permission to republish 'A Farewell', by Elder Olson, in Collected Poems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 122; to Sheffield Academic Press for permission to quote W.B. Barrick and J.R. Spencer, 'Parentheses in a Snowstorm: G. W. Ahlstrom and the Study of Ancient Palestine', in idem (eds.), In the Shelter of Ely on: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlstrom (JSOTSup, 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), p. 60; and to the Israel Exploration Society for permission to republish the drawing of Early Bronze Age II Arad that appears in A. Kempinski, 'Fortifications, Public Buildings and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Age', in A. Kempinski and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992), p. 76, and the site drawing of Beer-sheba Stratum II (Iron Age II) published in Z. Herzog, 'Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age', in Kempinski and Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, p. 259.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ABL ABRL AcOr ADD AfO A/A AJSL AnBib ANET AnOr AnSt AOAT ARM ArOr ASSF ASTI ATANT ATD AusBR AUSS BA BARev BASOR BBB BOB BETL BH BHS Bib BibOr BJS

Anchor Bible D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary R.F. Harper (ed.), Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum Anchor Bible Reference Library Acta orientalia C.H.W. Johns (ed.), Assyrian Deeds and Documents Recording the Transfer of Property Archivfur Orientforschung American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Analecta orientalia Anatolian Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archives royales de Mari Archiv orientdlni Acta Societatis scientiarum fennicae Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Australian Biblical Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beitrage F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblical Hebrew Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Biblica et orientalia Brown Judaic Studies

14 BKAT BM BN BO BR BTB BWANT BZAW CAD CAH CAP CBC CBQ CBQMS ConBOT CT CTA CTH EA EHAT El EncJud ETL FOTL FRLANT GKC GTA HALAT HAT HBD HBT HeyJ HKAT HS HSM HSS HTR HUCA ICC IDB IDBSup IEJ

The Pitcher is Broken Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Tablets in the British Museum (cited by number) Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Orientalis Biblical Research Biblical Theology Bulletin Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Cambridge Ancient History A. Cowley (ed.), Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century EC Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, British Museum A. Herdner (ed.), Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques E. Laroche, Catalogues des Textes Hittites ElAmama Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Eretz Israel Encyclopaedia Judaica Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley Gottinger theologische Arbeiten W. Baumgartner et al., Hebrdisches und aramdisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Alten Testament P.J. Achtemeier (ed.), Harper's Bible Dictionary Horizons in Biblical Theology Heythrop Journal Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary G.A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume Israel Exploration Journal

Abbreviations Int IR JAOS JARCE JBL JCS JEA JEOL JJS JNES JNSL JPOS JQR JR JRT JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup 755 JTS K KAI KAT KB KBo KEHAT KHC KTU KUB LA LAPO LAS I LAS II NCB ND NICOT NJB NJPS

15

Interpretation Rawlinson, A Selection from the Historical Inscriptions of Chaldaea, Assyria and Babylonia, I Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jaarbericht ...exoriente lux Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal of Religious Thought Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum (cited by number) H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramdische Inschriften Kommentar zum Alten Testament L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartm (eds.), Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, vol. 1 Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon der Agyptologie Litteratures anciennes du Proche-Orient S. Parpola (ed.), Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part 1: Texts S. Parpola, Lettersfrom Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part 2: Commentary and Appendices New Century Bible Tablets from the Nimrud excavations (cited by number) New International Commentary on the Old Testament H. Wansbrough (ed.), New Jerusalem Bible New Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures

16 OBO OBT OIP OLA OLP Or OrAnt OTG OTL OTS PEF PEGLAMBS PEQ PG PSBA PTMS QDAP R RANE Rel ResQ RevQ RevScRel RHR RIMA RIA RS SAA SAA 1 SAA 2 SAA 3 SAA5

SAA7 SAA 8 SAAB S AAS SAM SBLDS

The Pitcher is Broken Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalia Oriens antiquus Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Palestine Exploration Fund Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies Palestine Exploration Quarterly J. Migne (ed.), Patrologia graeca Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine H.C. Rawlinson (ed.), The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia Records of the Ancient Near East Religion Restoration Quarterly Revue de Qumran Revue des sciences religieuses Revue de I 'histoire des religions Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods E. Ebeling et al. (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie Ras Shamra State Archives of Assyria S. Parpola (ed. and trans.), The Correspondence of Sargon II. I. Letters from Assyria and the West S. Parpola and K. Watanabe (eds. and trans.), Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths A. Livingstone (ed. and trans.), Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea G.B. Lanfranchi and S. Parpola (eds. and trans.), The Correspondence of Sargon II. II. Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces P.M. Fales and J.N. Postgate (eds. and trans.), Imperial Administrative Records. I. Palace and Temple Administration H. Hunger (ed. and trans.), Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Studies Sheffield Archaeological Monographs Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series

Abbreviations SBLMS SBS SET ScrHier SEA SEL SHANE SJLA SJOT SOTSMS SS N ST STT StudOr SWB A TBti TCS TDOT THAT ThWAT TLZ TUAT TynB TZ UF USQR UT VAB VT VTSup WBC WMANT WO WVDOG YNER ZA ZA W ZDMG ZDP V ZTK

17

Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Scripta Hierosolymitana Svensk exegetisk drsbok Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul vicino oriente antico Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studia theologica O.R. Gurney, J.J. Finkelstein and P. Hulin (eds.), The Sultantepe Tablets Studia orientalia Social World of Biblical Antiquity Theologische Biicherei Texts from Cuneiform Sources G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alien Testament G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.J. Fabry (eds.), Theologisches

Worterbuch zum Alien Testament Theologische Literaturzeitung O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alien Testaments ul Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Ugarit-Forschungen Union Seminary Quarterly Review C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina- Vereins Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS HANS G. AHLSTROM Radio Announcer for WNMU, a PBS station transmitting from Northern Michigan University

ROGER w. ANDERSON, JR Cultural Resource Management and Program Manager, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois; Lecturer, North Central College, Naperville, Illinois

w. BOYD BARRICK Dean of Arts and Sciences, Eastern Montana College, Billings, Montana

PETER Ross BEDFORD Lecturer, Department of Religious Studies, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia

EHUD BEN zvi Associate Professor, Religious Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta

JANICE E. CATRON Doctoral Candidate, Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Associate for Curriculum Development, Congregational Ministries Division, Presbyterian Church (USA), Louisville, Kentucky

DIANA V. EDELMAN Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia

CARL D. EVANS Associate Professor and Graduate Director, Department of Religious Studies, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina

List of Contributors

19

ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN Professor of Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel

MARGARET M. GELINAS Independent scholar, Fountain Hills, Arizona

JAMES M. GUSTAFSON Henry R. Luce Professor of Humanities and Comparative Studies, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

ROBERT D. HAAK Assistant Professor, Department of Religion, Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois

LOWELL K. HANDY Co-coordinator, Ethics Index, American Theological Library Association, Evanston, Illinois; Senior Lecturer, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois

STEVEN W. HOLLOWAY Director, Centennial History Project, Disciples Divinity House of the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Senior Indexer, American Theological Library Association, Evanston, Illinois

JOELS. KAMINSKY Assistant Professor, Department of Religion, St Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota

PETER THEODORE NASH Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Biblical Studies, GarrettEvangelical Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois

JOHN J. SCHMITT Associate Professor, Department of Theology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

20


AKE w. SJOBERG Research Professor of Assyriology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MARKS. SMITH Assistant Professor, Theology Department, Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

JOHN R. SPENCER Associate Professor, Department of Religious Studies, John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio

JOEL SWEEK Doctoral Candidate, Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

THOMAS L. THOMPSON Professor for Gamle Testament, i institut for bibelsk eksegese, Universitet K0benhavn, Copenhagen, Denmark

CHARLES TED VEHSE Doctoral Candidate, Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois ANTHONY C. YU Carl Darling Buck Distinguished Service Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Religion and Literature, Divinity School, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

YITZHAK ZILBERMAN Graduate Student, Department for the Land of Israel Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

TRIBUTES TO GOSTA AHLSTROM Ake W. Sjoberg It is my privilege to be the first to speak as one of Gosta's oldest friends. Our lives and careers have been entwined since the late 1940s. To be true to Gosta's spirit we have come here today not to mourn but to celebrate his life. Gosta and I first met as members of the students' choir in Uppsala: he was a bass and I was a tenor. Although we were serious students of theology and Semitic philology, the work did not inhibit us too much. As true Uppsala students, we enjoyed life and Wein, Weib und Gesang. We belonged to two different 'houses': Gosta to Goteborg's Nation ('The House of Gothenburg') and I to the house of my home province. Gosta was very active in student government and was elected president of his 'House', a very important position, and very time-consuming. Several hundred students are members of such 'Nations' at the university, and the choice of Gosta as their First Curator (as we called it) demonstrates the students' trust and confidence in him. After Gosta's two terms as Curator, he spent considerable time in the interest of his student-nation. Our real friendship began while sitting at Ivan Engnell's feet: it was the golden era of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Uppsala, and in the Old Testament seminar we learned our trade and fought our battles. Later, Gosta and I jointly taught biblical Hebrew to the students of theology. We were the first academic teachers the students had to face when they came to Uppsala to study Divinity. Most of the students survived the ordeal. In the late fifties and early sixties I led a seminar in Assyriology at the university and Gosta was my student: I had the great pleasure to give him an 'A'. In 1959, Gosta publicly defended his thesis, 'Psalm 89', and chose me

22


to be his 'second opponent'. This task involves both praising and criticizing the thesis; our friendship survived. As you all know, Gosta was invited to join the faculty of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago in the fall of 1962.1 followed him in December of the same year as visiting professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Let me end on a very personal note. The Chicago years in the sixties strengthened the bond between Gosta and me and came to include Ria, Pernille, Hans and my wife Gunnil. When we made Philadelphia our home, the friendship was kept alive through visits and frequent telephone calls. Here today I also represent Uppsala friends and colleagues: Geo Widengren, Professor Emeritus in Comparative Religions; Magnus Ottoson, Professor of Old Testament Studies; Bertil Gartner, former Bishop of Gothenburg; Edvin Larsson, Professor of New Testament Studies in Oslo (Norway); and Birger Gerhardsson, Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Lund. I have been in contact with all of them. A passage in a Sumerian text has been in my mind this last week whenever I have thought about Gosta: 'they poured out brotherhood and friendship as if it were the finest oil'. We find the same image in the Old Testament in Ps. 133.1-2: How good and how pleasant it is that brothers dwell together. It is like the finest oil on the head running down onto the beard.

W. Boyd Barrick I stand here this morning on behalf of the 'older generation' of Gosta's students—the generation that toiled in this vineyard when Jerry Brauer and Joe Kitagawa were Dean of the Divinity School, Bill Weaver and Larry Greenfield were Dean of Students, Chris Gamwell and Clark Gilpin were students like the rest of us, Norman Perrin was writing the Gospel of Mark, and the Swift Hall Coffee Shop still had the ambiance of a dark and drafty basement—a time long ago and far away. I came to the University of Chicago, with a new baccalaureate diploma from Dartmouth and not really sure what I was getting into, in the late summer of 1968. The week we moved into our married student

Tributes to Gosta Ahlstrom

23

apartment on Madison Park was also the week of the Democratic National Convention. That was my orientation to the Divinity School! An ominous beginning. In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes (Judg. 21.25).

What was 'right' in my eyes came into view that spring quarter when I took my first Ahlstrom course: OT 401: The Religion of Israel. There had been rumors of a frosty Swedish presence in the corner office on the third floor of Swift Hall, someone who 'did his own thing', remote, aloof, slightly out of place—and with an accent more impenetrable than Eliade's. All of this proved to be correct—but was more than compensated for by the excitement and fun of rigorous heretical inquiry. The scales dropped from my eyes and I was hooked. Year by year, more of us fell under his spell. His courses were as demanding as they were stimulating—we were quick to learn why he had prefaced his autobiographical essay in Criterion in 1967 with the text of Prov. 12.1: 'Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid'. His critiques of our work could be grueling—an arched eyebrow and an odd guttural sound from the back of his throat often said more than we cared to hear—but they were invariably supportive, posing new questions and old questions from a new angle, detecting the cut corner or loose end we hoped might be overlooked, and always suggesting an additional citation or two, or three, or... We came especially to appreciate and take delight in his wry wit, which crept into his lectures and seasoned his conversation, but seldom found voice in his writings. The sly twinkle and explosive laugh will long linger in our memories. Gosta was, of course, perhaps instinctively, a polemicist in the grand tradition of Engnell. When John Spencer and I successfully surprised him with the presentation of the Festschrift at a special session featuring Gosta and Peter Ackroyd at the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Bloomington, Indiana, about ten years ago, Conrad L'Heureux (who chaired the session) told this anecdote: at the registration desk he overheard some 'archeology types' wondering aloud if that could possibly be Ahlstrom over there. Conrad came to their aid, saying: 'If the context is a meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, and if he has a Swedish accent, and if he disagrees with everybody else—who else could it be?'

24


Since the topic discussed by Gosta and Peter at that session was the Persian period, Neh. 4.4 seems apt: But Judah said: The strength of the burden-bearers is failing, and there is much rubbish; we are not able to work on the wall.

Gosta saw much rubbish in this business and sought to remove it; he produced a bit himself—and he loved to work on the wall. When putting together the Festschrift, I asked Gosta for some biographical information and some pertinent anecdotes. Let me share one with you. It occurred during his stay in Heidelberg in 1959: For the sake of appearance I once went to Professor Gerhard von Rad's lecture. He gave a course on proto-Isaiah. The classroom was packed with about 400 students. For about an hour I waited for the professor to show his scholarly excellence. But, no, he gave a sermon! Polite, as usual, I introduced myself to him after the whole seance was over. I was surprised to get an invitation to coffee at 4:00 the next day at his home. When I arrived, the coffee turned out to be tea. We had a very amiable discussion and found—interestingly enough—few points of agreement. When I was ready to go, von Rad told me he had just finished the first volume of his Theology of the Old Testament, and he added: 'I think when you have read that book, you will shake your head and clasp your hands together over your head'. And I did. The next day I had dinner together with Ake Sjoberg and his wife and another of Adam Falkenstein's students. The latter told me that he had just been up to von Rad who had mentioned that the day before he had had a visit by a young Swede from Uppsala, 'the most pleasant and agreeable Scandinavian he had met'. I drank to that.

Gosta was a little concerned that we might include too much of this sort of thing, particularly having to do with the private side of his life. He wrote: I have always been astonished that English and American biographies always end with talking about the family and the children, but I guess that is because we do not do it that way in Scandinavia. We do not mention how many children a scholar had produced, but how many books.

He was indeed a scholar. But I think this excerpt from a letter in the early 1980s expresses the whole man: I have been pretty busy these weeks. We came home from vacation in Wisconsin on July 30, and since then I have worked with writing a review, reading the proofs of another review, read a manuscript for JNES, sweated a lot in this incredible weather, and taking care of some other small problems. The 31st of August we leave again for a week to the Upper


25

Peninsula to have a vacation with our son. Then I should really start working on my history again. I have this fall off, and the spring quarter too! So I had better do something.

Truly: There is nothing better for a man than he shall eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil (Eccl. 2.24a).

Would that we were all so fortunate. So, for myself—and for Art and Tom, and John and Patsy and Carl, and John and Joe and Barbara and Beth and Roger and Wade and Bob, and Glenn and Jim (were they still with us), and the others whose names and faces have faded with time—let me say: Tack sa mycket, Herr Professor, Tusen, tusen tackar for alt.

Diana V. Edelman Prov. 3.13-18: Happy is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gets understanding for the gain from it is better than gain from silver and its profit better than gold. Wisdom is more precious than jewels and nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy.

By the standards of this proverb, Gosta was a happy man indeed. He devoted his life to the pursuit of knowledge, laying hold of the tree of wisdom for over fifty years. Gosta was to me, as to many of those present, a teacher, a mentor and a friend. After many years of study and preparation, one of my greatest graduation honors was to be accepted by him as his colleague. As a teacher, Gosta was always available to students to discuss course work, recent brainstorms, or the world in general. During my years as a student, he was in his office most of the time he was not teaching. At lunch time you could inevitably find him eating his cheese and liversausage sandwiches on flat bread with his office-brewed cup of tea.

26


Between his extensive library with a filing system known only to him and his boxes of index cards with bibliographic information, he was a ready and willing source for references and information as one launched upon one of his infamous seminar papers or a regular class paper. There was always a manuscript being worked on in the old electric typewriter, with three or four more in his second drawer awaiting further refinement and aging, like fine wine. As a mentor, Gb'sta challenged those of us who chose the less traveled Chicago path to question established consensuses and examine the underpinnings of our field—not in a spirit of bitter rebellion or of childish showmanship, but in a spirit of genuine scholarship that sought to promote understanding and to refine knowledge. He set an example through his own disciplined and relentless research and personal integrity—an example worthy of emulation but difficult to follow because of its high standards and exacting nature. As a student I was impressed by Gosta's non-partisan scholarship. He held the work of all schools of thought to the same rigorous standards of responsible scholarship; no one was exempt from Gosta's penetrating gaze and inquiring intellect, if they revealed inconsistency in their thought or lacked solid evidence where such was claimed. However, criticism was never launched on a personal level. This was a particularly admirable trait—Gosta had many friends with whose work he did not agree. Above all, he respected integrity, the pursuit of knowledge, and a kind, inquiring human spirit. He was also partial to others who displayed a keen wit, one of his more endearing traits that was usually revealed only after you were able to crack his formal facade. Gosta was conscious of being a non-native speaker of English and often struggled to express his written thoughts in a way he felt was elegant enough for his high standards. In spite of what he viewed to be a shortcoming, I was constantly amazed at his mastery of the subtleties of English and the ingenuity with which he could produce purposeful double entendres and highly lyrical statements. I think Gosta was a poet at heart. He openly embraced the advent of the computer age, learning the ropes of the Macintosh WordPerfect system in his mid-sixties as a prelude to writing his magnum opus, the History of Ancient SyriaPalestine. For those of us who edited his work, there was a noticeable flowering of his English prose in this new phase of computer-enhanced composition. As a friend, I came to admire many other of Gosta's accomplishments


27

and abilities. He played the cello, was a skillful ping-pong player, and was an untiring tell-climber in the summer heat. Not only did he teach me how to drive a manual shift in his own car, he also braved the roads and beaten dirt tracks of Jordan with me behind the wheel. While walking around Louvain, he surprised me with his extensive knowledge of the local architectural traditions from the Middle Ages onwards. Equally impressive was the paper he gave to a Hyde Park women's group on the history of Sweden. He was always ready to listen to whatever I had to say or wanted to talk about, and would offer advice freely about a whole range of topics. I would like to read some excerpts from Ralph Waldo Emerson's biographical sketch of Henry David Thoreau, which I think capture much of Gosta's spirit as a scholar and human being. A truth-speaker he, capable of the most deep and strict conversation; a physician to the wounds of any soul; a friend, knowing not only the secret of friendship, but almost worshipped by those few persons who resorted to him as their confessor and prophet, and knew the deep value of his mind and great heart...His virtues, of course, sometimes ran into extremes. It was easy to trace to the inexorable demand on all for exact truth that austerity which made this willing hermit more solitary even than he wished. Himself of perfect probity, he required not less of others...dangerous frankness was in his dealing...[He was possessed of] the incessant growth of a spirit so robust and wise, and which effaced its defeats with new triumphs. His study was a perpetual ornament to him, and inspired his friends with curiosity to see the world through his eyes, and to hear his adventures. They possessed every kind of interest. He had many elegances of his own, whilst he scoffed at conventional elegance...!

Like all of us here, I will miss Gosta greatly, but am very glad that I was able to work with him. I have many wonderful memories from the years I knew him as a teacher, mentor, friend and colleague, and hope to pass on some of his legacy to another generation of students. Thomas L. Thompson It is with great sorrow that I say goodbye today to a great scholar and a dear friend. His commitment to truth and integrity in his work and 1. R.W. Emerson, 'Thoreau', in Collected Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson. X. Lectures and Biographical Sketches (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1904), pp. 478,480-81.

28


writing have been without peer. His work on Israelite religion was a landmark in our field that helped educate a whole generation of scholars. The completion of his monumental work on the history of Palestine in these final years was done with immense energy and fulness of his scholarship. Going over the drafts and final pages of his manuscript during the past two years brought me very close to him. His kindness and the generosity with which he gave of himself and his time to me and to many other younger colleagues—his constant concern for our welfare—was a reflection of his greatness. The loyalty and affection in which his friends and students have held him I hope brought satisfaction and contentment to his final years. His death leaves us bereft. His sudden death has left me without enough words: Gosta—who had such vigor and strength—I had never thought of him as fragile. I realize how much he had come to mean to me but I don't know how to say this, how to express and share my sense of loss. I would like to use a crutch and read to you from a poem that he and I talked about on the day I first met him. It was one he was very fond of. To whom can I speak today? There is lack of a friend. One must go to an unknown to complain to him. To whom can I speak today? There is no one contented of heart. The one with whom I went He no longer exists To whom can I speak today? I am burdened and wretched. For lack of a friend. Death is in my sight today like the recovery of a sick man. Like going outside after confinement. Death is in my sight today like the odor of myrrh. Like sitting under an awning on a breezy day. Death is in my sight today like the odor of lotus blossoms. Like sitting on the banks of drunkenness. Death is in my sight today like the passing away of rain. Like the return of men to their houses from an expedition. Death is in my sight today like the clearing of the sky. Like a man hunting thereby for what he knew not.


29

Death is in my sight today like the longing of a man to see his home again. After he has spent many years in captivity.1

Anthony C. Yu How does one speak of the span of a lifetime in the cramped space of a few sentences? How does one recount the friendship of more than two decades in a few fleeting minutes? If our remembrance of Gosta this morning needs must be selective and fragmentary, the life that forms the subject of our speeches was remarkable for its coherence, its steadfastness of purpose, and its passionate devotion to things of the mind. We came to Swift Hall at almost exactly the same time—I, a graduate student and he, already a published and known scholar. I did not get to study with him and, in retrospect, it might have been a stroke of luck for me that he, as a new faculty member, was spared the task of correcting comprehensive examinations required of all entering students. He might not have liked what I had to say about the Bible and the canon. Several years later when I joined the faculty, it was he who took the initiative of seeking out a new junior colleague. I can't recall the exact date of our first real meeting, but the vividness of the occasion is indelibly etched in my memory because it betokens all his characteristic generosity and directness in action and word. I was checking my mailbox in Swift 306 when I heard this rapid-fire and accented address behind me: 'Hi, there! I'm Gosta Ahlstrom. Welcome to the Divinity School faculty!' From that time on, there was never a passing in the hallway or an encounter before a faculty meeting without my reception of that inimitable greeting—'Hi there'—and some pleasant verbal exchange. Several more years later after I had moved into S 300, the proximity of office space encouraged frequent and easy contacts: the quick discussion of a matter of mutual concern in the life of Swift Hall, the assessment of a lecture we just heard, the occasional borrowing of books or journals, the sharing of a good joke, of a particularly cogent and devastating refutation in scholarly footnotes, or of the plan and direction of one's next research project. Even in the camaraderie of academic banter or the sudden heat of an unanticipated debate, he was always eager in relating to me his happy experiences with his children—a particularly 1. Adapted from J.A. Wilson, 'Egyptian Didactic Tales', in ANET, pp. 406-407. Used with permission.

30


memorable excursion with Pernille, or all those baseball games and violin lessons with Hans. He also took special delight in shattering my cultural chauvinism by picking up a pair of chopsticks—hitherto untouched by him—and eating an entire meal as if he had been using these unwieldy utensils all his life! Those brief though intimate moments added cherished knowledge of Gb'sta the man even as I learned deeply from Gosta the scholar. As with so many other colleagues on this campus, Gosta the scholar I knew first from reading his writings. I can hardly claim competence in his area of expertise, but there are qualities in his scholarship that transcend the limitations of a layman who, at times, may even dare harbor opposing views on history and philology. Over the years, he has taught me that there can be no substitute for the most minute attention paid to language, text and context; that skepticism and naivete are both required for reconstructive historiography; that such historiography can persuade only if the argument is meticulously crafted from beginning to end; that there is no shame in going over old ground and correcting one's own mistakes when new materials and points of view come to light. If his publications thus reveal a relentlessly keen intellect and unyielding integrity, the person in reality was much more than that. True, he could be captious and critical of what he considered to be foolishness and stupid arguments, but he could be equally vocal in praising excellence in both faculty and student colleagues. Time and again in his office, he had shown me the work of his students and spoke with delight and excitement of their discovery and their growth, and of how they had enlarged and enlightened his own work. Our professional activities of scholarly discrimination and disputation, I'm embarrassed to say, tend to foster combativeness, and with it, the two sins of pride and envy. Like all of us, Gosta was subject to their stubborn potency, but unlike most of us, he had the capacity to summon courage and conviction for countering such faults of the spirit. Within the life of the academy, it is perhaps easy to weep with those who weep; but to rejoice with those who rejoice when those mean younger and perhaps even less meritorious individuals, it requires the special grace of magnanimity. For all his reported crankiness and difficult disposition, Gosta had an astonishing measure of this ancient virtue. I cannot end my tribute to him today without protesting the abruptness with which he was taken from our midst. Consistent with his aspiration, he was looking forward to retirement because, as he said to


31

me repeatedly, it would allow him to visit the library more frequently. And indeed, it was on the fourth and fifth floors of Regenstein that we met most often during the last few years, and it was there that he described to me the vicissitudes of producing his life-long project, a religious history of Syria-Palestine. After the unrelenting labor of so many years, the seemingly interminable wait, and the unexpected setbacks brought about by unconscionable publishers, his book finally would make its appearance. I am glad he had assurance at least of that possibility, though I wish that he were given the chance to see the material reality. You will be sorely missed, dear friend! You have left us all too suddenly, and I regret that I could not even bid you farewell properly. Let me do so this morning with the words of another teacher-colleague who is also a Swede. Farewell, who would not wait for a farewell; Sail the ship that each must sail alone; Though no man knows if such strange sea-farers Fare ill or well, Fare well: Learn, if you must, what they must learn who sail The craft that must sink; sail, till the tall cloud Is closer to the keel than that far floor, And to those deepest deeps descend, go down; Though you fare ill, you yet fare well, to be King of an empty empire's kingdom come, Amid the ruins and treasures of that sea; Learn, if you fare well, There in the last apocalypse of the waves What twilights deepen on the drowned man drifting Atlantiswards, what hues light herons' wings Aloft in sunset skies when earth is dark, What unheard chords complete all music's close, When, fierce as rubies in the vein-dark mine, The lit blood blazes as the brain goes black; Last jewel of the world of light, until The kingdom come of greater light, and death of night, and death Of Death, that shall also die, If all fare well.1 1. E. Olson, 'A Farewell', in Collected Poems (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 122. Used with permission.

32

The Pitcher is Broken James M. Gustafson

'Scholars are today's monks.' This favorite aphorism of Gosta's describes his devotion to scholarship and his discipline in the exercise of his calling. The words are from Nathan Soderblom, whom he deeply admired. Gosta kept rigorous, virtually canonical hours that brought him to his study in Swift Hall, or to his carrel in Regenstein not only on Saturdays, but Sundays as well. That discipline was not an externally imposed routine resulting from some monastic vow. It was motivated by a deep passion for knowledge, and by acute analytical acumen that delighted in finding the errors of others and marshalling evidences for his own case. Not only knowledge of primary texts and archaeological evidences, but coverage of secondary materials pertinent to his work was almost an obsession with him. Occasionally he would show me an article he had read, and then point out that its author apparently did not know that the same or a similar thesis was proposed in an article published years ago in some language that the author probably did not read very often. A few times the neglected author had the initials G.W.A. I recall several years ago when a Russian scholar was the guest of the Oriental Institute. In conversation with him Gosta excitedly discovered that some of the man's Russian articles would be significant for Gosta's own work. My pulse dropped. I had visions of Gosta learning Russian to take account of that work before he completed his own. But fortunately, and perhaps with some sense of scholarly insufficiency, he found someone to translate what he needed. Thoroughness. All those index cards—and he seemed always to know where to find what he needed. Those cards and the resulting footnotes evoked wonderful ribbing from Pernille and Hans, and deep admiration from students and scholars. Many of his publications were erudite and technical beyond my capacities to judge or even fully understand. Listen to the titles of just a few of the off-prints I have. 'A Note on a Textual Problem in I Kings 4:16'—a one-page piece offering corrections to Harvard's Frank Cross. 'King Josiah and the DWD of Amos 6:10'—a page and a half with about the same number of words in the notes. 'Giloh: A Judahite or * This tribute was previously published in Criterion 31.1(1992), pp. 22-25, and The University of Chicago Record 27.2 (1993), pp. 5-6.


33

Canaanite Settlement?'—about two and a half pages long. 'Was David a Jebusite Subject?'—Gosta claims that he was, and that this explains a lot of other things, in two tightly argued pages with almost equal space given to notes. These articles are not only erudite, but also show creative imagination—setting old materials in different contexts which warrant a new interpretation. They are part of what of my Emory colleague whose work is closest to Gosta's had in mind when he told me, 'What a role he played for us all! He kept all of us on our toes.' His scholarship, like his oral responses to learned papers, was often polemical. There is a streak of learned iconoclasm in a lot of it. Some of this might have been temperamental; some of it came from his Uppsala training. Swedes in his generation were not given to discussion, but to debate, as I know from my own participation in Swedish academic life in the late fifties. One argued to win, and not only to inform. Scholarship was not a field for the intellectually timid, and one was expected to take, as well as give, candor. But it has generally been possible for Gosta to introduce some jocular banter along the way, or afterwards. Gosta believed quite deeply that often the religious and theological interests of his colleagues led them to rely too heavily on the historical information in the Bible to support their interpretations. The skepticism about objectivity in research and writing that now has names drawn from philosophy and literary criticism has always been in Gosta's work. But it was accompanied by confidence that linguistic accuracy and precision, archaeological evidences, reconstruction of the social, religious and political conditions in which events occurred and solid construction of arguments based on these could give a more accurate account of biblical events, persons and religion. I heard it said, 'Ahlstrom is a positivist'. This was not meant as a compliment. If that meant he believed that scholarship using available information could get nearer to the truth about the past, so be it. And we can be grateful for it. Like all of us with enough bias to bring some coherence to the materials we use, Gosta had a point of view. And like all learned biases, his exposed the weaknesses of others and provided the thematic features of his own work. Gosta viewed himself as a historian of religion, and so he was. One of his mentors was Geo Widengren, no pale luminary internationally in that field, and a man who admired Gosta's work. Certainly Gosta's methods in the history of religion were not those that prevailed during his residence in Swift Hall, and the distance he experienced from his

34


colleagues in that field was a source of pain and even bitterness to him. But what was not always perceived here was his significance to colleagues in his field all over the scholarly world. The recognition he received in the last decade certainly uplifted his spirits. I encouraged him to apply for a Guggenheim Fellowship so that he could concentrate on the completion of his major work. He pointed out that not many persons his age received one. I pointed out from lists of recipients that there were a few persons in his age range whose work was rewarded. His Guggenheim was a great boost to his spirits, and to his reputation in the University of Chicago, as well as to the completion of his book. Some of us recall the wonderful occasion of the presentation of his Festschrift in May 1985. The book testifies to his decisive influence on his students as well as to his contributions to his peers. The next day my wife, Louise, and I left for Uppsala; I had the privilege of telling his old friends and comrades there of that happy event. There are many sad things about Gosta's death, but one of the saddest is that he did not live to see what was truly a life's work in its final form. It was not easy for him to finish that manuscript; some new material always had to be taken into account, and sometimes that required more than another footnote. The delay in publication was not his fault. When he had finally withdrawn his manuscript from his derelict publisher, and had flown with it to Sheffield, England, and had gotten immediate acceptance and a schedule for prompt publication he phoned me with great joy and relief. But he was not simply, these past months, waiting to see the book; he was still today's monk—a scholar working on articles, trying to reduce all he knew should be taken into account to the limits set by an editor. The book is his principal legacy. One can be sure that even in death, Gosta will fuel scholarly controversy to the benefit of all who are interested and concerned. The book will not be dismissed, except by the shallow-minded, as Ahlstrb'm's bias; its arguments will have to be answered in their details because the arguments are in the details. Gosta was deeply concerned about curriculum, appointments and other issues in this university's Divinity School and its Near Eastern Department. He was not the most discreet colleague I ever had! Surely to some he was injudicious. He spoke his opinions bluntly and with great passion, and sometimes was quite alone in supporting his views. I am sure that to some, the memory of Gosta is that of a confrontational


35

person who had limited sympathy for alternative visions and proposals to his own. He certainly was anti-theological and the ministry program was an enigma to him. In a way I think he felt more at home across University Avenue in the Oriental Institute than he did in Swift Hall— though I like to believe he felt most at home in Regenstein! What fueled his passions was a conviction about what constituted scholarship in religious studies, one more limited than his colleagues shared. But—one always knew where Gosta stood, and why he stood there. There was no politic equivocation, no heed to whether colleagues would resent both what he said and how he said it. If honesty refers to a correspondence between what a person thinks and feels and his or her expression of it, Gosta was an ideal model of an honest colleague. I am sure he was as outspoken to his deans as he was to others. His proposals seldom prevailed, but his personal integrity always did. I cannot speak, except as an external observer, about Gosta as teacher, as mentor. The expectations he had of himself certainly rested heavily on his students, and like any true mentor's they surely have beneficial effects on their work. His devotion to his students, and especially to the best of them, matches that of anyone I have ever known in forty years. And the devotion was reciprocated, as the Festschrift and the presence of some of them here testifies. The relations were not only mentor to student; they became, in varying degrees of depth, the relations of friends. To anyone who was nosy enough to ask what church Gosta belonged to, he responded with ebullient confidence, 'I belong to the Church of Sweden'. That always stopped that line of inquiry! I came to believe that it was almost a matter of principle for Gosta never to attend a religious service. There were exceptions: happily he and Ria both came to the wedding service of our daughter, Birgitta. But there was a piety—perhaps an undenominational sort—that on rare occasions was expressed in words. Gosta and I grew up in a very similar Swedish piety, he in Sweden and I in this country. To the Scandinavians Good Friday is Long Friday. It is always a spiritually disturbing day. One Long Friday I left my room early in the afternoon, unable to concentrate on work at hand. Gosta happened to leave at the same time. In a soft, but passionate way, he said to me in Swedish, 'Long Fridays are awfully long days for us Swedes'. We left Swift Hall silently together and when our ways parted, it was with a quiet 'Hef to each other.

36


I came to suppose that if one could eliminate all the doctrine that Gosta would find offensive, the Russian Orthodox liturgy would have provided him an ecclesial home. The only times I heard him wax eloquent about worship were when he described an Eastern Easter service he attended in Jerusalem, and the experience of mystery it evoked. The gruff Ahlstrom was not without an almost unknown depth of spirit. Och s& till sist\ and now to the last, as Swedish preachers are wont to close their sermons. The wit! The humor! The charm! The joy! The frivolity! All this also is what we remember about Gosta. Gosta could tell a good story, but he excelled in wit—the form of humor I think is most intelligent. That sharp wit was never really cynical, though sometimes a bit caustic. It was always quick. I think we have never conversed by phone since we left Chicago but that some remark of mine would lead to a very witty response, and then to laughter. The only time I ever had an office in which I would be disturbed by peals of laughter from a neighbor's was in Swift 300. It seemed that conferences with students, and surely with those who had become friends, were hilarious, though one knew serious business was being conducted. His charm (if we can still use this word without derogatory overtones)—his capacity to create and evoke delight was an aspect of his life not always appreciated. Gosta the cellist and singer were not widely known in Hyde Park; nor were his discriminating judgments of musical performances. Indeed, he was a more deeply cultured person than those who knew him only from a one-page article on 1 Kgs 4.16 probably ever expected. He was a doting father to Pernille and Hans; and a doting but stern master to Pippin, the dog. The gentle ribbing his family could give him about his scholarly life—the index cards and footnotes—was well received. His grandson Nikolai—just to ask about him brought delight, and at least once a proprietary claim: 'He's an Ahlstrom, you know'. Gosta loved a good party. Student parties were much a part of his social life, and even now students find celebrating with a party to be a fitting tribute. For the Gustafsons, the memories of just plain fun, along with all the others, will last as long as we live. The annual visit to our home on the afternoon of Christmas Eve: the glogg was hot (and always judged by Gosta's discriminating palate); as Ahlstroms would approach the door we started a record, W« dr del Jul igen, Nu dr det Jul igen', a children's


37

Christmas dance, 'Now it is Christmas again'. And so it was, with Ria's Danish cookies added to all that Louise had prepared. The New Year's Eves at Ahlstroms': nothing was permitted more intellectually serious than finding the correct square to cover in continuous games of Bingo, in which everyone won some prize each game! We remember Gosta, each in his or her own ways. We also remember Ria, Pernille and Hans, who mourn more deeply than the rest of us. We are grateful to them for all they brought to Gosta's life—a life that we all have enjoyed and from which we have benefited. We are in part what our families enable us to be. Not just Gosta, but the Ahlstroms. For how you sustained Gosta in difficult times and nourished him, we are grateful.

Robert D. Haak* Gosta Ahlstrom, who was president of the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature from 1976-1978 and who has long been active in the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the American Oriental Society, died on January 17, 1992, after an accident and short hospitalization. Most of those who remember Gosta will remember him for the breadth of his life—not least the 73 years of his time among us. His breadth was not only in years but in culture and geography. His early years were spent in Sweden, as anyone who spoke to him readily guessed. It was a long and sometimes difficult journey both geographically and intellectually from his early days working for a shoe company in Sweden to the hallowed grounds of the University of Chicago, where he came in 1962. This breadth was evident to those who knew his scholarly work. He was interested in texts—from major early work on Psalm 89 to a small article on Prov. 9.1, 'The House of Wisdom'. From his days as a student in Uppsala he wrote on kingship, temple, and cult. Important works such as Joel and the Temple Cult of Jerusalem and Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion are known to many of us. He had a continuing and deep interest in archaeology in Africa, Cyprus, Jordan, and, of course, Israel. His provocative work in this area will long be remembered. I * Tribute read at the annual Midwest SBL/ASOR/AOS meeting, February 16 1992.

38


doubt that many of us will equate Tell ed-Duweir with ancient Lachish without at least a moment's remembrance of the interest of Gosta in this site. Finally, and maybe most importantly, Gosta was interested in history. In his later years, this was the focus of his attention. In a Festschrift presented to Dr Ahlstrom at the Midwest meetings in Bloomington, Indiana, Boyd Barrick and John Spencer make the following observations: The history and culture of ancient Palestine is a landscape bewildering in its complexity, with numerous conflicting evidential cross-currents and few certain landmarks to guide even the seasoned explorer—not unlike a Swedish blizzard. Nonetheless, a few areas of relative clarity do exist. Ahlstrom's research has sought to identify and demarcate these areas of clarity to produce, as it were, 'parenthesis in a snowstorm'. This phrase originated as a passing remark dropped by Ahlstrom in a classroom lecture on Old Testament history at Chicago. It reveals the sly humor which enlivens his teaching and conversations but appears all too rarely in his publications. It also aptly describes the somewhat episodic, parenthetical nature of much of his scholarly work. His great synthesis awaits.1

Fortunately, this great synthesis will appear. The manuscript of his history of Syria-Palestine was completed before his death and will soon be published by Sheffield Academic Press.2 Gosta's breadth is clear. What is not so clear to those who knew him only from his scholarly work is his depth, not the depth of his scholarly work, which is evident from plowing through footnotes in any of his writings, but rather the depth of his spirit as a husband, a father and a friend. Those of us who were fortunate enough to know him, first as intimidated students on the third floor of Swift Hall and in the seminar rooms of the Oriental Institute, later as colleagues in his office, his library carrel, and his home, know of his cool humor, his great joy in life and learning, his strength of character, and finally the depth of his commitment not only to scholarship but to each of us. He will leave his legacy within the scholarly world. Even more importantly, he will be remembered with warm smiles by those who knew him well. He will be missed. 1. W.B. Barrick and J.R. Spencer, 'Parentheses in a Snowstorm: G.W. Ahlstrom and the Study of Ancient Palestine', in idem (eds.), In the Shelter ofElyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrom (JSOTSup, 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), p. 60. 2. Published as The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D.V. Edelman; JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).

G.W. AHLSTROM: A BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONCLUSION) Hans G. Ahlstrom and Lowell K. Handy

This bibliography continues and completes that compiled by Beth GlazierMcDonald which was published in W.B. Barrick and J.R. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrom (JSOTSup, 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 31-42. The bibliographic entries are listed in order of publication, beginning with the items in Glazier-McDonald's list marked as forthcoming; therefore, nn. 82-92 have been derived from the 1984 listing and here may fall out of numerical sequence. The format conforms to that of the earlier bibliography. 85.

86.

88.

93.

The Tell Sfran Bottle Inscription. PEQ 116 (1984), pp. 12-15. A translation and interpretation of the inscription on a bronze bottle is provided. It is suggested that the reference being made in the text is to an agricultural religious ritual. The Early Iron Age Settlers at Hirbet el-Msds (Tel Masos). ZDPV 100 (1984), pp. 35-52. Ahlstrom describes settlement patterns of the twelfth to eleventh centuries in the Negev as demonstrating that house and building construction reflect indigenous populations moving into the area. It is not possible to connect these sites with Israelites. Giloh: A Judahite or Canaanite Settlement? IEJ 34 (1984), pp. 170-72. As a response to A. Mazar's suggestion that Giloh was a twelfth-century Israelite settlement, Ahlstrom argues that the evidence more likely suggests the site reflects resettlement by an indigenous populace. The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition. JNES 43 (1984), pp. 141-49. The narratives dealing with the ark, which appear in the book of Samuel, are argued to have been composed from various unrelated traditions derived from Shiloh, Kiriath-Jearim, and Jerusalem. The biblical narratives were composed to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh over all other deities worshiped in the vicinity of Judah as well as over the devotees of such divinities; they do not report historical events. Lack of any concern on the part of Israel for the ark stationed in Jerusalem is presented as evidence that the object was of no particular importance to the Northern Kingdom.

40


89. An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religions in Ancient Palestine (StudOr, 55.3; Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1984). This monograph surveys Iron Age religious artifacts in the area of Palestine with restricted reference to biblical texts. Numerous observations about the religious beliefs are deduced, among them that sun worship remained a constituent part of the religious world throughout the period. Religion in Israel and especially Judah is seen as a part of the wider religious culture complete with numerous sanctuaries and a pantheon of deities, including a female consort to Yahweh in the official cult of Judah. Depictions of lions, horses and bulls are suggested to be symbolic of various deities and textile production is argued to be related to cultic centers. 82. Review: The Discoveries of Dura-Europos, by C. Hopkins, ed. B. Goldman. JR 64 (1984), pp. 245-46. 84. Review: The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel, by H.W.F. Saggs. JR 64 (1984), pp. 370-71. 90. Review: The Art of Biblical Narrative, by R. Alter. JR 64 (1984), pp. 520-29. 94. Some Aspects of Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period. PEG LAMBS 4 (1984), pp. 54-65. This is a formal response to a paper presented by P.R. Ackroyd at the 1984 meeting of the Midwest SBL. Ahlstrom concurs with Ackroyd that the biblical vision of Judah under Persian control telescopes history such that all important events are seen to have occurred during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. Ahlstrom further argues that Ezra and Nehemiah appear to have been dictatorial in imposing their laws and rituals upon a populace which knew neither set of customs prior to the arrival of these Persian officials; both men are presented in the biblical texts, however, as perfect rulers. 95. Lachish: Still a Problem. PEQ 117 (1985), pp. 97-99. This is a reply to the critique of G.I. Davies concerning Ahlstrom's suggestion that Tell ed-Duweir was not ancient Lachish but Libnah. Ahlstrom insists the evidence is too weak to sustain the Lachish identification and prefers to believe the site was Libnah. 96. Merneptah's Israel. With D. Edelman. JNES 44 (1985), pp. 59-61. The authors propose a ring pattern for the formation of the sites conquered by Merneptah as recorded on the inscription. Assuming this pattern, it is suggested that Israel was literarily paralleled to Canaan and that the most logical placement of the area called Israel was the central hill country of Palestine. 87. Review: The World History of the Jewish People IV: 1: The Age of the Monarchies: Political History, and IV:2: The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society, ed. by A. Malamat and I. Eph'al. JNES 44 (1985), pp. 63-67. 97. The Cultroom at 'En Gev. Tel Aviv 12 (1985), pp. 93-95. The cultic materials appearing in a fortification are taken as proof that the site was an official Israelite military establishment with an official sanctuary. By the time the ninth-century inscription was composed, however, the site had been occupied by Aram, though it continued to function as a fortress together with the formerly Israelite, now Aramaean, sanctuary. 83. Review: Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, by R.R. Wilson. JNES 44 (1985), pp. 217-20.

G.W. Ahlstrom: A Bibliography 98. 99. 91. 100.

101.

102. 103.

104.

105.

41

Review: Palestine in Transition: The Emergence of Ancient Israel, ed. by D.N. Freedman and D.F. Graf. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43 (1986), cols. 175-78. Review: Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. by T. Ishida. JAOS 106 (1986), pp. 573-75. Review: La Deesse TNT: une etude sur la religion canaaneo-punique, by P.O. Hvidberg-Hansen. JNES 45 (1986), pp. 311-14. Who Were the Israelites? (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986). This book investigates the progression of the use of the term 'Israel' in both biblical and extra-biblical documents. There are three discernible stages in the use of the term. First it was used as a geographical designation for a territory defined by the hill country west of the Jordan River. Those people who settled in the territory of Israel took the term for their state when they organized themselves into a nation. Finally, it became a religious term to designate those who subscribed to the religious reforms of Ezra in the Persian period. The Battle at Ramoth-Gilead in 841 BC. Wunschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications to the Xllth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986, ed. by M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck (Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, 13; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), pp. 157-66. Ahlstrom proposes the possibility that Hazael of Aram-Damascus was allied with Joram of Israel against the Assyrians. The battle at Ramoth-Gilead is then understood as an action taken against Assyrian forces marauding through Aramean territory. Jehu is seen as an opportunistic general, who, seeing the way the tide of history was flowing, revolted against Joram in alliance with Shalmaneser III, becoming an Assyrian vassal in return for the throne of Israel. The book of Kings retells the entire historical event as a theological condemnation of the house of Omri in which Shalmaneser III plays no part whatsoever. Review: Maps of the Holy Land: Cartobibliography of Printed Maps, 1475-1900, by E. Laor. JNES 47 (1988), pp. 194-95. Kung So och Israels undergang. SEA 54 (1989), pp. 5-19. The article argues against the common identification of the biblical 'So' of Egypt with Sais, the Egyptian name. Rather, it is argued that So was King Osorkon IV of the Eastern Delta and that Hoshea, King of Israel, conspired with Osorkon in a revolt against Assyria that would, in fact, result in the destruction of Israel. Prophetical Echoes of Assyrian Growth and Decline. DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjoberg, ed. by H. Behrens, D. Loding and M.T. Roth (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11; Philadelphia: Babylonian Section, University Museum, 1989), pp. 1-6. This survey examines what can be determined regarding Judean knowledge about and reaction to Assyrian expansion in the West from the time of Tiglathpileser III in the poetry of Isaiah of Jerusalem to the destruction of Assyria described in Nahum's vivid acrostics. Particular attention is paid to the reign of Josiah, when the political power over Judah shifted from Assyria to Egypt. Diffusion in Iron Age Palestine: Some Aspects. SJOT 1 (1990), pp. 81-105. The origins of the various peoples who would live in the lands stretching from Syria to Sinai in the Iron Age are described. It is claimed that the aggregate populace was known to the biblical writers as 'Canaanites' though they were, in

42

106.

107. 108. 109.

110. 111.

112. 113.

114.

115. 116.

The Pitcher is Broken fact, of diverse ethnic groups. Certain religious traditions appear to have been common among these peoples, each community interpreting these symbols and their deities for its own society. Using both biblical texts and archaeological data it is shown that Judah and Israel belonged to this larger culture and that the biblical writers have exaggerated the religious distance between 'Israel' and 'Canaan'. The Bull Figurine from Dhahrat et-Tawileh. BASOR 280 (1990), pp. 77-82. From its artistic style, it is argued that a twelfth-century figurine reflects a northern populace moving southward from the Galilee/Hazor region into new settlements. It is also suggested that these people may not have been part of the Canaanite culture. Review: Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, ed. by A.F. Rainey. JNES 49 (1990), pp. 167-69. Review: Von Sinuhe bis Nebukanezar, 2nd edn, ed. by A. Jepsen and K.-D. Schunck. TLZ 115 (1990), cols. 423-25. The Origin of Israel in Palestine. SJOT 2 (1991), pp. 19-34. Ahlstrom argues that the only evidence for outside penetration into the hill country of Palestine in the twelfth century points to peoples coming from the north. Israel must have been an indigenous populace related to the area of land in the hill country named Israel. The biblical narratives of the exodus and the Wilderness Wandering must be seen as theological/literary fictions. Review: Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, ed. by T. Linders and G. Nordquist. JNES 50 (1991), pp. 144-47. Review: Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City State from Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians, by W.T. Pitard. JNES 50 (1991), pp. 147-50. Review: Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, ed. by S.M. Olyan. JAOS 110 (1990), pp. 578-80. The Role of Archaeological and Literary Remains in Reconstructing Israel's History. The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past, ed. by D.V. Edelman (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 116-41. Ahlstrom stresses the tentative nature of doing biblical history. Archaeology and the Bible present quite different visions of the history of the same time and area. Archaeological data are quite insufficient to produce a complete history of the region. The authors of biblical narratives took historical events and rewrote them so extensively that only the purposes of those authors can be recovered, not the events upon which they built. The Nora Inscription and Tarshish. MAARA V 1 (1991), pp. 41-49. Ahlstrom offers a new translation for the inscription fragment. It is suggested that the text reflects pressure on the Phoenicians by the Assyrian westward expansion. It is also suggested that ancient Tarshish was located east of Sardinia and that Spain, therefore, must be dropped as a site for references to biblical Tarshish. Review: Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum, by T.C. Mitchell. JNES 51 (1992), pp. 223-24. Review: La Palestina, storia di una terra: L'etd antica e cristiana, I'Islam, le questions attuali, by A. Giardina, M. Liverani and B. Riuniti. JNES 51 (1992), pp. 224-26.

G.W. Ahlstrom: A Bibliography

43

117. Pharaoh Shoshenq's Campaign to Palestine. History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen May 8th 1993, ed. by A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (VTSup, 50; Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 1-16. By comparing accounts of Shoshenq's Palestinian campaign which appear in 1 Kings and in the inscription at Karnak in Egypt it is determined that the biblical narrative does not reflect the actual invasion. Ahlstrom argues that the Pharaoh used bases in Megiddo and Gaza as staging areas from which military strikes were executed by two divisions of his army. That the Egyptian lists do not mention Judah or Israel suggests either that the nations did not yet exist, or that Egypt preferred to ignore petty states, assuming itself to be still in control of the area. 118. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest, ed. by D.V. Edelman. With a Contribution by G.O. Rollefson (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Ahlstrom's magnum opus. This volume traces the vicissitudes of human habitation in Palestine from the beginnings of human existence in the area to the collapse of the Persian Empire. The historical reconstruction of the petty states of Israel and Judah constitutes the major portion of the book. Using the biblical texts in conjunction with archaeological data, a portrait is made of the minor states in the area which becomes known as Palestine. The center of political authority and cultural focus passes to neighboring kingdoms, though the history of Judah and Israel retains central focus in the book simply from the amount of data available for historical reconstruction. 119. The Seal of Shema'. SJOT 1 (1993), pp. 208-15. Ahlstrom argues that the Jeroboam whom Shema' served was Jeroboam I, not Jeroboam II as commonly argued. He reviews the find spot and notes that the materials reported in the immediate vicinity tended to be late tenth century in date. 120. Review: Palastina in vorhellenistischer Zeit, by H. Weippert. JNES 53 (1994), pp. 37-41. 121. Review: Harper's Bible Commentary, ed. by J.L. Mays. JNES 53 (1994), pp. 41-43. Forthcoming: 122. Administration of the State in Canaan and Israel. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. by J. Sasson, G. Beckmen, J. Baines, K. Rubinson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons). This article outlines what is currently known about state ideology in Canaan and Israel. The manner in which the ruler controlled finances and territory outside of the central city is discussed.

DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS DIRECTED BY GOSTA w. AHLSTROM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Anderson, R.W., "The Civic Responsibility of Israelite and Judaean Kingship' (1985). Barrick, W.B., "The Word BMH in the Old Testament' (1977). Bedford, P.R., 'Temple and Community in Early Achaemenid Judah' (1992). Catron, Janice E., "The yad of God in the Hebrew Bible: An Archaeological, Literary, and Theological Study' [1995]. Edelman, D.V., "The Rise of the Israelite State under Saul' (1986). Glazier-McDonald, B., 'Malachi, the Divine Messenger: A Critical Reappraisal' (1983). Haak, R.D., 'Habakkuk among the Prophets' (1986). Handy, L.K., 'A Realignment in Heaven: An Investigation into the Ideology of the Josianic Reform' (1987). Holloway, S.W., 'The Case for Assyrian Religious Influence in Israel and Judah: Inference and Evidence' (1992). Kaiser, B.B., 'Reconsidering Parallelism: A Study of the Structure of Lamentations 1, 2, and 4' (1983). Nishizu, T.J., 'Bethel and the Rebellions of Israel: Redactional Elements in the Book of Amos' (1982). Spencer, J.R., "The Levitical Cities: A Study of the Role and Function of the Levites in the History of Israel' (1980).

ZEPHANIAH BEN CUSHI AND CUSH OF BENJAMIN: TRACES OF CUSHFTE PRESENCE IN SYRIA-PALESTINE

Roger W. Anderson, Jr

During May of 1990, in a BA Honors seminar on the history and religion of Syria-Palestine at the University of Zimbabwe, several student reports raised questions about the figures of Cush and Cushi in the biblical material. Reports focused on Zephaniah ben Cushi (possibly a black prophet in Judah?) and the superscription of Psalm 7 where there is mention of a Cush of Benjamin (a black in Judah?). Every student questioned the interpretation of Genesis 10 which they had been told for many years, mostly by religious and political groups during the apartheid days in Zimbabwe under white rule when the country was called Rhodesia. The seminar began to explore traditions about Cush and Cushi in various literature with materials available at the University. One student from Mozambique even focused his research paper on tribal traditions mentioning Cush told by groups originating from several southern areas of Mozambique currently living in refugee camps in Zimbabwe.1 A critical and important aspect to this study was the focus that the students placed on trying to comprehend how mention of Cushites, usually considered 'Ethiopians' or 'blacks' in scholarly writing, should be overlooked by biblical scholars, or relegated at best to footnotes in scholarly endeavors. Another important issue raised concerned the arrival of Cushites in Syria-Palestine. The date of arrival and the place of 1. The student, Arao Litsure, recorded interviews with about 20 different people, asking them to relate their stories of Cush in their tradition. He also asked where they believed the tribe had originated. The fascinating study, 'Aspects of the Family Institutions in Ancient Israel (Palestine) and Egypt and among the Tsonga of South Mozambique: A Comparative Study' (BA Rons dissertation, University of Zimbabwe, 1991), provides information and clues about oral traditions, Bantu migrations and connections between sub-Saharan Africa and the lands of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia.

46


embarkation for Cushites were also important issues. Consequently, the figures of Zephaniah ben Cushi and Cush of Benjamin were the entree into critical studies of the history of Syria-Palestine by students in search of a possible connection between their own heritage and ancient biblical traditions. Thus, their curiosity led to a closer look at Cushite traditions and presence in Syria-Palestine. The relationship between Egypt and Syria-Palestine is an issue which has been explored for quite some time, especially in light of the frequent direct references and illusions to Egypt in the biblical material.2 Biblical scholars often focus on the influences from the east, especially the Assyrian and Babylonian empires,3 on Israel and Judah while diminishing the significance of Egyptian domination of the region.4 When studies do appeal to the empire to the south, it is usually the military domination by the Egyptians over the region that is detailed, with little attention paid to interconnections in trade, politics and other areas.5 Egyptologists also have produced studies in which the biblical material is intertwined with Egyptian history as an illustration or verification of the biblical story.6 2. See, for example, R.J. Williams, 'Egypt and Israel', in J.R. Harris (ed.), The Legacy of Egypt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1971), pp. 257-62, and idem, ' "A People Come Out of Egypt": An Egyptologist Looks at the Old Testament', in Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup, 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 232-49. 3. Williams, 'People Come Out of Egypt', p. 231, and H.F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Research (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2nd edn, 1966), pp. 8892. 4. With the exception of the Joseph stories and the exodus traditions, most writings in Hebrew Bible studies emphasize the importance of Babylonian and Assyrian literature and history rather than Egyptian materials. 5. For example, P.T. Crocker, 'Cush and the Bible', Buried History (June 1986), pp. 27-38. Even though N. Na'man ('The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt', Tel Aviv 6 [1979], p. 85) focuses on the Assyrian domination of Syria-Palestine in the eighth and seventh centuries, he does indicate the continued presence of trade between Egyptian cities and possibly the government, with Syro-Palestinian seaports. See, however, T.N.D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy (ConBOT, 5; Lund: Gleerup, 1971), pp. 45-51, 58-60, 67-69, 107-10, 140-57, and E.W. Heaton, Solomon's New Men (London: Thames & Hudson, 1974), especially the survey on pp. 162-78, which are important exceptions to the usual presentations. 6. For example, P. Montet (Egypt and the Bible [trans. L.R. Keylock; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968]), pp. 3-47. However, D.B. Redford (Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

ANDERSON Zephaniah ben Cushi and Cush of Benjamin

47

As is well known, the vast majority of biblical scholars have paid little attention to presenting a picture of ancient Near Eastern history into which the biblical traditions can be set and which incorporates textual and material cultural information from a wide variety of disciplines.7 Though a significant number of scholars specializing in an area of ancient Near Eastern studies, such as Egyptology and Assyriology, have depended less on biblical stories to understand interrelationships in the ancient world, it is often the case that many non-biblical scholars rely heavily on the biblical material for their historical presentations. The product of such scholarly endeavor is often a similar story, usually restating a particular perspective on the biblical stories. There are, however, some exceptions, but even these seem to use material from other disciplines to illustrate their argument rather than sifting through a variety of cultural material to write a composite historical narrative. Onedimensional views resulting from such approaches provide a rather simplistic view of the interaction between cultures.8 The interconnections between the various cultures and regions of the ancient Near East are much more complex than has been suggested by most previous scholars.9 The reconstruction of Syro-Palestinian history must take into account a wide range of material from many areas, including epigraphic and iconographic presentations from various cultures. The task of the historian is to take into account as much 1992], pp. 395-469) provides a good historical perspective on the interconnection between Egypt and Syria-Palestine. 7. See G.W. Ahlstrom, 'Some Comments on John Bright's History of Israel', JAOS 95 (1975), pp. 236-41, and Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp. 261-62. 8. C.B. Gopher ('Egypt and Ethiopia in the Old Testament', in I. von Sertima (ed.), Nile Valley Civilizations: Proceedings of the Nile Valley Conference, Atlanta, September 26-30, 1984 [NP: Journal of African Civilizations, 1985] = Journal of African Civilizations 6.2 [1984], pp. 164-77) argues for a more inclusive view of black Africans in the ancient Near East, and especially in Syria-Palestine. 9. Some recent studies have tended to present a broader and more complex view of the ancient world. Some examples are W.G. Dever, 'Relations between SyriaPalestine and Egypt in the "Hyksos" Period', in J.N. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour ofOlga Tufnell (Occasional Publications, 11; London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985), pp. 69-80; Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel; R. Giveon, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan (OBO, 20; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), especially the survey on pp. 9-14; and W.S. Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East: A Study of the Relationships between the Arts of Egypt, the Aegean, and Western Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965).

48


information as possible in order to understand more clearly the period or issue under study10 so that a story can be written.11 If the focus of our research is to further the understanding of the Syro-Palestinian milieu, 'to tell the story of deeds and achievements of people living in society' ,12 and not just the recasting of old ideas or development of new illustrations for old biblical interpretations,13 then many avenues and a vast amount of additional material must be examined. The people and land of Cush,14 with a special focus on their involvement in SyroPalestinian history, is a case in point. In the biblical material, there are few references to Cush, Cushi or Cushites,15 a term usually associated with the territory south of Egypt often referred to as Nubia or the modern country of Sudan.16 The 10. See, for example, J.M. Miller, The Old Testament and the Historian (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), p. 14; M.L.B. Bloch, The Historian's Craft (trans. P. Putnam; New York: Knopf, 1963), pp. 66-69; and J.H. Hexter, Doing History (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1971). Ahlstrom's quotation of an observation by E.H. Carr, 'Our picture has been preselected and predetermined for us, not so much by accident as by people who were consciously imbued with a particular view, and thought the facts, which supported the view worth preserving' (Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine [SHANE, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1982], p. 81) is important to keep in mind. The situation is even more particularistic and complex to understand when religious zeal and fervor come into play in the selection and preservation of written and oral traditions. N.P. Lemche (The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites [JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], pp 156-73) questions whether the historical traditions can be used at all in a presentation of the history of Syria-Palestine. 11. G. J. Renier, History: Its Purpose and Method (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965). 12. Renier, History: Its Purpose and Method, p. 35. 13. See, for example, the criticism of Bright by Ahlstrom, 'Some Comments', pp. 236-41, and the cogent comments of G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (trans. J. Bowden; New York: Crossroad, 1988), pp. 14 and 16, and Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, p. 300. 14. Different spelling conventions for terms related to Cush/Kush are used by biblical scholars and Egyptologists. For the sake of convenience and continuity with most articles in biblical studies, the spelling 'Cush', 'Cushites' will be used throughout this study, even though the Egyptologists' use of 'Kush' is most likely more proper in referring to the group of people called Kushites or Nubians appearing in Egyptian history and other areas throughout the ancient Near East. 15. See below for specific references. 16. On this region, see, for example, A.J. Arkell, A History of the Sudan: From


49

prominence of Cushites or Nubians in history is usually focused on their rule of Egypt during the so-called 25th Dynasty (767-656 BCE).17 The impact of the Cushites on Egypt proper and lands dominated by Egypt prior to the takeover by Cushites during the 25th Dynasty has been explored in some detail, but not completely, mostly by Egyptologists.18 Significant studies of the history of the Cushite involvement and interaction with Egypt have been undertaken by Save-Soderbergh in 1941,19 and more recently by Adams,20 as well as a growing number of smaller specialized studies in many dispersed locations. Biblical scholars have tended to gloss over the mention of Cushites in the text,21 to explain the historical presence of Cushites by referring to them as 'Ethiopians',22 seemingly to change the geographical location or to focus on aspects other than the Cushites in the verse in which the Hebrew term is mentioned.23 As a consequence, there has been little Earliest Times to AD 1821 (London: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1961); B.G. Trigger, Nubia under the Pharaohs (Ancient Peoples and Places, 85; Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1976), pp. 23-185; H. Kees, Ancient Egypt: A Cultural Topography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 101; E.R. Dalglish, 'Cush', in IDE, I, p. 751; T.O. Lambdin, 'Ethiopia', in IDE, II, pp. 176-77; O. Wintermute, 'Cush', in IDBSup, pp. 200-201; D.W. Baker, 'Cush', in ABD, I, pp. 1219-20; R.H. Smith, 'Ethiopia', in ABD, II, pp. 665-67. 17. There are many different dates given for rulers in Egypt, just as for the kings of Israel and Judah. Most of the dates are taken from a course handout of K. Baer at the Oriental Institute. Other scholars providing sometimes quite different dates for Egyptian monarchs are K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 2nd edn, 1973), pp. 465-69; Kees, Ancient Egypt, pp. 345-48; A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), pp. 335-350. 18. See, for example, Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel; Giveon, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan, pp. 22-23, 125-26; and G. Posener, 'Syria and Palestine c. 21601780 BC: Relations with Egypt', in CAtf3,1.3, pp. 532-58. 19. T. Save-Soderbergh, Agypten und Nubien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte altdgyptischer Aussenpolitik (Lund: Hakan Ohlssons, 1941), pp. 5-245. 20. W.Y. Adams, Nubia, Corridor to Africa (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), pp. 135-381. 21. See, for example, J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster Press/John Knox, 1991), pp. 166-67; M. Dahood, Psalms 1-50 (AB, 16; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), p. 41. 22. See, for example, M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB, 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), p. 234. 23. See, for example, J.H. Eaton, Psalms (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM Press, 1967), p. 42.

50


effort to try to understand the term in a proper historical context. Furthermore, in studies based on a variety of textual traditions and material cultural remains,24 Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine has been virtually neglected in the larger picture of a history of the region. The pattern of focusing on the biblical tradition and using this same tradition as the basis for reconstructing the history of Syria-Palestine is exemplified again when one tries to understand Cushite presence in SyriaPalestine and reference to them in the biblical traditions.25 Gb'sta would have been in the forefront of questioning this stance and asking tough questions about what really happened historically with this people's involvement in Egyptian history—in the civil service, as slaves, as military conscripts, and other occupations—and their presence in Syria-Palestine. There appear to be two different approaches to understanding and explaining the presence of Cushites in Syria-Palestine. The first view is based on the biblical textual traditions.26 The second approach, largely the view of the Egyptologists, focuses mainly either on the involvement of two Nilotic kingdoms with each other or on the separate histories of Cush (Nubia) and Egypt.27 It is clear that neither of these two positions 24. When looking at a random sample of recent histories of Israel and Judah, Cush or Kush is noticeably lacking from the index. See, for example, J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1972); S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2nd edn, 1981); H. Jaegersma, A History of Israel in the Old Testament Period (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); J.A. Soggin, A History ofAcientnt Israel (ET; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984); and J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). 25. See, for example, Dalglish, 'Cush', p. 751, and Lambdin, 'Ethiopia', pp. 17677. 26. See, for example, Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, and Dalglish, 'Cush', p. 751. A different approach has been taken by Mafico in which he examines the practice of circumcision in the biblical traditions in light of traditional African material. See T.L.J. Mafico, 'Cush not Nuzi: The Origin of the Customs and Religious Practices of the Patriarchs', paper presented at the International Society of Biblical Literature, Vienna, Austria, August 5-8 1990. 27. See, for example, Arkell, A History, pp. 125-26; W.B. Emery, Egypt in Nubia (London: Hutchinson, 1965); W.A. Fairservis, Jr, The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile (New York: Mentor, 1962), pp. 191-92; B.G. Trigger, BJ. Kemp, D. O'Connor and A.B. Lloyd, Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 255-70; T. Save-Soderbergh, 'Kusch', in LA, III, cols. 888-93. A shorter similar article by an Assyriologist also has been published; see W. Rollig, 'Kus, Kuschiten', in RIA, VI, pp. 374-75.


51

can, by itself, adequately explain Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine. Also, a better understanding of the term within the history and culture of the first half of the first millennium BCE can provide another aspect of the story of the deeds and achievements of people in SyriaPalestine. An analysis can also bring to light views held by scholars which tend to denigrate or demean certain groups. And, finally, a broadened understanding of can help in clarifying the provenance of at least an editorial tradition, if not compositional layer, in some of the biblical material. The Hebraic biblical tradition contains 62 occurrences of (30), (27), and (5). The frequency of occurrence in literary genre of the terms is: prophetic literature (25), Deuteronomic History (13), Chronicler's History (10), Pentateuchal literature (6), Psalms (5) and Wisdom traditions (3).28 Further, the term appears to be used 49 times in reference to a geographical location and 13 times as a personal name.29 The most frequent occurrence of is as a geographical term.30 There is a definite correlation between Egypt and Cush,31 Libya and Cush,32 and even with Egypt, Cush, Put and Canaan,33 as these terms appear together in lists. Also, the extent of the Persian empire is described as stretching from India to Cush in the Esther story.34 The term seems to be used always in a general geographical sense describing the location of origin for the generic person or group There are a few instances where (7), > (2) and (4) are used as proper names referring to an individual.35 The most common use of as a personal name appears in reference to a son of Ham.36 These 28. See the interesting study of Gopher, 'Egypt and Ethiopia in the Old Testament', pp. 164-76, where he discusses Egypt, Ethiopia (Cush) and presentations (or lack of presentations) of Cushites by modern scholars. 29. All the specific references can be found in KB, ' 30. J.J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament: A Concise Commentary in xxxii Chapters (Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1959), §58. 31. Isa. 20.3, 5; 43.3; 45.14; Nah. 3.9. 32. Dan. 11.43. 33. Gen. 10.6; 1 Chron. 1.8. 34. Est. 8.9; 11.1. 35. S.S. Johnson, 'Cush', in ABD, I, p. 1219, and J.R. Bartlett, 'Cushan', in ABD, I, p. 1220. 36. Gen. 10.6, 7, 8; 1 Chron. 1.8, 9, 10. However, E.A. Speiser (Genesis [AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], p. 64) would distinguish these references, with

52


references are often taken to refer to the Cushites as 'black people' and, therefore, negatively,37 since the real heroes in the genealogical list are the descendants of Shem who eventually become the people of Israel and Judah.38 Two possible identifications of these descendants have been made by most biblical commentators. The most common identification makes the Cushites a group from the area south of Egypt, the same designation of Cush as is found in Egyptian texts.39 A second perspective has been to see these people as Kassites, the Hebrew term being understood as a corruption of the cuneiform term for these Babylonian rulers.40 There has even been the suggestion that within a single text both views of the Cushites are mentioned.41 The period of Kassite influence is during the Late Bronze Age and most likely their power did not directly permeate the political life of Syro-Palestinian states.42 Thus, an identification of the Cushites with a group from Mesopotamia is a most unlikely position which cannot be substantiated. Rather, the former view, identifying Cushites with the Late Bronze Age rulers of Egypt, is more consistent with Egyptian history. The other occurrence of KFD as a personal name is in the superscription of Psalm 7, where there is mention of Cush, a Benjaminite.43

some designating the area south of Egypt, others designating the Kassites. 37. See especially St.C. Drake, Black Folk Here and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology (Afro-American Culture and Society, 7; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), I, pp. 1-11 and pp. 38-42; and idem, Black Folk Here and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology (Afro-American Culture and Society, 9; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), II, pp. 1-30. 38. See, for example, G. von Rad, Genesis (trans. J.H. Marks; OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 140-41. 39. See, for example, D.B. Redford, 'Kush', in ABD, IV, pp. 109-11. 40. See, for example, Speiser, Genesis, p. 66. On the Kassites in Babylonian history, see A.K. Grayson, 'Mesopotamia, History of (Babylonia)', in ABD, IV, pp. 755-77, and the dates by J.A. Brinkman in A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (ed. E. Reiner; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, rev. edn, 1977), pp. 335-48. 41. Speiser, Genesis, p. 66. 42. Grayson, 'Mesopotamia, History of (Babylonia)', p. 761. 43. See, for example, Dahood, Psalms 1-50, p. 40; A. Weiser, The Psalms (trans. H. Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 134; and Eaton, Psalms, p. 42, where he changes the name to Kish to find mention of a story involving the house of David in another biblical story.


53

Johnson44 and McCarter45 refer to the story of the Cushite runner in 2 Samuel who brings bad news to David regarding the fate of Absalom as the basis for this lament.46 The name of the runner, however, is not clearly mentioned in the MT, even though McCarter argues that the lack of a definite article in the second occurrence in 2 Sam. 18.21-32 and the treatment of the term in the LXX traditions, Syriac, Vulgate and Targums as a personal name indicates that is a personal name in the MT.47 This is an attractive argument, even though there are no firm data to support it. Both occurrences of the term are used in the context of what appears to be a personal name.48 The first occurs in reference to Jehudi, a character in the story of the burning of the scroll by King Jehoiakim and, consequently, Jeremiah's redictation to Baruch of material for the scroll containing the words of Yahweh (Jer. 36).49 The genealogical reference for Jehudi ben Nethaniah, ben Shelemiah, ben Cushi is seen by most biblical scholars to be unusual, suggesting Jehudi's importance at the court.50 Another approach emends the text so that Shelemiah then becomes ben Cushi.51 In the former case, the tradition is aware of an unknown character named Cushi three generations before Jehudi. The period of Jeremiah and Jehoiakim falls in the proximity of 604 BCE, prior to Jeremiah's flight to Egypt.52The three-generation genealogy, then, suggests the possibility that Cushi lived toward the end of the reign 44. Johnson, 'Cush', p. 1219. 45. P.K. McCarter, Jr, // Samuel (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 402. 46. McCarter (// Samuel) refers to this passage as support for the antiquity of the story, even though Redford (Egypt, Canaan and Israel, p. 305) states that references to Kushite running ability come from the late eighth century at the earliest. 47. McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 402,408. 48. Dalglish, 'Cushi', p. 1220. An interesting point has been made by G. Rice, 'Two Black Contemporaries of Jeremiah', JRT 32 (1975), pp. 95-109, where he discusses the characters of Ebed-Melek, Jehudi and Zephaniah as blacks living in the Judean kingdom during the time of Jeremiah. 49. See, for example, J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. 179-83; R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 658-61. 50. Dalglish, 'Cushi', p. 1220. However, see Rice, 'Two Black Contemporaries', pp. 101-109. 51. Carroll, Jeremiah, p. 659. This emendation has no textual justification. 52. See Carroll, Jeremiah, p. 663. Egypt has been seen as an important and safe haven for refugees from Syria-Palestine throughout the biblical traditions.

54


of Hezekiah or during the reign of Manasseh (c. 696-642 BCE).53 This period is one in which the 25th or Cushite Dynasty in Egypt was important and meddled in Syro-Palestinian affairs. The other reference to a Cushi in the family genealogy is found in the superscription describing the prophet Zephaniah: Zephaniah ben Cushi, ben Gedaliah, ben Amariah, ben Hezekiah (Zeph. l.l).54 In this passage the generation prior to Zephaniah refers to a family member named Cushi. The identification of this Cushi is unknown, although Bentzen suggested he was a temple slave.55 If the traditional time period for Zephaniah is maintained at around the time of Josiah (c. 640-609 BCE),56 then this genealogical entry suggests the possibility that the Cushi in this lineage lived during the reign of Manasseh or that of Josiah, sometime prior to the prophetic activity of Zephaniah. Thus it is possible that the genealogical lists of Jehudi and Zephaniah refer to a common ancestor . Yet it is also possible that there is a similar tradition of a in their family tree, although each refers to a different -ETD. Both texts, however, suggest an ancestor who lived during the reign of Manasseh, the period when the 25th Dynasty ended in Egypt and the Cushites or Nubians were no longer in charge of Egypt proper. It must be kept in mind that the identity of this ancestor Cushi, whether common to Jehudi and Zephaniah or a figure in different

53. This presumes the usual forty years for a generation, but takes into account that children are born some time before the end of the generation, most probably when the father is twenty or so. On marriage practices, see R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel. I. Social Institutions (ET; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 19-52. 54. See, for example, Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, pp. 164-66, and G. Rice, 'The African Roots of the Prophet Zephaniah', JRT 36 (1979), pp. 2131. 55. A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads, 1949), II, p. 153. He states that Cushi was a Negro, perhaps from a slave family. However, he does not suggest the same interpretation for other occurrences of Cushi. 56. See Jaegersma, History of Israel, pp. 268-69, for a chart of various positions of modern scholars on the dates for royal rule in Israel and Judah. On dating Zephaniah, see the summary by O.P. Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 252-57, and Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, pp. 163-64. A.S. Kapelrud (The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah: Morphology and Ideas [Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1975], p. 42) dates the prophetic oracles to 635-625 BCE.


55

families, is unattested in other canonical and non-canonical Israelite and Judaean literature.57 The episode of the 'Ethiopian War'58 in 2 Chron. 14.8-14 designates Zerah the Cushite as attacking the Judaean monarch during the reign of Asa (914-874 BCE). Following the building of fortified cities in Judah,59 the story relates how Yahweh helped Asa defeat Zerah and destroy the Cushite-dominated Negev city of Gerar.60 An explanation for this episode by Myers61 centers on a conflict over pasture land between a group of Egyptian mercenaries from Gerar, possibly settled there by Shishak, and Asa, king of Judah. The implication of this interpretation is that a Cushite mercenary fortress and agricultural center had been established earlier and that it was then in ruins, even though the city itself is not explicitly mentioned in the text as having been destroyed.62 The historical situation for this story is unknown. The inclusion of Cushites, though most likely a historical retrojection, may be an attempt by the Chronicler to provide a background for the recollection of a Cushite presence among the Syro-Palestinian population. There are several possibilities which come to mind in trying to understand references to Cushi. One suggestion is that Cushi was connected with the monarchy and royal administration under the Davidic monarchy.63 This position is discussed specifically in reference to the 57. See Johnson, 'Cush', p. 1219, and Smith, 'Ethiopia', p. 666. 58. See J.M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB, 13; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. 82-85. 59. On royal building activities, see R.W. Anderson, Jr, 'The Civic Activity of Israelite and Judaean Kingship' (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1985; on Asa, see pp. 111-13). A full listing of civic passages in the Deuteronomistic and Chronicler's Histories is found in Appendix C, pp. 426-30. See also Ahlstrom, Royal Administration and National Religion, pp. 63-65, 77, and Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp. 323-29. 60. Gerar has been identified with Tel Haror; see E.D. Oren, 'Gerar', in ABD, II, pp. 989-91. No ninth-century occupation or destruction level has been reported by the excavators. In fact, there is a gap between the eleventh century and the eighth century. 61. Myers, II Chronicles, p. 85. 62. Myers, II Chronicles, p. 85. 63. A royal employee could be one performing any menial or important task at the court or within the administrative system. See Heaton, Solomon's New Men, pp. 4760, and Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, pp. 1-6, for discussions of positions at the royal court. Even though Heaton and Mettinger mention several positions at court, there also must have been many other minor positions about which we know little or nothing which kept the court machinery functioning.

56


Cushite runner in 2 Samuel 18 by McCarter.64 Most likely, then, Cushi would have been a mercenary soldier who journeyed from Cush (probably with other mercenaries from his native land) to serve among the elite guard of David.65 However, the importance of Cushites and the legendary stories of their abilities as long-distance runners stems from a later period,66 raising questions as to the antiquity of the traditions. Yet the importance of Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine may be reflected in these stories regardless of their time of composition. A further suggestion related to royal administration is that Cushi traveled from Cush in order to serve the Judean king as a hired administrative official. Also, it might be that Cushi was a slave who had been traded to David (or a successor) or given to him by the Egyptian rulers.67 Thus, the Cushi family served in royal administrative positions for many decades. Consequently, Cushi's name was given to him by editors who associated him with his place of origin.68 In any instance, Cushi stayed in Syria-Palestine and gradually became a rather important figure at the court. Although it is not necessary for Cushi to have been an important figure at the Judaean court, several scholars reach this conclusion so as to provide credibility for Zephaniah's lineage. Another suggestion provided to legitimize a royal connection is that Cushi was an offspring of a Judean king whose wife was a Cushite. The monarch usually mentioned is Hezekiah, whom legend suggests had a

64. McCarter (// Samuel, p. 408) places Cushi as a member of the army, and, hence, a royal employee. 65. See B. Mazar, The Military Elite of King David', VT13 (1963), pp. 310-20; and McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 489-501. 66. See Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, p. 305. 67. On slavery, see, for example, A.E. Bakir, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt (Annales du Service des Antiques de L'Egypt Supplement, 18; Cairo: L'Institut fransais d'Archeologie orientale, 1952), pp. 53-123, and M.A. Dandamayev, 'Slavery (ANE)', in ABD, VI, pp. 58-62, who hardly mentions slavery in Egypt. Some biblical commentators suggest that Cushi was a slave in Judah. See, for example, M. Eszenyei Sze"les, Wrath and Mercy: A Commentary on the Books ofHabakkuk and Zephaniah (trans. G.A.F. Knight; International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 62. 68. This policy might have been much like what was practiced here as immigrants arrived in the USA from European countries. Immigration officials would often stamp on the papers of the immigrants the name of their town or village as their family name.


57

Cushite wife.69 Since the Cushites ruled Egypt during this time, it is possible that a royal (or diplomatic) marriage was arranged. This practice was common among nations who had friendly relations as a symbol of unity. 70 This would suggest a stronger tie between Judah and the Cushite Dynasty than has been seen previously. Yet another possibility is that Cushi should be understood as a general term and not the name of a specific person. Cushi, then, refers to the presence of Cushites in Judah in general, most likely in a military or diplomatic capacity. This would suggest a connection between the Judean government and the 25th Dynasty in Egypt. In this case, some Cushite nobles might have married prominent Judean women and the offspring of these unions were known as ben Cushi. Of course, the reverse might also have taken place with Cushite women marrying Judean nobles. Even if explanations which take into account the dominance of the 25th Dynasty in Egypt and Cushite rule over Egypt and influence over its territories are plausible, there are still important problems for the historian. The stories in Judges and Samuel, possibly Psalms and the Pentateuchal traditions as well, if taken as traditions from the eleventh and tenth centuries BCE, raise questions about the presence of Cushites in Palestine at a time when Cushites likely were not prominent. A possible solution has been to change the text so that the group is seen as a Babylonian Kassite band from Mesopotamia and not the Cushites from Africa. Traditions regarding Cushites in Egyptian history and material cultural remains from archaeological excavations, however, must be the primary basis for understanding Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine. The biblical traditions, though often polemical or tendentious regarding nonJudeans, must be considered, even though not as primary historical material. Israelite and Judean interaction with the Cushite Dynasty in Egypt is seen in the book of 2 Kings. The alliance that Hoshea (c. 730-721 BCE) of Israel makes with So (Sais?),71 king of Egypt (2 Kgs 17.1-4), instead 69. Dalglish, 'Cushi', p. 1220. 70. See, for example, Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, p. 230. 71. Redford ('Sais and the Kushite Invasions of the Eighth Century BC', JARCE 22 [1985], p. 15) argues against the identity of Osorkon IV as So. Rather, he suggests that there is a connection with Sais, a city in the Delta region, where local princes revolted against the Cushite kings and for a short while were able to regain independence (Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, p. 346). See J.A. Wilson, The

58


of maintaining vassal relations with Assyria, is declared to be the point of no return for Israel as a nation by the Deuteronomistic Historians.72 This unknown king of Egypt might have belonged to one of several dynasties and even possibly was a Cushite ruler.73 If diplomatic relations were established between Egypt and Israel, then it is likely that Cushites were present at least in Samaria and possibly in other parts of the Northern Kingdom. Also, it is possible that during this time some of these diplomats paid courtesy calls on Ahaz of Judah. These same diplomats might have fled to Jerusalem when Samaria was destroyed in 721 BCE,74 setting up a new community. The second reference mentions Tirhakah of Cush (2 Kgs 19.9 = Isa. 37.9).75 Taharqa (690-664 BCE) was a ruler in the 25th Dynasty in Egypt who was defeated by Esarhaddon in 670 BCE, leading to the occupation of Egypt by the Assyrians. This reference to Tirhakah suggests that there was a Cushite presence in Judah, or at least that some form of diplomatic relations existed between Egypt and Judah or that the editor or redactor remembered this king from the Cushite era. Brief mention must be made of the reference that Moses married a Burden of Egypt: An Interpretation of Ancient Egyptian Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 292-93. See, also, the recent suggestion of A.R.W. Green, 'The Identity of King So of Egypt—An Alternative Interpretation', JNES 52 (1993), p. 108, where he takes 'So' as a mistake for a title of Piankhy. 72. On the issue of the identity of the king mentioned in the text, see Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 196, and Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, p. 346. 73. A problem with this text is that later in Kings, the king mentioned is from Cush and not Egypt. The difference in the two phrases raises questions about which kingdom and ruler is being discussed. The editor might have made a mistake and forgot to change one of the references to Cush, but it is also possible that these editorial changes were made at a time when unless the specific name of the king from Egypt were mentioned, the editors could not recall if the king were Egyptian or Cushite. The 22nd through the 25th Dynasties were ruling at the same time which could have caused further confusion later. 74. Also note the presence of black soldiers in the Egyptian force fighting with the Philistines against Sargon II (c. 720 BCE). See N. Na'aman, 'The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 BC)', Bib 71 (1990), p. 218 n. 37. 75. See commentaries such as Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 234. On detecting historical traces in prophetic literature, see G.W. Ahlstrom, 'Prophetical Echoes of Assyrian Growth and Decline', in H. Behrens, D. Loding and M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjoberg (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11; Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), pp. 1-3.


59

Cushite woman (Num. 12.1).76 Even though the focus of the episode appears to be the issue of the authority of Moses, the fact that the editor allowed Miriam and Aaron to mention the issue within the context of Moses marrying a Cushite raises questions. Whether the reference to Cushites is a later addition or not, the fact that there is no response from Yahweh to a concern in story form about Moses' marriage to a Cushite suggests that the issue of intermarriage or the presence of Cushites among the population does not concern the religious editors.77 Cushite presence in Yahwistic religion seems to be condoned. A number of questions, some of which follow, arise from information already reviewed. Were the writers (or redactors) of the Pentateuchal traditions aware of Cushite presence in seventeenth-century BCE Palestine, if these texts either date to this period or are historical reminiscences? Does this reference provide support for the early dating of this material? Or does the presence of Cushites in the stories support the idea of retrojection?78 If so, then are the stories written in the seventh century? And for what purpose? Or do references to Cushites suggest an even later date of composition? These questions about the literary composition, and indirectly the history of Bronze and Iron Age Syria-Palestine, raise many issues. Even though there does not appear to be any clearly definable solution to these issues, the activities of Cushites within Egyptian society and governmental affairs might provide information for understanding the period better. Therefore, a brief outline of Cushite (Nubian) and Egyptian interaction follows. The geographical region named Cush is located south of Upper Egypt along the Nile River and inland from both banks beginning somewhere south of the first cataract.79 The land is called Cush or Nubia in 76. See M. Noth, Numbers (trans. J.D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 92-94. 77. This may even be more significant if there is a connection between Cushites and Midianites and the origin of Yahweh worship in the south. The question about the origin of Yahweh worship among the Cushites should be addressed more carefully. 78. See Garbini, History and Ideology, p. 131, and Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, p. 305. 79. Various views of the location of Cush on maps are presented by Fairservis, Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, p. 97; Kees, Ancient Egypt, p. 21; Wilson, Culture, pp. vi-vii; J.H. Breasted, A History of Ancient Egypt (New York: Bantam Books,

1967), map 12; and Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt, p. 256. Note the same terminology of Upper and Lower for both Egypt and Nubia.

60


Egyptian literary material.80 It is only in a Hellenistic situation that Cush becomes identified with Ethiopia.81 The history of Sudan is a long one, going back to the period shortly after the beginning of Egyptian rule over a unified land of Upper and Lower Egypt.82 Cush became a central location for contacts with central Africa83 and a trading center for the region. There appear to be early contacts between Egypt and Cush, with Egypt being the stronger party.84 The mention of Cushites in early Egyptian literature shows that the Egyptians thought the Cushites performed a wide variety of tasks.85 The positions held range from slave to mercenary or military conscript to court official to household servants.86 Egypt also exploited the area for gold and built a series of fortresses along the Nile to protect merchants and gold caravans.87 These activities show an interaction between Egypt 80. Trigger (Nubia under the Pharaohs, p. 112) uses Nubia and Cush interchangeably with no clear differentiation between the terms. For references to Kush and Nubia, see J.H. Breasted (ed.), Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest (trans. J.H. Breasted; Ancient Records; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906-1907), V, index entries under Kush and Nubia on pp. 85-86, 91. On the geographical location of Kush, Wawat, Yam and Irem, see Adams, Nubia, pp. 171, 197, 219; and D. O'Connor, 'The Locations of Yam and Kush and their Historical Implications', JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 39-42. 81. See Smith, 'Ethiopia', pp. 665-67. 82. See, for example, Arkell, A History, pp. 55-79; W.B. Emery, Egypt in Nubia (London: Hutchinson, 1965 [Arabic]); Save-Soderbergh, Agypten undNubien, pp. 510; Adams, Nubia, pp. 130-35; Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt; and D. O'Connor, 'Nubia before the New Kingdom', in S. Wenig (ed.), Africa in Antiquity (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1978), I, pp. 46-61. 83. See S. Adam, 'The Importance of Nubia: A Link between Central Africa and the Mediterranean', in G. Mokhtar (ed.), Ancient Civilizations of Africa (UNESCO General History of Africa, 2; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 226-43; Adams, Nubia; and A.H. Zayed, 'Egypt's Relations with the Rest of Africa', in Mokhtar (ed.), Ancient Civilizations of Africa, pp. 136-54. 84. Adams, Nubia, pp. 165-70; Trigger, Nubia under the Pharaohs, pp. 40-41; J. Leclant, 'Egypt in Nubia during the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms', in Wenig (ed.), Africa in Antiquity, I, pp. 62-73; and A. Abu Bakr, 'Pharaonic Egypt', in Mokhtar (ed.), Ancient Civilizations of Africa, pp. 112-35. 85. Save-S6derbergh, Agypten und Nubien, pp. 26-27. 86. Trigger, Nubia under the Pharaohs, pp. 112-13. 87. B.J. Kemp, 'Fortified Towns in Nubia', in P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism (Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, 1972), pp. 651-56; A.W. Lawrence, 'Ancient Egyptian Fortifications', JEA 51 (1965), pp. 71-93.


61

and Cush during the Old Kingdom, usually with the Cushites being subjugated by the Egyptians. In addition, iconographic material shows the presence of Cushite-looking people in many different aspects of Egyptian society.88 Similar literary and pictorial representations of Cushites continue through the Intermediate Periods and the Middle and New Kingdoms.89 From the latter years of the Middle Kingdom through the New Kingdom, a significant number of references to the official position of 'king's son of Kush'90 appear. This position apparently indicates the importance control of the Cushite area symbolized to the Egyptians. The exact reasons for this control, whether they be strategic, economic or political, are not absolutely clear, yet the importance of Cush as a trading center and depot for contact with sub-Saharan Africa can be seen.91 Thus, Cushite presence in the Egyptian military and administrative systems as workers and slaves could have taken them to various geographical locations in the empire from the Old through the New Kingdom periods.92 88. See in this connection illustrations of artifacts from the kingdom of Kush by the Brooklyn Museum, including Wenig (ed.), Africa in Antiquity. For a recent presentation of the area, see J. Leclant, 'The Empire of Kush: Napata and Meroe', in Mokhtar (ed.), Ancient Civilizations of Africa, pp. 278-97. Studies of iconographic material include J. Leclant, 'Kushites and Meroi'tes: Iconography of the African Rulers in the Ancient Upper Nile', in L. Bugner (ed.), The Image of the Black in Western Art. I. From the Pharaohs to the Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Menil Foundation, 1976), pp. 89-132; J. Vercoutter, The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt: From the Beginnings to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty', in Bugner (ed.), The Image of the Black in Western Art, I, pp. 33-88. See also L.H. Clegg, II, 'Black Rulers of the Golden Age', in I. van Sertima (ed.), Nile Valley Civilizations, pp. 47-68, who argues that the population of Egypt was black. 89. Leclant, 'Kushites and Meroites', and Vercoutter, 'The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt'. Archaeological work in Cush was hectic and quick in the 1960s since a large portion of the area in which monuments were located was to be flooded by the construction of the Aswan high dam. Relief and salvage excavations and surveys were undertaken in as many areas as possible prior to flooding. See, for example, Fairservis, The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, pp. 226-29, and Adams, Nubia, pp. 65-98. 90. For some references, see Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, V, under the appropriate index entries. Further interesting notes can be found in Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, pp. 169-70, 205-48, 302, and Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt, pp. 262-63. 91. Adam, 'The Importance of Nubia', and Adams, Nubia, pp. 163-92. 92. On administrative policies in territories and conquered areas, see

62


The long period of contact with Egypt and direct Egyptian control and domination of Cush most likely provides the background for the Cushite desire to imitate93 the Egyptians in dress, religious practices, architectural style, court life and other aspects of public societal imagery.94 The Cushite royal court appears to have focused on imitating all facets of Egyptian society, including monumental architectural and hieroglyphic inscriptions.95 These imitations were almost more than that, since in some instances the inscriptions are copies or pastiches of Egyptian royal inscriptions. The period of direct political domination of Egypt proper by the Cushites is limited to a few short decades during the 25th Dynasty.96 During this period, the Cushites tried to control areas of the former Egyptian empire, often with little success. However, in spite of Assyrian hegemony in Syria-Palestine during this period, many previous economic and trade contacts, some border military districts and garrisons, and W.F. Edgerton, The Government and the Governed in the Egyptian Empire', JNES 6 (1947), pp. 152-60; M.A.-K. Mohammed, The Administration of Syro-Palestine During the New Kingdom', Annales du Service des Antiquites de I'Egypt 56 (1959), pp. 105-37; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Agyptologische Abhandlungen, 5; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2nd edn, 1971), pp. 188, 324-27; and Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt, pp. 204-13. On the structure of the Egyptian military and the variety of functions involved, see R.O. Faulkner, 'Egyptian Military Organization', JEA 39 (1953), pp. 32-47. On the long history of involvement of Egypt with southern people, see, for example, E. Strouhal, 'Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt', Journal of African History 12 (1971), pp. 1-9, and D. O'Connor, 'Ancient Egypt and Black Africa—Early Contacts', Expedition 14.1 (1971), pp. 2-9. 93. Most likely only the royal court was involved in the imitative process, since most of the population of fanners, workers and slaves probably did not directly encounter Egyptians except in occasional glimpses of military maneuvers or parades. 94. See, for example, Wenig, Africa in Antiquity, passim, for a retrospective presentation of imitative art in Kush. Arkell (A History, pp. 119-21) discusses some of the monumental architectural features of the region. A. Badaway (Architecture in Ancient Egypt and the Near East [Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1966], pp. 211-26) has a summary of monumental architectural features. 95. See, for example, Arkell, A History, pp. 118-21. 96. See presentations of the Dynasty in standard histories of Egypt and Nubia, such as Emery, Egypt in Nubia; Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt; K.-H. Priese, The Napata Period', in Wenig (ed.), Africa in Antiquity, I, pp. 74-88; and D. Dunham, 'Notes on the History of Kush 850 BC-AD 350', AJA 50 (1946), pp. 378-88.


63

some diplomatic missions were apparently maintained. More direct encounters than had previously taken place between Cushites as a group and those groups who lived in Syria-Palestine would seem likely. Isolated encounters between Cushites and the inhabitants of SyriaPalestine had probably taken place for many centuries. Such interaction probably included marriages between mercenary soldiers and local women or local and Cushite slaves of either sex. Runaway slaves from Egypt or Egyptian forts and diplomatic missions might have settled in the region. Official marriages and liaisons between princes and princesses of Syro-Palestinian rulers and Egyptian officials, including Cushite emissaries, probably took place. Religious and cultural practices also were certainly shared, if not actually adopted, in these relationships and encounters.97 Included in the official Cushite entourage, and even in Egyptian delegations before them, could have been slaves or servants who originated in sub-Saharan regions of Africa.98 Thus, interaction between Cushite and Syro-Palestinian groups and national kingdoms afforded possibilities for the inclusion of Cushite lineages and customs into Palestine, further increasing the diversity of the population of SyriaPalestine.99 The relationship between Egypt and Syria-Palestine has a long history.100 From the Early Bronze Age or the Old Kingdom period through the New Kingdom, Egypt and Syria-Palestine were intertwined. Military forays and domination of trade routes by Egypt were prevalent activities throughout the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms.101 The Egyptians even established a provincial system to rule the area.102 The Amarna letters103 mention the military aid which the Syro-Palestinian

97. See Williams, 'Egypt and Israel', pp. 259-60. 98. See Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt, pp. 260-64. 99. See, for example, T.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 41315. 100. See, for example, Helck, Die Beziehungen, pp. 4-341; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel; and Priese, 'Napatan Period', pp. 78-80. 101. See, for example, Helck, Die Beziehungen, pp. 12-341, and Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp. 56-97, 125-213. 102. Helck, Die Beziehungen, p. 188. On the royal department of conquests, see Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt, p. 208. 103. W.F. Albright (ed. and trans.), 'Akkadian Letters', in ANET, pp. 482-90, and other more detailed studies on the correspondence.

64


city-states were expecting from Egypt,104 as well as other aspects relating to Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian cities. Egyptian trade with ports along the Mediterranean coast of Palestine and even into Western Asia, as seen in the stories of Sinuhe and Wen Amun,105 was conducted over a considerable period of time. While Egyptian records mention mines and smelting activities in the Sinai,106 their records do not indicate much other trade activity with the SyroPalestinian states. Rather, military campaigns are recorded which list towns and areas captured and destroyed by the Egyptians.107 Iconographic material indicates some commodities being brought as tribute to the Egyptian court,108 but most of the glyptic shows little of the people from Syria-Palestine. So, while there is a long history of interaction between Egypt and Syria-Palestine, too few specific details are known.109 Cushites or Nubians not only were involved with the Egyptians in various capacities, their interaction with Assyria included several different positions. Cushites formed a special equestrian unit in the Assyrian military.110 The Assyrians also added special horse and chariot units to its army from cities and countries conquered and subjugated by the Assyrian war machine. There was also apparently a thriving trade between Assyria and Nubia in a particular breed termed a Cushite horse, which made good chariot and cavalry steeds.111 The trade appears to have been up the Nile through Egypt and along the coast to Syria-Palestine with Samaria 104. On the importance of the Amarna material to the history of Syria-Palestine, see, for example, Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, p. 270, and Lemche, The Canaanites, pp. 28-40. 105. See, for example, the translations in M. Lichtheim (ed. and trans.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973, 1976), I, pp. 222-35, and II, pp. 224-30. 106. See, for example, Kees, Egypt, pp. 117-18,164. 107. See, for example, Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt; Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period; and J.A. Wilson (ed. and trans.), 'Egyptian Historical Texts', in ANET, pp. 227-64. 108. Vercoutter, 'The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt', passim. 109. A. Spalinger, The Year 712 BC and its Implications for Egyptian History' JARCE 10 (1973), pp. 95-101, has shown the importance of Cushite meddling in Syro-Palestinian affairs following the destruction of Samaria. 110. S. Dalley, 'Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser HI and Sargon IT, Iraq (1985), p. 45-47. 111. Dalley, 'Foreign Chariotry', p. 48.


65

probably the last stop before being claimed by the Assyrians. It is likely that the Cushites were not only involved as horse traders, but also were engaged in training, riding and grooming the horses. It is possible, then, that there was a community of Cushites living in areas, such as Samaria, Hazor and Assyrian cities, where there were large numbers of Cushite horses. Cushite customs most likely would have been prevalent among the inhabitants, as well as their adoption of local customs. Texts and reliefs from Egyptian sites do not clearly elucidate this view.112 However, Assyrian epigraphic and relief material indicates the presence of Cushite equestrian involvement in Assyria and areas it controlled. Material especially from the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II indicate this military, trade and occupational connection. Thus, Cushites appear to have been involved in Samaria and in Assyriandominated regions early in the first millennium. Another issue raised by the presence of Cushites in Egypt and SyriaPalestine is the ethnic and racial composition of the various population groups in the ancient Near East.113 Most scholars have tended to gloss over the issue or to state or imply that the population was uniformly white.114 Few scholars have tried to wrestle with the diversity caused through mixing groups, whether intentional or accidental. The black Cushites and other 'black-headed' and 'burnt-skinned' people mentioned in the Egyptian texts115 are often relegated to inferior positions or neglected altogether.116 The effect of mixing populations through contact and intermarriage must surely have produced a population which was varied and diverse—not a homogeneous nation of one pure race.117 A perusal of Egyptian iconographic material118 shows the diversity of 112. Dalley, 'Foreign Chariotry', p. 46, and J.E. Reade, 'Sargon's Campaign of 720, 716, and 715 BC: Evidence from the Sculptures', JNES 35 (1976), pp. 95-104. 113. See, for example, F.J. Yurco, 'Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?', BARev 15.5 (1989), pp. 24-29, 58; N.F. Gier, The Color of Sin/ The Color of Skin: Ancient Color Blindness and the Philosophical Origins of Modern Racism', JRT46 (1989), pp. 42-52; and Drake, Black Folk Here and There, II, pp. 1-17. 114. See the summary in Drake, Black Folk Here and There, II, pp. xi-xxiv, and Adams, Nubia, 91-107. 115. See Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, V, index entries under 'Kush', 'Nubia', 'Curly-Haired'. 116. J. Vercoutter, The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt', pp. 33-88. 117. See, for example, Thompson, Early History, p. 413. 118. See, for example, Vercoutter, The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt', and Leclant, 'Kushites and Meroi'tes'.

66


the Egyptian population, as well as the various ways the Egyptians viewed those whom they encountered. There appear to be certain physical and dress characteristics which Egyptian artists associated with specific groups, such as the Sea Peoples and Libyans.119 We can be aware of the diversity and peculiarities of these different groups only through the eyes of the Egyptian artists and literary works by their chroniclers. When the focus turns to Syria-Palestine, there is even more of a problem, since there is virtually no artistic or graphic representation by the local population nor of the local population and foreigners, including the Egyptians.120 The population in Syria-Palestine seems to be quite diverse. A variety of social groups or ethnic/racial categories most likely comprised the population around 1000 BCE. Some of these are what we term Canaanites,121 Habiru, several different groups of Sea Peoples, Shasu,122 Hittites, Hurrians, Assyrians and Babylonians, Hyksos, Egyptians, Cushites, Hivites and so on.123 A number of questions arise from such a list. Would these groups maintain their individual identities? Would there be sections of cities or settlements in which these groups predominantly lived? Would there have been a mixing of populations so that distinctive lines between ethnic/racial groups would have been blurred? To these questions there are no easy or definite answers. Most likely the situation was one in which some groups tended to try to remain separate at their own initiative or were ostracized by larger groups. Some groups most likely attempted to assimilate into larger ones. The process of acculturation was taking place and syncretism in religion and culture was prevalent. The presence of Cushites in the biblical material raises questions for the historian studying ancient Syria-Palestine. A historical Cushite 119. See, for example, Vercoutter, The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt', and Leclant, 'Kushites and Meroi'tes'. 120. See M. Avi-Yonah, Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), and H.J. Kantor, 'Syro-Palestinian Ivories', JNES 15 (1956), pp. 153-74. 121. See Lemche, Canaanites, pp. 25-62. 122. Were these the original Yahweh worshippers? See, for example, Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp. 269-80, and Lemche, Canaanites, pp. 44-45. 123. See, for example, D.J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), passim, for information about many of these groups. On the Shasu, Sea Peoples and other groups, consult ABD for articles and introductory bibliographies.


67

presence in Syria-Palestine is alluded to in the biblical traditions, ostensibly covering several centuries. These literary traditions which comprise the final edited version of the religious literature of a later group usually provide the impetus for examining historical and ethnographic issues. While the possibility that older literary or oral traditions formed the basis for the development and maintenance of passages specifically mentioning Cushites cannot be discounted, the most likely setting for the development of these encounters is during the 25th Dynasty in Egypt— a time when the Cushites ruled Egypt and influenced lands formerly under Egyptian control. The biblical traditions in which Cushites appear, then, might be ones which were either developed, edited or recast to reflect a recent situation in which Cushites played a prominent role. From the perspective of the historian of religions, the texts which mention the Cushites, when placed within a proper context, provide the basis for understanding a role which Egyptian religious traditions may have played in the development of Israelite and Judean religions. Nonbiblical epigraphic material and archaeological remains from before the sixth century BCE provide the main evidence for understanding Israelite and Judean religion. Possibly there are also remnants of pre-Persian period epigraphic material from Israel and Judah within the biblical material, but discerning the presence of any material is difficult, if not impossible.124 The editing process undertaken by religiously oriented zealous guardians of the traditions throughout history, however, must not become a part of the picture of either the historian's view or that of the historian of religions. Yet often a recapitulation of the 'biblical' material is what appears in histories and religious treatises relating to the Hebrew Bible. Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine appears to span a considerable time period, since they are often associated in a variety of occupational roles with the Egyptians who controlled or influenced the area for many centuries. However, it is possible that Cushites established their own trade and occupational connections, apart from Egyptian control, with Syro-Palestinian cities and states. General living quarters in cities, explicit textual references and artistic representations, though, are scarce in Egyptian, Assyrian and Syro-Palestinian material. Specific material cultural remains delineating artifacts as peculiarly Cushite are not mentioned in archaeological reports. Only Egyptian presence is noted. 124. See Thompson, Early History, and Lemche, Canaanites, pp. 73-74, 148, for suggestions on the Persian or later provenance for the biblical material.

68


However, since only portions of cities have been excavated, and usually these are only the better (wealthier) and royal parts, it is possible that Cushite remains have been overlooked. Since the Cushites tended to mimic the Egyptians, the notation of Egyptian presence may actually be Cushite. Further excavations, refinement of techniques and classification of material cultural remains, as well as excavation of non-royal portions of cities, may yet yield remnants of Cushites and other little known national groups living in Syria-Palestine. The Cushites were probably dark-skinned or burnt-faced people, ones whom we would classify today as black. Their appearance in Assyrian and Egyptian iconographic presentations is often distinguishable by their physical features and not by some peculiar type of clothing. It must be kept in mind, though, that the ancient Egyptians themselves often display features which appear similar to those often associated with subSaharan or black people.125 Thus, it is difficult to categorize Cushites solely on identification based on iconographic representations. It is possible that direct contacts between Syro-Palestinian kingdoms and sub-Saharan Africa occurred, especially during the reign of Solomon, especially in the horse-trading business.126 Suggestions have been made that sacred kingship, circumcision, and the concept of 'milk and honey' are indications of this direct link.127 While there are some interesting comparisons made, especially in the area of sacral kingship and circumcision rituals, only a more detailed examination of Nubian or Cushite practices, not Egyptian practices (if it is possible to distinguish a separate culture), would help bring these comparisons to light. Ideas and practices are part of the culture people take with them when they travel and live in different places. The transference of Cushite ideas to SyriaPalestine is not unlikely, if Cushites were present in various occupations, especially those related to equestrian activities. Conversely, upon the 125. Many iconographic collections suggest that the features are not clearly distinguished from features which some have described as distinctively black features. See Yurco, 'Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?', p. 58, and B.G. Trigger, 'Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?', in Wenig (ed.), Africa in Antiquity, I, p. 27. 126. See, for example, E. Isaac, 'Relations between the Hebrew Bible and Africa', Jewish Social Studies 26 (1964), pp. 87-98, and K.A. Dickson, 'African Traditional Religions and the Bible,' in E. Mveng and R.J.Z. Werblowsky (eds.), The Jerusalem Congress on Black Africa and the Bible, April 24-30, 1972: Proceedings (Jerusalem: NP, 1973), pp. 155-66. 127. See some of the ideas in Isaac, 'Relations between the Hebrew Bible and Africa', and Mafico, 'Cush not Nuzi'.


69

return of these people to their homelands after their service, ideas and customs observed in other lands would be shared with their families. Similarly, goods would be transported, providing a clue to interconnection between various areas.128 Furthermore, the mixing of races, as we would call it, seems to be less of a problem in the ancient world than today.129 Intermarriage for political reasons between males and females of different nations, regardless of their race, was apparently quite common.130 Textual references to the presence of Cushites in Syria-Palestine, then, would seem to indicate that at least Jehudi, Zephaniah ben Cushi, Cush of Benjamin and probably Cushi (or several people with this name or designation) were accepted as members of Judean society, at least when these traditions were developed or accepted. References in the literary tradition to a group termed Cushites who lived and worked in Syria-Palestine suggest they were remembered and thought of as part of Judean society. The lengthy genealogical sections mentioning Cushites in the Bible, though, were a literary and religio-historical remembrance identifying when Cushites were important and incorporated into the community and tradition. Editors, unfamiliar with previous historical periods, inserted Cushites into stories involving heroic characters to provide a historical foundation for their inclusion within Judean society. Thus, mention of Cushites in the biblical tradition indicates the presence of a small, but important, minority group with significant positions in Judah who were incorporated into the mixed population of Syria-Palestine. Further study and refinement of identification of material cultural remains may yet bring to light a clearer view of Cushites in Syria-Palestine. In summary, an examination of Cushite presence in Syria-Palestine shows interconnections between Cushites and the region at least in the first millennium BCE. Cushites arrived in the area with the Egyptians, sometimes voluntarily and often in servitude. The dominant period of Cushite presence and interaction with Syria-Palestine in the late eighth through the seventh centuries most likely is the time remembered by writers and editors of the biblical material as they struggled to bring together various groups who had divergent experiences in Babylonia, 128. On Judean and Israelite syncretism in general, see G.W. Ahlstrom, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (trans. E.J. Sharpe; Horae Soederblomianae, 5; Lund: Gleerup, 1963), pp. 7-14. 129. See Trigger, 'Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?', pp. 27, 35. 130. See Vercoutter, 'The Iconography of the Black', p. 43.

70


Egypt and Palestine, most likely following destruction of the homeland, forced and voluntary exile and foreign domination. And, finally, the importance of Cushite horse breeders to the ancient Near East provides a better view of significant contributions of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africans. Mistaken, old and outdated views of racial dominance in antiquity have no place in a historical story of the deeds and activities of people in society. Cushite cultural contributions and presence in various regional locations provide a better focus on the corpus of material available for understanding a complex world in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean region.

DISCERNING THE TIME:

HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH AND THE 'DELAY' IN THE REBUILDING OF THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

Peter Ross Bedford

According to Hag. 1.1-3, Judeans were initially unwilling to rebuild the Jerusalem temple of Yahweh in the second year of Darius I (520 BCE) despite this former national shrine of the kingdom of Judah having been in ruins since its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar some sixty-seven years earlier.1 How is their passivity and lack of interest in rebuilding the central shrine of their national deity to be accounted for? The Judeans' explanation in Hag. 1.2 that 'the time has not yet come to rebuild the temple of Yahweh' is commonly interpreted as an excuse by members of the community who preferred to concern themselves with their own homes while leaving the house of Yahweh their god in ruins (Hag. 1.4,9).2 1. The temple may have lain in desuetude for much of this period. Jer. 41.5 states that unofficial offerings were made at the temple site the day after the death of Gedaliah (587 BCE?). There are no other references to visits to or offerings made at the temple site; see P.R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1968), pp. 25-29. Ezra 1-6 speaks of the rededication of the temple's altar and the re-laying of the temple foundations in the reign of Cyrus (Ezra 2.68-3.13; 5.16). This activity should, however, be dated to the reign of Darius I. Ezra 1-6 displays internal inconsistencies, historical anomalies, and a tendentious character which makes it difficult to determine what, if any, work was done on the temple in the reign of Cyrus. Some of these features of Ezra 1-6 are briefly discussed below. 2. The quotation from Hag. 1.2 reads Id' 'et-bo' 'et-betyhwh lehibbdnot, 'The time has not come, the time to build up the house of Yahweh'. For a discussion of the attempts to make sense of MT, see W. Rudolph, Haggai—Sacharja 1-8—Sacharja 9-14—Maleachi (KAT, 13.4; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), p. 29 n. 2b; H.W. Wolff, Haggai (trans. M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), p. 29 nn. 2a-a, b, c; C.L. Meyers and E.M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 (AB, 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 19-20.

72


The fact that a number of Judeans may have returned from Babylonia with Zerubbabel and Joshua only a few years before Haggai's preaching, and thus be struggling to re-establish themselves, is not countenanced by the prophet as an excuse for inattention to the temple.3 For this prophet there is no defence for self-interest in the face of the condition of the temple of Yahweh. Greater culpability in this regard could be attributed to those who had remained in Judah after the dissolution of the kingdom in 587 BCE and to those who may have returned from Babylonia with Sheshbazzar early in the reign of Cyrus (Ezra 1.711) since their inattention to the temple of Yahweh was long standing and their unwillingness to rebuild less likely to be based solely on lack of resources.4 The drought the land was currently experiencing (Hag. 1.53. The arrival of Zerubbabel, Joshua and a group of repatriates has been dated to late in the reign of Cyrus (c. 525 BCE), the reign of Cambyses, or the first year of Darius I (522-521 BCE). For a discussion of the options see Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 146-48 (citing earlier literature). 4. On Haggai's audience including both repatriated Judeans and those who had remained in the land after 587 BCE, see the discussion of 'this people' (Hag. 1.2), 'the remnant of the people' (Hag. 1.12; 2.2), 'who is left among you' (Hag. 2.3), and 'all you people of the land' (Hag. 2.4) in Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, p. 162; H.G. May, "This People" and "This Nation" in Haggai', VT 18 (1968), p. 192; D.L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press; 1984), p. 47; S. Japhet, 'People and Land in the Restoration Period', in G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 (GTA, 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 109-10, 121 n. 33; Wolff, Haggai, pp. 40-41, 77-79; J. Hausmann, Israels Rest: Studien zum Selbstverstdndnis der nachexilischen Gemeinde (BWANT, 124; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987), pp. 37-42. O.K. Steck ('Zu Haggai 1.2-11',Z4W83 [1971], pp. 373-77) considers that the two groups (repatriates and non-repatriates) are being addressed separately in Hag. 1.111; the latter in Hag. 1.2, 4-8, the former in Hag. 1.9-11, but cf. J.W. Whedbee, 'A Question-Answer Schema in Haggai 1: The Form and Function of Haggai 1:9-11', in G. A. Turtle (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W.S. LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 184-94, and W.S. Prinsloo, The Cohesion of Haggai 1:4-11', in M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck (eds.), 'Wunschet Jerusalem Frieden': Collected Communications to the Xllth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986 (Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alien Testaments und des antiken Judentums, 13; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), pp. 337-43. Lack of resources due to economic hardship has been cited as an excuse for inattention to the temple; see, for example, J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn, 1980), p. 366; Wolff, Haggai, pp. 41, 44. The nuance of sSpumm used to describe the houses of the Judeans in Hag. 1.4 is difficult to

BEDFORD Discerning the Time

73

11; 2.15-17) was understood by the prophet to be a punishment from Yahweh to direct the community's attention to the fact that without the divine presence in their midst, represented by the temple, they could not prosper. The statement of the Judeans in Hag. 1.2—'The time has not yet come to rebuild the temple of Yahweh'—must have been made in response to a recent call to rebuild the temple, although there is no information as to exactly when this earlier call was made or from whom it came. It would make little sense for the bad harvest(s) to be understood as Yahweh's response to a call to rebuild made many years ago (for example, in the reign of Cyrus; see Ezra 1-3), especially since Haggai makes no mention of the length of the delay in rebuilding nor castigates the people for a long delay. K. Galling is correct to point out that the drought currently being experienced is a recent phenomenon which had prompted the prophetic interpretation of it as an act of divine judgment.5 Galling has further pointed out that Haggai's connection of the land's economic woes with the lack of a temple would be convincing only to those who had just returned from Babylonia. This is possible as such a claim would have lacked force for those who had remained in Judah or who had been repatriated earlier, since they would have experienced good and bad harvests over the years even without a temple. But it is equally possible that the severity of this particular drought had brought forth a need to account for it, in which case determine. It may indeed mean that these homes were simply 'roofed', that is, completed and inhabitable, in contrast to the temple. It need not denote that they were ornately decorated (sepunim, 'panelled') as a sign of the community's wealth. In any case, as noted below, economic hardship in Haggai was an outcome of neglect of the temple, not an excuse for inattention to it. The suggestion of H.G.M. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah [WBC, 16; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985], p. 81), that the lack of resources for temple rebuilding can be explained by the non-payment of funds promised from satrapal taxes in the reign of Cyrus (see Ezra 6.4), is questionable even on the evidence of the Ezra narrative itself. In Ezra 5 the Judeans commence the temple rebuilding in Darius I's reign in advance of funds issued from the Achaemenid Persian administration. Hag. 1.8; 2.15-19 also seemingly support this view. Had Cyrus issued a decree for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple (Ezra 1.1-3; 6.1-5), lack of resources cannot account for the length of the delay (some eighteen years) since the Judeans rebuild immediately on Haggai's call. Why then could the temple rebuilding not have been undertaken five or fifteen years before Haggai's time? 5. K. Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964), p. 57, and supported, apparently independently, by Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, pp. 28-29.

74


Haggai's words would have had meaning for those Judeans not recently repatriated. The drought is nevertheless the effect of the temple remaining in ruins, not the cause of the people's lack of interest in rebuilding. Yahweh had cursed people and land as he had been angered by the people's refusal to rebuild. O.H. Steck has rightly contended that the futility curses in Hag. 1.5-11; 2.15-17 are understood by the Judeans as a continuation of those divinely implemented in 587 BCE with the destruction of the state.6 Haggai holds a different view, however, interpreting the curses as the direct result of the rejection of the recent call to rebuild the temple. Futility curses are not only to be found in the context of covenant breaking (as the demise of the kingdom, the exile, and the absence of Yahweh are interpreted). They are also understood to be the result of cultic or ethical infractions (for example, 2 Sam. 21.1-14; Amos 4.4-12; Hos. 4.1-3; Isa. 5.8-10; Joel 1-2). The futility curses in Haggai arise from such a cultic infraction, namely, inattention to the temple. Rather than seeing Hag. 1.2 as evidence of moral turpitude on the part of the Judeans, in that they looked to their own affairs instead of to the rebuilding of the temple of Yahweh, attention should be turned to the possibility that the community had excellent ideological reasons for not rebuilding the temple. It is evident from a number of biblical texts that the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the dissolution of the kingdom of Judah at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar in 587 BCE were held to be the result of the anger of Yahweh against his people (for example, 2 Kgs 21.10-15; 23.26-27; 24.20; Ps. 79.1-4; Lam. 1.12; 2.1, 3, 21-22; 3.1,43; 4.11; Ezek. 5.13; 7.8, 13; 8.17-18; 2 Chron. 36.16). In his anger Yahweh had abandoned his temple in Jerusalem in preparation for its destruction (Ezek. 10.18-22; 11.22-25). Texts from the early postmonarchical period understandably display a concern with the abatement of the divine ire and the return of Yahweh to his land (for example, Pss. 74, 79; Isa. 63.7-64.11; Lam. 5). The central issue here was: when? Related to this are three further questions. Was there a timetable for the end of the deity's ire and his return to his shrine? If so, could the divine timetable be determined? What signs would manifest the change in the deity's mood? Since the rebuilding of a shrine which an angry deity had consigned to destruction could not be undertaken without clear evidence that such work had divine sanction, Hag. 1.2 can be interpreted as reflecting the Judeans' perception that the dissipation 6.

Steck, 'Zu Haggai 1:2-11', pp. 374-77.


75

of Yahweh's anger was not yet evident and nor was his return to Jerusalem imminent, rather than as an excuse for inattention to rebuilding the temple. In the light of the use of the formula ume imlu iksuda adanna, 'the days were fulfilled, the appointed time arrived', and the shorter formula ume imlu, 'the days were fulfilled', in Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions, the word 'et, 'time', in Hag. 1.2 can be understood as a technical term denoting the divinely appointed occasion either for the end of a deity's anger with his people and land (which can include the notion of the return of the deity to a previously abandoned shrine) or for the restoration of a shrine.7 These formulae presume that there is a divine timetable determining the length of the deity's anger, and a number of texts specifically include the change in the deity's disposition as a precursor to the rebuilding of a destroyed shrine or the return of the deity to the shrine. The classic example is the destruction and restoration of Babylon and Esagila, Marduk's temple in Babylon, as recounted in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon.8 J.A. Brinkman understands that these events are presented 7. S. Japhet (The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology', USQR44 [1991], p. 206; idem, '"History" and "Literature" in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple', in M. Cogan and I. Eph'al [eds.], Ah, Assyria... Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor [ScrHier, 33; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991], p. 179) notes this import of the word 'time' in Hag. 1.2 but does not discuss it at any length. See, similarly, Steck, 'Zu Haggai 1:2-11', pp. 362, 376, who translates 'et in Hag. 1.2 as 'Zeitpunkt'. 'et is also used in the Hebrew Bible to denote the appointed time for Yahweh to execute judgment on Jerusalem, his people, or foreign nations; see, for example, Jer. 27.7; Ezek. 7.7, 12; 30.3. On the angry deity's abandonment of a shrine in Sumerian and Akkadian texts see D.I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology (Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series, 2; Jackson, MS: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), pp. 129-46. The divine abandonment motif recurs in Neo-Assyrian texts to justify the destruction of enemies or recalcitrant vassals; see, for example, M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (SBLMS, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 9-21; H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT, 129; GSttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), pp. 354-62. These texts do not mention the end of the deities' ire as the reason why they return to their homelands, rather their return is portrayed as an act of beneficence on the part of the Assyrian king; see Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, pp. 22-41. 8. R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Konigs von Assyrien (AfO Beihefte, 9; Graz: Weidner, 1956), pp. 10-29, §11.

76


with a thematic structure: divine alienation—devastation: divine reconciliation—reconstruction.9 Detailed analysis of the Esarhaddon inscriptions is unnecessary here. For present purposes it need only be noted that the 'divine alienation—devastation' aspect is exemplified in the anger of Marduk with his people and land (§11, ep. 5) which leads to the divine abandonment of shrines, the devastation of Babylon and Esagila, and the depopulation of the land (§11, ep. 7-9). Originally Marduk had determined the punishment to last for seventy years, the completion of this period being stated in the formula adi time im[/tf...], 'until the days were fulfilled', but out of compassion he changed the period to eleven years (§11, ep. 10 b).10 Shortening of the period of the divine ire marks the beginning of 'divine reconciliation'—dMarduk inuhuma ana mdti sa eninu irsu salifmu]... remu irsima iqtabi ahulap, 'Marduk quieted down and became reconciled with the land he had punished...he had pity and said "Enough!"' (§11, ep. 10 b)—a theme continued by means of divinely given signs (planetary omens, extispicy) which convinced Esarhaddon that he had been commissioned to undertake the rebuilding of Babylon and Esagila ('reconstruction') (§11, ep. 12-17). This task he dutifully fulfils (§11, ep. 18-41). This pattern can be seen in other Akkadian royal inscriptions which, because they are written ex eventu, often cite the specific duration of the deity's absence.11 Other examples of the 'time' formula are used to denote the 9. J.A. Brinkman, Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon's Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon', JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 35-42. 10. That is, in changing his decision Marduk reversed 'seventy' years (the numeral written vertical [60] + Winkelhaken [10]), with it thus becoming 'eleven' years (written Winkelhaken [10] + vertical [1]). 11. See, for example, CJ. Gadd, 'Inscribed Barrel Cylinder of Marduk-AplaIddina IF, Iraq 15 (1953), p. 123, lines 9-11, number of years broken: [MU-x]-

KAM-ma...[ad]i? time imlu iksuda adanna [belu] rabu dMarduk ana kurAkkadiki sa ikmilu irsu salima, '[x ye]ars...until the days were fulfilled, the appointed time arrived when the great [lord] Marduk became reconciled with the land of Akkad with which he had been angry'. This is followed by the divine choice of a king, the defeat of enemies, and the restoration of Ktar's shrine Eanna. S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften (trans. R. Zehnpfund; VAB, 4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912), Nbn 8, i, 23-30, twenty-one years: 21 sandti qirib A3$urikl irtame subatsu [ijmlu ume iksuda adannu inuhma uzzasu sa sar Hani, Tor 21 years he (Marduk) established his seat in Assur. The days were fulfilled, the appointed time arrived, the anger of the king of the gods abated'. Following this a new king is selected, enemies are defeated with the aid of an ally, and shrines are rebuilt. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften, Nbn 8, x, 12-21, fifty-four


77

return to a shrine by a deity whose absence was not due to anger.12 This formula can also be used to denote the appointed time set by a nonabsent deity for the renewal of a dilapidated shrine.13 While the 'time' formula is not always used to introduce the change in the angry deity's attitude towards his people and abandoned sanctuary, a clear sign of the deity's new mood is nevertheless signalled, usually through the appointment of a new king (the king who has had the royal inscription written) who is charged with fulfilling the deity's will which includes the restoration of the shrine, return to cultic normality, and, where appropriate, punishment of the present regime.14 A number of these texts also years: E.HUL.HULsa innadu 54 sandti... itekpusitti ildni adannu salimu 54 sandti enumu dSin iturru asrussu 'as to Ehulhul which had lain in ruins for fifty-four years, the time when the gods were to be reconciled, [that is] fifty-four years, approached, when Sin would return to his home' (the formula itkupus... adannu has replaced iksuda adanna). The restoration of shrines follows this episode. The deity can also appoint the duration of the exile of others from their cities. See, for example, C.J. Gadd, 'The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus', AnSt 8 (1958), pp. 60-61, col. II, 11. 11-12 (Nbn H^, A and B) for the ten-year period Nabonidus was sent away from Babylon; then 10 sandti iksudama adannu imlu umu sa iqbu sar Hi d Nannari, '(In) ten years the appointed time arrived, the days were fulfilled which Nannar, king of the gods, had commanded'. 12. See, for example, R. Borger, 'Gott Marduk und Gott-Konig Sulgi als Propheten: Zwei prophetische Texte', BO 28 (1971), p. 8, col. ii, 12: umija umallima sandtija umallima, 'I fulfilled my days, I fulfilled my years', where the deity had been absent on a series of journeys to foreign lands (immediately following is a 'prophecy' regarding the restoration of Ekursagila). One of these excursions has the number of years cited (twenty-four years—i, 17). The other journeys may also have given the exact number of years the deity had determined to be away from his land, but the text is quite fragmentary. 13. So, for example, S. Langdon, The H. Weld-Blundell Collection in the Ashmolean Museum. I. Sumerian and Semitic Religious and Historical Texts (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Inscriptions, 1; London: Oxford University Press, 1923), pis. 23-25 (Cylinder of Nabonidus), and note pi. 23 11. 1-3: inum Anum u d Enlil sa uruSipparikl iqbu edessu adansunum kmi iksudam, 'When Anu and Enlil commanded the restoration of Sippar, the right time for them arrived'. 14. For example, Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften, Nbn 1, i, 153, and Gadd, 'Harran Inscriptions', p. 46, cols. 1,39-11,21 (Nbn HI, B); p. 56, col. I, 11-14 (Nbn H2, A and B), which do not have the 'time' formula but nevertheless display the need for the angry deity to give a sign that his countenance has changed, is now returning to his shrine, and wants the king to rebuild the temple. The Cyrus Cylinder similarly has a change in the angry deity's attitude followed by the appointment of a new king and the renewal of shrines (5 R 35 11. 11-34). In a message from

78


speak of the use of divinely given signs, such as dreams, extispicy and planetary omens, by which means the the king is informed of the deity's will regarding his return and/or temple rebuilding.15 All these examples show that the determination of the deity's will regarding the rebuilding or restoration of a shrine was considered of paramount importance. Similar notions about the abatement of Yahweh's anger and his return to Jerusalem were current in post-monarchical biblical texts other than Hag. 1.2. 'et is used in Ps. 102.14, a psalm which deals with the concern for Yahweh's return after the destruction of Jerusalem, with the technical sense of a divinely appointed 'time' for the end of the deity's ire. The text reads: 'attah taqum terahem siyyon ki-'et lehennah ki-ba' mo'ed, 'You will arise, you will have mercy on Zion; for it is time to be gracious to her, the appointed time has come'.16 What marked the 'time' is not noted in this text, however. Jer. 25.11-12 affords an interesting comparison with the Akkadian texts cited above in that it specifies the duration of the deity's judgment on Judah and speaks of the deity acting against his people's oppressor once the designated period is 'full': wehdyah kimlo'wt sib'im sanah 'epqod ' al-melek-babel, 'But when the seventy years are fulfilled I will punish the king of Babylon'. Jer. 29.10-14 also mentions seventy years as the period granted for Babylonian hegemony, at the end of which the Judean exiles will return to their homeland.17 Jeremiah 50-51, although lacking a AsSur to Assurbanipal, the god's anger is said to have abated as a result of the obedient action of Assurbanipal, who had been divinely commissioned to crush Samas'Sum-ukln. Assurbanipal is then directed to renew the gods of Babylon and their shrines; see A. Livingstone (ed. and trans.), Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA, 3; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989), no. 44 rev. 19-23 (text partially restored). 15. See the examples cited in V.(A.) Hurowitz, / Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup, 115; JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series, 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 143-60. 16. Hebrew rhm and hnn, denoting the deity's change in temperament, can be compared with the use of remu, rasu remu, rasu tajjdru, rasu salimu, pasdhu libbu/kabattu, nahu ibbu/kabattu, nahu uzzu, saldmu, sullumu in similar contexts in Akkadian royal inscriptions. 17. Given that 'seventy years' was the period Babylon is said to suffer under Marduk's ire in the Esarhaddon inscriptions cited above, as well as being the duration of one stage in Yahweh's punishment of Tyre in Isa. 23.15, its use in Jer. 25.11-12 and Jer. 29.10 should be viewed as a literary convention. On this interpretation see P. Grelot, 'Soixante-dix semaines d'annees', Bib 50 (1969), pp. 175-77; E. Lipinski,


79

mention of 'seventy years', displays a similar understanding of the divine timetable. The fall of Babylon signals a turning point in Yahweh's punishment of his people. Yahweh and Israel will now be reconciled. This rapprochement is said to come to pass 'at that time' (ba'et hahi', Jer. 50.4, 20; cf. Jer. 29.10); that is, at the divinely determined time. In the same vein, Deutero-Isaiah, which also lacks a reference to 'seventy years', identifies the demise of Babylon and the rise of Cyrus to kingship over Babylon as marking the end of Yahweh's anger with his people (Isa. 41.25-29; 43.14-15; 44.28-45.6; 46-47; 48.12-16). This results in the immediate deliverance of the Judean exiles (Isa. 41.8-13; 43.1-7; 44.23-28; 46.12-13; 48.20; 49.8-13,24-26; 52.7-12; 54.7-8), the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple (Isa. 44.28), and the renewal of Jerusalem and the land of Judah (Isa. 44.1-5, 26; 49.8, 14-19; 51.3; 54.1-2, 11-14). These events are described as taking place at 'a time of favour' ('et rason, Isa. 49.8).18 That the divinely determined timetable used the end of Babylonian rule to mark the abatement of Yahweh's anger explicitly underpins the issuing of the Cyrus edict in 2 Chron. 36.20-23 ('seventy years' mentioned in 2 Chron. 36.21) and in Ezra 1.1-3.19 'Recherches sur le livre Zacharie', VT 20 (1970), pp. 38-40; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), pp. 143-46; M. Fishbane, 'Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 356-57; idem, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 479-81. If the 'seventy years' of Babylonian hegemony over Judah mentioned in Jer. 25.11-12 and Jer. 29.10 is taken literally, then this period would have commenced around 609 BCE, when the Babylonians were gaining power in Palestine; see C. Jeremias, Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja: Untersuchungen zu ihrere Stellung im Zusammenhang der Visionsberichte im Alien Testament und zu ihrem Bildmaterial (FRLANT, 117; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), pp. 130-35. Note, however, that Jer. 25.1 dates the Jer. 25.11-12 prophecy to 605 BCE, so at best 'seventy years' is only approximate, and not to be taken literally. For an attempt to interpret the 'seventy years' in the biblical texts (Jer. 25.11-12; 29.10; 2 Chron. 36.20-21; Dan. 9.2) literally and to harmonize the beginning of this period in the various texts, see R.E. Winkle, 'Jeremiah's Seventy Years for Babylon: A ReAssessment. Part I: The Scriptural Data', AUSS 25 (1987), pp. 201-14; idem, 'Part II: The Historical Data', AUSS 25 (1987), pp. 289-99. 18. Hebrew 'et rason may have a nuance similar to ume salmu, 'a propitious day', in Akkadian royal inscriptions. This phrase often occurs in reference to a divinely designated day for temple building or restoration. See the references cited in CAD s.v. salmu mng 1 e 2'. 19. 2 Chron. 36.20-21 sees the end of the 'seventy years' arriving with the edict of Cyrus and identifies its beginning with the exile of all Judeans in 587 BCE. The

80


Zechariah, Haggai's contemporary, is also concerned with determining the end of Yahweh's ire. Like Jer. 25.12, 29.10, he mentions 'seventy years': "The messenger of Yahweh then responded, "How long ('ad-matay), O Yahweh Sebaoth, before you show compassion (rhni) for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah with which you have been angry these past seventy years?"' (Zech. 1.12). 'Seventy years' in this text is not the predetermined duration of Yahweh's anger nor is it tied to the fall of Babylon or the edict of Cyrus as marking the end of this period. Drawing on 'seventy years' as a literary convention, the messenger seeks to know if the divine anger is now exhausted. The messenger does not know when the period of Yahweh's ire will elapse. The lament formula 'How long?' in Zech. 1.12 should not be construed as a complaint directed against Yahweh because earlier expectations of the abatement of Yahweh's anger had not been met. This formula is a standard address to the deity in laments, an address which functions to fasten the deity's attention on the plight of his worshipers rather than referring to unfulfilled promises of restoration.20 The 'seventy years' of Yahweh's anger against Jerusalem (Zech. 1.12) need not be understood as a reference to Jeremiah's 'seventy years' prophecy, as is often done. That is, it is not an attempt to reinterpret the seventy-year period was determined by the land's need to enjoy the sabbatical years the Judeans had not observed (see Lev. 25.1-7; 26.32-35); see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, pp. 480-81; S. J. De Vries, 'The Land's Sabbath in 2 Chr 36:21', PEGLAMBS 6 (1986), pp. 96-103. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemia, pp. 910, considers Jer. 25.11-12 and 29.10 to lie behind 2 Chron. 36.20-23 because of the explicit reference to 'seventy years', but Jeremiah 51 to lie behind Ezra 1.1 since it lacks this reference. This is consonant with his view that Chronicles and EzraNehemiah are the products of different authors. 20. W.A.M. Beuken, Haggai—Sacharja 1-8 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967), pp. 240-41. For the cultic use of 'ad-matay, 'how long?', see Pss. 6.4; 74.10; 80.5 (Eng. v. 4); 90.13; 94.3. It also occurs in other prophetical texts: see Isa. 6.11; Jer. 12.4; Dan. 12.6 (where it is related to discerning the duration or 'time' of a prophesied event to take place). This formula also occurs in Sumerian laments; for references see M.E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Potomac, MD: Capital Decisions Limited, 1988), II, p. 766 s.v. me-ne-5e. For its use in Akkadian appeals to deities (Akkadian adi mati) see, for example, R.E. Briinnow, 'Assyrian Hymns', 7A 5 (1890), pp. 79-80,1. 71; L.W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends Concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind (London: Luzac, 1902), I, Appendix V, 11. 56, 59, 93, 94; M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Konige bis zum Untergange Niniveh's (VAB, 7; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916), H, p. 252, rev. 14.


81

Jeremiah prophecy by making the starting point 587 BCE so that the period between the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the commencement of reconstruction was approximately seventy years (587520 BCE). Zech. 1.12 does not display any certainty that Yahweh's ire will be coming to an end, nor is there any mention of earlier prophecy on the duration of the divine anger which could serve as the basis for the prophet to call upon Yahweh to relent. On the contrary, the text reflects the prophet's uncertainty regarding the will of the deity.21 It is likely that seventy years was understood to be an appropriate time for the deity to punish his people since by that time all members of the generation which had offended the deity would have died.22 Zech. 1.12 21. 'aser 'tint qasaptime'at in Zech. 1.15 should be translated 'though I was only a little angry' following, for example, Galling, Studien, p. 113; Beuken, Haggai— Sacharja 1-8, p. 242; Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, p. 176; S. Amsler, Aggee, Zacharie 1-8 (Commentaire de 1'Ancien Testament, lie; Neuchatel and Paris: Delachaux & Niestl6,1981), p. 60. Others translate mg'dt with a temporal sense—'a little while'—so, for example, Rudolph, Haggai—Sacharja 1-8, p. 72; Jeremias, Nachtgesichte, pp. 139-40; Petersen, Haggai andZechariah 1-8, p. 137. In support of his translation Jeremias refers to Zech. 7.12 (cf. Zech. 1.2) where Yahweh is said to have had 'great anger' with his people, so that the translation 'a little angry' in Zech. 1.15 is deemed inappropriate. There is no text where Yahweh berates the nations because they ruled over Israel/Judah for too long, however. In fact, Yahweh is always presented as being in control of the duration of Israel's and Judah's oppression; see Isa. 10.25; Jer. 25.11; 29.10. Zech. 1.15 is thus not concerned with explaining why Judah's oppression had gone on so long. That is, it is not that Yahweh gave permission for the nations to chasten Judah for 'a short time' (me'at) with the outcome that the nations have incurred the deity's ire by prolonging Judah's sufferings since Yahweh's anger had in fact subsided some time ago. By asking 'how long?' (v. 12) and by Yahweh's responding that he is now returning to Jerusalem (v. 16) the text admits that it was unclear exactly when Yahweh's anger against Jerusalem and Judah was to abate. Zech. 1.15 should be interpreted in the light of other prophetical texts which exhibit a concern for the excessively harsh treatment Israel/Judah received at the hands of her oppressors, which is related to Yahweh's judgment on the nations (see Ezek. 35; Jer. 50.29; 51.7, 34-40, 49-52; Isa. 10.5-11; 47.6-9; cf. Isa. 40.2 where Jerusalem is said to have received 'double punishment for all her crimes'). This is what Zech. 1.15 refers to as the 'evil' committed by the nations, for which they incur Yahweh's ire. Another element here is that foreign nations 'rest quietly' while Judah and Jerusalem still suffer privation and loss of Yahweh's presence. Yahweh is cajoled into action by the plight of his own people and city when compared with the state of the nations. 22. Ackroyd, 'Historical Problems', p. 24; R. Borger, 'An Additional Remark on

82


thus reflects the notion that 'seventy years' may be sufficient time to exhaust the deity's anger, but the text reflects the possibility that this anger could continue. At least at the end of approximately 'seventy years' (starting in 587 BCE) it is possible to ask 'How much longer?' The interpretation of the 'seventy years' as a life-span appears to be supported by Zech. 1.1-6. Here the prophet speaks of the earlier prophetic judgment against his listeners' 'fathers'. The judgment referred to is generally accepted to be the divine abandonment of Jerusalem, the dissolution of the kingdom of Judah, and the exile to Babylonia. As the punishment foretold by these prophets had been accomplished, and the generation who were cursed by these prophets were all dead (Zech. 1.56), the prophet Zechariah could then turn to addressing the question of when Yahweh's anger might come to an end. This topic is taken up in the section immediately following (Zech. 1.7-17) where it is made explicit that the deity's change in attitude has taken place only in the prophet's own day. According to Zech. 1.12-17, the reason why the temple had not been rebuilt before this time was that Yahweh had been absent from Jerusalem after the destruction of the temple in 587 BCE and was only now returning to Jerusalem (see also Zech. 2.14, 16 [Eng. 2.10, 12]; 8.3). Temple rebuilding could be undertaken only once the divine displeasure with the nation, as reflected in the dissolution of the kingdom and divine abandonment of the temple, had passed. Yahweh's return to Jerusalem precipitates the rebuilding of the temple and the renewal of the divine presence in Jerusalem will ensure prosperity for the whole land (Zech. 2.10-17 [Eng. vv. 6-13]; 8.1-8, 20-23). That Judeans had been ignorant of the duration of Yahweh's anger and were waiting for it to abate before the temple was to be restored is displayed in other texts from the early post-monarchical period through the use of the formula 'how long?'. In Psalm 74 the Psalmist, after detailing how the Babylonian invaders destroyed the temple, asks Yahweh: How long ('ad-mdtay) will the oppressor blaspheme? Is the enemy to insult your name for ever? Why hold back your hand? Why keep your right hand hidden? (Ps. 74.10-11). P. R. Ackroyd, JNES, XVII, 23-27', JNES 18 (1959), p. 74. See also A. Malamat 'Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels', in H. Hirsch and H. Hunger (eds.), 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wein, 6.-10. Juli 1981 (AfO Beihefte, 19; Horn: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Sohne, 1982), pp. 217-19. Ps. 90.10 and Isa. 23.15-18 speak of seventy years as a life-span.


83

Similarly in Psalm 79, also after recounting the destruction of the temple, the Psalmist asks: How long ('ad-maK) will you be angry, Yahweh? For ever? (Ps. 79.5; similarly Ps. 89.47 [Eng. v. 46]).

The Psalmist is vexed by not knowing when Yahweh will turn and act on behalf of his people. He says: We have not seen our signs; there is no longer a prophet; there is no-one with us who knows how long ('ad-mah) (Ps. 74.9).23

Also vexed by Yahweh's absence and seeking his return to Jerusalem is the author of Isa. 63.7-64.11 (Eng. 64.12), a lament which must also be dated before the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple.24 In common with Psalms 74 and 79 this prophet laments the destruction of the temple (Isa. 63.18; 64.9-10 [Eng. vv. 10-11] cf. Ps. 74.3-8) and awaits news of Yahweh's return. The poem recounts Yahweh's actions in the past on behalf of his people, it admits the wrongdoing of the people, and calls on Yahweh to again rule over them. After noting the current devastation of Jerusalem and Judah the poem ends with a poignant plea: Do not be angry indefinitely, Yahweh, or go on thinking of our sin for ever... Yahweh, can you go unmoved by all of this, oppressing us beyond measure by your silence? (Isa. 64.8, 11 [Eng. vv. 9,12]).

Similar sentiments concerning the desolation of Zion and the pain of not knowing when, or if, Yahweh's anger will relent are expressed in Lam. 5.20,22: Why forget us for ever? Why abandon us for good?... But you have utterly rejected us, in anger that knows no limit.25

All these texts exhibit a concern for the return of Yahweh and the restoration of Jerusalem. They also share a painful ignorance of when 23. On this verse see J.J.M. Roberts, 'Of Signs, Prophets, and Time Limits: A Note on Psalm 74:9', CBQ 39 (1977), pp. 474-81. A related idea is expressed in Lam. 2.9: 'Even her prophets receive no further vision from Yahweh'. Psalm 80 should probably be seen as another psalm from this period exhibiting the characteristic of not knowing how long Yahweh's anger is to last (Ps. 80.5 [Eng. v. 4]). 24. H.G.M. Williamson, 'Isaiah 63,7-64,11: Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 48-58. 25. See, similarly, Pss. 44.24 (Eng. v. 23, if post-587 in date. Perhaps it is to be dated to after the 597 deportation); 85.6 (Eng. v. 5); 89.47 (Eng. v. 46).

84


Yahweh will have a change of heart. This is the context in which the statement of the Judeans recorded in Hag. 1.2 is to be understood. While it might be argued that all the texts cited immediately above are to be dated before Deutero-Isaiah and Jeremiah 50-51, or are ignorant of the 'seventy years' prophecy in Jeremiah, it is commonly assumed that the Judeans quoted in Hag. 1.2 must have known of these previous determinations of the 'time' when Yahweh's ire was to abate, namely, with the end of Babylonian hegemony, since Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 are dated after the Jeremiah passages and Deutero-Isaiah. But the Judeans' claim to be ignorant of the 'time' is not incompatible with knowledge of earlier prophetic understandings of the divine timetable. Drawing on monarchical period ideas of Yahweh's enthronement in Jerusalem, the return of Yahweh to take up residence in Jerusalem was understood in many post-monarchical texts to be an expression of the kingship of Yahweh which would be attended by tangible signs such as the repatriation of all exiles, the blessing of Yahweh's people and land, the destruction of enemies, the acknowledgment by the nations of Yahweh's sovereignty, the re-establishment of the kingship of David, and the reunification of Judah and Israel.26 The expectations engendered by earlier prophecies proclaiming the return of Yahweh to Jerusalem had not been met. There was thus no reason for the Judeans to think that the divinely-appointed 'time' had arrived or that anyone knew when it would in fact arrive. Prophecy about this matter may therefore have fallen into disrepute.27 Further, temple (re)building had always been undertaken by a king who had been appointed for the task by the deity. Even Deutero-Isaiah had Cyrus, a king, cast in the role of temple rebuilder. A king was needed before rebuilding could commence and although Zerubbabel was of the royal house of Judah, the temple could not be built by a would-be king.28 For the Judeans quoted in Hag. 1.2 none of the prerequisites for rebuilding the national shrine of Judah in 26. See, for example, S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. G.W. Anderson; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), pp. 136-49; J. Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), pp. 158-81. 27. Roberts, 'Of Signs and Prophets', pp. 479-80. 28. Zerubbabel is a member of the Judean royal house according to Hag. 1.1,12, 14; 2.23, where he is termed 'son of Shealtiel'. Shealtiel is the son of Jehoiachin ('Jeconiah') in 1 Chron. 3.17. According to 1 Chron. 3.17-19, however, Zerubbabel is the grandson of Shealtiel. On attempts to clarify Zerubbabel's lineage, see Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, pp. 10-11.


85

Jerusalem had been met beyond the appearance of a potential legitimate rebuilder (Zerubbabel). Clearly, his presence was not considered a sufficient reason in itself to commence rebuilding. R.P. Carroll has contended that Haggai and Zechariah are exhibiting cognitive dissonance because they, together with the rest of the community, knew of Deutero-Isaiah's prophecies which had not reached fulfillment, and so Haggai blamed the people for the delay in the promised blessing since they had refused to rebuild the temple.29 These prophets thus accepted the end of Babylonian rule as marking the end of Yahweh's ire and sought reasons for the delay in the arrival of the promised era of blessing. The emphasis of Haggai's and Zechariah's prophecies certainly has similarities with Deutero-Isaiah: a new age is about to dawn with Yahweh's return to Jerusalem; Yahweh will prove himself to be Israel's divine king (Isa. 42.21; 43.15; 44.6; 52.7; cf. the use of the appellation 'Sebaoth' in Haggai and Zechariah)30 and he will manifest his kingship over the nations (Isa. 41.2-4; 45.1-3,11-13; 46-47; 48.12-16; 51.9-10; Hag. 2.6-9, 20-23; Zech. 2.13 [Eng. v. 9]); Yahweh is to return to Jerusalem, bringing the exiles with him (Isa. 40.3-5, 9-10; 41.17-20; 42.10-17; 43.1-7, 16-21; 52.7-12; 54.1; Zech. 2.10-17 [Eng. vv. 6-13]; 8.7-8); Jerusalem will be repopulated and enjoy blissful conditions (Isa. 52.7; 54.1-3,11-17; Hag. 2.9; Zech. 8.1-8). These shared elements do not necessarily mean that Haggai and Zechariah were attempting to revive and reschedule the deferred hopes of Deutero-Isaiah. As Carroll himself has pointed out elsewhere, the background for Deutero-Isaiah's thought is the Jerusalem cult.31 The same can be said for Haggai and Zechariah. Most of these motifs are evidenced in the Zion Psalms (Pss. 46, 48, 76), the Yahweh malak Psalms (Pss. 47, 93, 96-99), and other monarchical period Psalms. It is 29. R.P. Carroll, When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in the Old Testament Prophetic Traditions (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 160-62. 30. For the connection of the appellation 'Sebaoth' to the kingship of Yahweh in the monarchical Jerusalem cult, see T.N.D. Mettinger, The Dethronement ofSabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConBOT, 18; Lund: Gleerup, 1982), pp. 19-37; H.-J. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 17-24. 31. R.P. Carroll, 'Second Isaiah and the Failure of Prophecy', ST 32 (1978), pp. 121-24. See also Mowinckel, He That Cometh, pp. 138-49; Gray, Reign of God, pp. 160-81; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-55 (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1969), pp. 23-27; T.N.D. Mettinger, 'In Search of the Hidden Structure: YHWH as King in Isaiah 40-55', SEA 51-52 (1986-87), pp. 148-57.

86


the cultic Zion ideology and the cultic ideology of the kingship of Yahweh which serves as the common background for these prophetic expectations of the restoration of Israel. It is not surprising that prophets calling for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple would draw upon these ideologies since they had legitimated this temple in the monarchical period. Further, unlike prophecies in Trito-Isaiah which arguably display cognitive dissonance by clearly castigating the community for stalling the promised blessings of the restoration (Isa. 59.1-14; 65), Zechariah cites no delay in the rebuilding or the arrival of an era of blessing and apportions no blame to the Judeans. Haggai reflects only on the cause of the recent drought, not on the almost twenty years' delay from the fall of Babylon to his own day. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 do not subscribe to the divine timetable of Deutero-Isaiah and Jeremiah. They simply reject it, or are ignorant of it. Hag. 1.2 shows the Judeans to be ignorant of the 'time' to rebuild and for both Haggai and Zechariah the 'time' had arrived only recently—for Haggai, immediately before the current drought which was a response to the people's refusal to recognize this; for Zechariah, only around the time of his preaching (a few months after Haggai). The conclusion to be drawn from the failure of Haggai and Zechariah either to recognize or offer an explanation for a long delay in rebuilding, the absence of any castigation of the people by these prophets for the length of the delay, and the call to rebuild presumed in Hag. 1.2 being a recent event, is that up until the prophetic activity of Haggai there had been little concern among Judeans for rebuilding the temple. Nor was there reason for them to have been concerned to rebuild. They perceived no delay in the rebuilding of the temple. They had been awaiting clear evidence for the arrival of the 'time'. What then of Ezra 1-6, the canonical narrative of the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple of Yahweh in the early Achaemenid Persian period (538-515 BCE)? This text invites the reader to interpret Haggai and Zechariah as reinvigorating the rebuilding project after an eighteenyear hiatus (538-520 BCE). Although repatriated from Babylonia at the command of Cyrus the Great in 538 BCE for the explicit purpose of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple (Ezra 1) and returning in numbers (Ezra 2.1-67) with dedication to the rebuilding project (including funding), the Judeans' work did not proceed beyond the re-establishment of the altar and the re-laying of the temple foundations in the first couple of years after their arrival (Ezra 2.68-3.13). The project was thwarted by the local 'people of the land'. These people were self-confessed foreigners


87

imported into the region (Ezra 4.1-3, 9-19) who, when their offer to aid in the rebuilding was rejected by the repatriates as inappropriate, revealed themselves to be 'the enemies of Judah and Benjamin' (Ezra 4.1) by gaining an injunction against the temple rebuilding. As Ezra 4.56 expresses it: 'The people of the land discouraged the people of Judah and made them afraid to build. They bribed counselors to oppose them in order to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus, king of Persia, until the reign of Darius, king of Persia.' Construction of the temple was thus halted until the second year of Darius I (Ezra 4.24) when the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred the Judeans to rebuild (Ezra 5.12). Having had their permission to rebuild checked and ratified, the Judeans continued the work until its completion in the sixth year of Darius I (515 BCE) (Ezra 5-6). Haggai, Zechariah and the Judean community are thus placed in a narrative context where the end of Babylonian hegemony and the rise of Cyrus marked the end of Yahweh's anger with his people and city. Many commentators have obligingly attempted to read Haggai and Zechariah in the context of Ezra 1-6, but smoothing out the anomalies between the narrative and prophetical texts is problematic. To contend that the 'time' was marked by the edict of Cyrus and the repatriation, and then to blame 'the people of the land' for the passivity of the Judeans regarding the temple rebuilding in the reign of Darius, is questionable from the Ezra 1-6 narrative itself.32 When building activity recommences in Ezra 5 there is no mention of the sanction noted in Ezra 4.4-5, 24 which originally halted the work. Surprisingly, the opponents who feature so prominently in Ezra 4 are conspicuous by their absence in Ezra 5-6. Why do 'the people of the land' not remind the Achaemenid Persian administration that the rebuilding had been prohibited? In Ezra 4.1-5 the opponents of the Judeans are shown to be active against the reconstruction of the temple 32. The identity of the 'people(s) of the land(s)' (Ezra 3.3; 4.4) is difficult to determine. They are usually considered to be non-repatriates, both those Judeans who never went into exile and the inhabitants of neighboring provinces; see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 46, 50; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1988), pp. 98, 108. The tendentious view of the Hebrew narrative of Ezra is that the land was devoid of Judeans after 587 BCE, thus whoever the repatriates found there could not have been legitimate Judeans. Note 4 above contends that Haggai makes no distinction between repatriated and non-repatriated Judeans. Zechariah 1-8 is similar in this regard.

88


throughout the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses, while in Ezra 4.6-23 they successfully oppose the reconstruction of the city-wall of Jerusalem in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. Whence their reticence in voicing opposition to the temple rebuilding in the reign of Darius? This point is particularly pressing given the fact that in Ezra 5-6 there had been no remittance of the injunction of Ezra 4.5. The silence of the opponents can hardly be due to a change of heart on the part of the Achaemenid Persian administration since in Ezra 5-6 the administration does not instigate the rebuilding of the temple. Indeed, Tattenai (the regional satrap), Darius and the court administrators know nothing of any permission to rebuild the temple. The historical veracity of an injunction is further undermined by the fact that when a search was made for the edict of Cyrus by the court bureaucracy (Ezra 5.17-6.2), nothing of the earlier concerns that halted the rebuilding work in the reign of Cyrus was brought to light.33 Like Ezra 5-6, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 display no knowledge of enemies as the reason for a delay; in fact they mention no delay.34 33. Similarly, Japhet, '"History" and "Literature"', pp. 180-81. Galling (Studien, pp. 40-41, 133-34) considers the temple rebuilding to have been delayed by the governor of Samaria who had jurisdiction over Judah during this period. This too is to be rejected for the reasons given above, as well as from the likelihood that Judah was an independent sub-province under its own governor at this time (on which see H.G.M. Williamson, The Governors of Judah under the Persians', TynBul 39 [1988], pp. 59-82). 34. Some commentators contend that the social conflict spoken of in Ezra 4.1-5 should be redated to the time of the temple rebuilding in the reign of Darius, interpreting Hag. 2.10-14 as corroborating evidence for such conflict; see, for example, J.W. Rothstein, Juden und Samaritaner: Die grundlegende Scheidung von Judentum und Heidentum: Eine kritische Studie zum Buche Haggai und zur jiidischen Geschichte im ersten nachexilischen Jahrhundert (BWANT, 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908), pp. 5-41; Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1-8, pp. 67-68; Rudolph, Haggai— Sacharja 1-8, pp. 49-50; Wolff, Haggai, pp. 92-94; D. Smith, Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, IN: MeyerStone, 1989), pp. 179-88. A cogent case has been made, however, for identifying 'this people' and 'this nation' in Hag. 2.14 with the Judeans undertaking the rebuilding, not with some supposed 'foreign' opposition; see, for example, May, '"This People" and "This Nation" in Haggai', pp. 190-97; K. Koch, 'Haggais unreines Volk', ZAW 79 (1967), pp. 52-66; Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 167-68; R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), pp. 46-54; Hausmann, Israels Rest, pp. 41-42; D.R. Hildebrand, 'Temple Ritual: A Paradigm for Moral Holiness in Haggai II 10-


89

This leads to a second argument against the rise of Cyrus denoting the end of Yahweh's anger and the time for temple rebuilding. Since Haggai and Zechariah appear in the Ezra narrative it is surprising that the texts attributed to them do not mention any earlier construction work, or the earlier dedication of the Judeans to the task, or why the work had had to stop. It is all the more surprising given that Zerubbabel and Joshua, the officials taking charge of the rebuilding in both the Ezra narrative and the prophetical texts, are said to have been responsible for the earlier work in the reign of Cyrus (Ezra 3.1-9; 5.2; cf. Ezra 5.13-16 which says that Sheshbazzar was responsible for the temple foundation-laying in the reign of Cyrus). Despite these anomalies both within the Ezra narrative and between Ezra 1-6 and Haggai/Zechariah 1-8, there have been attempts to argue that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple was initially undertaken in the reign of Cyrus. One approach contends that there were two foundation-layings, one in the reign of Cyrus, as recounted in Ezra 3.712, and a second in the reign of Darius, as Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (Hag. 2.18; Zech. 4.6b-10a) aver. Thus Ezra 3 and Haggai/Zechariah 18 are not in tension.35 Ezra 5.13-16 can be harmonized by identifying Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel or, assuming these individuals are distinct, by attributing the work to Sheshbazzar, the leader of the repatriates (Ezra 1.8), although in reality Zerubbabel, Sheshbazzar's contemporary (Ezra 2.2) and subordinate, undertook the task (Ezra 3.7-12).36 The 19', VT 39 (1989), pp. 161-63; T. Unger, 'Noch einmal: Haggais unreines Volk', ZAW 103 (1991), pp. 210-25. Had Haggai shared the perspective of the Hebrew narrative of Ezra it is remarkable that he lacks the invective directed against 'the people of the land' which pervades that text. Zechariah makes no mention whatsoever of rejected peoples or social conflict attending the rebuilding of the temple (Zech. 8.10 reflects on economic conditions before the rebuilding commenced; cf. Hag. 1.6-7). 35. So, for example, J.S. Wright, The Building of the Second Temple (London: Tyndale Press, 1958), p. 17, and most recently, F.C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 61-62, who thinks that the foundation had been laid in 537 (Ezra 3.10), but when building recommenced in the first years of Darius, after a hiatus of some eighteen years, the foundation was dilapidated and hence had to be re-laid. C.G. Tuland ("uSSayya' and 'uSSarna: A Clarification of Terms, Date, and Text', JNES 17 [1958], pp. 274-75) also holds that there were two foundation-layings, the first to be dated to 530-529; that is, towards the end of Cyrus's reign. 36. For the latter view, see Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel. IV. From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (trans. C.W. Efroymson; New

90


problem with this solution is that it is in accord with none of the texts since they all affirm but one foundation-laying. Further, for reasons noted below, it is doubtful that two foundation-layings would have taken place, especially when Zerubbabel is held to be responsible for both. A second approach argues that there were no foundation-layings. The discrepancy between Haggai/Zechariah 1-8 and Ezra 3.7-12; 5.13-16 over when the temple foundation was laid is resolved by the claim that these references do not actually speak of foundation-laying, but only of repair work. A start was made at repairing the temple in the reign of Cyrus (Ezra 3; 5.13-16) and after the intervention of 'the people of the land' construction was recommenced only in the reign of Darius (Ezra 5; Hag. 2.15-18; Zech. 4.9). Thus there were not two temple foundationlayings but rather two separate beginnings were made to repair the temple.37 This proposal is unconvincing, however, since it cannot satisfy the claims of the relevant texts. The reference to the rebuilding under Cyrus in the Aramaic narrative (Ezra 5.13-16) credits Sheshbazzar with setting York: Ktav, 1977), p. 194. On the former view, see J. Lust, 'The Identification of Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar', ETL 63 (1987), pp. 90-95; M. Saeb0, The Relation of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Reconsidered', SEA 54 (1989), pp. 168-77. Most commentators consider Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel to be distinct individuals and believe that the author or editor of Ezra understood them as such; so, most recently, S. Japhet, 'Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 66-98 (especially p. 91) and idem, 'Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah IF, ZAW95 (1983), pp. 21829; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 17. W. Rudolph (Esra und Nehemiah, samt 3. Esra [HAT, 20; Tubingen: Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1949], p. 18) holds that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were distinct individuals historically, but the author of Ezra 1-6 understands them to be one and the same person. 37. So F.I. Andersen, 'Who Built the Second Temple?', AusBR 6 (1958), pp. 1022; A. Gelston, The Foundations of the Second Temple', VT 16 (1966), pp. 232-35, who argue that ysd (Ezra 3.10) need not specifically refer to foundation-laying but can have a much broader sense of 'repair, restore, rebuild'. They also claim that the temple foundations would not have been destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, so there would be no need to re-lay them, only to clear the debris and repair (ysd) them; cf. 2 Chron. 24.27. Ezra 5.16, however, states that Sheshbazzar yehab 'ussayya' di-bet 'elaha', which Gelston suggests means the (re-)setting of the original foundations, which could be subsumed under the work described by ysd in Ezra 3.10. D.J.A. Clines (Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], pp. 88-89) considers 'ussayya' to be the temple platform, not the foundations.


91

the 'ussayya' in place (Ezra 5.16); the 'ussayya' being the foundation of the temple.38 While correctly identifying the initial work that had to be undertaken on the temple, the attribution of this work to Sheshbazzar in the reign of Cyrus founders on the evidence of Haggai and Zechariah 18. Indeed, Haggai and Zechariah are not simply ignorant of any foundation-laying before their day. Rather, as Haggai puts it, before construction began in the second year of Darius 'not one stone [of the temple] was set on another' (Hag. 2.15); that is, against the contention that repairs were undertaken in the reign of Cyrus, no work whatsoever had been carried out on the temple. Haggai and Zechariah apparently know nothing of the edict of Cyrus nor of any rebuilding attempt prior to that undertaken under Darius I, thus pointing to the fact that there was but one rebuilding, and that in the second year of Darius.39 That the temple foundation re-laying specifically is in view in Ezra 3.7-12 can be shown by the author's use of features in common with the description of the first temple foundation-laying in 2 Chronicles 3-5. Particularly notable is the use of the hophal ofysd in Ezra 3.11 and 2 Chron. 3.3. The latter verse clearly refers to the foundation-laying of the 38. See Tuland, "usSayya' and 'ussarna', pp. 269-71, for 'ussayya' meaning 'foundation'. 39. Andersen, 'Second Temple', pp. 22-24, interprets hareb in Hag. 1.4, 9 as meaning 'deserted' rather than 'in ruins' since in his understanding of the events surrounding the rebuilding there had been rebuilding work undertaken before Haggai's day. This view cannot satisfactorily interpret Hag. 1.2 or 2.18, however. S. Talmon ('Ezra and Nehemiah [Books and Men]', in IDBSup, pp. 322-23), followed by H.G.M. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 43-45), has sought to preserve the veracity of Ezra's Hebrew narrative while acknowledging that there was only one foundation-laying by Zerubbabel in the reign of Darius, in agreement with Haggai and Zech. 1-6. They offer an interpretation of Ezra 3.1-4.5, the narrative of the foundation-laying, whereby Ezra 3.1-6 is an altar dedication in the reign of Cyrus (no building undertaken at that time), Ezra 3.7-4.3 is an account in Hebrew of the rebuilding undertaken by Zerubbabel and Joshua in the reign of Darius I, and Ezra 4.4-5 is a 'summary notation' which harks back to Ezra 3.3 and to the intervention of hostile neighbors in the reign of Cyrus which prevented the commencement of rebuilding, while it also anticipates Ezra 5.1 and the rebuilding undertaken in the reign of Darius I. This interpretation has won few adherents, however. For a thorough critique of this interpretation see B. Halpern, 'A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6: Achronological Narrative and Dual Chronology in Israelite Historiography', in W.H. Propp, B. Halpern and D.N. Freedman (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Interpreters (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego, 1; WinonaLake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 97-119.

92


first temple since a description of the dimensions of the building immediately follows, which are marked out by the foundations. Msad cannot mean anything other than 'cause to be founded' in this context. Also, 2 Chron. 5.11-14 recounts a religious celebration which shares many elements with Ezra 3.10-12, and which was held at the completion of the first temple. Ezra 3.10-12 should thus be related to a foundationlaying or temple dedication ceremony, not simply to the clearing away of debris on the temple site or the renovation of its superstructure. Zechariah 1-6 incorporates a foundation-laying ritual which confirms the contention that Zerubbabel was actually re-laying the temple's foundation.40 Since he would not have re-laid the temple foundation twice, once in the reign of Cyrus (Ezra 3.7-10) and a second time in the reign of Darius I (Hag. 2.18; Zech. 4.9), the Ezra 3 narrative actually relates to the rebuilding in the time of Darius I, but has been read back into the reign of Cyrus.41 These are but a few examples of the historical and chronological difficulties and internal inconsistencies evident in the Ezra 1-6 narrative, as well as between the Ezra narrative and Haggai and Zechariah 1-8.42 They are explicable in part by the concern of the author of Ezra 1-6 to present the repatriation of the exiles as a single unified event prompted by the edict of Cyrus. It is the biblical author's belief that the repatriates are the sole legitimate heirs of monarchical Judah, there being no Judeans left in the land after the dissolution of the kingdom in 587 BCE, and as such are right to exclude non-repatriates from the community 40. On the connection of Zech. 1-6, particularly Zech. 4.6b-10a, with the Mesopotamian kalu ritual see A. Petitjean, 'La mission de Zorobabel et la reconstruction du temple: Zach., Ill, 8-10', ETL 42 (1966), pp. 40-71; Lipinski, 'Recherches', pp. 30-33; D.L. Petersen, 'Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction', CBQ 36 (1974), pp. 366-72; idem, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, pp. 240-44; B. Halpern, The Ritual Background of Zechariah's Temple Song', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 171-72. 41. On Ezra 3 recounting events in the reign of Darius I note, for example, Hag. 2.3 and Ezra 3.12 which both mention the sullenness exhibited at the laying of the foundation of the new temple by those who had known the monarchical period temple. Hag. 2.14 presumes that there is an altar on the temple site, but exactly when it was erected is disputed. Hag. 1.1-11 probably immediately precedes the erection of the altar which took place in the second year of Darius under the charge of Zerubbabel and Joshua but which is incorrectly dated to the reign of Cyrus in Ezra 3.1-6; see Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8, p. 44. 42. See Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 93-104, for a fuller discussion.


93

participating in the Jerusalem temple cult. Further, this author finds it impossible to accept that the repatriates would not have been totally committed to the temple rebuilding at their return and so must find a reason for the rebuilding not being undertaken in earnest before the second year of Darius I. The references to 'the people(s) of the land(s)' in Ezra 3.1-4.5 are anachronisms whereby the author's current antagonists are situated in the first years of the restoration in order to show that there had always been antagonism between these two groups.43 That this text was written long after the events it recounts, is tendentious, and is replete with historical problems, does not preclude its containing some historically reliable information (for example, the memorandum of Cyrus in the Aramaic section is widely accepted as being reliable), but it cannot be uncritically accepted as a history of the temple rebuilding. If the Aramaic memorandum of Cyrus (Ezra 6.2c-5) is genuine it is likely that Sheshbazzar returned to Judah from Babylonia with the temple vessels in the first years of Cyrus (Ezra 1.7-11; 5.13-16) and that he was expecting to rebuild the temple. Little or no work was carried out, however. Certainly the foundations of the temple were not re-laid at that time. Although few Judeans were repatriated with Sheshbazzar, why did those who had remained in the land not seize the opportunity to rebuild afforded by Cyrus's decree?44 If these Judeans were awaiting signs of the end of Yahweh's anger and his return to his city, why were the collapse of the Neo-Babylonian empire and the decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple not deemed sufficient, as they were in Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah (Jer. 25.11-12; 29.10; 50-51), and Ezra (Ezra 1)? Given the doubts expressed about the duration of Yahweh's anger in certain postmonarchical biblical texts discussed above, including Hag. 1.2 and Zech. 43. The date of the book of Ezra is disputed. Its dating depends in part on whether or not it should be considered the work of the Chronicler. See the summary of some of the salient aspects of the debate on authorship in Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, pp. 43-44, 47-54. If Ezra is from the hand of the Chronicler then it is conventionally dated to c. 400 BCE (see the Introductions) and the Samarians are the antagonists in view. H.G.M. Williamson ('The Composition of Ezra i-vi', JTS NS 34 [1983], pp. 1-30) argues that this narrative is not written by the Chronicler, dating its final composition to the early Hellenistic period (c. 300 BCE). While supporting the historical veracity of Ezra 1-6, he speculates that the narrative is 'intended in part as a counter propaganda to the building at this time of the first Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim' (p. 29). 44. Ezra 2 is not a list of those who returned with Sheshbazzar. See the discussion in Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 28-32; Blenkinsopp, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 83-84.

94


1.12-17, it is likely that few Judeans who had remained in the homeland accepted the demise of the Babylonians and Cyrus's edict as 'signs' since nothing tangible resulted. Deutero-Isaiah, the Jeremiah texts and Ezra 1 are not representative of the view of Judeans generally at the time of Cyrus's rise. Further, it is notable that a number of texts—Psalms 74, 79; Isa. 63.7-64.11 (Eng. 64.12); Hag. 2.6-7, 22-23—equate the destruction or submission of the nations with the return of Yahweh to Jerusalem. Yahweh's kingship is equated not with his chastisement of Babylon alone but, in concert with the monarchical Zion and Yahweh malak ideologies, it is expected that all nations must be placed under Yahweh's rule and hence his judgment. The revelation of the kingship of Yahweh and other expected results concomitant with the end of Yahweh's ire with his people did not eventuate when Cyrus succeeded Nabonidus to the throne of Babylon. Since the Jerusalem temple was a former monarchical shrine and the central cult-place of the kingdom of Judah, why would it be needed when Yahweh had not re-established Judah as a monarchical state? The Judeans even lacked a legitimate temple rebuilder since Sheshbazzar was not of the royal Judean house and Cyrus, although a king legitimated by Deutero-Isaiah to rebuild the temple, did not fulfil that role. In short, the Jerusalem temple was not rebuilt in the reign of Cyrus because the ideological demands of temple rebuilding were not met. Haggai and Zechariah faced similar ideological obstacles but they reworked the temple ideology to claim that temple rebuilding would now precede the manifestation of Yahweh's kingship (cf. 2 Sam. 7 where David entertains the possibility of building the original temple only after he had been made king, captured Jerusalem, and 'Yahweh had given him rest from all his enemies round about' [2 Sam. 7.1]). One element they had in support of their call to rebuild the temple was that a potential legitimate temple rebuilder, Zerubbabel, had appeared. How rebuilding this former monarchical shrine could cohere with Judah's being a sub-province of the Achaemenid Persian empire under the authority of the provincial administration, and how Haggai and Zechariah could convince the Judean community to rebuild the Jerusalem temple in this political context where earlier prophets had failed are issues that must be addressed on another occasion.

INCLUSION IN AND EXCLUSION FROM ISRAEL AS CONVEYED BY THE USE OF THE TERM 'ISRAEL' IN POST-MONARCHIC BIBLICAL TEXTS

Ehud Ben Zvi

1. Introduction Numerous Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts written after 586 BCE either state or imply that Israel is 'exiled Israel', whether in 'actual' exile in Babylonia or as a returnee community in Achaemenid Yehud.1 These texts neither belong to one single genre nor were composed against one single set of historical circumstances. They were not written within a single circle, and certainly not for one specific and narrow audience. A few examples will suffice to show that this is so. The book of Chronicles conveys an image of the past in which no one from Israel remained in the land after the Babylonian conquest (see 2 Chron. 36.20-21). This image implies therefore that all of its audience, and in fact any post-monarchic Israelites living in Yehud, were returnees or descendants of one. A very similar message comes from the other main 'history' of Israel, namely the Deuteronomistic History. According to 2 Kgs 25.26, the last remaining of Israel left the land following the murder of Gedaliah.2 1. See G.W. Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986), p. 103. May this paper, which to a large extent stands as a dialogue with the scholar we are honoring in this volume, be an acceptable token of my appreciation of Professor G.W. Ahlstrom, a great scholar, and above all a very caring, warm and supportive human being. May his memory be a blessing to all of us. 2. It is worth noting that at this point, the focus of the 'history of Israel' shifts in Kings to events in Babylon (2 Kgs 25.27-30), and particularly to the fate of the Judahite monarchic elite living there. This shift is never reversed in Kings. Significantly, the short account of the favorable new status of Jehoiachin in the court of the king of Babylon was seen by post-monarchic writers as the proper concluding note of two separate works, the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 52.31-44) and Kings (2 Kgs 25.27-30). There is no other instance of the sharing of a conclusion of such size

96


Ezra 2, as Blenkinsopp has convincingly argued, serves as a parallel to the occupation of the land in Joshua.3 Ezra 2 thus asks its audience to identify the returnees with the Israelites who conquered the land and displaced the Canaanites, and suggests that the latter are either comparable to or even identifiable with anyone who was in the land at the time of 'the return'. Since the audience of Ezra 2 is also asked to identify itself with the returnees, this text suggests to its historical audience that they are Israel, to the exclusion of possible non-returnee Yahwistic Yehudites. Ezra 2 does not stand alone, but is contextually related to Ezra 1, and both seem to be an integral part of a larger composition, namely Ezra 1-6.4 Significantly, Ezra 1 also conveys a similar message by presenting the return as a second exodus. This image suggests to the historical audience that they should 'regard themselves as the sole and direct heirs of the nation which had been born in Egypt'.5 This communicative message is reinforced by the recurrent use of expressions clearly connoting that the community of the returnees stands for 'all Israel' (for example, Ezra 2.70). Both the explicit or implicit claim that Yehudite Israel consists only of the returnees and the connoted message that Yehudite Israel is 'all Israel' are well attested in other sections of Ezra-Nehemiah, in addition to Ezra 1-6.6 Significantly, Ezra's return is also described in ways between two books in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (Leviticus and Numbers show a similar subscription; see Lev. 27.34; Num. 36.13; and E. Ben Zvi, 'The Closing Words of the Pentateuchal Books: A Clue for the Historical Status of the Book of Genesis within the Pentateuch', BN62 [1992], pp. 7-10.) 3. J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), pp. 83-84. On Ezra 2, its relation to the exodus imagery, and the connoted claim that the community of the returnees is 'the sole legitimate representative and heir of Israel', see H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC, 16; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), p. 110-11. 4. See H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Composition of Ezra i-vi', JTS NS 34 (1983), pp. 1-30. For a different position, see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, esp. pp. 43-44. 5. The quotation is taken from H.G.M. Williamson, The Concept of Israel in Transition', in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 157-58. See also Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 16; and idem, Ezra and Nehemiah (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 84-85. 6. For example, Ezra 10.5-8; Neh. 7.72; 9.1-2; 12.47. See also Ezra 9.1-4, and cf. Neh. 13.23-25. On the identification of the community of returnees as Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah, see, for instance, Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 52, 83-84;

BEN ZVI Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel

97

suggestive of the exodus tradition in Ezra 7 and 8.7 This horizon of ideas is not restricted to the Deuteronomistic or Chronistic History nor to Ezra-Nehemiah. For instance, it is well attested in prophetic literature, even in books such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which are considered to embody an open, inclusive vision of Israel. Thus, according to Jer. 32.43 the land is considered to be empty during the intermediate period between the fall of Judah and the 'return'. The characterization of 'all the House of Israel' in Ezek. 37.1-14 is unmistakable. It points to those living in exile, to the future returnees (Ezek. 37.11-12). It does not include those who remained in the land.8 Another text in Ezekiel (Ezek. 33.24-29) recognizes the existence of a 'non-exiled' group. According to this text, those who belong to such a group claim to be descendants of Abraham and strongly claim their right to the land in which they are dwelling. It is the contention of this text, nonetheless, that YHWH will certainly destroy this group and the land will be absolutely desolate. A similar claim, namely that God will leave no trace of those who remained in the land after the exile, is attested also in Jeremiah (Jer. 24.1-10, esp. v. 10).9 T.C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS, 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 91; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. 32; S. Japhet, 'People and Land in the Restoration Period,' in G. Strecker (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 (GTA, 25; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 103-25, esp. pp. 112-13. 7. See, for instance, Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah, pp. 85-86; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 135; R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 279; P.R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1968), p. 195; cf. K. Koch, 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', 755 19 (1974), pp. 173-97, esp. pp. 184-89. 8. The connoted exclusion of those who were not exiled is underscored by the seeming inclusiveness of the following unit (Ezek. 37.15-28) which, at least in its present context, interprets the term 'House of Israel' as including both (exiled) Judah and Joseph (that is, the exiles of the Northern Kingdom; see Ezek. 37.17-18, 21). Thus the operating principle of classification implied in this horizon of thought concerns itself with the opposition exiled/non-exiled rather than southern/northern. For the position that the prophet Ezekiel understood Israel as one single people of God, including Judah and Joseph, see Williamson, 'The Concept of Israel', pp. 143-44; cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (trans. R.E. Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 563-65; and idem, 'Israel imBuche Ezechiel', VT8 (1958), pp. 7590. 9. In this text, the exiles are described as those who were taken to Babylon with

98


It is also worth noting that the return of the exiles to Judah and Jerusalem is portrayed in terms reminiscent of the 'exodus' not only in Ezra, but also in Isaiah 40-55.10 The portrayal there—as in Ezra—leads the audience to identify the returnees symbolically with the people thought to be brought out of Egypt, namely all of 'Israel'.11 This identification is extremely significant, for the exile is actually a 'central myth of the biblical account of the past',12 and so is the related account of the conquest. Against the historical background of Achaemenid Yehud, any possible identification between the returnees and Israel of the exodus and conquest would most likely result in a reading of these two myths of origin as supporting both the claims of the returnees concerning Achaemenid Yehud—and those of the social group from which they claimed to come, 'exilic Israel'—vis-a-vis those who remained in the land.13 Jehoiakim. From a Persian period perspective, this text can only suggest that the returnees will find no living trace of Israel in the land when they return, or in other words that those living in the land at that time do not belong to Israel. Cf. W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah I (ICC, 21; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), I, pp. 605-17, esp. p. 616. 10. See, for instance, R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981), p. 50. Significantly, Isa. 52.11-12 suggests that the return to the land may be seen as even greater than the 'exodus' itself, at least in some respects (see Isa. 52.12 and cf. Deut. 12.11; notice also the emphasis on the purity of the returnees in v. 11). It is possible that the term 'Israel' in Isaiah 40-55 refers to a specific group among the exiles (or returnees) and not to them as a whole. See J. Blenkinsopp, 'Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism', JSOT41 (1988), pp. 83-103, esp. pp. 89-92; Williamson, 'Concept of Israel', pp. 144-47. 11. The 'typological' comparison of the exodus with the return, and of the returnees with Israel coming out of Egypt, leads necessarily to a set of comparisons between Ezra and Moses, and Egypt and Babylon. An analysis of the similarities and contrasts between the images of Ezra and Moses, and of Egypt and Babylon in postmonarchic texts is beyond the scope of this paper. 12. P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 87. 13. Cf. Davies, In Search, pp. 87-88; K.W. Whitelam, 'Israel's Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land', JSOT44 (1989), pp. 19-42, esp. pp. 30-32. See also the bibliography mentioned in the latter. Davies and Whitelam argue that narratives about Israel coming from outside reflect the experience of the returnees. It is noteworthy that the laws considered authoritative by the Yehudite community (that is, those attributed to Moses) were described as given to Israel outside the land, and accordingly totally unknown to the (former) residents of the land. Thus, both Israel


99

The narrative settings of the Pentateuchal material pre-empt any direct reference to the Babylonian exile and to a return in Achaemenid times. But central themes such as the exodus, the temporal priority of the divine authoritative teaching (that is, Israel's 'constitution' governing its life in the land) over the actual possession of the land, the spatial characterization of the divine instruction as coming from outside the land, and the actual march to the land all have clear counterparts in the origin myth of Yehudite Israel.14 Even some very specific motifs and images have clear counterparts. One may mention among them the characterization of Israel as an outsider who stands in sharp contrast with the inhabitants of the land, which is well established already in the patriarchal narratives and is certainly ubiquitous in the Pentateuch. Also telling is the presence of the 'empty land motif in Lev. 26.33-39.15 This text describes a possible future that, from the perspective of an exilic or Yehudite community, was seen as fulfilled in their own days.16 Finally, one may note that some (Yehudite) psalms suggest to the audience that they should identify themselves with exilic (or returned) Israel. Of course, Psalms 126 and 137 fall into this category (notice the use of the first common plural person in both).17 Significantly, in the former psalm the return is described in elevated terms that may be associated with a messianic-like future situation (cf. Amos 8.13-15), whereas the latter maintains that it is impossible or hardly possible to sing 'the song of YHWH' (v. 4) outside the land. In sum, post-monarchic texts conveying to their historical audiences the message that Israel is either 'exilic Israel' or—provided that the temporal framework allows it—'returnees' Israel' are abundant. They cross the boundaries of genre, style, date—provided that they are postmonarchic—and can in no way be exclusively associated with a single and the divine teachings around which it is centered are described as coming from outside to the land promised to the ('outsider') patriarchs. 14. See Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites?, pp. 107-109; cf. Koch, 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', pp. 184, 188-89. 15. On this text, see R.P. Carroll, Textual Strategies and Ideology in the Second Temple Period', in P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies. I. Persian Period (JSOTSup, 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 118-20. 16. This is certainly the position of the Chronicler; compare 2 Chron. 36.19-21 with Jer. 25.9-12 and Lev. 26.34-35. On this issue, see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 480-81. 17. Psalm 137 was not composed in Babylon, in the exile, but most likely in Yehud. See Davies, In Search, p. 100.

100


historical community or group existing in a narrow span of time.18 This being the case, the historical-critical discussion concerning the historical message that exilic Israel equals Israel (hereafter referred to as 'El = I', for the sake of simplicity) should focus on the pervasiveness of texts conveying this message in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, rather than exclusively concentrating on separate occurrences of texts conveying 'El = I' to their historical audiences. Following this lead, this paper shows that the pervasiveness of 'El = I' is better explained by a set of different but converging reasons, which are related in more than one way to the historical circumstances of post-monarchic communities, and especially those living in Achaemenid Yehud. In addition, this paper will point to the close relation between the pervasiveness of 'El = I' messages and the continuous struggle concerning the identity of the Yehudite center and the authority of their elites during the Achaemenid period. This struggle was perceived, within the theological discourse of the time, at least partially as a question of rightful inclusion in, or exclusion from, Israel.

18. It is obvious that although these texts and messages are well and widely attested, it does not follow that texts conveying different messages are not attested. Contrasting and contradicting claims, perspectives and images of the past are well represented in the biblical tradition. More often than not they are attested in roughly contemporaneous texts and even within the same book. For instance, Neh. 9.6-37 (which originally belonged to neither the Nehemiah nor the Ezra material [see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 301-308] but was later integrated into EzraNehemiah) omits any mention of the exile in its retelling of Israel's past. Jer. 52.16 clearly states that Judahites (poor but Judahites nonetheless) remained in the land after the exile (cf. Jer. 39.10). Moreover, several prophetic texts refer to a remnant in the land in a way that seems unrelated to any tradition of exile and return (for example, Isa. 6.11-13). Furthermore, whereas the expression is well attested in Ezra-Nehemiah and conveys there 'exclusivist' claims concerning Israel, this term is notoriously absent from The Twelve, which is a Yehudite collection of books (on this issue I plan to expand elsewhere). In fact, even the term is completely absent from some clearly Yehudite books such as Haggai (cf. Japhet, 'People and Land', p. 109; Williamson, 'Concept of Israel', p. 148). In addition, one may mention that 1-2 Chronicles on the one hand clearly conveys the message of the 'empty land' (see 2 Chron. 36.20-21) and of the return as the beginning of the Yehudite Israel (2 Chron. 36.22-23), but on the other hand downgrades, to the point of omission, the themes of the exodus and the conquest, which (as seen above) seem to support the claims of the returnees. (Cf. Whitelam, 'Israel's Traditions', pp. 32-35, and see bibliography mentioned there.)


101

2. History and the Ubiquity of 'El = I': First Approach 2.1 History and Israel's Reconstructions of the Past At least on the surface, the simplest possible explanation for the pervasiveness of the 'El = F message would be that it directly reflects the flow of historical events. That is, if all, or almost all, the population of Judah left the land following the collapse of monarchic Judah and the razing of Jerusalem, and there was no Judahite return during the NeoBabyIonian period, then the first returnees at the beginning of the Achaemenid period could not have encountered another (significant) Judahite or Israelite group living in the land. Thus, they and they alone began to develop the 'Second Commonwealth'.19 To be sure, even if this were the case, the message of 'El = F would be a highly perspectival reflection of historical events. 'El = F does not only communicate to the audience that the returnees alone developed the Second Commonwealth around Jerusalem, but also that 'Israel' as it exists in their recent past and present consists only of Judahite exiles and returnees, that is, that other contemporaneous Yahwistic groups— whether in Samaria or Egypt or elsewhere20—are not be referred as 'Israel'. Of course, this perspective is already the core claim of the 'El = F theory. Thus, the 'empty land' historical explanation by itself is unable to solve the question of the origin and pervasiveness of the 'El = F theory. Instead, if it can be based on reliable historical data, it may provide a set of historical circumstances against which a historical-critical analysis of the 'El = F message may proceed. But is the 'empty land' explanation reasonably supported by the evidence? The thesis that the Neo-Babylonians exiled most of the inhabitants of Judah is historically unlikely, contradicted by clear archaeological evidence, and undermined by several Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts. True, the anti-Babylonian rebellions at the end of the monarchic period brought widespread damage, but there is clear evidence showing

19. Cf. Y. Kaufmann, Toldot HaEmunah halsraelit (Tel Aviv: Debir, 1938-56), IV,pp. 191-214 (Hebrew). 20. On these Yahwistic groups, see, for instance, Japhet, 'People and Land', pp. 104-106.

102


continuity of settlement in the area, and especially—but not only—in Benjamin.21 Several texts in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, such as the account in Jer. 52.28-3022 and explicit biblical references to the population left in Judah (for example, Jer. 39.10; Ezek. 33.24-29) are inconsistent with the image of a total exile and of an 'empty' land. Moreover, it seems that this image was understood as hyperbolic or as reflecting a subjective truth ('for us the land was as good as empty'), or alternatively as a polemical claim that does not suit the historical circumstances as known to the ancient writers and their audience. A comparison between Jer. 52.30 and Jer. 43.5-6 (cf. 2 Kgs 25-26) clearly shows that this is the case, for Nebuzaradan is able to exile 745 Judahites (Jer. 52.30) from a supposedly 'empty land' (Jer. 43.5-6). A somewhat similar case, this time in reference to northern Israel, occurs in 2 Kings 17. According to 2 Kgs 17.24-33 the entire Israelite population was removed from the land, and foreign settlers brought in to replace them. The population of northern Israel after the collapse of the kingdom of Israel is portrayed, therefore, as unrelated to the Children of Israel. This image must have been understood by the writers and audience of the (final or redacted) text as hyperbolic or as reflecting a subjective truth or as a polemical claim that did not suit their own reconstruction of the past, because the following verses (vv. 34-41) clearly claim that the population of northern Israel consists of the Children of Israel and that YHWH is their God.23 21. For example, A. Mazar, 'Iron Age Fortresses in the Judaean Hills', PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 104-105; N. Lapp, 'Casemate Walls in Palestine and the Late Iron II Casemate Wall at Tell el-FQl (Gibeah)', BASOR 223 (1976), pp. 40-41; H. Eshel, 'The Late Iron Age Cemetery of Gibeon', IEJ 37 (1987), p. 16; B. Mazar, 'Excavations at the Oasis of Engedi', Archaeology 16 (1963), pp. 101-104. See also A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE (ABRL; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1990), pp. 548-49; and G. Barkay, 'The Iron Age II-III', in A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press; Ramat Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1992), pp. 372-73; E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 BC (ET; Warminster: Aris & Phillips; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1982), esp. p. 229; J.P. Weinberg, 'Demographische Notizen zur Geschichte der nachexilischen Gemeinde in Juda', Klio 54 (1972), pp. 47-49. 22. On this account, see R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 868-70. 23. Cf. F. Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example', in E.P. Sanders, A.I. Baumgarten and A. Mendelson (eds.), Jewish and Christian

BEN ZVI Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel 103

103

In sum, the population of Neo-BabyIonian Judah was much smaller than that of late-monarchic Judah, but the land was certainly not empty. Judahites remained living in the land.24 Moreover, the conditions in Judah at that time were not propitious for economic immigration. The only circumstances that could have led to a ethno-demographic change of significant proportions in the core of the Judahite/Benjaminite area are those associated with imperial policies of forced population movements. But there is no evidence suggesting that deportees from other areas in the Neo-Baby Ionian empire were settled in Judah. Thus, it seems most reasonable to assume that almost all the population of Neo-Baby Ionian Judah (excluding the Edomite-controlled areas in the south) consisted of descendants of the population of monarchic Judah. It seems also likely that monarchic Judah actually became a NeoBabylonian province with its own administration and governors.25 The overlapping of the borders of the Achaemenid province of Yehud and monarchic Judah (except in the south) is best explained by assuming the continuation of a politico-administrative unit, Judah/Yehud.26 Self-Definition. II. Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 88-114, esp. pp. 89-91. For a different approach to 2 Kgs 17.24-41, see M. Cogan, 'Israel in Exile—The View of a Josianic Historian', JBL 97 (1978), pp. 40-44. 24. On different aspects of the life of those who remained in the land, see for instance J.P. Weinberg, 'Die Agrarverhaltnisse in der Burger-Tempel-Gemeinde der Achamenidenzeit', Acta Antiqua 22 (1974), pp. 473-86; N.P. Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (Biblical Seminar, 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 173-79. This issue will be taken up, partially, in the following sections. 25. See M. Kochman, 'Yehud Medinta in the Light of the Seal Impressions YHWD-PHW\ Cathedra 24 (1982), pp. 3-30 (Hebrew); cf. K.G. Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra andNehemiah (SBLDS, 125; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 21-22; J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Westminster: Philadelphia Press, 1986), pp. 421-25,445. See G.W. Ahlstrom, 'Prophetical Echoes of Assyrian Growth and Decline', in H. Behrens, D. Loding and M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor ofAke W. Sjoberg (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 11; Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), pp. 45; and idem, The Role of Archaeological and Literary Remains in Reconstructing Israel's History1, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 130 n. 1; Miller and Hayes, History, pp. 401,446. 26. Alt's proposal that Judah/Yehud turned into an independent province only with the arrival of Nehemiah (see A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes

104


In sum, the pervasive image of the 'empty' land does not reflect the actual state of affairs in Neo-Babylonian Judah. The often attested reconstruction of the past that emphasizes total exile and 'empty' land is therefore a theological or ideological construction that cannot (and should not) be understood as 'history'. 2.2 The Struggle over the Land Since the returnees did not come to an empty Judah/Yehud, it is reasonable to assume, at least for heuristic purposes, that their arrival may have caused social tension, perhaps displacement, and that some amount of conflict about the possession of the farmland may have emerged. According to some biblical texts the poor remained in the land and took possession of it (2 Kgs 25.12; Jer. 39.10; 52.16), whereas the elite were deported (2 Kgs 24.14). If this is the historical case, then it is likely that the descendants of the elite claimed their ancestral fields upon their return, either in the first described massive wave of immigration, or as a part of Ezra's group, or at any other time during the Achaemenid period.27 Ezra 2.70 and Neh. 7.72 actually claim that those who returned to Judah/Yehud with Zerubbabel settled in their respective cities. Such an action would have necessarily led to a growing tension between returning landlords and the 'new owners' of the fields.28 Israel [Munich: Beck, 1953], II, pp. 316-37) is to be rejected. See, for instance, H.G.M. Williamson, 'The Governors of Judah under the Persians', TynBul 39 (1988), pp. 59-82; Hoglund, Achaemenid Imperial Administration, pp. 69-86. 27. According to Neh. 7.6-72 and Ezra 2.1-70 there was a mass return headed by Zerubbabel. Koch proposes that only a few returned with Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, but many more with Ezra (Koch, 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', pp. 188-89). The question of the extent of the return(s) and of the historicity of the plain claims of the list in Neh. 7.6-72 and Ezra 2.1-70 will be discussed in the following sections. 28. See, for instance, Weinberg, 'Die Agrarverhaltnisse'; J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn, 1980), p. 366; D.L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), p. 29; Whitelam, 'Israel's Traditions', pp. 30-32; L.L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), I, pp. 116-17, 121-22; Blenkinsopp, Temple and Society', p. 53; R.A. Horsley, 'Empire, Temple and Community—But no Bourgeoisie! A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen', in Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, I, pp. 164-74, esp. pp. 170-71. See also Miller and Hayes, History, pp. 458-59; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 60-61, 66-68; Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites?, pp. 108-109. It is likely that, at least at the beginning of the period, the poor did not 'own' the


105

Moreover, if exiled landlords were aware of the developments in Judah and communicated with Neo-Babylonian Judahites they may have developed a discourse denying the legitimacy of the possession of the land by those who actually held it at that time. The testimony of several biblical texts claiming that the land should be repossessed by the (Babylonian) exiles or their descendants,29 or giving priority to those who have the right of redemption (that is, the 'old landowners')30 seems congruent with this line of explanation. It is noteworthy that some historical considerations and some of the evidence seem to support the historicity of the mentioned struggle over the land, but with inverted characterizations. Selective deportation was a common imperial practice in the ancient Near East. Such a practice usually led to a partial deportation of the ruling elite because the rest of it was needed to maintain a stable local center of power which was not only loyal to the imperial ruler but also commanded the loyalty of at least some groups in the province or vassal state (cf. 2 Kgs 25.22). To achieve this loyalty, a certain degree of legitimacy was needed. The simplest way to achieve such a legitimacy was to appoint a member of a traditional ruling group, as was done in the case of Gedaliah.31 fields but simply 'rented' lands that once belonged to the Judahite landowners and were now part of the imperial domain (see Weinberg, 'Die Agrarverhaltnisse'). Even if this is correct, the magnitude of the struggle would not be seriously diminished. Weinberg himself claims that such a struggle actually took place. 29. For example, Ezek. 11.14-17; 33.23-29. See especially R.M. Hals, Ezekiel (FOIL, 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 243; and W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 195-202. It is worth noting that both Hals and Zimmerli follow the writer(s) of these units and express a negative position concerning the assumed historical claims of those who were left in the land. 30. The obvious example is Jer. 32.6-15. On this text see Carroll, 'Textual Strategies', pp. 110-15. See also his preliminary discussion of Lev. 25-27; Carroll, Textual Strategies', pp. 116-20. 31. In this respect the following words of Eisenstadt are worthy of notice: 'The legitimation of rulers was mainly religio-traditional; and the criteria governing their appraisal usually combined political and religious values and orientation. The designated rulers of these societies were either members of hereditary traditional groups, or charismatic persons embodying the society's "sacred" values [italics in the original] and symbols and expected to establish new hereditary dynasties'; S.N. Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1963), p. 19. For obvious reasons, an empire will usually prefer to appoint a member of a traditional hereditary group rather than a charismatic leader who may attempt to establish a new (independent) dynasty. See also section 3.3.

106


The collapse of the Judahite monarchy was also most likely followed by a certain amount of redistribution of the land. In an agrarian society under the rule of traditional Judahite groups,32 the most likely result of such a redistribution would be a further strengthening of the Judahite groups (now) in power and the development of a new/old elite. Moreover, if even only some of the theologico-literary pieces that are usually assigned to 'exilic' Judah/Palestine were actually written and read (or proclaimed) in so-called 'exilic' Judah (that is, Neo-Babylonian Judah),33 then there were both a significant cultural elite—including writers and audience—and the economic resources that allowed this kind of literature to be written and read; in other words, also an economic (local) elite. Conversely, it is hard to accept that those who were exiled were all members of the Judahite elite, at least in its strict sense. Even if one accepts the minimalistic numbers in Jer. 52.28-30, one must reckon with at least 4600 exiled Judahites. The total population of Judah is estimated to have been close to 65,000 people in Josiah's time, before the upheavals of the late seventh and beginning of the sixth century, and especially before the widespread destruction caused by the rebellions against the Neo-Babylonian rulers. We cannot know how large was the population pool from which the exiles were chosen, but 4600 seems too large a number for an exclusive elite, and perhaps the same holds true for the 745 deportees from Neo-Babylonian Judah in the third deportation (Jer. 52.30). Significantly, 2 Kgs 24.14-16 explicitly states that the Jerusalemite deportees were not all members of the ruling elite. Moreover, even if for the sake of argument one grants that all the 32. Cf. Jer. 40.5. 33. See H.G.M. Williamson, 'Isaiah 63,7-64,11: Exilic Lament or Post-Exilic Protest?', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 48-58; H.W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 42-44. A substantial number of influential scholars have consistently maintained that the Deuteronomistic History was written (and according to many also edited) in Neo-Babylonian Judah. For critical summaries and bibliography on this issue, see G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 44-45; Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 65-68. Cf. N.K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 424-25; Lemche, Ancient Israel, p. 182. The term 'exilic Judah' is an oxymoron. This article is not the place to discuss how and why the adjective 'exilic' is attached to a community that never went into exile. The issue also involves the question and characterization of 'ancient Israel'; see Davies, In Search, esp. pp. 16-48.


107

deportees were members of the Judahite elite, then the returnees cannot be considered a 'mass of aristocrats', insofar as the social traits of those bearing Yahwistic names in Babylonia are any indication of the vast majority of the returnees to Yehud.34 These considerations may suggest that the returnees did not struggle against the 'poor of the land', but against the (Judahite) elite of the Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid province of Judah/Yehud, and that they—the landless returnees—were in a much lower social and economic situation than this landed elite.35 This historical reconstruction seems to provide a reasonable background for texts claiming that the land should be repossessed by the (Neo-Babylonian) exiles or their descendants, though not necessarily for those texts giving priority to individuals who have the right of redemption (that is, the 'old landowners'). Despite their differences, the two historical reconstructions presented above maintain that (1) there was a tension between the newcomers and those who were in the land, and (2) this tension was brought about (at least partially) by contradictory positions over the issue of who should take control of the farmland. Since Yehud was an agrarian society, this issue was to a large extent one of inclusion in—or exclusion from—the economic, social and political center of power in Yehud. Against this background, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the forceful assertion that the returnees are 'Israel' whereas those who remained in the land are not (that is, 'El = I') conveyed a clear communicative meaning. Within a socially accepted discourse maintaining that YHWH assigned the land of Judah/Yehud to Israel, the unequivocal assertion that those who were 'found' in the land by the returnees at the time of the return are not Israel nullifies any possible claim that those who actually remained in Judah/Yehud might have raised concerning any portion of 34. See R. Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods according to the Babylonian Sources (Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, Monograph Series, 3; Haifa: University of Haifa, 1979), pp. 86-89; idem, 'Onomastic, Prosopographic and Lexical Notes', BN 65 (1992), pp. 52-53. Cf. E.J. Bickerman, 'The Babylonian Captivity', in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), I, pp. 346-48. 35. Cf. D.L. Smith, 'The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society', in Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, I, pp. 93-96.

108


the land, and in fact, it denies them any (legitimate) social, economic or political power in Yehud. This being so, it seems reasonable to propose as a heuristic hypothesis that the 'El = I' claim may have had the function of legitimizing the claim of the returnees to the farmland, in their own eyes, within their own social discourse. One may even propose that such a claim may have functioned as a practical or rhetorical yardstick against which actual social and political demands were measured.36 Of course, before one proceeds with an analysis of these heuristic hypotheses, one must deal with the issue of the historical struggle over the land. Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 report a massive return to Zion. Koch maintains that whereas only a few returned with Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, a relatively large group returned with Ezra.37 Although there is widespread agreement that, contrary to their plain claim, the lists in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are not lists of actual returnees, and certainly not of participants in a single immigratory wave,38 most scholars agree that at one time or another there was a relatively large-scale immigration or return to Yehud from Babylonia.39 Of course, because of the political and economic realities of the province of Yehud, such a mass immigration would have been impossible without both the approval and the active support of the Achaemenid administration.40 If there was such a mass immigration to Yehud, an agrarian society, one has to expect the establishment of new rural settlements or the expansion of those already existent within a relatively short period of time. In this regard, the work of Hoglund is worthy of notice. He points out that there was an increase in the number of rural settlements in 36. The persuasive appeal of these texts is aimed at the insiders, that is, the returnees. Those who remained in the land would not be convinced by such an argument. 37. Koch, 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', pp. 188-89. 38. See Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 38-39, and the bibliography mentioned there. 39. There is a clear tendency in modern research towards caution concerning the actual number of returnees. See, for instance, Miller and Hayes, History, pp. 446-47; Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 117-18; Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society'. 40. Ezra-Nehemiah consistently assumes that neither the return(s) nor any significant development in Yehud was possible without the authorization and active support of the Achaemenid authorities (see Ezra 1.1-11; 6.13-18, 19-22; 7.1-28), which, in fact, is presented as a worldly reflection of God's will. This message is also conveyed in much more subtle ways. See, for instance, Eskenazi, Age of Prose, p. 43 n. 16.


109

Achaemenid Yehud vis-a-vis Neo-Babylonian Judah/Yehud, and that this increase is due mainly to a series of new settlements likely 'founded during a narrow period of time, perhaps by the end of the sixth century. Since the surrounding areas show a general decline in the number of settlements, and since the settlements were founded more or less at the same time, it is very unlikely that this wave of new settlements reflects an organic, internal, social and economic process happening in Yehud. This being so, the most reasonable explanation for this development is external intervention.41 If so, the founding of new villages and the transfer of population to them represents a conscious Achaemenid policy towards Yehud (and perhaps, from a strategic perspective, towards Egypt). Allowing for some degree of displacement of the existing population of Yehud and its resettlement in new towns, it seems reasonable that the Achaemenid administration resorted to 'organized migration' to provide the required humanpower for the new settlements, as did previous imperial powers in similar circumstances. If Hoglund is correct, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed Achaemenid-organized, modest immigration points to the historical kernel of the biblical tradition about a mass return to Zion, although the latter would be in that case a much embellished report.42 The issue, however, is that if one identifies the new settlers with the biblical returnees,43 one must take into account the fact that the pattern 41. So Hoglund, 'AchaemenidContext', p. 57-59; cf. J.M. Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5: By Way of a Response to Hoglund and Smith', in Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, I, pp. 147-49. 42. The return or immigration of individual families is a separate issue, for it does not require the kind of logistic solutions, and the political and socioeconomic planning, involved in a mass return. For an attested case of a family from Nerab (North Syria) that returned to its original city from Babylonia, most likely in the days of Darius I, see I. Eph'al, 'The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries BC: Maintenance and Cohesion', Or NS 47 (1978), pp. 84-87. Cf. Weinberg, 'Agrarverhaltnisse', p. 30. 43. Some issues involved in this claim are worthy of notice. Neither the identity nor the place of origin of these new settlers can be decided on the basis of the archaeological data. It is reasonable to consider them the historical referent of the returnees mentioned in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, if one accepts that the biblical accounts of a mass return (to be distinguished from those reporting the sending of governors and their entourage, or of a politico-religious elite by the central government, or of a few families' migration), must have had a historical referent. Of course, it is impossible to assess whether the new settlers—all or most of them—were descendants of the Judahites exiled by Nebuchadnezzar, or included different people

110


of settlement shows that new immigrants did not tend to repossess fields that their ancestors may have had but that were at the time of their coming to Yehud in the possession of those who remained in the land. Instead, the returnees tended to build new settlements or rebuild old ones in lands belonging to the imperial domain.44 Significantly, this pattern of settlement is consistent with the idea that they came to Yehud as humanpower for an imperial project of rural development in a quite strategic area. If this is the case, then the idea that a struggle for the control or recontrol of the ancestral fields was a dominant feature in the sociopolitical life of Yehud by the end of the sixth century is seriously undermined. Significantly, texts presumably referring to the time shortly after the 'return' such as Haggai do not mention a special tension between the returnees and those who were in Yehud concerning the possession of the land.45 True, one may claim that a mass return is not a requirement for a historical struggle about the possession of farmlands, because the return of a few members of the ancient Judahite elite may suffice. If so, however, the extent of the historical struggle would have been much restricted in scope. Moreover, in such a case, there is no reason to assign it to a narrow period of time (the time of the mass return), nor to assume that in such a struggle arriving returnees would always confront members of the Neo-Babylonian elite of Judah, or landlords who identified themselves with those who remained in the land. To propose the latter would imply that both ownership of the land and the selfimage of the past held by the local Yehudite elite remained unchanged, from the end of the Neo-Babylonian period to the date in the Achaemenid period when a newcomer from the descendants of the monarchic elite who joined 'Israel' at a later stage. (Cf. Davies, In Search, pp. 81-82; T.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources [SHANE, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1992], p. 418). In any case, since both would have been considered Israel, both would have been integrated into the 'lineages' of Israel. 44. According to Hoglund, 65 percent of these settlements had no occupation in the Iron II period. If so, then many who settled there could not have come back to their 'hometowns'. See Hoglund, 'Achaemenid Context', pp. 58-60; cf. Davies, In Search, pp. 80-81; and also Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5', pp. 147-49. It is worth noting that if Neh. 5 reflects the socioeconomic circumstances of fourth-century Yehud, then Yehudites did not inhabit crown lands at that time; see Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5', pp. 147-49. 45. See Williamson, 'Concept of Israel', pp. 148-49.


111

arrived in Yehud. Clearly, both propositions are extremely unlikely.46 The second of these propositions is worth further notice because it deals with an issue at the heart of the hypothesis that the 'El = I' approach reflects a historical struggle over the possession of the farmland, namely whether the 'El = I' ideology could have been an effective tool for gaining and keeping control over the land for a period of time long enough to imprint so much of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible literature. It seems that a socially accepted claim that Israel consisted of the returnees alone could not have efficiently served as a long-term barrier against the possession of land and political power by the non-exiled. Modern anthropological and ethno-historical studies have shown that real or claimed ethnic boundaries are usually fluid, and that genealogies tend to represent a certain social order rather than create it.47 If so, the 'El = I' ideology could have led to the integration of those remaining in the land into the lists of the 'returnees' rather than to their actual exclusion from the land. That the suggested integration actually took place is strongly supported by an analysis of Ezra-Nehemiah, which repeatedly hammers home the 'El = F message.48 Ezra 2.1-64 and Neh. 7.6-72 contain a list of 'the people of the province who came up from the captivity of the 46. Cf. Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5', pp. 147-49. 47. For example, D.R. Wright, 'Beyond Migration and Conquest: Oral Tradition and Mandinka Ethnicity in Senegambia', History in Africa 12 (1985), pp. 335-47; J. Willis, 'The Makings of a Tribe: Bondei Identities and Histories', Journal of African History 33 (1992), pp. 191-208; A.B. Stahl, 'Ethnic Style and Ethnic Boundaries: A Diachronic Case Study from West-Central Ghana', Ethnohistory 38 (1991), pp. 250-75; T. Ranger, 'The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa', in E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 211-62, esp. pp. 247-60; and see R.R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER, 7; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). It is worth noting, however, that in the short run an invented tradition legitimizing the control of a certain group over a tract of land may be used to maintain control over immigrants. See, for instance, Ranger, 'Invention', p. 260. Another possible qualification is that most of the mentioned anthropological and ethnographic studies deal with oral genealogies and traditions (cf. R.H. Finnegan, Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of Communication [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988], pp. 20-21), but written sources and traditions may also undergo changes through time and demonstrate flexibility, as abundant biblical and extrabiblical examples show. 48. Cf. Japhet, 'People and Land', pp. 112-13.

112


exile, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had exiled to Babylon; they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own town' (Ezra 2.1 = Neh. 7.6). Significantly, although the list bears such an explicit title, it is actually composite and includes entries pointing to different groups and diverse times, including groups of people who most likely were never deported.49 Additional evidence for the integration of those who remained in the land into Yehudite Israel is to be found in the inclusion texts showing a non-exilic perspective of the history of Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah and other post-exilic texts.50 Moreover, according to Ezra 6.21 and Neh. 10.29, non-returnees could join the congregation of the returnees, provided they accepted the leadership of the returnees on religio-cultic issues. It is worth noting also that many scholars have found in EzraNehemiah support of their position that, by the time of Nehemiah, the returnees and the non-exiled were integrated into one social and political system.51 Of course, one may question—perhaps with good reason—the basic historicity of the narrative in Ezra-Nehemiah.52 If this historicity is challenged, however, then most of the ground supporting the idea of the 49. Those presented as je-'iz»« (Neh. 7.26-33 // Ezra 2.22-23, 27-28), where x represents a town, in many instances a Benjaminite Judahite town. See J.P. Weinberg, The Collectives, Named by Localities, in Achaemenid Judah', ArOr 42 (1974), pp. 341-53 (Russian article, with English summary p. 353); Japhet, 'People and Land', pp. 114; Williamson, 'Concept of Israel', p. 152; idem, 'Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of the Texts from Persepolis', Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991), p. 59; cf. idem, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 28-34. On the list itself, see also Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 38-39, and the bibliography mentioned there. 50. For example, Neh. 9; see Williamson's observation that in this text the 'Babylonian conquest (Neh. 9.21-30) is regarded as just another (though more severe) in a series of defeats which had characterized the whole of Israel's life in the land (Neh. 9.26-31), whereas the fact of the exile receives no mention anywhere in the prayer'. See Williamson, 'Isaiah 63,47-64,11', esp. p. 56 n. 29, and the bibliography mentioned there; and idem, 'Concept of Israel', p. 152. 51. For example, M. Helzer, The Social and Fiscal Reforms of Nehemiah in Judah and the Attitude of the Achaemenid Kings to the Internal Affairs of the Autonomous Provinces', Apollinaris 62(1989), pp. 333-54, esp. pp. 336-37; Weinberg, The Collectives', p. 353; Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5', pp. 146-53, esp p. 153; and cf. J. Blenkinsopp, Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah', in Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, I, p. 46. 52. See, for instance, L.L. Grabbe, 'Reconstructing History from the Book of Ezra', in Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, I, pp. 98-106.


113

dominant role of the struggle over the land vanishes. If, on the other hand, this historicity is accepted, then it would suggest that at least by Nehemiah's time there was a growing integration between those who remained and those who immigrated to the land, and therefore, no room for the proposed land struggle. To sum up, it is very doubtful that there was a historical struggle over the possession of the land in Persian Yehud to the extent necessary to imprint Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts coming from a wide spectrum of historical, social and theological environments. The 'El = I' texts could hardly have served as an effective argument favoring the claims of the returnees concerning the land over those of Neo-Babylonian Yehudites, over the long period of time covered by these texts. Although it is possible that some specific texts expressing the 'El = F claim may reflect in one way or another some claims and counterclaims about the right to the land, the ubiquitous character of the 'El = I' claim in texts from different post-monarchic settings and times cannot be explained as a reflection of a historical struggle over the possession of the Yehudite farmland. 2.3 Achaemenid Administrative Policies, Temple Builders and Ethnic Settlements By excluding the local population of the province from participating in the rebuilding of the temple, the golah group was usurping the right of the entire territory of Judah, thereby setting themselves up as the new religious and political leaders of the province.53

There is widespread agreement that the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt under Achaemenid auspices, and some would even say it was mandated by the Persians.54 Biblical traditions clearly underscore the extent and importance of the Persian support (for example, Ezra 6.1-14), and, from a historical perspective, it is unimaginable that a project with such far-reaching social and political implications would have taken place without the approval of the Achaemenid empire and its guidance. Moreover, this imperial support for the building of the temple in Jerusalem is certainly consistent with well-attested policies of the Achaemenid imperial center towards the provinces and their elites. Of course, the Achaemenid center would not have supported the 53. 54.

Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites?, p. 113. So Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society', p. 37.

114


project without taking into consideration the composition (and loyalties) of the elite that was supposed to build and maintain the temple. Thus, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Achaemenid administration may have implemented some principle of inclusion and exclusion from the 'community of the temple' at its inception. Assuming the basic historicity of the account in Ezra-Nehemiah, and taking into consideration comparative material about the status and role of other temples in the ancient Near East in the western regions of the Achaemenid empire (including Babylonia), it seems reasonable to suppose that 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Babylonian immigrants established the temple in Jerusalem, and constituted its community , with the support (and perhaps guidance) of the Achaemenid administration. The temple community was likely organized according to social and administrative models widely accepted in the western parts of the Achaemenid empire (that is, Babylonia and 'Beyond the River'). Thus, they most likely constituted (or reconstituted) their own assembly (puji.ru, >) according to the Babylonian models.55 Other Yahwistic groups were not allowed to join the community, but many texts indicate a more flexible position about nonBabylonian Yehudites who accepted the supremacy of the tenets of the returnees (cf. section 5 below). Since in other parts of the Achaemenid empire temples served as administrative and sociopolitical units, and were highly influential in the local economy, one may assume that the inclusion of the immigrants along with the exclusion of any other Yehudite or regional group from the community centered in the temple gave the former some degree of social control over the latter, at least within the territory of Yehud.56 This policy of inclusion and exclusion may reflect both Achaemenid concerns about loyal local leadership in a province bordering with Egypt,57 a desire to undermine potentially

55. So Blenkinsopp, Temple and Society'. 56. See, for instance, Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites?, p. 113; Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society', esp. pp. 45-46; R.A. Horsley, 'Empire, Temple and Community'. 57. Egypt rebelled against the Persians c. 486 and 464 BCE; these rebellions were suppressed by 483 and 454 BCE, respectively. It rebelled again in 405 BCE, and


115

dangerous regional alliances, Achaemenid administrative policies preferring recognizable 'ethnic collectives',58 and certainly the interests and self-image of the immigrants, or their leaders. Since 'El = F texts support such a policy of inclusion and exclusion, then it is reasonable to propose that at least some of these texts reflect the historical discourse of the immigrants when they were actively preempting other Yahwistic groups from joining the temple, a step which would certainly diminish their control over it, and over whatever it controlled. If so, one may wonder whether it is reasonable to go further and explain the pervasive character of 'El = F texts by stressing their role as an 'instrumental', theological claim that empowered the community of immigrants in their prolonged struggle against other Yahwistic groups (be they Yehudites, Samaritans, 'Ammonites') over the control of the temple and the province. Before proceeding further, a reference to the necessarily qualified character of the evidential basis for the proposed historical reconstruction must be made. This historical reconstruction holds only if one assumes beforehand that (1) comparative data from other areas in the empire are applicable to the status of the temple in Jerusalem, and (2) the basic outline of the account in Ezra-Nehemiah reflects the flow of the historical events. Both assumptions enjoy wide support among modern scholars, but have also been seriously contested.59 It is especially worth noting in this regard that the acceptance of the historicity of the testimony of the 'Nehemiah Memoir' does not this time successfully. By 342 BCE, however, the Persians regained control over Egypt. 58. See Hoglund, 'Achaemenid Context', pp. 65-68; but cf. Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5'. 59. As for the first of these assumptions, see, for instance, P.R. Bedford, 'On Models and Texts: A Response to Blenkinsopp and Petersen', in Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies, I, pp. 154-62. It is especially worth noting that in this respect, contrary to what seems to be the norm, the temple in Jerusalem did not own land (and accordingly did not have dependent cultivators and slaves) nor was the temple community necessarily ruled by its high priest, as Nehemiah's actions clearly show. See P.E. Dion, 'The Civic-and-Temple Community of Persian Period Judaea: Neglected Insights from Eastern Europe', JNES 50 (1991), pp. 281-87, esp. p. 284. Note also the cautious approach of Blenkinsopp; see Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society', pp. 23-34, esp. pp. 33-34. As for the questioning of the second assumption, see, for instance, Grabbe, 'Reconstructing History'.

116


unequivocally support the centrality of the temple in historical Yehud (not to be confused with the literary-theological image of Yehud in the biblical material) which is an essential part of this historical reconstruction. For instance, Bedford, precisely because he believes that this Memoir is a good indicator of the historical circumstances in Yehud at the time of Nehemiah, maintains that the temple did not play such a central role in historical Yehud.60 Moreover, if the basic historicity of the Nehemiah Memoir is accepted, then one would have to deal with its background description of the Yehudite society. According to this description the Yehudite society was not divided between those who returned from the exile and those who remained in the land, but according to very different social lines (see Neh. 5).61 Of course, one may question the likelihood of any historical reconstruction that depends on the historicity of the Nehemiah Memoir. If so, however, one can hardly claim the historicity of Ezra-Nehemiah, and especially Ezra 1-6, and the proposed Ezra Memoir.62 If, despite these reservations, and because of historical considerations about Achaemenid policies, one tends to accept the historical reconstruction mentioned above, one may be inclined to explain some of the 'El = I' texts as reflecting a historical struggle between immigrants and those who remained in the land over the control of the temple. But, if so, one must take into consideration that the struggle was most likely restricted to a narrow span of time, for as seen above those who remained in the land were eventually integrated into the temple community, and also found their way into the myth of origin of Yehudite Israel (see section 4.4), showing that 'ethnic' arguments may have been effective disclaimers only in the short run. If, therefore, the entire historical issue was to alienate pre-Nehemiah's Yehud from its surroundings (as Ezra 1-6 seems to suggest),63 then texts such as Neh. 6.10-14; 13.4-9, 28 show that such a tendency failed in a matter of 60. So Bedford, 'On Models and Texts', esp. p. 158. For a concise statement of the research and bibliography on the Nehemiah Memoir, see Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 36. 61. See, for instance, Halligan, 'Nehemiah 5', p. 153; cf. Helzer, 'Social and Fiscal Reforms', pp. 336-37; Weinberg, 'The Collectives', p. 353. 62. For a concise state of the research and bibliography on the Ezra Memoir, see Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 36-38. 63. Significantly, Ezra 1-6 is itself a post-Nehemiah text, likely written c. 300 BCE. See Williamson, 'Composition'; and idem, Ezra, Nehemiah, p. xxxvi.


117

decades. This being so, it is difficult to see how such a short-lived and failed attempt could provide a plausible explanation for the ubiquity of the 'El = I' view in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Alternatively, one may claim that the principle of inclusion and exclusion expressed in 'El = I' texts was operative for the first time during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. If the basic outline of Ezra-Nehemiah reflects historical events, Achaemenid intervention in the affairs of the temple community led to the sending of two special envoys to Yehud, namely, Ezra and Nehemiah. Both strove to reduce the influence of non-Yehudites in the affairs of Yehud, to isolate Yehud from its neighbors, and to change drastically the ways in which the temple community governed itself and led its life. Leaving aside the question of the historicity of the accounts, the widespread attestation of the 'El = F message, before and after the putative time of these reforms, simply cannot be explained in terms of a discourse created to support either Ezra's or Nehemiah's agenda, nor is the stress on the 'exilic' origin of Israel fully intelligible in these terms.64 3. History and the Ubiquity of 'El = /': Second Approach, Part One 3.1 Introduction The approach taken in section 2 has led the study of the historical reasons for the ubiquity of the message 'El = I' in Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible texts to an impasse. It seems, therefore, heuristically helpful to search for a different critical approach to the issue. Since there is no alternative for this endeavor than to apply the historical-critical method, the difference between the new approach and that developed in section 2 must rest in the basic assumptions constituting their respective starting points. Accordingly, the next step in this search should focus on possible points of departure for research. The basic approach followed in section 2 may be succinctly summarized in the following manner: 1.

Possible historical data is abstracted from the surface claims of literary and theological works of the post-monarchic period. On the basis of this data, and giving priority to that learned from

64. After all, the main opposition to them is internal, from within the temple community, which is described as consisting of returnees.

118


2.

Ezra-Nehemiah,65 several hypotheses are developed, among them (a) the land was 'empty', (b) there was a mass return of Babylonian Judahites, (c) the returnees were the largest group in Yehud and controlled the temple and the province. The hypotheses mentioned above are accepted as the main components of a proposed historical reconstruction of the period, provided that they are not contradicted by clear external data.66 If the latter is the case, a new hypothesis is proposed. The first and main requirement of the new hypothesis is to be coherent with both the basic outline of the historical reconstruction based on possible historical data abstracted from the surface claims of post-monarchic texts and the external data. To illustrate, since

65. For example, had the testimony of Hag. 1.1-2.19 rather than of Ezra 1-6 been given priority in the development of hypotheses about the 'early Persian period', a different picture of the period would have emerged. The book of Haggai does not mention the return, nor a community of returnees. Accordingly, it knows nothing of the assumed tensions between the returnees and those who remain in the land. Also there is no reference to any kind of tension between Yehud and its neighbors. Significantly, the Judahite/Jewish communities of Babylonia and the East from which later on came Ezra and Nehemiah (according to Ezra-Nehemiah) seem to be beyond the horizon of the book. See, for instance, Koch, 'Ezra and the Origins of Judaism', p. 189, and on Hag. 2.14, idem, 'Haggais unreines Volk', ZAW19 (1967), pp. 52-66; H.G. May, "This People" and "This Nation" in Haggai', VT 18 (1968), pp. 19097; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), p. 232; Williamson, 'Concept of Israel', p. 148. See also R.J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), pp. 50-53. 66. There are serious methodological problems with assuming the basic historicity of plain claims of religio-literary works or of hypotheses based on them, insofar as they are not refuted by external evidence. In a nutshell, this position rests on an appeal to authority. The critical weight of such an appeal depends on both a correct interpretation of the statement of the authority and on the competence of the authority on the subject under discussion. Are the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah—or of their assumed sources—knowledgeable of the actual events in Persian Yehud? Even if that is the case, to what extent is such a historical knowledge present at the surface level of Ezra-Nehemiah? In other words, is the genre of this book such that it 'compels' the writers to reconstruct history to the best of their knowledge and to present it at the surface level of the narrative? Taking into account the complexity of the issues involved, the fact that this paper is not a methodological one, and the fact that the argument presented in this section is not essentially dependent on any specific stance on this issue, these methodological questions will not be fully discussed here.


3.

119

(a) the land was not empty, as external data clearly show, and (b) there was a mass return, as several biblical texts claim, then a reasonable and encompassing hypothesis is developed, namely that there were two groups—those who returned to and those who remained in Judah/Yehud—who fought one another over the control of the land, and that such a struggle may have helped to consolidate the immigrant group socially. Once a historical reconstruction is accepted, then the analysis turns to the question of whether some aspects of this reconstruction provide a compelling reason for the observed ubiquity of the 'El = I' view in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible postmonarchic texts.

A different approach can be developed if an alternative to (1) is selected. An alternative, and reasonable, starting point may be that the message 'El = F is an integral part of the theological and literary discourses of several communities which spanned a long period of time. If so, the pervasiveness of the 'El = F message is to be approached primarily as criteria for inclusion and exclusion in Israel within the theological, social and also literary discourses of those who wrote and read vast amounts of what later will be called the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Of course, these discourses did not exist in a vacuum. They were deeply embedded in their respective historical circumstances, for they were means for social communication. Since the historical circumstances cannot be subsumed under any single narrow background (such as the proposed return in Cyrus's or more likely Darius's days, or the events surrounding Nehemiah's governorship), then it seems preferable to focus on the general traits that can be reasonably attached to the communities in which the 'El = I' message may have been both developed and passed from generation to generation. According to this approach, then, and only then, one is to consider the question of how these traits correlate with the historical evidence about post-monarchic Israel. 3.2 The Referent of the Term 'Israel' in the 'El = I' Texts, and its Implications The 'El = F message twice contains the term 'Israel'. The first issue to be addressed is: what are the possible historical referents of this term in texts conveying the 'El = F message? Clearly the term 'Israel' belongs to the category of 'national', 'political' or 'ethnic' terms such as 'Babylon' or 'Samaria' or 'Ammon'. A comparative analysis of the

120


possible referents of these terms in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts may shed light on this issue. Even a cursory analysis of the correlation between biblical prophecies or descriptions of doom against sociopolitical units shows that their (usually) hyperbolic language rarely matches the actual historical events. For instance, Samaria is described as vanquished, an example of the fate expected for Jerusalem.67 Yet Samaria was not demolished by the Assyrians,68 nor was 'all Israel' exiled from northern Israel. Samaria, in fact, became the capital of a Neo-Assyrian province, and most Israelites remained living in the land. It is also true that the ruling elites of the Northern Kingdom lost power, and Samaria as an 'independent' political unit existed no more. Prophecies concerning the fall and destruction of Babylon and the humiliation of its gods69 are overwhelmingly phrased in hyperbolic language (cf. for example Isa. 13.19-22; Jer. 50.35-40). Yet the historical Babylon was certainly not razed by Cyrus, nor its gods humiliated. In fact, in Akkadian texts Cyrus is presented as praising Marduk, and his ascension to power in Babylon as reflecting Marduk's will.70 Yet it is also true that a certain segment of the Babylonian ruling elite lost its power and the Babylonian empire turned into a satrapy within the Achaemenid empire.71 The rhetorical value of texts about the fall of Samaria would have been seriously diminished if the intended audience considered them to be either unfulfilled prophecies or fictional reports of events that never happened. Of course, the same holds true for texts claiming the fall of Babylon, an event that was interpreted as a mighty expression of YHWH's power and justice. Yet it would be extremely unreasonable to assume that these audiences were completely unaware of the continuous 67. For example Mic. 1.6-7; Ezek. 16.44-52; 23.31-34; 2 Kgs 17.5-23; 21.1014. 68. See N. Na'aman, 'The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 BC)', Bib 71 (1990), pp. 209, 220; S. Dalley, 'Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser ffl and Sargon II', Iraq 47 (1985), pp. 34-36. 69. For example, Isa. 13.1-22; 46.1-2; 47; Jer. 50.1-51.64. 70. For an English translation of the text, see A.L. Oppenheim (ed. and trans.), 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', in ANET, pp. 315-16. On the Cyrus Cylinder and its role as a piece of Achaemenid propaganda, see A. Kuhrt, The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy', JSOT25 (1983), pp. 83-97. 71. On the contrast between the hyperbolic rhetoric of these texts and the actual historical events, see, for instance, Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 819, 832.


121

and prosperous existence of Babylon after 539 BCE, and of Samaria after 720 BCE. One must conclude, thus, that the historical audiences of these texts could distinguish between a hyperbolic rhetoric of fall (which is to a large extent a genre requirement) and its more prosaic historical referents. For the purpose of this paper, it is especially worth noting that these competent readers (or hearers) of prophetic literature understood that the actual referents of terms such as 'Babylon' or 'Samaria' in these texts are neither the cities nor the majority of their inhabitants, but their representative elites. It is they whose power is actually demolished. To be sure, this conclusion is not surprising, for many biblical texts show that the same term is used for an entire group and for its 'legitimate' representatives (see, for instance, 1 Kgs 8.2-3, 16.16; 21.13; 2 Kgs 10.13, 18-20; Jer. 26.16).72 This connoted identification of the group with its representatives is not without rhetorical value, for it certainly blurs the conceptual difference between a leading elite and the group it 'legitimately' represents and claims to embody.73 Of course, such discourses represent the perspective of the elite concerning its own importance in society,74 and obviously contribute to their persuasive appeal for control over the larger society. In sum, it is reasonable to assume that within the discourse of the early post-monarchic period, 'Israel' stood—at least on some occasions—for the king and the Judahite monarchic elite. If so, 'Israel' was actually exiled by the end of the monarchic period. Moreover, since at that time the elite and representative group of Israel was embodied in the last living king and his sons, it becomes easily understandable why the focus of the 'history of Israel' in the book of Kings shifts to the events in Babylon, and particularly to the fate of the Judahite monarchic elite living there (2 Kgs 25.27-30). This is also a possible reason that could have led two different scribes and their communities to conclude two 72. Cf. the present journalistic use of terms such as 'America', 'Great Britain', 'Israel' or 'Germany' when referring actually to their respective governments, or the perspective reflected in 'the king is the land, and the land is the king'. when 73. In some aspects this situation is parallel to the use of the term the actual referent is some cultic object representing a deity (for example, Judg. 18.24; 1 Kgs 12.28; Jer. 2.28). 74. Cf. the perspective of the author of 2 Kgs 24.14-16. Notice the explicit claim that 'all Jerusalem' has been deported (v. 14). Of course, the following passages in the book of Kings clearly show that the audience of this text could not have understood such a claim at its face value.

122


very different biblical books with a short account of the favorable new status of Jehoiachin in the court of the king of Babylon, in 561-560 BCE (Jer. 52.31-34; 2 Kgs 25.27-30). During the post-monarchic period, and within the corpus of literature of the period that was later included in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the concept referred to by the term 'Israel', the larger group, began to change. Instead of referring to Judahites (and to some extent to 'Ephraim') the term began to refer to those who belonged to a community characterized by a certain religious tradition, including 'biblical' texts (or biblical texts in the making) and their interpretations.75 This change in the meaning of 'Israel' (that is, the larger group), could not but be followed by a change of the meaning of 'Israel' (that is, the representative group) at least in the discourse of those who accepted this new self-definition of 'Israel' (the larger social group). In their own discourse, 'Israel' (the representative group) could no longer consist of the king's family and their exiled court, for if this were the case they would be furthering the social authority of a group sharply distinct from their own.76 Significantly, 'Israel's' discourse about its post-monarchic past, in the written forms that later turned into Scripture, includes no more reports about the exiled royal family (and court) in Babylon than the aforementioned 561-560 BCE notice.77 75. Cf. Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites?, pp. 101-18. Significantly, later on, the term underwent a similar change, namely from 'Judahite' to 'Jew', as clearly illustrated in the book of Esther (see Est. 2.5, and passim). 76. It is unlikely, and unsupported by any evidence, that vast amounts of 'exilic' and 'post-exilic' literature were written from within the 'exiled court of the king of Judah', and with its support. 77. See Jer. 52.31-44; 2 Kgs 25.27-30. The genealogical list in 1 Chron. 3.1624 mentions many members of the royal family, but as expected from a genealogical list, attributes no actions to them. Zerubbabel was likely a Davidide, but one must notice that nowhere is he explicitly referred to as a member of the royal house of Judah (except in the genealogical list, if the same Zerubbabel is referred to; on Hag. 2.20-23, see Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 78). If one maintains, and it is possible, that the Achaemenid imperial center appointed members of the royal family of Judah as governors of Yehud (see, for instance, P.M. Cross, 'A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration', Int 29 [1975], pp. 187203, esp. pp. 198-99; for the proposal that the Davidic dynasty ruled Judah until the end of the sixth century BCE, see F. Bianchi, 'Zorobabele Re di Giuda', Henoch 13 [1991], pp. 133-50), then the lack of emphasis on, not to mention of, any explicit reference to Davidides and to their historical actions in the 'biblical' reconstruction of the post-monarchic 'Israel' is even more suggestive, especially since such an omission


123

Since Israel is defined mainly by its (religious) traditions and by a certain theological understanding of them in many post-monarchic texts,78 then it seems reasonable to expect that within such accepted social discourses the elite considered to be the legitimate representative of 'Israel' would consist of teachers and (of course) interpreters and developers of this tradition, or of 'prophets' who may be described as embodying it or some of its more important aspects.79 Such a cannot always be explained by the most likely historico-political circumstances. Of course, one may wonder whether the hypothesis of a 'fall of Zerubbabel' does not provide an answer to this lack of explicit reference of Davidides in Yehudite politics. But, first there is no clear evidence for a 'fall of Zerubbabel' (cf. Grabbe, Judaism, I, p. 79; Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, pp. 164-66; Lemche, Ancient Israel, pp. 19091), nor can its possible influence explain the general omission of any report about actual deeds of members of the Davidic family. The expectation of a new David, a quasi-messianic or messianic king, is to be differentiated from an actual, historical, social and religious empowerment of living Davidides over Israel/Yehud, as the existence and flourishing of these expectations at times when there was no living Davidide in the social and political sphere clearly proves. 78. See, for instance, Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites?, pp. 103, 111,11718. The word 'mainly' should not be overlooked. Sociohistorical referents such as 'Israel' are generally not defined by one single trait, but a number of them within a spectrum of 'Israelite traits'. Cf. C.K. Mahmood, 'Do Ethnic Groups Exist? A Cognitive Perspective on the Concept of Cultures', Ethnology 31 (1992), pp. 1-14, esp. pp. 6-9. In spite of that, it is methodologically defensible to focus the analysis on one, or a few traits, that were considered the most significant within a specific social discourse. It is in this light that assertions about Israel as being defined by its religious traditions should be understood. 79. It is worth noting that this claim does not need to reflect the historical situation among the exiles in Babylonia. It is likely that there the exiles were organized in local ethnic-religious-administrative assemblies (puhru). If so, their leaders would be the 'elders' of such assemblies. (See, for instance, Eph'al, 'Western Minorities', pp. 74-90; cf. Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society', pp. 26-34). These assemblies may have provided the social environment in which teachers and interpreters (and creators) of the tradition developed. It seems reasonable to assume that the Achaemenid (as well as the Babylonian) imperial center may have preferred teachers or local elders as the leading elite and representative of communities of exiled Israel rather than a potential Israelite king. But, at the same time, they probably followed the imperial tradition of keeping a line of descendants of a local royal family under the control of the imperial court in case there was a need to send a loyal ruler, who enjoyed additional legitimacy from the perspective of the local population. This practice is well attested in empires as distant in time as the Assyrian and Roman empires. If Zerubbabel and other 'early' governors of Yehud were either from the Davidic line or were related to it (see, for instance, E.M. Meyers, 'The Shelomith Seal and the Judean

124


perspective on leadership, and above all on 'Israel', leads to archetypes such as Moses, Ezra and also the servant of YHWH.80 Those who developed and transmitted the texts containing the 'El = I' message, and most of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, shared that perspective. Thus, within their social and theological discourses, the ahistorical claim that all Israel was exiled to Babylon actually conveys a claim (or signifies) that the exiles (first in Babylon, and then in Yehud) are the authoritative interpreters/developers and communal teachers of the divine teachings (or Teaching), and, therefore, they should be considered to be the legitimate representatives of Israel, a community centered around the divine teachings and their implementation.81 Restoration: Some Additional Considerations', El 18 [1985], pp. 33*-38*, and the bibliography mentioned above), then the Achaemenid imperial center would have followed a well-known, 'traditional', policy in regard to Yehud, as far as it thought it useful, and as far as it was not overridden by other considerations. It is worth noting in this respect that not all Achaemenid governors of Yehud were Davidides; Nehemiah, for one, was certainly not. 80. Significantly, the servant is designated Israel in Isa. 49.3 while at the same time is identified with 'Israel,' a 'righteous remnant among the people'. So Williamson, 'Concept of Israel', pp. 144-47, esp. p. 147. The overt process of identification o 'Israel', the larger group, with 'Israel', the narrow representative group (here, the servant alone) is worth noting. 81. One may compare this claim with 'they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had' (1 Mace. 1.53). The reference there is to the events of 167 BCE. The communicative message of the text is not that every Israelite was actually hiding, but that 'Israel', that is, those who legitimately represent the concept 'Israel', were driven off. Likewise, the text in 1 Mace. 1.37-38 states that all the residents of Jerusalem had fled. Of course, this claim cannot be taken at face value as historically accurate, but its role within the discourse presented in the text is not to teach 'neutral' history, but to convey the meaning that those who represented Israel, that is, 'the pious Jews', did not remain in the city under such conditions; and therefore, those who remained there were 'strangers'. In sum, this passage presents a perspectival vision of who represents 'Israel' (and accordingly, who is 'Israel'), and conveys this image to the historical audience by means of another reference to an 'empty' place to which Israel eventually will return. Cf. I.W. Provan, Lamentations: Based on the Revised Standard Version (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 14. Another interesting case of representation of Israel is attested in the Letter ofAristeas. An ahistorical note there describes a group of six elders representing each of the twelve tribes of Israel sent to Alexandria. Certainly the reference to the twelve tribes is meant to convey that they represent 'all Israel'. Significantly, these people were selected because they were good translators of the 'Law' (Ep. Arist. 46-51). That good translators of the divine instruction conveyed the sense of 'all Israel' is consistent with the


125

To state the obvious, the internal logic of these discourses leads to an ahistorical underscoring of the 'exilic' setting of the first teaching of this Teaching. Such an exilic atmosphere is well conveyed by (1) the (mythical) setting of the Mosaic teaching in Sinai, that is, before the coming or, better, returning (see Gen. 12-50) of Israel to the land, and (2) the coming/returning of the 'authentic' teaching from Babylon to the land of Israel (see for example Ezra 7; Neh. 8). The texts in which the 'El = I' message is embedded belong to the social discourses mentioned above. This being so, we are better equipped to understand the connoted, and likely the most important, social meaning of the 'El = I' message, namely, a strong claim for the centrality and authority of the divine teachings and their interpreters and teachers. Although this may well be one of the most important reasons for the ubiquity of the 'El = I' message,82 it still leaves unanswered the question of why the divine teachings must be consistently related with 'exilic' settings and leadership. 3.3 Achaemenid-Mandated Codification of Local Traditional Law As Blenkinsopp and others have maintained, there are good historical reasons to assume that the Achaemenid imperial center mandated a codification and standardization of the traditional law to serve as a 'constitution' of the province of Yehud. Such a 'constitution' would be backed by both the Achaemenid king and the weight of local tradition.83 Ezra 7.12-14, 25-26 may either reflect such an action in its general lines or create a literary setting that is plausible to its audience. In both cases, book's description of Israel as those who live according to the 'sacred law' (Ep. Arist. 5). One more illustration of this trend will suffice. According to Ezra 6.1622, the (returned) exiles are Israel, which is characterized as worshipping God in the House of the God of Israel in accordance to what is written in the book of Moses. But the text itself clarifies that this Israel, in fact, is the representative of 'all Israel', the larger group, which is characterized by a reference to the twelve tribes (see v. 17; cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 52). 82. Additional reasons will be proposed later in this article, and summarized in section 5. 83. See J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 239-42; and idem, 'The Mission of Udjahorresnet and those of Ezra and Nehemiah', JBL 106 (1987), pp. 409-21. See also R.N. Frye, The History of Ancient Iran (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 3.7; Munich: Beck, 1983), pp. 118-19; Thompson, Early History, pp. 418-19; Davies, In Search, pp. 86-87.

126


it may well be considered indirect evidence supporting the case of Persian-mandated implementation of a certain set of 'traditional laws'.84 The ideologico-propagandistic and stabilizing effects of such an action seem clear. Both the authority of the local tradition and that of the Achaemenid king proclaim and maintain the set of laws that legitimize the very existence of the social and political community as a separate entity. Placing his authority on the same functional level as the local tradition, the king conveys a sense of identification between the two, which is normally assigned to the local king. In addition, the reason for the existence of the separate social-political unit becomes intrinsically related to the symbol of the imperial center. The ideological and propagandistic aspects of these claims, from an imperial perspective, are almost self-evident. Moreover, taking into account that 'the legitimation of rulers was mainly religio-traditional; and the criteria governing their appraisal usually combined political and religious values and orientation', there could not be a better way to support the legitimacy of an Achaemenid appointee as governor of Yehud than to present him as an enforcer of the 'sacred tradition'.85 It is also reasonable to assume that the imperial center of power preferred to empower Babylonian 'Israel' (that is, interpreters/developers of the divine traditions of Israel living in Babylonia) who might have been closer to the imperial court, by appointing them responsible for the codification, rather than empowering the residents of the distant Yehud. The former could have been considered more trustworthy, and above 84. For a succinct summary of the issues involved in the scholarly discussion over the historicity of Ezra's mission, see Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 94-98, 136-38, and the bibliography mentioned there. It is worth noting that even if the account in Ezra is fictional, its presence in the book of Ezra strongly suggests that such actions are within the socially acceptable religio-political horizon of the historical audience. 85. Another way of supporting the legitimacy of an Achaemenid appointee to a province within the discourse of its residents would have been to designate a ruler who was either a member of a hereditary elite, or a charismatic person embodying the society's 'sacred' values who would be expected to establish a new hereditary dynasty. See Eisenstadt, Political Systems, p. 19; and my discussion in section 2.2. If there were several Davidic governors of Yehud as is sometimes proposed (see above), then the Achaemenid imperial center would have implemented this option too. The Neo-Babylonians certainly implemented it when they appointed Gedaliah. Of course, this alternative is potentially more dangerous to the imperial interests than the first one, and therefore its implementation is averted by overriding political considerations.

BENZVI Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel

127

all, since they were newcomers to Yehud they would have been much more dependent on the imperial powers than any local leader. Similar arguments might have led to the decision to entrust the building of the temple to Babylonian 'Israel' (see section 3.4).86 In sum, it is possible that at a certain moment in history, probably during the reign of Darius I, the divine teachings and their authorized interpreters/developers came, as it were, from Babylon to Yehud. If so, this event may have had some influence on the development of the 'El = F view, and especially on the shaping of the tradition that the divine teachings are to be associated with 'exilic' settings and leadership. Nevertheless, even if the historical events followed the proposed reconstruction, historicity by itself can hardly be considered the main factor that contributed to the widespread acceptance of such a tradition. In this regard, it is worth remembering that (1) most 'biblical' books—at the very least in their present form—seem to have been written in Yehud rather than in Babylon; (2) the above-mentioned codification was perhaps an important step, but certainly not the last in the crystallization of Pentateuchal traditions, to say nothing of other biblical textual traditions;87 and (3) even if for the sake of argument one would accept that the new code is the Pentateuch, this codification could not possibly have meant the end of interpretation, for these texts do not provide a system of laws that can be implemented without extensive interpretation.88 Thus, even if the claim that the divine teaching and its teachers and interpreters might have (perspectivally) reflected a historical situation that existed at a certain point in time, the historicity of this event cannot be considered a main reason for the role and ubiquity of the claim that 'exilic (either in exile or returned) Israel' is 'Israel', that 'exilic divine teachings' are 'the divine Teaching', and that 'exilic interpreters/teachers of this Teaching' are 'the interpreters of the Teaching' in so many biblical discourses. In fact, many other historical events and circumstances, some of them well established, could have led to images and traditions plainly opposite to those expressed by the 'exilic' theological construction. 86. Of course, similar considerations influenced all imperial powers that settled deportees in lands that were foreign to them or stationed imperial 'ethnic' troops to control local populations. 87. Such as those that crystallized in the The Twelve (that is, the Minor Prophets), the (different) books of Jeremiah and others. 88. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 91 -95.

128


If so, why were the 'exilic' images and traditions socially accepted and developed from generation to generation, and from social discourse to social discourse in the post-monarchic period, while the counter-images and counter traditions were not? Of course, the answer to this question does not rest on the degree of historicity of the proposed reconstruction of the codification of the divine teachings. One has to find, instead, a historically reasonable principle of selection that would have preferred this 'exilic' set of perspectives over any other alternative set. 3.4 Achaemenid-Mandated Reconstruction of the Temple A similar situation can be discerned in relation to the temple. It is likely that the Achaemenid imperial center mandated the re-establishment of the temple, and sent Babylonian 'Israel' to carry out the project,89 and above all, mandated the establishment of an assembly of the temple, which, following the pattern common in Babylonia, may have had important social and political roles in Yehud.90 The possible historicity of this 'primordial' event by itself cannot be considered the main reason for the dominance of the 'exilic' set of perspectives in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible discourses, for even if this reconstruction of the past is granted, the temple community did not consist of actual returnees for a long time. As seen in section 2.2, there are many indications that even if there were two separate social and political groups, returnees and remainees, and only the former took part in the temple community and its assembly, then at a certain point in time, the latter were accepted into it. In fact, it is precisely this tendency to include all (or most of) the (socially accepted) 'significant' population of Yehud into the assembly that eventually allowed the temple administration, and its head the high priest, to take over the administration of the province of Yehud in the Hellenistic period.91 89. Cf. Ezra 1.1-11; 2.68-3.13; 6.1-22. 90. See Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society'. Blenkinsopp rightly points out that 'the Cyrus rescript (Ezra 1.1-4) mandated rather than permitted the building of the temple' (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 102); also see Ezra 5.13. Babylonian 'Israel' may have been preferred for this project because of considerations similar to those mentioned in regard to the Achaemenid-mandated codification of local divine teachings (see section 3.3). 91. Perhaps evidence for a harbinger of this development may be found in the numismatic inscription (that is, 'Yohanan the P/priest'), but Yohanan could


129

This tendency is certainly not surprising, for a narrowly constructed temple community could not have served the imperial interests in the long run. The temple, its leadership and the 'traditional' teaching coming from it (cf. Isa. 2.3; Mic. 4.2) were supposed not only to shape the social and administrative organization of Yehud, but also to provide traditional legitimacy and therefore, stability, to control the affairs of Yehud. Such a stability would have been elusive had the assembly of the temple been constituted by a relatively small group of returnees, to the exclusion of vast majority of the Yehudites, including the elites of Neo-BabyIonian Yehud. 4. History and the Ubiquity of 'El = I': Second Approach, Part Two: The 'Exilic' Set of Claims as an Integral Part of Historical Discourses 4.1 Introduction Focusing the study on the relation between 'Israel' and the historical circumstances around the codification of the traditional teachings, the building of the temple and the establishment of its assembly has advanced our study of the 'El = I' message. This approach has, however, been unable to provide a reasonable explanation for the dominance of the 'exilic' set of perspectives in vast parts of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, and in the thought of the communities who wrote and read these texts. It seems reasonable, therefore, to shift the focus of the analysis. The 'exilic' set of claims is an integral part of social discourses that construe the entire 'restoration' period and beyond. It seems at least heuristically sound to turn our attention to the system of relations between the 'El = F and related messages and the general image of the 'restoration' period in a number of texts written and read in the later part of the Persian or the Hellenistic period.

have been a governor who was a priest rather than the high priest of the temple (cf. Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 70-71; D.P. Barag, 'Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest', BA 48 [1985], pp. 166-68). Of course, even in such a case, reference to his status as priest is most likely meant to convey (traditional) authority and legitimacy. Cf. the position of the high priest Joshua, son of Jehozadak, in the present form of Zech. 6.9-15.

130


4.2 Rhetorics of Restoration/Return and Claims of Continuity Although, at first glance, the diversity of the traditions about the early Persian period is amazing,92 there is widespread agreement that the second temple results from a return from Babylon. The specifics of the return may vary from text to text, or even within a text. The main returnee may consist of the vessels of the temple, the temple community, a specific group of leaders of the temple community, the fire burning in the temple, or any combination of them.93 But there is always a significant returnee in the description of the re-establishment of the temple. The reason for this consistent pattern is clear. References to the return are logically necessary in these discourses because they communicate continuity between the first and the second temple. Thus, if the 'portable' features of the first (such as the vessels and the elite itself) were exiled, they returned (or were returned) to be present in the second. Clearly, those who assumed that YHWH (or YHWH's presence or glory) left the first temple when it became a heap of ruins must have included a reference to the return of YHWH (or YHWH's presence or glory) within their discourse, because otherwise they would be denying the temple any significance.94 92. For instance, the account in Ezra 1-6 and in Ezra-Nehemiah in general stands in tension with 2 Mace. 1.18-36. The latter text claims that Nehemiah rebuilt the temple, the altar and offered sacrifices (v. 18). Moreover, the audience of the book is told that Nehemiah brought from the exile some of the fire of the altar of the first temple, with the help of the descendants of the priests. The book of Ben Sira claims that the temple was rebuilt in the days of Zerubbabel and Joshua, son of Jozadak. This book reflects biblical traditions concerning these two figures (esp. the book of Haggai; see Hag. 2.23), but not those in Ezra-Nehemiah. Significantly, Ben Sira also mentions Nehemiah, though not in relation to the temple as in 2 Mace. 1.18-36. Ben Sira does not mention Ezra at all (see Sir. 49.11-13). (On the questions concerning the historicity of the figure of Ezra as depicted in Ezra-Nehemiah brought about by these and other testimonies, see G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel [trans J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1988], pp. 151-69). It is worth noting that even within Ezra 1-6 itself there are many tensions, and certainly there are between Ezra 1-6, and Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 regarding issues as central as who laid the foundations of the temple, and when. On this issue, see, for instance, Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, pp. 102-104. 93. See preceding footnote. 94. In Old Testament/Hebrew Bible discourses the temple was considered either as a place for the name of YHWH or a place where God's glory dwelt, or both. The destruction of the temple was interpreted as meaning that the glory of YHWH


131

It is certainly according to the 'spirit of the time' that temples were 'restored' (that is, rebuilt) on their ancient places,95 or at least claimed to be rebuilt there. Moreover, it is indisputable that emphasis on restoration was consistent with one of the main themes in the imperial ideology and propaganda of the time (see section 5.2). It is also true, however, that the continuity between the two temples was a central component of Israel's self-understandings in the second temple period as they are reflected in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Its high importance within the Israelite/Yehudite social discourses of the period is clearly indicated by the numerous implicit and explicit references to bonding relations between the two temples.96 This was a result of the central position given to the temple and Zion/Jerusalem in the biblical discourses, because it required a sense of continuity between the two Jerusalems, the two temples, and of the two of them with the tabernacle, if they were to sustain a claim of 'essential' continuity from abandoned the temple and went, as it were, into exile, a situation comparable to that of Israel (cf. Ezek. 11.22-23, and also 1 Sam. 4.21-22; this motif is a variation on the ancient Near Eastern motif of 'divine abandonment'; see. M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Century BCE [SBLMS, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974], pp. 9-21). Then, the rebuilding of the temple by the human exiles created necessary conditions for the return of the divine exile, the glory of God (see Ezek. 43.5; 44.4; cf. Isa. 60.1, but notice that it may refer to a future situation in Zion). It is likely that there were groups in the Second Commonwealth that did not consider the historical second temple itself legitimate—one may think of those who wrote the Temple Scroll—but this point of view is not expressed in the biblical discourses discussed in this article, and therefore it will not be discussed in this article. For our purpose here, it suffices to state that if such points of view existed within the theological horizon of the period, they could have motivated the social production of discourses that re-emphasized the continuity between the two Jerusalem temples and accordingly, the legitimacy of the second. 95. For another Yahwistic example of such a 'spirit of the time', see CAP 30. 1. 25 in B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Department of the History of the Jewish People, 1986), I, pp. 68-71, letter A 4.7 1. 25, and esp. CAP 32 1. 8 (in Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, I, pp. 76-77, letter A 4.9 1. 8). 96. These references are of many different types; they vary from a description of the worship in the first temple that actually points to actions in the second (as in Chronicles), to explicit statements that the second temple was built on the same site as the first. See Ezra 2.68; 5.15; 6.7; and, for instance, Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 102.

132


Mosaic, to monarchic and finally to post-monarchic, Yehudite, Israel. Such continuity was one of the foundation stones of Israel's self-understandings at that time. Moreover, this continuity was considered to be a worldly, 'historical' manifestation of a continuous relation between Israel andYHWH. In sum, the temple, its vessels and its priests had to return—as it were— so that the second temple would be seen as continuous with the first. Yehudite Israel, however, was not centered around the temple alone, but also around the divine teachings. Moreover, temple and teachings cannot be dissociated in such discourses, for the teachings legitimize the temple.97 It is only to be expected thus to encounter a discursive integration of the image of the returning 'temple' with that of the returning 'teachings', and of the image of the 'returning' priests with that of the 'returning' teachers. This integration shares, in turn, a certain image of 'Israel'. Because of this rhetoric of restoration and return, second temple Yehudites were led towards a construction of their world characterized by a degree of parallelism or correlation between 'then' and 'now'. Significantly, their texts show that they did not confuse parallelism or correlation with close likeness. It is plain and obvious that the second temple could stand in the place of the first, and not the other way around. It is not so obvious that Ezra's teachings must not be his own, but Mosaic. It is certainly significant that while most, if not all, prophetic books are post-monarchic, most of them are presented as a divine word that came to Judahite prophets in the monarchic period.98 The rhetorics of return and restoration stress the 're' prefix in these words, and give priority to teachings that claimed to represent traditional knowledge. If so, they must also provide an explanation for the preservation of such 'traditional knowledge'. Against the background of a reconstruction of the past stating that 'Israel', namely the Judahite elite, went into exile, a consistent explanation requires an image of such an elite going into exile

97. It is worth noting that, whereas it is likely that from a social and historical perspective the temple legitimized the teachings and supported their writing and transmission (cf. Davies, In Search, pp. 106-12), in the Yehudite discourse represented by Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, the teachings explicitly legitimize what is done in the temple. Moreover, the importance and legitimacy of Zion can only be upheld on the basis of the accepted divine teachings. 98. See E. Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (BZAW, 198; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), esp. pp. 348-53.


133

with their divine teachings, carrying precious bundles of scrolls." In sum, both the temple and the divine teachings should return along with their 'human carriers', if the former are to be continuous with those (claimed to be) of monarchic Judah, and beyond that with those (claimed to be) of pre-monarchic Israel. This continuity is the precondition for the legitimacy of the teachings, which in turn provides legitimacy for the temple. In a symbolic way this message is conveyed by Ezra 7-8, Nehemiah 8. According to these texts, the Persian king commissions Ezra to deal mainly with the temple and divine teachings (which are seen as Mosaic). Ezra's implementation of this commission led to proper, legitimate worship in the temple and in the city, as exemplified by the celebration of the Festival of the Booths (Neh. 8.1318). Significantly, this festival is the one associated with the dedication of the first temple. Thus, Ezra's return, or, better, the return of the divine teachings, is presented as leading (as it were) to a new temple community, and to a newly dedicated temple.100 The temple, in turn, legitimizes the city as a special place. As Cohn Eskenazi has shown, the concept of the (Yehudite) 'house of God' in Ezra-Nehemiah extends to the entire city of Jerusalem, a place where people are supposed to implement in their life the divine teachings, as taught by the authoritative teachers on the basis of written texts. Thus, divine teachings, temple, Zion, Jerusalem and Israel are all bound one to

99. Cf. Davies, In Search, pp. 43-44. Whether this image is historical or not is immaterial to the discussion. The point here is that within these communities of Israel such a reconstruction of the past was required by the inner logic of their discourses. 100. That such a claim is consistent with Achaemenid propaganda and interests is self-evident. The divine teaching returns to the temple as a consequence of an Achaemenid edict (see Ezra 7.11-26). Authoritative teachings and proper cultic behavior return also to Yehud by another Achaemenid envoy, Nehemiah. This perspective is even sharpened in Ezra 1.1-7, according to which the human initiative for the restoration is essentially Cyrus's. This text tells of no one from Israel who asked him to restore the temple, nor to return to Judah. Moreover, while the Yehudite priests in the temple stand for the monarchic priests, it is the Achaemenid king who stands for David as the founder of the temple (cf. Ezra 6.14). Therefore, it is not surprising that since David is described as responsible for the establishment of the cult, the Persian king is described as responsible for the proper cult in Jerusalem (cf. Ezra 1.1-11; 6.1-12). True, from a theological perspective akin to the thought of the time, one may claim that the actual founder is YHWH, but YHWH chooses to stir up the spirit of the Persian king.

134


the other in this type of theological discourse, and all together to monarchic Judah, and accordingly, they all become 'returnees'. 4.3 The 'El = I' Message Communicates that Israel Lives in the PostJudgment Period The parallelism between the themes and images of the 'exodus' and the 'return', and their importance as myths of origin, has been pointed out in previous sections. This is an additional instance in which correlation is sharply distinguished from close likeness. The most important difference for the present discussion is that, according to the biblical traditions, Israel did not emigrate to Egypt, nor was it enslaved there as a punishment for its deeds. In sharp contrast, Israel went into exile because of its deeds. Accordingly, Israel of 'the return' is Israel after the divine judgment, whereas Israel of 'exodus' is not.101 Thus, the message of 'El = F clearly connotes that all Israel lives in the post-judgment period.102 The importance of this connotation for the self-images of the Yehudite community or communities cannot be overly stressed because of the overwhelming number of references in postmonarchic biblical texts to monarchic, pre-exilic Israel as worthy of 101. See Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, p. 239. 102. Elsewhere I have argued that facing a world in which the 'nations' who did not recognize YHWH were in better earthly shape than Israel, the writers of the tripartite prophetic books (that is, those including announcements of judgment against Israel/Judah, of judgment against the nations, and finally of salvation for Israel, or Israel and the nations) tended to construe 'world' history as the movement of separate nations (including Israel) from status a, characterized by opulence and power (associated with behavior contrary to the will of YHWH to the extent of deserving divine punishment) to a status non-a, following the divine judgment, in which they lack all the above. In some prophetic books, this status non-a, in turn, is a necessary step in the final movement towards an ideal permanent status, in which all the earthly world would permanently manifest the will of YHWH. For our purposes here, only the movement from a to non-a is relevant. See Ben Zvi, Zephaniah, pp. 325-46; and idem, 'Understanding the Message of the Tripartite Prophetic Books', ResQ 35 (1993), pp. 93-100. This understanding of the Persian (and early Hellenistic) period as a post-exilic/ post-judgement era characterized by a non-a status clearly implies a certain, basic positive attitude towards it. It is to be expected therefore, that groups which did not share this general positive attitude would develop social discourses maintaining that the 'return' is still in the future, and that Israel is still in the 'judgment' period. Cf. M.A. Knibb, The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period', Hey] 17 (1976), pp. 253-72.


135

divine punishment. Thus, to claim that 'El = F within the matrix of these discourses is to claim that Israel has already paid its penalty (cf. Isa. 40.2), and therefore is ready for a new beginning; conversely, to deny the exilic (or post-exilic) character of Israel would be tantamount to associating oneself with those who are still unpunished. Of course, one may claim that the destruction of Jerusalem and the collapse of the monarchy could have been construed as sufficient punishment, and accordingly, it would not be necessary for an Israelite to be associated with the exile in order to be considered worthy of a new beginning. Significantly, this potentially good alternative is not developed in post-monarchic biblical discourses. They overwhelmingly point to the action of being driven away from the land as the main punishment for (monarchic) Israel's sinful behavior, be it in language framed as a threat, or as an announcement, or as a report; be it in the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets or the Latter Prophets. In sum, once the identification of the main punishment related to YHWH's judgment of monarchic Judah with the exile began to crystallize and be accepted in the social discourses of post-monarchic Israel, the 'El = F message became a systemic requirement of these discourses. Such a development most likely brought about a continuous feedback situation within these discourses, and therefore, most likely contributed to the ubiquity of the 'El = F in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts. 4.4 Israel's Traditions of Origin and the Question of Justification: The Russian Doll Model According to biblical traditions, the returnees came from outside the land, and so did the 'children of Israel' led by Joshua. There is a tendency among several scholars to interpret the theme of Israel as an outsider (from the perspective of the inhabitants of the land) and of the conquest motif so characteristic of the Pentateuch and Joshua (and parts of Judges) as a reflection of the tensions between the returnees and those who remained in the land.103 Or more precisely, the first tradition of the origin of Israel (outsider coming to conquer the land) is more or less a self-reflection of the returnees' own identity and experience that is projected into the distant past, to empower the group within its own 103. For example, K.W. Whitelam, 'Israel's Traditions of Origin: Reclaiming the Land', JSOT 44 (1989), pp. 19-42, esp. pp. 30-32 and the bibliography mentioned there. See also Davies, In Search, pp. 87-88.

136


discourse. To be sure, traditions of origin usually point more to selfdefinition and self-identification than to actual historical events. But if so, the same may hold true for the second tradition of origin as well, namely for the return from the exile. As seen above, although there may have been tensions between returnees and those who remained in the land, it is unlikely that there was a long-term tension between them. It seems that the experience of most returnees and of most Neo-BabyIonian Judahites (that is, those Judahites who inhabited the Neo-Babylonian province of Judah), and certainly of most of those living in the Achaemenid province of Yehud, did not include a struggle over the land with the population of Yehud divided into two groups according to their respective places of origin. This being the case, it seems that the first (ahistorical) tradition of Israel's origin may well serve to legitimize the second (ahistorical) tradition of the origin of Israel (full exile + return; which is a facet of the general 'El = I' message). The second, in turn, does not rest on 'history' itself, but is a response to questions of self-identification and self-identity within the Yehudite community, including both those who came from Babylon and those who remained in the land, as well as their descendants.104 Some of the reasons for the development of this specific self-identification and self-identity were pointed out in the previous sections. A significant point, however, has not yet been brought into the discussion. To state that the returnees came from outside the land, as did the 'children of Israel' led by Joshua, twice calls into question the legitimacy of Israel's position in the land within its own discourse, regardless of the a historical character of the tradition. Thus, a response is also called for.105 104. Of course, one may claim that the vast majority appropriated the 'nationbuilding' experience of a small minority (cf. the Mayflower experience). But 'nationbuilding' experiences occur because they are perceived as such within the accepted discourses of a nation. If so, the question would be: why did Yehudite Israel accept as 'nation-building' the experience of a small group of returnees? 105. Notice that the widespread acceptance of the ahistorical reconstruction of the past, which maintains that the Israelites led by Joshua conquered the land, contributed—among other reasons—to the creation of a corpus of explanations legitimizing the conquest. Likewise, the editors of the book of Joshua consistently wrestled with the ethical issues brought about by the extermination of the Canaanites as described in Joshua 1-12. Their work in this respect is a clear instance of response to a painful theological issue caused by a tradition whose historicity is nil. See L.G. Stone, 'Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua', CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 25-36.


137

Within the discourse of the Persian Yehud, one of the main arguments for the legitimacy of the returnees' possession of the land is that they are Israel, that is, the only group serving YHWH, whose temple is in Jerusalem, and the only group continuous with monarchic Judah.106 Of course, this response brought about a second process of continuous feedback, because the need for the acceptance of a certain tradition of origin that is integral to the 'El = I' message leads to a situation in which the 'El = I' message is to be underscored, which in turn furthers the acceptance of the tradition of origin. Such a circular discourse likely contributed to the attested pervasiveness of the 'El = F in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. 5. Historical Circumstances 5.1 Historical Circumstances and Theological and Sociopolitical Boundaries Social discourses may be circular, but they do exist in history. They address and respond to social (in the most general sense of the term) needs of communities that exist at a certain time and place. Thus, communicative messages, which are an integral part of such discourses, such as the 'El = I' message, are historically bound. This being so, the study of the historical message conveyed by 'El = I' cannot proceed without an examination of the set of historical circumstances (including communal perceptions of their own present and past) of the communities in which and for which texts conveying the 'El = I' message were written and passed down. As seen above, the 'El = I' message is found in texts that cannot be restricted to a narrow period in post-monarchic or second temple times, nor to any specific social group in Yehud. It is reasonable, therefore, to search for a general set of historical circumstances rather than a narrow and specific set. The most likely set must fulfill the following two conditions: (1) it was sustained over a prolonged period of time, and

106. It is worth noting that biblical discourses of the Persian period included a second source of legitimization, namely the Achaemenid court and its rulings. The latter are given importance as external confirmations of the validity of the claims based on the 'El = F message, but significantly, they are presented within the inner discourse of the Yehudite community or communities (for example, Ezra 1.1-4; 6.19-22; 7.25-26; 2 Chron. 36.22-23).

138


(2) it could have been perceived in a somewhat similar light by different groups in Yehud for a relatively long period. Such a set of historical circumstances could not have been the background of only one significant historical message, namely 'El = F, nor it is likely that only this communicative message came to be reflected in Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible texts. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that other messages will be well attested in a variety of post-monarchic Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts. The more related these messages are to the 'El = I' message, the more likely they will shed light on its historical meaning. The most relevant related message is the one consistently underscoring the centrality of Jerusalem/Zion and the temple in its midst.107 The 'El = F message and this message are deeply interrelated in the 'biblical' discourses of the 'Second Commonwealth'. As already seen, the re-established temple and city were consistently associated with the return of the exiles of monarchic Judah. Thus, a combined message is brought to the audience: 1.

2. 3.

Israel is defined in terms of divine teachings which emphasize a special relationship between YHWH, Israel and Jerusalem/Zion; if so only the Israel actually centered around Jerusalem, and those who accept its point of view, is Israel; and such an Israel is to be unequivocally associated with the exiles and their descendants, the returnees.

Each of these three propositions, and certainly all of them together, support a (perspectival) self-definition of Israel, and do set clear boundaries around the term 'Israel'. The pervasiveness of texts communicating explicitly or implicitly to their audiences these boundaries through a prolonged period clearly suggests that the issue of inclusion in and exclusion from Israel was far from being settled in a satisfactory way. Constant reaffirmations of these principles in the inner discourse of Jerusalem-centered Israel (which is also exilic-returned Israel) must have

107. This message is well attested in most of the books included in the Former and Latter Prophets, and in many of the Writings (such as the book of Psalms, Lamentations, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles), and, of course, in Deuteronomy, according to its common interpretation. I have written elsewhere on the fundamental role of this message for the self-definition of post-monarchic communities; see Ben Zvi, Zephaniah, pp. 325-46, esp. pp. 344-45.


139

fulfilled a social need for inner reassurance concerning self-image and self-definition as Israel, the only Israel. If so, it seems reasonable to proceed to the analysis of the historical circumstances against which these claims were formulated by focusing on the identity of the historical groups whose eventual inclusion or exclusion seems to be clearly decided by the emphatically proposed boundaries. To state the obvious, not everyone in the Achaemenid empire would have been a candidate for inclusion in Israel. Since YHWH is characterized as the God of Israel, only Yahwistic groups had a potentially acceptable claim to be Israel. Among these groups, the largest, most influential, and geographically the closest to Yehud and Jerusalem consisted of the Samarians.108 Significantly, the proposed boundaries consistently exclude the Samarians. They could not possibly have identified themselves with the Judahite exiles in Babylon, nor could they have been regular members of the temple community of Jerusalem because they lived in the Achaemenid province of Samaria and because of the sociopolitical interrelation between temple community and province,109 nor is likely that they would have been allowed by the Achaemenids to join the community had they wanted to do so, because of imperial politico-administrative policies. In addition, it seems unlikely that they would have accepted that YHWH has a unique relation to Zion and those who dwelt in it (which, of course, empowers the temple community vis-a-vis the Samarians), nor as authoritative any version of divine teachings and traditions that consistently claimed so, such as most of the books included among the Former and Latter Prophets, and some of the Writings as well. Thus, from the perspective of the people of Yehud who accepted the claims of these texts (that is, 'Israel', from their own perspective) the Samarians are excluded from Israel, because they do

108. For other Yahwistic groups see below. The 'Samarians' of the NeoBabylonian and Achaemenid periods are usually referred to as 'Samaritans'. But the terms 'Samaritans' is misleading in this context, because 'Samaritanism' is a later phenomenon. 109. This interrelation led eventually to the high priest's assumption of the roles of the provincial ruler. See section 3.4 above. CAP 30 and 31 (see below; CAP 30 = letter A 4.7 and CAP 31 = letter A 4.8 in Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, I, pp. 68-75) clearly show that the leaders of Samaria and those of Jerusalem/Yehud were considered to be and addressed as separate groups, the latter including the high priest and the other priests.

140


not (and cannot) fulfill the theological, as well as the social and political, requirements they are supposed to.110 Of course, the continuous reaffirmation of these boundaries of Israel serves an internal purpose. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts that 110. Of course, according to the logic of this argument, had Samarian Israelites accepted YHWH's teachings as seen in Yehud, and the centrality of Jerusalem, they would have been admitted to Israel. It is worth noting that Tobit describes a pious northern Israelite exile, from the tribe of Naphtali, who went to Jerusalem for the festivals 'as it is prescribed for all Israel by everlasting decree' and who would send his tithe to Jerusalem (see Tob. 1.3-8; cf. Jer. 41.4-5). Moreover, Tobit's testament clearly states the 'El = F message (Tob. 14.4-7). The book of Judith also describes a pious northern Israelite, this time one living in the land. As expected, this pious Israelite, and her people, are described as assuming (as a given) the centrality and authority of the temple of Jerusalem and its leadership (see for example Jdt. 9.13; 16.18-20 and passim; see also the narrator's remark in Jdt. 9.1). Clearly, the same theme is found in the prophetic texts in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible which speak of the reunification of the two houses of Israel. At least in their present context, these texts correlate this reunification with 'Joseph's' acceptance of the centrality of Jerusalem/Zion, and a set of YHWH's teachings consistent with this and related claims (for example, Ezek. 37.15-28; cf. Obadiah). The same holds true for the position of the author of the book of Chronicles, for whom the northern Israelites are indeed Israel (in the larger sense) but also alienated sinners, for they do not follow YHWH's teachings as seen by the Chronicler. To sum up, according to this line of thought the Samarians, the House of Joseph, or northern Israelites may or will join the House of Judah/the Yehudite community, but this reunion would not be one of equal partners, for the northerners have to accept the authority of the traditions of Jerusalem-centered Israel (that is, 'Israel') and of the leadership that follows these traditions, namely, the leadership of those who agree with the messages conveyed by these texts. The widespread attestation of these trends of thought does not preclude the existence of additional or alternative trends on these issues. For instance, according to some post-monarchic texts, the rejection of the Samarians is based on a very different principle, namely, their allegedly non-Israelite origin (see 2 Kgs 17.24-41; Ezra 4.1-4, 10). Genealogical principles are often presented in direct or indirect references to Israel's boundaries in biblical literature. According to the plain claim of Ezra 9 and 10, Ezra and his group not only supported an ideology of 'holy seed', but attempted to implement a policy of racial purity that commanded the sending away of foreign wives, wives who were accused neither of worshipping foreign deities nor of inciting anyone from Israel to do so (see also Neh. 9.1-2; 10.29-31; but cf. Neh. 13.23-27). See Kaufmann, Toldot HaEmunah halsraelit, IV, pp. 284-303, esp. pp. 289-93 (Hebrew); M. Weinfeld, 'Universalism and Particularism in the Period of the Return to Zion', Tarbiz 33 (1964), pp. 228-42, esp. pp. 237-38 (Hebrew). The issue, therefore, is not so much one of potential 'idolatry' but a reflection of a position similar to


141

consistently communicate this message to their audience were certainly not written for the sake of the Samarian communities, to tell them again and again that they were not included in Israel. The repeated presence of reassuring passages concerning the legitimacy of these boundaries in texts written for and passed down within the communities centered around Jerusalem makes sense only against a climate of contradictory claims about who is Israel, who lives according to YHWH's traditional teachings, and what these teachings consist of. The most significant counterclaims would have come, in all likelihood, from Samaria.111 that expressed in Pericles' laws of citizenship, namely that a citizen, or in our case, a member of the temple community , must have an ancestry traceable from the paternal and the maternal side (so, for instance, Blenkinsopp, 'Temple and Society', p. 29). Weinfeld is certainly correct in pointing out that the 'holy seed' approach stood in clear contradiction to much of the theological thought of the period. The 'holy seed' approach was historically unsuccessful, as the demographic expansion of Israel during the Second Temple period shows (see Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, p. 200). Significantly, the two main figures who, according to Ezra-Nehemiah, actively promulgated the separation of the temple community from all its neighbors and opposed intermarriage, on arguments based on the 'holy seed' approach, are both described as Achaemenid envoys. This situation may reflect imperial politico-administrative policies designed to pre-empt the creation of regional alliances, the strengthening of local centers of power, potentially independent of the central administration, and most certainly a locally-driven integration of two provincial elites, which in turn might have led, from a practical perspective, to a collapsing of two separate provincial centers into one. For the imperial Achaemenid interests involved in these issues, see Hoglund, 'Achaemenid Context', pp. 66-68. This kind of policy is well attested by other imperial powers in the area. An interesting combination of genealogical and non-genealogical principles of inclusion and exclusion in Israel is conveyed by the book of Joshua. See L. Rowlett, 'Inclusion, Exclusion and Marginality in the Book of Joshua', JSOT 55 (1992), pp. 15-23. Much of Rowlett's analysis holds true even if one rejects the author's position about the Josianic character of the text. In fact, many of Rowlett's conclusions seem to suit the conditions of the post-monarchic period. 111. In addition to the Samarians, Elephantine Israel is also excluded according to these principles of participation in Israel. One can hardly imagine, however, that the tension between the Jerusalemite/Yehudite and Elephantine Israels would be as significant as that between the former and the Samarian Israels. The situation concerning Transjordanian Israel is unclear. As for the Persian period, there are only a few and highly perspectival references to Tobiah in the book of Nehemiah (for example, Neh. 2.9-10, 19-20; 3.33-35; 4.1-2; 6.17-19; 13.4-9). According to these texts, Tobiah, 'the Ammonite', was befriended by the high priest in Jerusalem, and by

142


Regrettably, little can be said about Samarian Yahwism in the Persian period. Coins, bullae, the Wadi Daliyeh papyri, and CAP 30, 31 and 32 all demonstrate the presence of a significant proportion of Yahwistic names in Samaria.112 Not only did they worship the God of Israel, but they were considered an integral part of Israel by the leaders of the Yahwistic colony in Elephantine, because they sent their petitions for help concerning the rebuilding of their Yahwistic temple to both the Yehudite authorities and the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria.113 The iconography of the bullae and the coins shows, among others, many Hellenistic motifs, but the same holds true for Persian

Sanballat, the governor of Samaria; he had family ties with, and sworn associates among, the 'nobles of Judah' , and was Nehemiah's enemy. There is also a (likely) fifth- or sixth-century inscription carrying the name Tobiah in Araq el-Emir, but nothing more. As for the Hellenistic times, there is clear evidence that there was an important Tobaid family in Transjordan. See, for instance, PCZ (that is, P. Cairo Zenon) 59003, 59075, 59076 (C.C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection [Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1971], I, pp. 5-6, 97-99; see also V.A. Tcherikover, The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World [Tel Aviv: Newman, 1974], pp. 54-56, 59-62 [Hebrew]). The Tobaid family had a great influence on the affairs of Hellenistic Judah (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 12.160-66; on these and related issues, see V.A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews [trans. S. Applebaum; Jerusalem: Magnes; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961], pp. 64-65, 126-42, 153-56; cf. 156-71). For a summary of the state of the research and bibliography on the subject, see Grabbe, Judaism, I, pp. 192-98. Babylonian Israel is considered to be 'exilic' Israel. As for Egyptian Israel (besides the community in Elephantine), we do not have any clear evidence insofar as it concerns the Achaemenid period, but according to the governing principle, if they accepted the leadership of the Jerusalem-centered Israel and its traditions, they would have been considered part and parcel of 'Israel'. 112. Of course, Sanballat is not a Yahwistic name, but neither are Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. 113. First to "mn ('Bigvai'; Greek form, 'Bagoas'), and to ten NJHD purr (that is 'Yohanan, the High Priest and his colleagues the priests who are in Jerusalem') and to ('Ostan the brother of 'Anani and the nobles of the Yehudites'). See CAP 30 (= letter A 4.7 in Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, I, pp. 68-71). The reference to Bagohi, governor of Yehud is in 1. 1, to Yohanan et al. in 11. 18-19, to Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria, in 1. 29. CAP 31 (= letter A 4.8 in Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, I, pp. 72-75) is essentially a duplicate of CAP 30. See CAP 31 11. 1, 17-18 and 28). For the positive answer of Bagohi and Delaiah to the Elephantine community, see CAP 32 (= letter A 4.9 in Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, I, pp. 76-77).

BENZVI Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel

143

Yehud.114 This evidence does not make the case for a mixed Yahwistic and non-Yahwistic worship in Samaria. All the extant evidence suggests that the Samarians and the Yehudite Yahwists shared the same Pentateuch.115 The Samaritan Pentateuch, 'promulgated' not before the second century BCE,116 is based on a so-called 'pre-Samaritan' textual tradition well attested in Qumran, and which, despite its name, cannot be associated with Samarian, as opposed to Yehudite, Yahwists.117 The fact that the Samarians eventually built their temple at Mount Gerizim clearly shows that they identify themselves with 'biblical' Israel (see Deut. 11.29; 27.12; Josh. 8.33). Whereas the Yehudites and Samarians shared the Pentateuchal traditions, it seems unlikely that they shared the Former and Latter Prophets and a significant part of the Writings, for these are characterized by a consistent pro-Judahite and Jerusalem-centered perspective, which in many cases is accompanied by a negative attitude toward the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom and their descendants. This position has received support from the finding of five different Samarian cointypes carrying the name Jeroboam, whose bearer seems to have been the governor of Samaria by the middle of the fourth century BCE.118 The fact that the leader of Samaria at that time carried this name suggests, at least, some attachment to traditions of the Northern Kingdom.119 114. See E. Stern, 'A Hoard of Persian Period Bullae from the Vicinity of Samaria', Michmanim 6 (1992), pp. 7-30 (Hebrew); see Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE (Jerusalem: Numismatic Fine Arts International, 1991). 115. Allowing, of course, for the kind of textual variety that characterized the period and is well documented in Qumran. 116. The Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch was likely produced closer to the time of the destruction of their temple by John Hyrcanus. See J.D. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 81-98, esp. pp. 86, 89-90 and the bibliography mentioned there. 117. On pre-Samaritan biblical texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 80100. 118. See Meshorer and Qedar, The Coinage, p. 14; U. Rappaport, 'The Material Culture of the Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman Period', in S. Talmon (ed.), Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (JSPSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 46; A. Spaer, 'A Coin of Jeroboam?', IEJ 29 (1979), p. 218. 119. A ring carrying the name Ahab in Paleo-Hebrew may, perhaps, be relevant to the discussion. But the ring seems to belong to a later period (not before the first

144


If the Samarians did not consider the Former Prophets (perhaps with the exception of Joshua) nor the Latter Prophets to be YHWH's teachings, or as reflecting them, it seems most reasonable to assume that they developed some kind of counter-literature.120 Regrettably, there is no piece of this likely literature now extant.121 In sum, the Samarians were Yahwists who saw themselves, and were seen by others, as Israel. Some of them, if not most of them, were likely descendants of those who lived in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and in any case, they identified themselves with the traditions of Israel. At the same time, the claim that Israel consisted only of Yehudites, and those who accepted the authority of Jerusalem-centered divine traditions, was an integral part of several social discourses in Yehud. Thus, within the two neighboring Yahwistic provinces, contradictory claims were held about who was Israel and what the divine teachings of YHWH that defined Israel consisted of. This was not an ephemeral but a prolonged situation. The tension caused by this system of opposite claims, by their potential implications for the self-image of Yehudites and Samarians, and by their likely sociopolitical implications, seems to provide a reasonable century BCE). This ring was the subject of a vivid discussion in IOUDAIOS, First Century Judaism Discussion Forum. The electronic logs containing the relevant contributions (entitled 'Ahab') can be retrieved by sending the messages GET IOUDAIOS LOG9207C and GET IOUDAIOS LOG9208C to LISTSERV at LEHIGH.EDU. 120. In light of the attestation of the name Jeroboam, one may reasonably expect that the Samarians held some kind of account about their own past. 121. The 'Samaritan Chronicles' were written more than a millennium later than the period discussed here. Chronicle D", which contains a more or less detailed account of the history of the 'Samaritans' during the period covered by the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible historical and prophetic books, 'seems to represent a melange of Jewish biblical text, and material drawn from Abu l'-Fath (mid-fourteenth century CE) or from his sources'. See P. Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), p. 223. Not only were these chronicles not written by Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid or Hellenistic-period Samarians, but also no historical information about the Samarian literature of these periods can be reasonably abstracted from these chronicles. On the Samaritan Chronicles, see, for instance, Stenhouse, 'Samaritan Chronicles', pp. 218-65; cf. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews, pp. 116-31. It is possible, perhaps, that a proto-Samaritan Sanballat source from the end of the third century BCE is reflected in Josephus, Ant. 11.321, 324 (see Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance', p. 96), but even if so, this would only show that certain forms of literature were developed in or by the Samarian 'court', which is to be expected.


145

historical background for the ubiquity of the 'El = I' view as well as for the continuous emphasis on Zion/Jerusalem in the literature of Yehud that later became the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.122 A comment is in order at this point: although the literature of the period points to a prolonged tension between Yehudites and Samarians, it does not follow that heightened tensions actually characterized the historical relations between them and their respective elites. True, there were periods of struggle, but even Ezra-Nehemiah points to a close relationship between segments of the Jerusalemite and the Samarian elite. The same holds true for Josephus,123 and certainly for CAP 32. Perhaps more significant is the fact that the Samarians seem to have accepted a Pentateuch that was shaped by 'exilic/returning' Jerusalemite priests. So, much interaction between the two groups must be assumed. 5.2 Achaemenid Imperial Discourse Most of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts in which the message of 'El = I' is pervasive come from the Achaemenid period. These texts were produced in societies that were influenced not only by their own 122. The same tension provides a historically reasonable background for texts such as Sir. 50.25-26, Judith and Tobit; see n. 110. Of course, one should distinguish between this continuous tension and political crises circumscribed in time, such as those described in the Nehemiah Memoir (for example, Neh. 4), notwithstanding the fact that these descriptions cannot be accepted as an accurate representation of the historical events. On this issue see D.J.A. Clines, 'The Nehemiah Memoir: The Perils of Autobiography', in idem (ed.), What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament (JSOTSup, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 124-64. Tensions between (now) Samaritans and Jews peaked later in the Hasmonean period, and continued in different ways for centuries. For an example of literature showing the tension of the Hasmonean (or early Roman) period, see, for instance, H. Eshel, 'The Prayer of Joseph, a Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ', Zion 56(1991),pp. 125-36,esp. pp. 125-34 (Hebrew);but cf.E. Schuller, '4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph', RevQ 14 (1990), pp. 349-76. The (final) schism between Samaritans and Jews seems to be an even later phenomenon. See A.D. Crown, 'Redating the Schism between the Judaeans and the Samaritans', JQR 82 (1991), pp. 17-50. The Hasmonean and later periods are, however, beyond the scope of this paper. 123. For example Neh. 6.10-14; 13.28; Josephus, Ant. 11.306-12. These texts suggest an accepted social horizon in which the reported events are considered possible, no matter what position one takes concerning the historicity of the account itself.

146


'traditional' discourses, but also by imperial discourse(s) which contributed to the shape of the 'spirit of the time'. The Achaemenid center of power, like other imperial powers in the ancient Near East, was active in promoting its image as the legitimate ruler of the area. In fact, such an image was a necessary element for achieving stability and efficient control of the provinces. Because the imperial center was not an integral part of the local traditional elites, the legitimacy of its rule was potentially or actually precarious, from the perspective of the local population. The multifarious character of the imperial propaganda allowed the imperial image to be adapted to the particularities of the social group being addressed. Nevertheless, within the framework of the social discourses of the period, there were not many essentially different avenues available to make a convincing case for the empire's legitimate control over the area, from the perspective of the local population (or elite). The best manner to support such a claim is to convince the local population that the imperial center is supported by the local deities. Thus, if a new center of power takes over an old one, an explanation is given that the local deities have passed the power from the former rulers to the new ones. The usual claim will be that the former lost their right to govern not because they were defeated in battle or victims of a successful coup, but because of their incorrect ethical or cultic behavior.124 This propagandistic discourse therefore requires that one of the first actions of the new rulers will be to restore the situation to that existing before the former rulers' iniquities. This kind of propaganda leads almost necessarily to language and images of restoration.125 Such language and images supported the legitimacy of the new rulers in an additional manner. Legitimacy was associated in ancient Near Eastern discourse with 'tradition'. Even the most drastic reforms were 124. See, for instance, Oppenheim, 'Babylonian and Historical Texts', in A/VET, pp. 312-15; Kuhrt, 'Cyrus Cylinder', esp. pp. 85-87, and the bibliography mentioned there. Cf. P.M. Fales, 'The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: "The Moral Judgment'", in H.J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (XXV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale; Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient, 1; Berlin: Reimer Verlag, 1982), pp. 425-35. 125. See, for instance, Kuhrt, 'Cyrus Cylinder'; G. Widengren, 'Yahweh's Gathering of the Dispersed', in W.B. Barrick and J.R. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlstrom (JSOTSup, 31, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 234-37.


147

presented as supported by tradition, and because reforms necessarily breach the actual continuity with the past, as a restoration of the 'traditional' (often invented by the reformer's propaganda).126 In sum, the first ruler who breaches continuity with the past is presented as a 'restorer', with those who follow this ruler as keepers of the (newly achieved) restoration, and therefore supporters of the local tradition. The importance of such a presentation becomes clear once one recognizes that the local traditions (and those who cherish them) tend to support those who champion them. Significantly, this support is an essential component of the legitimacy of rulers in traditional societies. Indeed, Achaemenid propaganda actively projected an image of its rulers as restorers of peoples, temples and local traditions to their proper state.127 This pervasive propaganda led to the development of a ready interpretive framework that shaped many of the actions of the Achaemenid center in terms of restoration of the local traditions. In some instances, this may have been the case to some extent, while in others drastic changes were portrayed as triumphs of restoration. The recipients of this propaganda assimilated it within their own discourse(s), especially since a requirement of this propaganda was that it be easily assimilated to and integrated with the traditional lore of the 126. This line of propaganda is often attested in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, two examples being the Josianic reform and the institution of a new form of celebration of the Festival of Booths (Neh. 8.13-18; notice esp. v. 17). Of course, given that the writers of these texts follow a well attested line of reform propaganda, it does not follow that such reforms actually occurred according to the plain claim of the narrative. After all, even literary reforms should be legitimized within the discourse of their texts. A good imperial example of this tendency is Nabonidus's presentation of his policies concerning the restoration of Harran (see Oppenheim, 'Babylonian and Historical Texts', in ANET, pp. 311-12; Thompson, Early History, pp. 416-17). An 'extreme' example of the use of the restoration language is Assurbanipal's theological legitimization of a campaign against Elam by mentioning the restoration of a Babylonian goddess to her proper place, in Uruk, after 1635 years; see D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. II. Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End (Ancient Records, 1; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926), §§812-13. 127. Cyrus is, for instance, described as restorer of the temple of Marduk in Babylon, YHWH's temple in Jerusalem, the restorer of the gods and of the temple of Sin in Ur. He also associates himself with the rulers of Babylon who precede the Chaldeans, including the Neo-Assyrian rulers. On these and related issues see Kuhrt, 'Cyrus Cylinder'.

148


local population. Thus, one should not be surprised to find comparable claims in both this imperial propaganda and in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts conveying the 'El = F message. Claims such as that the Achaemenid kings (or those who represented them) restored the temple, the right priests, Yahwistic traditions and the like, supported them against those with illegitimate claims concerning Yehud and Jerusalem (who, of course, were condemned from an ethical perspective; cf. Neh. 2.9-10, 19-20), and actively cared about implementing 'traditional rules' that were unheard of before (that is, implemented clear reforms) are all consistent with the basic themes and 'grammar' governing Achaemenid propaganda. After all, the writers and audiences of these Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible texts were influenced not only by biblical texts in the making and traditions relating to them, but also by a well-ingrained imperial tradition and its ideological or theological grammar, in its Achaemenid version.128 Naturally, in their social discourse(s) they tended to integrate both.129 6. Conclusions The pervasive character of the 'El = F message in post-monarchic Old Testament/Hebrew Bible texts cannot be explained in terms of a temporally-circumscribed struggle over the land between returnees and those who remained in the land, nor as an instrument to keep Judahites (that is, those Judahites who inhabited the Neo-Babylonian province of Judah) out of the Jerusalemite temple community and whatever it controlled. The ubiquitous character of this claim is better explained by its role within the social discourses of Jerusalem-centered Yahwism. It reflected claims such as: Israel is centered around a certain set of divine teachings; its representative elite consists of teachers and interpreters of 128. The Achaemenid version stressed the 'static' elements of the imperial propaganda (such as peace, harmony, proper ritual and religion in a world sanctified by the order maintained by a benevolent king) rather than the 'dynamic' aspects of imperial propaganda (such as victory over enemies, conquests, humiliation of foes, and the like). See C. Nylander, 'Achaemenid Imperial Art', in M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), pp. 345-59, esp. p. 355. Of course, these static themes fit more easily within the local traditions than the dynamic elements. 129. Cf. the entire section in Thompson, Early History, esp. pp. 416-20. Thompson's argument illuminates many of the issues discussed here.


149

these teachings; there was a continuity from Jerusalem-centered Israel to Judahite monarchic Israel, and back to Mosaic Israel; this continuity reflects a permanent aspect in the relation of YHWH and Israel; Jerusalem-centered Israel lives in a post-judgment period and has paid for the iniquities of the monarchic period; and the Second Temple period is a new beginning in Israel's history comparable to the exodus. As a social communicative message, the 'El = I' message is part of a social interaction that took place at a certain moment in history and in which certain groups took part. In this respect, it seems that the 'El = I' message reflects the inner discourse(s) of Yehudite Israel concerning issues such as who is Israel, and what the divine teachings are, in the face of counterclaims coming from other Israels over a prolonged time. In addition, it should be noticed that the 'El = I' message reflects the general 'spirit of the time', including an association with pervasive elements of imperial propaganda in the area, especially in their Achaemenid version.

TEMPLE AND bamah. SOME CONSIDERATIONS Janice E. Catron

In much of the biblical material, the Hebrew terms for 'temple' and the word seem to be set in opposition to one another. The 'temple' terms are used to refer to the temple in Jerusalem or to other official structures considered by the writers or redactors to represent orthodox Yahwism. bamah, on the other hand, is used mainly to denote a 'Canaanite' or an apostate Israelite place of worship, drawn in sharp contrast to the orthodox form of religion. This has led to a tendency on the part of modern biblical readers (scholarly and otherwise) to draw clear distinctions between the two terms. However, this may be perpetuating an artificial distinction made millennia ago for theological purposes. This paper will explore the relationship of temple and bamah by examining the biblical references to bamot, the archaeological evidence for what has been called a bamah, and the archaeological sites that may actually contain a bamah. Only then can a conclusion be drawn as to how a bamah can be compared or contrasted to a 'temple'. In studying the concept of bamah and what it might have meant to the people of ancient Syria-Palestine, it seems best to begin with the word itself. Much has been made in scholarly circles of the relationship between bamah and the Ugaritic bmt ('back'), which can denote a 'high place' or 'ridge'.1 Hebrew bamah may have carried this same sense of physical height at one time; bamah is used occasionally in the Bible to designate elevated locations (for example, 2 Sam. 1.19, 25; Isa. 14.14; Job 9.8). Yet it is used far more frequently to convey a strong cultic sense, where height may or may not be implied. De Vaux has suggested that, in fact, bamah came to mean a 'cultic place' without denoting location at all.2 These 'cultic places' were used 1. K.-D. Schunck, bamah', in TDOT, II, p. 140. 2. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel. II. Religious Institutions (ET; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 284-87.

CATRON Temple andbamah: Some Considerations

151

by the Syro-Palestinian population to worship many gods, including Yahweh. 3 The Bible records that the people of Israel and Judah continued to worship at the bdmot until the time of Hezekiah, and it seems that their place of worship was considered normative for their time (cf. 2 Kgs 12.3-4; 14.3-4; 15.3-4; 16.3-4; and 18.3-4). As the Israelite and Judean nations developed, however, and Yahweh grew to national importance in each, an effort was made to suppress the old pantheon and the religion associated with it. bdmdh was used increasingly to refer to 'Canaanite' worship—worship foreign to Yahweh.4 Thus, bdmdh became a linguistic foil for 'temple' terminology and orthodox religion.5 The varied usages of bdmdh in the Hebrew Scriptures contribute to the confusion over how to interpret the word. This confusion is mirrored in the Septuagint, which translates bdmdh in a number of ways. In 1 and 2 Kings, Ezek. 6.3 and Jer. 19.5, for example, the Greek version has ('high place, mountain'). In other places the word is simply transliterated as (3a(ia (1 Sam. 9; 10.5). Occasionally, it is even read as (3o)|i6q ('altar'), as in Jer. 7.31, Hos. 10.8 and Amos 7.9. It seems that the translators were aware even then of the complexities of the biblical use of ,6 In more recent times, those who would translate bdmdh into contemporary tongues have been fairly consistent in the use of 'high place'. In addition, this 'high place' is generally understood to be a rustic open-air sanctuary placed on a mound, which may be artificial, or another elevated location. One example of such a site from the Intermediate Bronze Age is found at Har Yeruham. On the ridge top is an exposed

3. H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (trans. D.E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 158. 4. G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D.V. Edelman; JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 198 n. 5; pp. 701-707 on Hezekiah's reform are also helpful in explaining the conflict that arose over the bdmot. 5. J.M. Grintz argues, in fact, that 'high-places' did not come into existence in Cisjordan until the time of Samuel, since that seems to be the biblical time-frame in which they appear; 'Some Observations on the "High-Place" in the History of Israel', VT27 (1977), p. 113. 6. A good review of the various interpretations of bdmdh has been done by Fowler, who distinguishes three main applications for the word: topographical, anatomical and cultic; M.D. Fowler, 'The Israelite bdmd: A Question of Interpretation', ZAW 94 (1982), p. 204.

152


rock platform with cup-marks. The area, enclosed by a wall, is 0.1 hectare in size.7 Another open-air site, this time from Iron Age I, has been discovered on a ridge in the northern Samarian, hills. This site may have served four nearby settlements. The remains include a wall of large stones that encircled an area 20 m in diameter. The center of the area was empty, but a standing stone was found at the edge, adjacent to a paved area. A bull figurine from the site indicates something about the cult that may have been practiced here.8 The biblical picture of the bdmot is not this simple, however. While the Bible does sometimes use bamdh to mean a 'high place' in the physical sense, this is not always the case. Samuel goes up to a bamdh and comes down again (1 Sam. 9.13-14, 19, 25), yet one also finds bdmot in the valley of the son of Hinnom (Jer. 7.31, 32.35). Ezekiel refers to bdmot not only on mountains and hills, but also in ravines and valleys (6.3). Furthermore, bdmot are infrequently described as situated outside of cities, contrary to what one might expect based on the standard understanding of a bamdh. Rather, the bdmot are said to be inside the cities of Judah (2 Kgs 23.5, 8; 2 Chron. 14.5), of Israel (2 Kgs 17.9-10), of Samaria (1 Kgs 13.32; 2 Kgs 23.19), and of every nation (2 Kgs 17.29).9 bdmot are even placed at the city gates of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23.8). The discussion above raises the question of how bamdh came to be understood as representing a hill-top open-air sanctuary. Apparently this connection was made through the association of bamdh with a phrase that sometimes occurs with it in biblical passages: 'on every high hill and under every green tree' (1 Kgs 14.23; 2 Kgs 17.9-10; cf. 2 Kgs 16.4). One should note, however, that this phrase only occurs directly with bamdh in the writings of the Deuteronomist(s).10 Perhaps, therefore, the historical weight of this linkage should be balanced with a consideration of the literary and theological purposes served thereby. 7. R. Gophna, 'The Intermediate Bronze Age', in A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archeology of Ancient Israel (trans. R. Greenberg; New Haven: Yale University Press; Ramat Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1992), p. 154. 8. A. Mazar, 'Iron Age I', in Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archeology of Ancient Israel, pp.292-93. 9. See also Ezek. 6.6. 10. Ezek. 20.28-29 makes the association fairly clear, but not as directly as the passages cited in the text.

CATRON Temple and bamah: Some Considerations

153

If, as Childs has suggested, the Deuteronomistic writers are concerned with a theological explanation of Israel's destruction that centers on apostasy from cultic orthodoxy, then the association of bdmdh with nonorthodox open-air sanctuaries could be a literary formula or a theological concept, not historical reporting.11 In other words, it is possible that any aspect of the bamdh or of its worship that might resemble worship at the Jerusalem temple would be downplayed, while the differences between the two would be inflated. Disassociating the bamdh from its urban setting and cultic buildings would be one way in which the writers strove to highlight internal cultic differences.12 Certainly the verses listed above must be balanced with those that associate bamdh with some kind of building activity, bdmot themselves are built ( ; for example 1 Kgs 14.23), or made ( ; for example 2 Chron. 21.11); they can be removed (~no; for example 2 Kgs 12.4), or torn down ( ; for example 2 Kgs 23.8). The verbs and are especially clear; they refer to activity involving a structure or building.13 Moreover, bamdh is often found in construct with bayit. bayit is translated in the RSV as 'house' (1 Kgs 12.31, 13.32) or as 'shrine' (2 Kgs 17.29, 32; 23.19). In either case, bet bamdh obviously refers to a cultic building.14 Examples of an open-air sanctuary with a related building have been found from Middle Bronze lib at Nahariya and Megiddo.15 The concept of a cultic building associated with a bdmdh is illuminated by 1 Sam. 9.22, in which Samuel and Saul attend a feast at a bdmdh with thirty other people. The meal is held in a hall . Elsewhere in the Bible, the term liskdh is used to refer to a chamber or room attached 11. B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 289-90. 12. The arguments of this paragraph apply to the writings of the Chronicler and of the prophets as well. 13. The Mesha Inscription supports this by its reference to building a bmh and building/rebuilding a btbmh; see A. Biran, '"To the God who is in Dan"', in idem (ed.), Temples and High Places in Biblical Times (Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology of Hebrew Union College-Jerusalem Institute of Religion, 1981), p. 143. 14. Since these structures were conceived as being the god's dwelling, they might very well have been roofed; M. Haran, 'Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible', in Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places, pp. 31-32. 15. A. Kempinski, 'The Middle Bronze Age', in Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archeology of Ancient Israel, p. 196.

154


to a sanctuary or temple. The only exception occurs in Jeremiah, where the word refers to a scribe's room attached to the royal palace. The building in which Samuel and Saul ate was apparently perceived by the writer of that passage as a sanctuary or temple. It is possible to go beyond the association of bdmdh with a cultic area containing sacred buildings to say that the word itself may have come to mean a cultic building. This can be supported by the textual evidence above to some degree, but also by the picture of the cult of the bdmdh that one is given in the Bible. One finds, for example, that priests were appointed by kings to the bdmot, just as they were appointed to official sanctuaries. These priests, however, are said to have been from the general populace (1 Kgs 12.31; 2 Kgs 17.32). The concern generated in some circles over the fact that these were not Levitical priests may indicate deep involvement in the cult of the bdmdh on the part of the Israelites and Judeans: the bdmot were authentic places of worship for which legitimate priests were wanted, or they were authentic places of worship that formed competition for the priesthood in Jerusalem.16 In either case, the priests who were appointed to the bdmot discharged official duties; they burned incense and made sacrifices at the bdmot. They may even have lived there.17 Sacrifice and incense burning were also performed at the bdmot by leaders such as Samuel and Saul, and by the people themselves.18 In recording these acts, the Hebrew states that sacrifices and incense offerings were made babbdmdh. This is often translated 'at the bdmdh', yet 'in the bdmdh'' is an equally legitimate translation. Furthermore, Ezek. 20.28-29 links drink offerings with the cultic activities of sacrifice and incense burning. This could mean that the houses mentioned in Jer. 19.13 and 32.29 (on whose roofs incense was burned and drink offerings poured out) could be bdmot. This, combined with the appointment of 16. This is based on a statement made by M. Weinfeld in a discussion recorded inBiran, "To the God who is in Dan"', p. 149. 17. M. Dothan, 'Sanctuaries along the Coast of Canaan in the MB Period: Nahariyah', in Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places, p. 79. 18. The references are as follows: Samuel (1 Sam. 9.11-14); Solomon (1 Kgs 3.3); Solomon's wives (1 Kgs 11.7-8); Ahaz (2 Kgs 16.4); the people (1 Kgs 3.2; 22.44). A helpful summary of the references to activity in the bamot (and a note on the significance of such) can be found in W.B. Barrick, 'High Place', in ABD, III, pp. 198-99.

CATRON Temple andbSmah: Some Considerations

155

priests to the bamot, indicates that bdmdh could have meant a cultic building. The picture of what such a building might have contained is given by the numerous references to bamot that also mention altars, massebot, and 'asenm (for example 1 Kgs 14.23; 2 Kgs 18.4; 2 Chron. 14.2; Ezek. 6.3-4).19 While caution must be used in reading any biblical text too uncritically, enough references to massebot and >aserim exist throughout the Bible to suggest their historicity. The massebot were stone stelae, which some take to have been the symbol of the male deity. The 'asenm were apparently cultic symbols of the goddess Asherah. An 'aserdh could be made out of wood (cf. 1 Kgs 14.16; Judg. 6.26) or it could be a planted tree (Deut. 16.21). Most often, it seems to have been a post or a stake.20 De Vaux also includes hammdnim in the list of common cult objects of the bdmdh. He offers archaeological and textual evidence for these being small stone cups used as 'altars' for burning incense.21 Before turning to the archaeological examples of what has been called a bdmdh and what may actually be a bdmdh, three final comments can be made on the cult itself. First, the bamot may have been associated with prophetic activity (1 Sam. 10.5). bamot were also associated with topet in Jeremiah (7.31; 19.5; 32.35). While no definite conclusions can be drawn in either case, it should be noted that the cultic sense of the bdmdh is retained in both. Finally, Albright has argued that the bamot were primarily funeral shrines connected with a cult of the dead.22 This view seems to have been rejected by most other scholars.23 One of those who has accepted Albright's view of bdmdh is Ruth Amiran. This has led her to identify the tumuli on the slopes outside of 19. Further biblical support for this is added by translations given to Lev. 26,30 by D. Neiman, 'PGR: A Canaanite Cult Object in the Old Testament', JBL 67 (1948), pp. 55-60, and to Isa. 6.13 by S. Iwry, 'Massebdh and bdmdh in 1Q IsaiahA 6 13', JBL 76 (1957), pp. 225-32. 20. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 286. 21. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 286. 22. W.F. Albright, 'The High Place in Ancient Palestine', in P.A.H. de Boer (ed.), Volume du Congres, Strasbourg, 1956 (VTSup, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1957), pp. 243, 253. 23. See, for example, de Vaux, Ancient Israel, p. 287. Although an elevated burial mound could be called a bdmdh and the stelae placed in bamot were sometimes memorials for esteemed people, this link between bamot and the cult of the dead does bdmdh', not constitute the primary function of the bamot. See Schunck, pp. 143-45.

156


Jerusalem as bdmot. These artificial mounds vary to some degree, but all are of the same general form: 'a truncated cone with a small flat area on the top, and steep slopes'.24 Amiran has dated most of them, based on pottery finds, from the late eighth to the seventh century BCE.25 As for the 'cult' of the tumuli, there was evidence at the fifth mound of possible sacrifices: charcoal pieces, burnt animal bones and debris, and fatsaturated black earth.26 From this, Amiran deduces that there was a cult of the dead associated with the tumuli. However, she reaches this conclusion, in part, by working 'backwards' from Albright's theory that bdmdh means a mortuary shrine. She reasons that the tumuli are bdmot, so they must also be tombs; this identification of the tumuli with bdmot 'outweighs the absence of interment itself.27 Of course, archaeologists have claimed to have found bdmot in many other sites. One of those most frequently named is Gezer. According to Macalister, the Gezer 'high place' consisted of three sections: a cave, a series of massive stone pillars aligned magnetic north-south, and subsidiary buildings.28 The cave itself is not on high ground but is in a hollow formed by two knolls. Macalister tried to explain this by speculating that the higher ground must have been made taboo at some point.29 The eight standing pillars, originally ten in number, were apparently not used for building purposes, as they are of irregular sizes and still have rough surfaces.30 The material of one stone shows that it was probably imported from another area.31 Assuming that this is a cultic area within Gezer, it has still been argued that the term bdmdh has been misapplied here. Barrois has pointed out that the three sections of the 'high place' as delineated by Macalister are not as clearly connected as the excavator thought. He further warns that 24. R. Amiran, The Tumuli West of Jerusalem: Survey and Excavations, 1953', /£/8 (1958), p. 207. 25. Amiran, 'The Tumuli', p. 222. 26. Amiran, "The Tumuli', p. 215. 27. Amiran, The Tumuli', pp. 226-27. She also points out that there are examples of burials near such tumuli in Anatolia. 28. R.A.S. Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 (London: John Murray, 1912), JJ, p. 381. 29. Macalister, Excavation of Gezer, n, p. 382. 30. Macalister, Excavation of Gezer, II, pp. 85-86. These can be compared to smooth pillars that may have been bases for wooden roof supports of a portico found elsewhere at Gezer (pp. 407-408). 31. Macalister, Excavation of Gezer, U, p. 391.


157

dating and interpretation of the stone structures have not been helped by the early expedition's 'defective techniques' and 'poor archaeological recordings'.32 In addition, Hamilton hesitates to use bdmah in this case because there is no clear sign of an altar, offertory platform or sacrificial burning.33 Two other identifications of open-air bdmot have been made which should be considered at this point. Albright suggested that an open area at Petra with rock-hewn 'triclinia' was a 'high place' used for sacrificial feasts.34 Kenyon has named as a bdmah a circular pile of stone found in the courtyard of a 'cult building' at Ein-Gedi.35 These two examples are important because they were, indirectly, the forerunners in thought of two concepts newly offered in the interpretation of bdmah. One view holds that the bdmah is an open cultic area necessarily associated with buildings, as at Petra.36 The other view identifies bdmah as a type of altar, similar to the structure found at Ein-Gedi.37 Both of these views, as well as those of Albright and Kenyon, are inadequate and do not fully satisfy the core of the biblical picture of bdmot. Since almost all of the information on bdmot is confined to biblical sources, an archaeological search for a bdmah that fits the biblical picture might well begin at sites named in the Bible as having bdmot. Three cities thus identified are Bethel, Dan and Gibeon ('the great bdmah'). To date, nothing that fits the description of a bdmah as outlined in this paper has been found at Bethel.38 Likewise, although some figurines that may be cultic have been found, no cultic buildings have been located at Gibeon.39 The situation is quite different at Dan, however. A large structure was found at the north end (Area T) of Tel Dan in 1968 that the excavators concluded was a bdmah. The structure was almost square (roughly 18 x 19 m) and had outer walls of dressed limestone, with some basalt blocks used in the northern wall. The two 32. G.A. Barrels, 'Temples', in IDE, IV, p. 562. 33. R.W. Hamilton, 'Gezer', in IDE, H, p. 389. 34. W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Anchor Books; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 5th edn, 1969), p. 104. 35. K.M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (New York: Norton, 4th edn, 1979), p. 104. 36. Dothan, 'Nahariyah', in A. Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places, p. 15. 37. Haran, Temples and Cultic Open Areas', p. 33. 38. J.L. Kelso, 'Bethel (Sanctuary)', in IDE, I, p. 392. 39. J.B. Pritchard, Gibeon, Where the Sun Stood Still: The Discovery of the Biblical City (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 120-22.

158


lower courses of the walls were all headers, while the subsequent courses were formed of alternating headers and stretchers.40 Further investigation revealed that this was but the second of three building stages that the structure had undergone. In the earliest phase, during the end of the tenth century BCE, the structure was of stone and covered an 18.5 x 7 m area with adjacent storerooms. In the second phase, described above, the building was expanded to an area of!8.5x 19m some time in the second half of the ninth century BCE. The third phase was marked by the addition of wide steps to the southern end of the building. This took place in the eighth century BCE.41 The sacred nature of this site was assumed, based on two further finds: a horned altar of travertine limestone (c. ninth century BCE) found just south of the steps42 and a third-second century BCE Greek/Aramaic bilingual inscription 'to the God who is in Dan'.43 It appears that the structure found in Area T was located in an area that continued to be considered sacred over many centuries. Gabriel Barkay has argued that this structure cannot be a bdmah, however, because the walls inside the platform were designed to support a large superstructure. This, plus the location of the structure near the end of the mound, leads him to conclude that the platform was the foundation for a palace.44 It is interesting that, for Barkay, the presence of a superstructure rules out the designation of this platform as a bdmah. A raised stone platform surrounded by four pillars was found outside the inner gate of Dan, and Aharoni has called this a bdmah.45 It is more likely, however, as Biran suggests, that this platform was used by the king of the city as a throne-like 'judgment seat'.46

40. A. Biran, Tel Dan', BA 37 (1974), p. 40. 41. Biran, '"To the God who is in Dan'", p. 148. These dates are a later account than those he gives in Tel Dan'. 42. A. Biran, 'An Israelite Horned Altar at Dan', BA 37 (1974), p. 107. 43. Also found were some seven-wick oil lamps (under the floor) and a nearby Astarte figurine; Biran, "To the God who is in Dan'", pp. 145-46. 44. G. Barkay, The Iron Age II-IIF, in Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, p. 312. 45. Y. Aharoni, The Archeology of the Land of Israel: From the Prehistoric Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period (trans. A.F. Rainey; ed. M. Aharoni; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), p. 201. 46. Biran, Tel Dan', p. 45.


159

If the structure found at Dan is a bamah, then one may conclude that a bamah was architecturally indistinguishable from a 'temple'. If this is true, then one can arrive at a description of a bamah by studying common features of typical ancient Semitic temples. This may be accomplished by reviewing examples of each of the major architectural types of Semitic temples. At Arad, for example, one finds what may be a broad-room styled temple dating from the Early Bronze Age (Stratum III).47 The temple was composed of a hall that opened into an eastern courtyard. Within the hall, on the long axis, were found the base of one pillar and two upright pillars sunk into the floor. Spacing indicates that there may have been a fourth pillar. It is difficult to tell more about the temple at this level, as it was apparently destroyed at the end of Stratum III. A rebuilt temple in Stratum II, however, follows the same general outline as its predecessor: the exterior walls differ only slightly from those in Stratum III. Inside, one room was partitioned off to the south and a small cell was added between the two middle pillars and the western back wall. Benches were found along the walls of the central hall and those of the southern room. It is impossible to tell if the central hall was roofed or not. Finally, a large stone structure (2.9 x 3.4 m) was added in the courtyard. The edges were of slightly dressed stone and the top was probably covered with plaster. Traces were found on the upper surface of plaster which had been burnt. This structure is called a bamah by Ruth Amiran, but it obviously functioned as an altar.48 Another series of temples was found in the Israelite fortress at Arad. After the Early Bronze Age, the site was destroyed and abandoned until after 1200 BCE. It was resettled on the eastern hill, away from the Early Bronze Age site. Six successive fortresses were built, beginning in the tenth century BCE, each with a sacred area in the northwest corner (Strata XI-VI). The earliest (Stratum XI) was a broad-room style, with a niche opposite the entrance.49 This 'holy of holies' was approached by 47. R. Amiran, Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. I. First-Fifth Seasons of Excavation, 1962-1966 (Judean Desert Studies; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978), pp. 38-39. It should be noted, however, that there is some question as to whether this structure is a temple or a house; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (trans, and ed. A.F. Rainey; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1979), p. 65. 48. Amiran, Early Arad, p. 40. 49. The excavators assumed that the niche had three walls, but this has come into

160


two steps, and it contained a smooth stele on a small platform, as well as two massebot against the back wall. Benches lined the main hall. The temple was rebuilt with alterations in each subsequent fortress.50 There is debate as to when the temple was finally destroyed.51 An example of a long-room temple can be found at Hazor in Area A of the Upper City.52 This temple was first built in the Middle Bronze II period and was used throughout the Late Bronze period, heavily in Late Bronze I and to a lesser degree in the remainder of the age. The temple was built of brick on a stone foundation and the inner walls were covered with colored plaster. An orthostat entrance was added during Late Bronze I, and part of an orthostat was found with a lioness in relief (similar to one belonging to the Late Bronze I temple in Area H). A rectangular platform (roughly 4.8 x 1.5 m) was found on the western wall, opposite the entrance, and it was formed of thickly plastered brick. There was no trace of columns inside the building.53 The entire structure was destroyed with the rest of the city at the end of the Late Bronze period and the cultic buildings were apparently not rebuilt in Area A.54 In reference to the 'cult' of the Late Bronze temple in Area A, Yadin has pointed out that there were some animal bones and 'votive' vessels found inside the building; many more were found in heaps and pits around the temple.55 Another interesting find was discovered in front of question. No remains of the left-hand wall have been found, and the wall to which it would have been attached has plaster where one would expect the two walls to join. The area to the left may have led to a storeroom; part of a room was found in that direction beyond the plastered wall. See D. Ussishkin, 'The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad', IEJ 38 (1988), pp. 145-47. 50. Z. Herzog et al, The Israelite Fortress at Arad', BASOR 254 (1984), p. 7; Z. Herzog, M. Aharoni and A.F. Rainey, 'Arad: An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh', BARev 13.2 (1987), pp. 28-29. 51. The destruction occurred in Stratum VI. The excavators place this stratum in the time of Josiah; Herzog, Aharoni and Rainey, 'Arad: An Ancient Israelite Fortress', p. 31. Others have noted, however, that the wall in Stratum VI actually dates to the Hellenistic period; see A. Mazar and E. Netzer, 'On the Israelite Fortress at Arad', BASOR 263 (1986), p. 87, and Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, p. 278. 52. The temples of the lower city were of the broad-room style. The measurements of the temple in Area A are 16.2 x 11.6 m; Y. Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (Joshua 11:10) (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970; London: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 102. 53. Yadin, Hazor, pp. 102-103. 54. Yadin, Hazor, p. 129. 55. Yadin, Hazor, p. 103.

CATRON Temple andbamah: Some Considerations

161

the place where the temple entrance used to be. A large basalt stele with a rounded top had been installed with its head downwards (probably in Stratum XIV) and later several smaller stelae were added (probably Stratum XIII). An intact offering bowl was also found with these.56 These stelae were very similar to some found in a niche at one end of a broad-room temple in Area C (Stratum la [Late Bronze III]).57 All of the stelae had flat fronts, convex backs and rounded tops. The central one also had a relief: two hands raised toward a crescent and a circle (perhaps a divine lunar symbol). To the left of these stelae was found an orthostat with a lion in relief; the orthostat was located under one of the stele and helped to support it. There was also a statuette of a seated male figure with its head intentionally broken off. The head, found on the floor, was short and round, with a good finish. The figure was seated at a square stool, holding a bowl in its right hand and with its left fist placed on the left knee. The figure was wearing a tunic with a curved neckline and there was an inverted crescent on its chest.58 To these temples can be added a complex of temples found at Megiddo in Area BB. The three temples were built in Middle Bronze I and each demonstrates the megaron style. Each temple consists of a large 'altar chamber' (c. 9x14 m), with a smaller room to one side and a columned porch across the front.59 The walls and the floors of the temples were plastered with lime. In two of the temples an altar was found: one was rectangular (c. 5.25 x 3.95 m) and of mud brick, the other was almost square (c. 2.2 x 2.6 m) and of stone. Column bases of white limestone with smooth circular tops were found in each of the temples, although no trace of the columns was evident.60 The easternmost temple, which contained the square stone altar, was attached to a structure which had existed since the Early Bronze period (Stratum XVII). This structure consists of four walls surrounding a somewhat elliptical (c. 10 x 8.7 m) stone platform with steps. This platform has been called an altar by the excavators, despite its round shape,61 and

56. Yadin, tfazor, pp. 103-104. 57. Yadin, Hazor, p. 104. 58. Yadin, Hazor, pp. 71-73. 59. G. Loud el al., Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39 (OIP, 62; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 78. 60. Loud et al., Megiddo II, p. 78. 61. Loud et al., Megiddo II, p. 73.

162


Aharoni (among others) has referred to it as a bdmdh.62 In Late Bronze I a new temple was built above the earlier megaron ones and it existed in altered form through Late Bronze II. The new temple was a single long-room (21.5 x 16.5 m) with a niche opposite the doorway. The entrance was flanked by a facade with wings on either side. One column base belonging to the second building phase may indicate that columns were used between the wings. Except for the east wing, which was built of large squared stones, the early building was built of small-rubble masonry.63 The second phase of the temple was marked by numerous small changes. Construction was now of large ashlar blocks. The back wall was wider and the niche had been removed. A platform that may be an altar ran along the back wall and a number of stone objects lay on the floor. Among these were a 'bath', a drain, and a flat slab with cup-like holes. Some basalt blocks were also found.64 The final phase of the building showed many changes. The walls were much thinner, being of poor rubble. A stone and mud-brick platform was built over the one from the second phase and six steps led to a landing level with the top of the platform. A niche was built into the wall above the platform and the rear wall was buttressed (apparently due to structural weakness caused by the niche). Nothing could be told about the existence or lack thereof of the temple in the Early Iron period.65 A fourth temple that represents a particular architectural form has been found at Nahariya. A building and courtyard here went through three phases of construction throughout Middle Bronze Ha, yet in each phase both the building and the courtyard were present.66 The first phase was represented by a building that was almost square (5.5 x 5 m), with an annex to the north. This is the first example of a square temple form that has been considered here. The courtyard was located to the south of the temple, and it was composed of rubble and pebbles laid directly on the soil in a circular area (c. 6 m diameter). Remains were found at this level (Level V) of animal bones mixed with ashes; pottery and other material objects were also found.67 In the second phase, the 62. Aharoni, Archaeology, p. 205. 63. Loud et al., Megiddo II, pp. 102-103. 64. Loud et al., Megiddo II, pp. 104-105. 65. Loud et al., Megiddo II, p. 106. 66. Kempinski, The Middle Bronze Age', p. 174. 67. M. Dothan, The Excavations at Nahariyah: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55)', IEJ6 (1956), pp. 16-17.


163

building site moved north and the building itself became rectangular. The courtyard was expanded to a 14m diameter, yet it retained the same center as its predecessor. Two steps were added that led up to the center spot of the courtyard, and a stone pillar was built to the southwest. About 4 m west of the courtyard, a flat area paved with pebbles was built in which were found several upright stones. A small receptacle was sunk into the pavement nearby.68 The courtyard diminished somewhat in the third phase, while the building was expanded with two rooms to the east and a vestibule on the west. Another step was added to the two in the courtyard, and a rectangular stone structure was built in the circle.69 The finds at Nahariya from all levels include small pottery vessels, animal bones mixed with ashes, incense stands and cooking pots. This, along with evidence of a hardened oily substance on the rocks of the courtyard, led M. Dothan to suggest that the Nahariya cult consisted of food and drink offerings.70 There were also some signs of 'gifts' at the earliest level—semi-precious beads, some weapons, and jewelry of bronze, silver and gold—as well as the earliest known seven-wick saucer lamps.71 Some figurines, mostly of females, were found and one mold that appears to be that of a female deity.72 Finally, a word should be said about the structures found at Tananir and Amman. These should not be used to explore the possible structure of a bamah, because it is uncertain that they are cultic at all. The building at Tananir is composed of eight rectangular rooms arranged around a central square room, in the center of which was found a circular stone.73 The smaller Amman building is likewise square, being composed of six rectangular rooms around a central square one. It, too, had a stone structure in the middle of the central room: this one was formed by two stones, one on top of the other.74 The discovery of the Amman building and the identification of it with a temple has led some to conclude that

68. Dothan, 'The Excavations at Nahariyah', p. 17. 69. Dothan, The Excavations at Nahariyah', p. 18. 70. Dothan, 'The Excavations at Nahariyah', pp. 17,19-20. 71. Dothan, The Excavations of Nahariyah', p. 20. A detailed listing of the finds is given by I. Ben-Dor, 'A Middle Bronze-Age Temple at Nahariya', QDAP 14 (1950), pp. 17-40. 72. Dothan, The Excavations at Nahariyah', pp. 20-21. 73. E.F. Campbell and G.E. Wright, Tribal League Shrines at Amman and Shechem', BA 32 (1969), p. 108. 74. Campbell and Wright, Tribal League', pp. 104-105.

164


the Tananir building must also be a temple.75 The 'cultic' nature of the Amman building was determined by pockets of ash and bones found in the building's walls; these are assumed to be offerings made by the builders.76 At best, this is inconclusive, and it does not seem to outweigh the overwhelming similarity between both these structures and typical Semitic houses of the period.77 From the forms presented above, what conclusions can be drawn about the structure of a bdmdhl Keeping in mind the arguments for concluding that a bdmdh can be an enclosed structure, it seems that the archaeological evidence suggests that a bdmdh would be long- or broadroom style, perhaps with a niche or other 'holy of holies'. It would have an altar for sacrifices, and perhaps an exterior altar for drink offerings. The bdmot may have often had an open courtyard, with or without an altar, and certain cultic activities may have taken place in the open. In all probability, the bdmot did frequently contain stelae that served a cultic function, either as memorials of some type or as representatives of deities or the congregation. They may or may not have had an >aserdh. Based on the biblical picture, the bdmot may have contained rooms for the priests and occasional feasts, or they may have been connected to other buildings that contained such rooms. At least part of the bdmdh must have been roofed. In light of this description of a bdmdh, the final question remains as to how to reconcile the above view with those portions of the Bible that apparently contradict it. As has been implied earlier in the paper, it is possible to see those opposing views of a bdmdh as a literary and theological construction. The passages that mention a bdmdh as being in the open or as being part of a naturalistic religion are trying to draw a sharp contrast with the approved temple worship. It seems reasonable, therefore, that the bdmot may well have been cultic structures that the later writers did not want to acknowledge in any way as being legitimate. One way to underscore their distance from the 'right' religion of orthodoxy would be to deny even their structural similarity to the 75. R.G. Boling, 'Bronze Age Buildings at the Shechem High Place', BA 32 (1969), p. 84. 76. J.B. Hennessy, 'Excavation of a Late Bronze Temple at Amman', PEQ 98 (1966), p. 157. 77. The data is also inconclusive for the similarly-shaped Late Bronze structures at Hazor and Mount Gerizim, as well as a similar Middle Bronze lib structure at Shechem.


165

Jerusalem temple (or any approved sanctuary). The bamot were perceived to be 'provincial sanctuaries', and once worship was centered on Jerusalem, they were criticized and condemned by the biblical writers.78 Underneath the polemic, however, it is still possible to find clues regarding the nature of the bdmdh, and these clues point to its being structurally identical to a temple while being far removed from 'temple' in the biblical conception and theology.

78. Z. Herzog, 'Israelite Sanctuaries at Arad and Beer-Sheba (Synopsis of Lecture)', in Biran (ed.), Temples and High Places, p. 120.

SOLOMON'S ADVERSARIES HADAD, REZON AND JEROBOAM:

A TRIO OF 'BAD GUY' CHARACTERS ILLUSTRATING THE THEOLOGY OF IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION*

Diana V. Edelman

The historical Solomon is becoming more and more elusive as historians are evaluating the Bible's testimony more critically and paying closer attention to the strategies and patterns that its various writers used to shape their accounts and convey their messages. In the present article, the historicity of Hadad the Edomite, Rezon ben Eliada and Jeroboam ben Nebat as contemporaries of Solomon ben David will be examined. After a literary analysis of 1 Kgs 11.14-40, possible sources available to the biblical writer responsible for shaping this unit of text will be considered, followed by an assessment of the historical reliability of each of the three figures. It will be argued that Hadad and Rezon were probably not real individuals who ruled Edom and Aram Damascus in the late tenth century BCE, but that Jeroboam was likely a historical figure who lived at this time. The stories about Hadad and Rezon appear to have been inserted before those involving Jeroboam by a late writer who espoused the theology of immediate retribution and who felt a need to 'correct' the Deuteronomistic account of Solomon's reign with its theology of delayed retribution. Literary Analysis Since the analysis of the biblical text as a coherent literary composition has become a predominant concern only within the last decade or so, it is not surprising that the majority of analyses of 1 Kgs 11.14-40 have focused on source critical issues and have not always clarified how, if at * I am grateful to Stuart Lasine and to Lowell Handy and Steven Holloway for their editorial comments on the final draft of this manuscript. I am sure that the final product reads more smoothly and clearly.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 167 all, the events involving Jeroboam in vv. 26-40 relate to those involving Hadad in vv. 14-22 and Rezon in vv. 23-25. The narratives concerning Hadad of Edom and Rezon of Damascus in 1 Kgs 11.14-25 are commonly linked together as a single narrative subunit, even though they are often thought to have derived from independent origins, while the initial account concerning Jeroboam ben Nebat in vv. 26-40 is most frequently marked as a separate narrative subunit within the chapter that derives from a third source.1 Many have gone on to comment on the literary relationship between the two subunits, identifying the presence of three 'adversaries' between them, two 'external' in the first subunit, and one 'internal' in the second.2 Some have argued on this basis that vv. 14-40 should form a single narrative unit rather than two adjacent subunits that share in common the general topic of an adversary to Solomon.3 In fact, the recognition that Jeroboam's career is to be 1. The few exceptions break vv. 14-40 into three units instead of two, separating Hadad and Rezon: so, for example, C.F. Keil, Die Biicher der Konige (Biblischer Commentar iiber das Alte Testament, 2.3; Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke, 1865), pp. 129-31; I. Benzinger, Die Biicher der Konige (Kurzer Handcommentar zum Alten Testament, 9; Freiburg im Breisgau: Mohr, 1899), pp. 78, 81-82; J. Skinner, Kings (NCB, 7; New York: Henry Frowde, 1904), pp. 177, 179-80; J. Robinson, The First Book of Kings (CBC, 11; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 140, 142-43. 2. So, for example, R. Kittel, Die Biicher der Konige (HKAT, 5; Gb'ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), pp. 97-99; C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), pp. 157, 163; A. Sanda, Die Biicher der Konige. I. Das erste Buch der Konige (EHAT, 9.1; Miinster: Aschendorff, 1911), p. 324; J. Fichtner, Das erste Buch von den Konigen (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments, 12.1; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964), p. 177; M. Weippert, 'Edom: Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Edomiter auf Grundschriftlicher und archaologischer Quellen', Habilitationsschrift, Eberhard-Karls-Universitat zu Tubingen, 1971, p. 305; M. Rehm, Das erste Buch der Konige: Ein Kommentar (Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag, 1979), p. 122; G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings. 1.1 Kings 116:34 (NCB, 5; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 232; R.L. Cohen, 'Literary Technique in the Jeroboam Narrative', ZAW91 (1985), p. 25; N. Na'aman, 'Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E.', Tel Aviv 19 (1992), pp. 74, 76. 3. So, for example, O. Thenius, Die Biicher der Konige (KEHAT, 9; Leipzig: Weidmann, 1849), p. 169; J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. H.S. Gehman; ICC, 10; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), p. 236; M. Noth, Konige 1 (BKAT, 9.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), p. 245; J. Gray, / & II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1970), p. 280; W. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte: Fine redaktionsgeschichtliche

168


intimately connected with those of Hadad and Rezon probably requires that the end of the narrative unit be extended at 1 Kgs 12.24 to include his replacement of Solomon's line on the throne of Israel. The person responsible for the present shape of 1 Kgs 11.14-40 (or 12.24) has employed the pattern commonly found in folktales and traditional literature of threefold repetition with intensification4 to create a trio of 'bad guy' characters, each of whom in turn becomes a greater threat and problem to Solomon. Within this pattern, the second element typically exceeds the first in some way, setting the audience up for a third element that completes the series either by exceeding the first and second elements even further or by reversing the progression set up by the first two elements, returning things to normal. The writer has used this pattern in 1 Kgs 11.14-12.24 to illustrate the venting of Yahweh's anger, a motif that was introduced in the preceding section in 1 Kgs 11.1-14. In 1 Kgs 11.14-12.24, Hadad begins the threefold pattern by being raised up by Yahweh as a sdtdn or adversary to Solomon. His reported royal parentage and escape to Egypt from David's massacre in Edom makes him a potential outside source of rebellion to Solomon, should he decide to return home and claim his throne. Rezon then poses an intensified threat. Also being raised by Yahweh as a sdtdn, he is said to have been an active 'outside' adversary during Solomon's entire reign, abhorring Israel. It is only in the context of the comparison between the two that the audience learns that Hadad had actually returned home and actively 'done mischief against Solomon. No time frame is specified for his misdeeds, however, setting up a deliberate contrast with Rezon's misdeeds during Solomon's entire reign and serving as a marker of intensification within the pattern. Finally, Jeroboam ben Nebat enters the stage. His failure to be introduced as a third sdtdn raised up by Yahweh against Solomon and his Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 108; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), p. 54; B.O. Long, 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOIL, 9; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 120-21; S.J. De Vries, / Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), p. 148. 4. This pattern is one of many types of possible literary repetition and so is rarely described in depth but instead is assumed within the larger framework of patterns of repetition. See, for example, J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2nd edn, 1986), p. 59, who states that 'the principle of gradation is, of course, a development of repetition'.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 169 status as a native Israelite rather than a foreigner suggests that his career will diffuse the pattern already established with Hadad and Rezon. However, this idea is quickly overturned as he is said to have 'raised his hand against the king', setting up a deliberate parallel involving hostile action against Solomon with the previous two 'bad guys'. As the story of his career continues in 1 Kings 12, the audience learns that although an Israelite, he in fact completes the threefold pattern by exceeding the two preceding foreign 'bad guys': he becomes the divinely approved enemy within who ultimately does the most damage to Solomon by removing the throne of Israel from his family line. The person responsible for this narrative unit has linked together the members in the trio of 'bad guys' by creating parallels between their circumstances and actions. Even though their careers are different, Hadad and Rezon are linked together by the repetition of their introductions as outside adversaries raised up to Solomon by Yahweh (vv. 14 and 23) and by their both 'doing mischief (v. 25). Jeroboam's career then echoes traits from both of the other two, binding him to them in spite of his status as an 'insider' rather than an 'outsider' and his failure to be directly identified as a satan. Like Rezon, Jeroboam flees from his former royal master (vv. 23, 26, 40). Like Hadad, he flees specifically to Egypt for asylum and remains there until the death of the reigning Israelite king (vv. 17-22,40).5 The pattern of threefold repetition with intensification naturally emphasizes the third, climactic element, who in this case is Jeroboam ben Nebat. The groundwork for his entrance has already been laid in the previous narrative unit, 1 Kgs 11.1-13. In his anger over Solomon's failure to obey the divine commandments and statutes by worshipping foreign gods, Yahweh has declared that he plans to tear the kingdom from the king and give it to his servant. Thus, when Jeroboam is introduced in 1 Kgs 11.26 as a servant of Solomon, the audience should immediately suspect that he is the anticipated servant to whom Yahweh 5. Cohen's focus on the few contrast!ve elements that occur between the units and his failure to notice these linking elements leads him to conclude that 'by establishing a pattern of description [for Hadad and Rezon] and then breaking the pattern [with Jeroboam], the author signals that a new phase of his history is beginning' ('Literary Technique', p. 26.) He goes on to argue that 1 Kgs 11.26 marks the beginning of a new narrative unit, seeming thereby to overturn his earlier observation that the author introduces Jeroboam as the third in a series of challengers to the king (P- 25).

170


will give all but one tribe. From Solomon's perspective, Jeroboam becomes a third 'adversary' raised up by Yahweh. However, he is not directly identified as a third satan because, from the divine perspective, he is Solomon's servant who will become the king of Israel as a means of punishing the reigning king for worshipping other gods (1 Kgs 11.11). By introducing Jeroboam as the final member of the trio of 'bad guys', the writer is able to imply that Jeroboam is a satan like his predecessors and the most dangerous of the three, in spite of his divine selection and approval as Solomon's replacement. At the same time, the use of the pattern introduces two conflicting theological views. On the one hand, Hadad and Rezon serve as Yahweh's means of punishing Solomon personally during his lifetime for his worship of foreign gods, a theology particularly prevalent in the sections that are unique to the books of Chronicles that are not found in the books of Kings. On the other hand, Jeroboam serves as the agent of punishment that falls on subsequent generations, a theology that is common in Deuteronomistic writings. Of the three characters, Jeroboam is the pivotal figure, whose story continues in 1 Kings 12-14. Hadad and Rezon can be eliminated without disrupting the narrative flow. In fact, when they are removed, Jeroboam's introduction (1 Kgs 11.26) immediately follows Yahweh's announcement that he will give the kingdom to Solomon's servant (vv. 11-13), providing a clear example of the use of the pattern of prophecy and fulfillment. At present, the two patterns are interwoven; but were they always? Are both part of the original writer's narrative, or is the pattern of threefold repetition a later, secondary device added to the text to make sure that Solomon experienced personal punishment for his sins?6 Some scholars have denied that 1 Kgs 11.14-40 illustrates the venting of Yahweh's anger that is developed in the preceding unit in 1 Kgs 11.113. They point out the chronological incongruity found between the statement in v. 4 that Solomon only began worshipping other gods in his old age, which was to have provoked Yahweh's anger and his raising of the three adversaries, and the statement in v. 25 that Rezon was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.7 They have overlooked the 6. The late, post-Deuteronomistic nature of vv. 14-25 has been suggested by E. Wurthwein, Das erste Buch der Konige (AID, 11.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), p. 130, who is followed by Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, pp. 232, 237. 7. So, for example, Wurthwein, Erste Buch der Konige, p. 130; Noth, Konige 1, p. 245; Rehm, Erste Buch der Konige, p. 122. Jones (1 and 2 Kings, p. 237) notes the

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 171 intensifying function of the reference to Rezon's activity in v. 25; this statement is meant to be contrasted with the lack of concrete time indicators for Hadad's mischief, not to be referenced back to v. 4, which provides a background discussion about the time frame in which Solomon triggered Yahweh's anger. Nevertheless, their discomfort with the chronological ramifications raised by the statements in vv. 4 and 25 points to an uncharacteristic artificiality in the construction of ch. 11, which in turn tends to reinforce the observation above about the conflicting theological viewpoints concerning sin and punishment that are contained within the threefold pattern of repetition with intensification. Possible Sources for 1 Kings 11.14-12.25 As commonly acknowledged, Hadad's alleged flight to Edom has been tied chronologically to David's battle against Edom in 2 Sam. 8.13-14, while Rezon's rise to power has been set into the historical context of one of David's two reported battles against Hadadezer, king of Zobah, in 2 Sam. 8.3-8 and 10.15-19. The details tying both satans back in time are vague. In the case of Rezon, it is not clear which of the two battles is meant, while in the case of Hadad, background details about David's battle against Edom introduce Joab,8 creating much confusion. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the writer has chosen to associate his two satans with past wars that are reported sequentially in the section about David. If the first battle against Hadadezer in 2 Sam. 8.3-8 is taken as the referent for 1 Kgs 11.23-25, then the next war that occurs in the text is David's battle against Edom in 2 Sam. 8.13-14. The intervening verses, vv. 9-12, report about Toi's sending of gifts to David in the aftermath of his defeat of Hadadezer and David's dedication to the temple of that treasure, along with other silver and gold procured chronological discrepancies but explains them as the work of a redactor who used Hadad and Rezon as evidence of God's anger with Solomon. 8. Psalm 60 begins with a superscript that refers to this incident and attributes the slaughter to Joab rather than David, with different casualty figures, whereas 1 Chron. 18.12 credits the victory to Joab's brother Abishai. The present text would appear to be the result of a harmonization of the traditions in 2 Sam. 8.13-14 and Psalm 60 to involve both Joab and David in the incident. The variant reading found in 1 Chron. 18.12 is probably based on an assumption that bsbw in 2 Sam. 8.13 was a corrupted reference to 'bsy bn, as pointed out by E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC, 11; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910), pp. 235-36.

172


from subdued nations. Is this mere coincidence, or has the person responsible for 1 Kgs 11.14-25 used 2 Sam. 8.3-14 as his base for choosing the identities of the first two members of the trio of 'bad guys' he has created, reversing the order so as not to be too obvious? It can be observed further that the writer uses the same reversal of order in linking Jeroboam to the first two 'bad guys'. He introduces first the trait that links him to Rezon, the second satdn, before the traits that link him to Hadad, the first satdn. These two examples seem to indicate that the writer has consistently employed a technique of linking that begins with the last element and works backward in the creation of the narrative unit in 1 Kgs 11.14-40. Has the writer then moved the traditions about Hadad and Rezon from their original settings in 2 Samuel 8? Possibly, but it can just as easily be argued that he used the situations in 2 Sam. 8.3-14 and the career of Jeroboam ben Nebat as background to create Hadad and Rezon as fictional 'bad guy' characters. Neither position can be proven. The writer's use of the literary pattern of threefold repetition with intensification as well as his predilection to create links by beginning with the last element and working backward need not preclude his use of underlying sources. Is there any way to establish that the writer has used sources relating to Solomon's career to create the present narrative unit, and is there a way to determine the date and reliability of such proposed sources? The answer to both questions is no. There is no way to confirm that the 'Scroll of the Deeds of Solomon' that is cited in 1 Kgs 11.41 as the implied source of information about Solomon's career actually existed or the date of its composition. As is widely noted, the writer does not claim to derive his information about Solomon's reign from the otherwise standard 'Scroll of the Deeds of the Kings of Israel' or the 'Scroll of the Deeds of the Kings of Judah' that is cited as the source of information about the reigns of Israelite kings beginning with Jeroboam and Judahite kings beginning with Rehoboam. In addition, as has been noted previously,9 the inclusion of wisdom elements in the alleged 'Scroll of the Deeds of Solomon' gives it a different character than the 9. So, for example, Skinner, Kings, p. 82; Jones, / and 2 Kings, p. 247; T. Ishida, 'Solomon', in ABD, VI, p. 106. E.A. Knauf proposes a Josianic date of composition for this alleged source; 'King Solomon's Copper Supply', in E. Lipinski (ed.), Studia Phoenicia. XI. Phoenicia and the Bible (OLA, 44; Leuven: Peeters, 1991), pp. 174-76.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 173 other two royal annals and raises a question about the date and reliability of the traditions associated with it. It recalls the attribution of a number of proverbs to Solomon, raising again a question about the date and legendary versus historical nature of various Solomonic traditions. The apparent failure of the alleged source to record an accurate count of Solomon's regnal years questions its reliability further, although it could be argued that the Deuteronomist chose not to use a recorded figure for the length of his reign because it was not large enough to be consistent with the portrait of the 'great king' he was creating. If the 'Scroll of the Deeds of Solomon' is set aside as a questionable source for the traditions about Rezon and Hadad and the traditional royal annals of Israel and Judah are eliminated by implication (or lack of it), what type of potential source might have survived from the late tenth century to be used by the so-called Deuteronomistic Historian, who wrote c. 700, 600 or 550 BCE depending on which dating scheme one favors, or, more likely, by a post-Deuteronomistic writer working even later? The suggestion by J. Gray that the Hadad tradition derives from an Edomite royal annal has no firm basis.10 No such annals have been found in Edom or have been mentioned in other ancient documents, and it is unlikely that a Judahite scribe would have had access to such annals. In light of the type of texts that would have been generated by a royal administration, the most plausible type of written records that would have recorded Solomon's dealings with a Hadad or a Rezon would have been commemorative victory stelae, battle records, or, if both rulers had been vassals at some point, lists of tribute payments. Regarding oral records, victory songs commemorating successful battles or perhaps popular legends about encounters between Solomon and each ruler could have been passed down orally and eventually recorded for preservation. Details concerning the nature of specific encounters between Solomon and Hadad and Rezon are conspicuously lacking; Hadad 'did mischief, while Rezon 'abhorred Israel and reigned over Syria'. The failure of the writer to provide concrete examples of the action of either foreign foe raises the suspicion that he did not have access to such specifics in the sources available to him. Had they been available, he could have cited them in summary form without detracting from his use of the scheme of threefold repetition with intensification. 10. Gray, I & II Kings, p. 280, and adopted, for instance, by Robinson, First Book of Kings, p. 141. Wiirthwein identifies it as an Edomite tradition; Erste Buch der Konige,p. 137.

174


Even if it is impossible to establish the existence of the alleged 'Scroll of the Deeds of Solomon' or of other sources that survived from the Solomonic era to the time of the writer hundreds of years later, the historical reliability of some of the Solomonic traditions theoretically should be able to be assessed through an examination of archaeological materials dating to the late tenth century BCE, the time period in which biblical chronology would seem to locate Solomon's reign. Yet even this task is not as straightforward as it would appear. The diagnostic ceramic markers used to define the tenth century are not refined to the point where they can be associated with specific decades or royal reigns, and the ability to transfer Cisjordanian pottery sequences and associated dates to similar forms in Transjordan is currently being debated. Since time and financial restraints permit only a fraction of a site to be systematically excavated, it is dangerous to draw inferences about the history of a given site based on the limited exposure in a few areas,11 let alone to speculate about the history of entire territories on the basis of the fortuitous finds from limited soundings at a few sites within the region, combined with the results of surface surveys. There has also been a marked tendency to rely on the Bible for identification of strata as Solomonic in date rather than dating by internal archaeological criteria.12 Taking into consideration all the above caveats about dating archaeological finds, it is significant that on the basis of the current typologies, there is no clear evidence for the existence of an Edomite state in the late tenth century BCE over which Hadad's royal family could have ruled. Systematic surface surveys in the territory of Transjordanian Edom have identified a small cluster of sites just south of the Wadi elHasa, the traditional northern boundary of Edom, as containing sherds that are dated between 1200-919 BCE. They include Khirbet Abu 11. For this reason, I do not accept the claim that 'archaeologically speaking, there are no indications of statehood being achieved before...the 8th century in Judah' made by E.A. Knauf, 'From History to Interpretation', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact, and Israel's Past (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 39, and reasserted by T.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 332-33. Excavations in Jerusalem have simply been too limited, especially at tenth-century depths, to be able to know virtually anything about the nature of the site at that time. 12. For this debate, see, for example, the entire issue of BASOR 277-278 (1990), which has five articles that discuss the issue.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 175 Banna, Khirbet Masmil and three small sites, WHS 18, 28 and 270.13 It is debated whether the few sherds represent permanent early Iron Age settlement or a small, itinerant presence in that period.14 In either case, the cluster of sites do not constitute the center of a state or kingdom; as suggested by E.A. Knauf, they are likely to have been an emerging localized chiefdom.15 Would such a modest collection of settlements or sites have posed a threat to Solomon in Jerusalem? Otherwise, there are two sites in the Wadi Rummam and one in the Hisma that might have Iron I sherds, probably deposited by travelers through the region.16 Excavations at three sites, Umm el-Biyara, Tawflan and Buseirah, have not produced evidence of sedentary occupation prior to the late eighth century BCE, which tends to indicate that Edomite statehood, centered at Bozrah, emerged only at this time.17 Recently, N. Na'aman has argued on the basis of the Transjordanian evidence that Hadad's Edom was located in Cisjordanian Seir, in the Beersheba Valley and in the Negev highlands.18 Two of his presumptions need further scrutiny: that the scores of enclosed settlements in the Negev highlands can accurately be dated to the tenth century BCE and 13. For the data, see S. Hart, 'Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom', in P. Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (SAM, 7; Sheffield: J.R. Collis, 1992), pp. 94-97. 14. Hart, 'Iron Age Settlement', p. 96. 15. E.A. Knauf, 'Edom: A Socio-Economic History', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for he is Your Brother: Seir and Edom in History and Tradition (forthcoming). 16. Hart, 'Iron Age Settlement', pp. 96-97. 17. P. Bienkowski, 'The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom: Evidence from Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah', in idem (ed.), Early Edom and Moab, pp. 99110. In n. 1, he observes that recent but unpublished charcoal samples from Khirbet en-Nahas in the Feinan region have been dated by carbon-14 analysis to 1200-950 BCE (calibrated), providing possible evidence of Iron I presence there in connection with mining operations. 18. Na'aman, 'Israel, Edom and Egypt', pp. 72-79. He was preceded in this equation by D. Eitam, 'The Settlement of Nomadic Tribes in the Negeb Highlands during the llth Century B.C.', in M. Heltzer and E. Lipiriski (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1100 B.C.): Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May, 1985 (OLA, 23; Leuven: Peeters, 1988), pp. 331-34; J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 182; and Z. Meshel, 'History of the Negev in the Time of the Kings of Judah' (PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 1974), p. 148 (Hebrew).

176


that the equation of the terms 'Seir' and 'Edom' goes back to a very early time. The dating of the settlements in the Negev highlands to the Iron I or the Iron II has been debated through the years.19 The root of the uncertainty lies in the inability to date 'Negev ware' to a given period with any degree of confidence.20 All dating of the sites must therefore be based on more familiar wheel-turned pottery, when present. According to the current understanding of the latter pottery repertoire, it is impossible to identify a form from the second half of the tenth century; such pottery cannot be dated more accurately than within a range of 200 years spanning the eleventh and tenth century BCE. Thus, it is uncertain how many of the highland settlements would have been settled simultaneously and in the late tenth century BCE. Nevertheless, Na'aman's use of the section of Shishak's incomplete campaign list from his expedition into Palestine c. 927 BCE that refers to sites in the Negev makes a strong case for arguing that some of these settlements were in fact occupied during Solomon's reign in the late tenth century, even if the specific ones cannot yet be identified on purely archaeological criteria. His second presumption, that the equation of Seir and Edom goes back to very early times, so that in the tenth century BCE the political entity of Edom could have been located in the region of Seir, that is, the Negev highlands, overlooks the likely historical development of the use of the term 'Edom'. He acknowledges that 'Seir' and 'Edom' are used in Egyptian texts as two distinctive geographical terms. The equation of Seir and Edom is the result of the emergence of a political entity named Edom within the geographical territory of Edom and its eventual spread beyond its original territorial boundaries in southern Transjordan east of 19. So, for example, Y. Aharoni, 'Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age Fortresses in the Negev', IEJ 17 (1967), pp. 1-17; Z. Meshel, 'Who Built the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev Highlands?', Cathedra 11 (1979), pp. 3-28 (Hebrew); Z. Herzog, 'Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of Beer-sheba', BASOR 250 (1983), pp. 41-49; I. Finkelstein, The Iron Age "Fortresses" of the Negev Highlands: Sendentarization [sic] of the Nomads', Tel Aviv 11 (1984), pp. 189-209; R. Cohen, The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev', BASOR 236 (1979), pp. 61-79; I. Finkelstein and A. Perevolotsky, 'Processes of Sedentarization and Nomadization in the History of Sinai and the Negev', BASOR 279 (1990), pp. 67-88. 20. So, for example, Z. Meshel, 'History of the Negeb', p. vi; Herzog, 'Enclosed Settlements', p. 43; Eitam, 'Negeb Highlands', pp. 323-27; Hart, 'Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom', p. 95.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 111 the Arabah into the adjoining territory of Seir west of the Arabah in the Negev highlands.21 It is extremely unlikely that a political Edom would have initially emerged in the territory of Seir; a political unit named Seir would have been the logical result of political crystallization in the Negev highlands. The population inhabiting the enclosed settlements in the Negev highlands in the late tenth century BCE is better associated with the Amalekites, the Geshurites, the Girzites (see 1 Sam. 27.8, if it accurately reflects the population in this early period and not the situation in the eighth or seventh century) or with independent clans such as Yeroham and Hanani than with Edom. Much later, when Edom spread its influence into the Negev highlands in the late seventh century, Amalek became artificially associated with Edom in the genealogy of EsauEdom found in Genesis 36 by being made the offspring of Esau/Edom's eldest son in Seir, Eliphaz, by his 'concubine' Timna.22 It is highly unlikely that Hadad the Edomite's home base during Solomon's reign was the Negev highlands. There is not enough archaeological evidence from Syria to allow an assessment of Rezon's historicity in the tenth century BCE independent of the biblical claims. Local Syrian chronologies are still being developed for this century from the few sites that have been excavated or are currently under investigation. No systematic excavations have been conducted in Damascus, the center of Rezon's alleged kingdom in the late tenth century.23 Even if it were determined that the city existed in this period, which is likely, there would be no way to confirm that he 21. For a fuller discussion see D.V. Edelman, 'Edom: A Historical Geography', in idem (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite. For Seir's location in the western Arabah, see also J.R. Bartlett, 'The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom', JTS NS 20 (1969), pp. 1-20; idem, Edom and the Edomites (JSOT/PEF Monograph Series, 1; JSOTSup, 77; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 4-44. 22. For the late date of this list, see esp. E.A. Knauf, who argues that it is not earlier than the end of the sixth century BCE; 'Alter und Herkunft der edomistischen Konigsliste Gen 36,31-39', ZAW91 (1985), pp. 243-53. Contrast J.R. Bartlett, 'The Edomite King-List of Genesis XXXVI.31-39 and 1 Chron. 1.43-50', JTS NS 16 (1965), pp. 301-14; in his subsequent work, Bartlett allows for the possibility of Knauf's later date, but prefers a mid-eighth century date because of Amos 1.12 (Edom and the Edomites, pp. 94-102). 23. W.T. Pitard, Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), p. 2.

178


had ruled it unless his name were uncovered on some sort of monument, document or inscription. Since there is only a fragmentary list of eponyms from the reign of Tiglath-pileser II (966-935 BCE) and no mention of Damascus in the preserved campaign accounts of Assurdan II (934-912 BCE), there is no way to confirm Rezon's historicity through extant Assyrian texts. Potential sources for the portion of the Jeroboam narrative in 1 Kgs 11.26-12.24 are different. If the 'Scroll of the Deeds of Solomon' is once again set aside as a questionable source, the 'Scroll of the Deeds of the Kings of Israel' becomes a possible alternative in view of the claim that it has been used for at least some of the information concerning Jeroboam's reign in 1 Kgs 14.19. Yet how likely is it that such an annal that recorded wars and royal works would have preserved the biography of the early years of a commoner before he became king? The account of Jeroboam's early career reads more as a popular tale or legend than an official account. The reason given for his rebellion against Solomon, the building of the Millo, is not well developed in the context and could easily have been 'created' by the writer from knowledge of Jeroboam's status as head of the forced labor of the house of Joseph, a piece of information perhaps derived from a genuine list of Solomonic officials, and a separate record of Solomon's Millo building project. A brief account of incidents that led to the establishment of Jeroboam as king of Israel at Shechem, on the other hand, might well have been included in such an annal, even though the present narrative in 12.1-24 with its developed dialogues almost certainly reflects an imagined reenactment of the event by a later writer. Jeroboam's legitimation by Ahijah the Shilonite as Yahweh's chosen king-elect fulfils the prediction first introduced in 1 Kgs 11.11-13 and is commonly linked with the Deuteronomistic predilection for using the scheme of prophecy and fulfillment throughout the books of Samuel and Kings. The 'historicization' of what is likely to have become a standard designation element in the royal installation ceremony tends to betray a date of origin for these verses long after Jeroboam's actual reign, when the ceremony had had time to develop.24 Whether Ahijah the Shilonite was an actual contemporary of Jeroboam is difficult to determine from the extant textual material. 24. For this ceremony and its historicization in the account of the establishment of monarchy under Saul, see D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography ofJudah (JSOTSup, 121; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 29-32.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 179 The Historicity of Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam ben Nebat Hadad The historicity of Hadad the Edomite appears to have been universally accepted. Nevertheless, the preceding discussion has raised much doubt about the historicity of Hadad as a contemporary of Solomon in the late tenth century BCE because of the lack of an Edomite state in this period. Are there any details in his story that might indicate whether he was a ruler of Edom after it emerged in the eighth century whose experiences have been retrojected to the Solomonic era by the writer, who wanted to show that Solomon faced one of Judah's traditional enemies; or whether he is simply a fictional 'bad guy' character created by the writer and associated with one of Judah's traditional enemies? First, the exact form of this individual's name needs to be considered. In the MT, it appears as Hadad in 1 Kgs 11.14, but as 'Adad and then Hadad in v. 17. The variant form with the initial 'dleph has been explained as an Akkadianism,25 perhaps a scribal error,26 but nonetheless, was perpetuated as a referent to the same individual. The LXX reads "A8ep in both verses, apparently supposing an underlying Hebrew form of either 'dr or hdr. The interchange of ddlet and resh is common in both the ancient Hebrew script and the more recent square script since the letter forms are so similar. The name also appears in the list of 'kings who ruled in the land of Edom' in Gen. 36.31-39: as Hadad in v. 35 and as Hadar in v. 39, with the LXX variant "ApocS in v. 39, once again illustrating the interchange of ddlet and resh. The 'original' or 'correct' form of the name cannot be established; one's preference will be determined in large part by an assessment of the origin of the tradition. In light of the apparent absence of a tenthcentury Edom, I find it likely that the writer derived the name of his Edomite king from the alleged Edomite king-list in Gen. 36.31-39, choosing Hadad/Hadar because it either appeared twice in the list, suggesting that it was a common Edomite royal name, or it appeared once with another name so similar that it drew attention and became a logical choice from among the various options. If the principle of the more difficult reading is followed, then hdr should be given preference 25. See Montgomery, Book of Kings, p. 245; Gray, / & II Kings, pp. 281-82. 26. So, for example, F.P.W. Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter (Leipzig: A. Edelmann, 1893), p. 57 n. 2; Noth, Konige 1, p. 242; Weippert, 'Edom', p. 295.

180


to hdd, since a corruption to hdd is easily explained in light of the commonness of this northwest Semitic deity name. The possibility cannot be overlooked, however, that 'Hadad' is the original reading in Gen. 36.35, since the origin of this list in the eighth century or later is quite likely.27 The situation reflected may be one in which Edom, but more probably Moab, was temporarily ruled by an Aramean king who had expanded south and gained control over the territory.28 In this case, the list would preserve two independent names, Hadar and Hadad. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that the list proves that Hadad was a solid Edomite name, as many have supposed.29 As A. Lemaire has pointed out, the theonym Hadad is not attested to date in Edomite, Moabite or Ammonite onomastica.30 Qos was the national deity of Edom and as expected, his name appears as a element in the names of two Edomite kings, Qos-malaku and Qos-gabri, who are confirmed genuine rulers of the state of Edom.31 Lemaire's conclusion that Hadad is the original reading of the name of the king in 1 Kgs 11.14-25 and that he must have been an 27. See n. 22. 28. Bartlett suggests that both Hadad ben Bedad and Hadar may well have been Moabites who, along with Bela, were part of a Moabite list of rulers that was erroneously associated with Edom; Edom and the Edomites, pp. 96-99. Aramean domination of Moab is even more likely than of Edom, since the former lay closer to the Aramean heartland. 29. So, for example, Thenius, Biicher der Koniger, p. 169; Keil, Biicher der Konige, p. 129; Montgomery, Book of Kings, pp. 238, 240; Noth, Konige 1, p. 251; Jones, / and 2 Kings, p. 237; De Vries, 1 Kings, p. 150. 30. A. Lemaire, 'Hadad TEdomite ou Hadad 1'Arameen?', BN43 (1988), pp. 1415. The idea was initially proposed by H. Winckler, Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen (2 vols.; Volker und Staaten des alten Orients, 2-3; Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1895,1900), H, pp. 207,208,216,269-72. 31. Qos-malaku is named in an Assyrian tribute list of Tiglath-pileser III, c. 732 BCE, while Qos-gabri appears in a list of tributaries under Esarhaddon, c. 673 BCE, and again in a campaign list dating to Assurbanipal, c. 667 BCE. Aiarammu, the vassal of Sennacherib, is the only other Edomite king known by name. For these texts, see conveniently L. Oppenheim (ed. and trans.), 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', inANET, pp. 282, 287, 291, 294; Weippert, 'Edom', pp. 63-78, 112-15, 12729, 138-56; A.R. Millard, 'Assyrian Involvement in Edom', in Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab, pp. 35-39. A seal impression belonging to Qos-gabri has been excavated at Umm el-Biyara. For a discussion and bibliography, see Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 213; see also Bienkowski, The Date of Sedentary Occupation in Edom', p. 99, with photo on p. 101.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam

181

'Aramean', 'rmy, rather than an Edomite, 'afmy, 32 contradicts the geographical implications in the brief account as well as the clear reference to a battle against Edom in 1 Kgs 8.14-15 and the superscript of Psalm 60. In the wake of the military defeat, the surviving young member of the royal house is reported to have fled to Egypt for asylum via Midian and Paran. The text presumes that Hadad's home lay in a territory adjacent to Midian, that is, Edom, not Aram. It is historically unlikely that an Aramean prince would have fled all the way to Egypt for asylum; he would have to have crossed too much potentially dangerous territory. Some place closer to home, like Tyre, another Aramean state, or even Assyria, depending on the source of the threat, would have made a safer and more logical place of refuge. Egypt's consideration as a source of refuge tends to reflect the view of a neighboring country like Judah, whose population had a history of fleeing south during times of trouble. 'Flight to Egypt' is a recurrent literary motif in the biblical stories, found in connection with Abraham (Gen. 12.10-20), Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 42-43), Hadad (1 Kgs 11.17-22), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11.40) and the Judahite residents of Judah after Gedaliah's murder (2 Kgs 25.26; Jer. 41.17-18; 42.14-44). It undoubtedly reflects the reality of life in Judah, making its use in stories familiar and credible.33 When the details of the account of Hadad's flight are scrutinized, their lack of historical content becomes evident. The name of the pharaoh who offered asylum is not given; only the generic title 'pharaoh' is used. 'Tahpenes' does not appear to be a genuine name, but a semiticized

32. Lemaire, 'Hadad 1'Edomite ou Hadad 1'Arameen?', pp. 16-18. 33. The possible literary derivation of the account of Hadad's flight to Egypt has also been recognized by Long, / Kings, pp. 126-27. A further indication of its literary rather than historical nature is suggested by A.R. Schulman's study of diplomatic marriages in the New Kingdom, in which he has determined that when an Egyptian bride was involved, Egypt was presumed the weaker of the two states politically and militarily; 'Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom', JNES 38 (1979), pp. 177-93. If this presumption persisted in later periods and held true during the time of the writer of the present tradition, then it would tend to discount the historicity of the biblical event, since any historical Edom in the tenth century would have been less powerful than Egypt. Fichtner (Erste Buck den Konigen, pp. 182-83) mentions that the story of Genubath 'reminds us in some ways of the early life of Moses', but he does not indicate whether this is the result of the use of stock story lines or of historical coincidence.

182


transliteration of the Egyptian phrase 'wife of the king'.34 The name Genubath offers the only possible hint of an underlying source, but is likely to have been added by the writer as a detail to help give the verses more local Egyptian flavor. It was probably a name he knew to be Egyptian from his personal experience, and so he used it, along with his other general knowledge of life at the Egyptian court, to create 1 Kgs 11.17-22.35 The traditional reluctance of Egyptian monarchs to contract diplomatic marriages for their princesses might cast further doubt on the historical reliability of the present tradition, depending upon its period of composition.36 34. For the various options, see, for example, B.H. Strieker, Trois etudes de phonetique et de morphologic copies', AcOr 15 (1937), pp. 11-12; B. Grdseloff, 'Edom, d'apres les sources egyptiennes', Revue de I'histoire juive en Egypte 1 (1947), pp. 89-90; W. Federn, 'Dahamunzu (KBo V 6 iii 8)', JCS 14 (1960), p. 33; K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 B.C.) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 2nd edn, 1973), p. 274 n. 183; Weippert, 'Edom', pp. 300-302; M. Gorg, 'Namen und Titel in IKon 11, 19f, BN 36 (1987), pp. 22-24. 35. For the probable Egyptian origin of this personal name, see, for example, H.G. Tomkins, The Name Genubath', PSBA 10 (1887-1888), p. 372; Weippert, 'Edom', p. 302; J.R. Bartlett, 'An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite', ZAW 88 (1976), p. 212 n. 22; Gorg, 'Namen und Titel', pp. 24-26. For a possible old North Arabian etymology, see Noth, Konige 1, p. 253. 36. See, for example, A. Malamat, 'Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon', JNES 22 (1963), pp. 9-11. Contrast Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, p. 282, who cites examples of the marrying of princesses both to commoners who achieved high positions in the Egyptian government and to foreign leaders in Libya in diplomatic marriages during the late 21st Dynasty (c. 1069-935 BCE) and the 22nd Dynasty (c. 935-725 BCE). The reversal of the traditional custom from the New Kingdom period during certain dynasties could have led to the creation of a literary motif of 'marrying pharaoh's daughter' within the written and oral tradition of neighboring countries, like Judah. It should be noted, however, that such diplomatic marriages to outsiders could have been practiced in later dynasties, like the 25th Nubian (c. 716-656 BCE) or the 26th Saite (c. 664-525 BCE), so this motif need not reflect genuine knowledge of conditions during the late 21st or early 22nd Dynasty. It may merely reflect the conditions in Egypt at the time of the writer, whenever that was. A.R. Schulman's attempt to salvage the historicity of the Hadad tradition by noting that the prince was not married to an Egyptian princess, but only the king's sister-inlaw, thereby eliminating the contraction of a diplomatic marriage that otherwise would have made Egypt weaker than Edom, fails to be convincing in light of the lack of specific details concerning the pharaoh involved, the attendant inability for the reader to know whether his main wife was of royal blood or not, and the lack of archaeological evidence for an Edomite state in the late tenth century; The Curious Case of

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 183 If the author of 1 Kgs 11.17-22 has based the present story of Hadad's flight on the life of a later king of Edom, his identity is not known at present. As already mentioned, only two Edomite kings are known by name but nothing is known about the life history of either. Under the present circumstances, and in light of the foregoing onomastic and literary observations, it seems most appropriate to conclude that Hadad is a fictional 'bad guy' character, created by whoever is responsible for the narrative unit now found in 1 Kgs 11.14-12.24 to be the first of a trio of 'bad guys'. Rezon Like that of Hadad, Rezon's historicity has not been doubted, even though the closeness of his name to the Hebrew noun razon, 'ruler, high official', which parallels melek in Prov. 14.28, has been noted. B. Mazar has argued on this basis that Rezon is a royal title rather than a proper name.37 This important observation needs further consideration, especially since the consonantal text rzwn would allow a vocalization of razon as readily as the current MT vocalization rezon, whose origin and reliability is not beyond question. With this in mind, has the writer intentionally introduced some humor into his narrative while admitting his lack of concrete source material by naming the second in the trio of 'bad guys' simply 'ruler, son of "God knows"' ? Mazar goes on to argue that Rezon was the throne name of Hezion, the grandfather of Ben-Hadad, who was a contemporary of Asa (1 Kgs 15.18),38 thus affirming the historicity of this individual as Solomon's contemporary and making him the founder of a dynasty in Damascus. The improbability of his latter equation is indicated by Rezon's patronym, 'ben Eliada', which betrays the writer's intention to convey the impression that Rezon is the name of an individual and not merely a

Hadad the Edomite', in L.H. Lesko (ed.), Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1986), p. 129. 37. B. Mazar, 'Toward an Investigation of the Personal Names that are in the Bible', Lesonenu 15 (1944), pp. 42-43 (Hebrew); idem, 'The Aramean Empire and its Relations with Israel', BA 25 (1962), p. 104. 38. Mazar, 'Aramean Empire and its Relations', p. 104; he is followed by Gray, / & II Kings, p. 287. Earlier, E.G.H. Kraeling had argued that Hezion was the original name in v. 23 and that it had been corrupted to Rezon; Aram and Israel: or, the Aramaeans in Syria and Mesopotamia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918), pp. 48-49.

184


royal title, even if a fictional, humorous name. Mazar has tried unsuccessfully to salvage some genuine history from a situation that he has deduced to have literary rather than historical dimensions. The attempt by A. Malamat to make Hezion and Rezon phonetic variants of the same name has not met wide acceptance.39 Besides his apparently humorous name, Rezon's historicity can be also questioned on the grounds that he shares with David the portrayal as a hapiru leader who became king and founder of a new dynasty through the support of his private army. In light of the warning in 2 Sam. 20.6b that David needed to stop the renegade Sheba 'lest he get for himself fortified cities and snatch away our eyes', the possibility is raised that a coup mounted by an individual who, with the support of a private army, took control of a walled or fortified settlement and declared his sovereignty, while grounded in historical experiences, may easily have become a stock literary device to describe coups in general when specific historical details were lacking. Are the details of the coups associated with David, Rezon and Sheba sufficiently specific to reflect accounts drawn from contemporaneous sources, or do they suggest the use of stock coup imagery? The latter alternative does not deny the possibility that any of the coups were historical, only that the specific details of each were not recorded and so were recreated by later writers using stock coup imagery.40 If the historicity of the biblical account of a coup mounted by Rezon during Solomon's reign is questionable, is it nevertheless possible that the biblical writer has modelled Rezon's career after a genuine Aramean king who ruled later on? Perhaps. The circumstances of Rezon's reported rise to the throne of Damascus resonate with details preserved in 11. 191210 of the reconstructed annals of Tiglath-pileser III about a later ruler of Damascus named Rahianu. It is reported that the Assyrian king 39. A. Malamat, 'The Aramaeans', in D.J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), pp. 151-52 n. 23. For an evaluation, see Pitard, Ancient Damascus, pp. 101-107. 40. The four steps presumed by the literary coup would seem to be: (1) breaking away from one's master; (2) fleeing to the security of a fortified center with a cadre of loyal troops; (3) being proclaimed king there by one's supporters; and (4) being ready to defend one's claim in military confrontation and then assert it through forced oaths of loyalty throughout the realm. David's rise follows this general pattern, but has the unexpected intervening stage before his proclamation as king in Hebron of his spending time with his corps of loyal men on the run from Saul in the Judean wilderness and then his serving as a Philistine vassal.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 185 captured Hadara, the ancestral home of Ra-hi-a-nu of Sa-Imerisu, where he was born.41 The Bible knows this Damascene king as Resin. Tiglath-pileser's statement indicates that Resin, the king of Damascus, was not born in Damascus, but was from the city or town of Hadara. This strongly implies that Resin was not of the royal house established by Haza'el in 843 BCE in an act of usurpation, but was himself an outsider who had gained the throne of Damascus somehow.42 Princes, the legitimate offspring of the royal harem, probably would have grown up in the capital city to receive appropriate training at court. The emphasis on Hadara as Resin's place of birth as well as his place of inheritance indicates that his father was not of royal descent but was from this outlying settlement. Whether his mother had royal blood or not cannot be determined. If Hadara lay in the territory of Aram-Zobah, then an equation of the purported founder of the Damascene dynasty under Solomon with the historical Resin would be particularly likely. In this case, Resin and Rezon would both have originated in Zobah and moved on from their home territory to an unnatural succession to kingship in Damascus. It would be too coincidental for two individuals bearing similar sounding names and originating in the same outside region both to have managed to have become king of Damascus through non-dynastic succession within a 300-year period. Unfortunately, the location of the ancient state of Aram-Zobah is not confirmed, although most scholars today place it in the northern Biqa' Valley with the seat of the kingdom at il-'Angar, seeing Zobah to be the successor to ancient Amurru and the precursor of later Ituraea.43 Hadara's location is even more problematic; due to the 41. P. Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers HI. nach den Papierabklatschen und Originalen des Britischen Museums (2 vols.; Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1893), 1.34-35. 42. So noted by Pitard, Ancient Damascus, p. 183. 43. See, for example, F. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1881), pp. 279-80; Kraeling, Aram and Israel, p. 40; E. Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921), pp. 62, 69; A.T. Olmstead, History of Palestine and Syria (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1931), pp. 32223; R.T. O'Callaghan, Aram Naharaim: A Contribution to the History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Second Millennium B.C. (AnOr, 26; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1948), p. 124; P.K. Hitti, History of Syria, Including Lebanon and Palestine (London: Macmillan, 1951), p. 166; J.J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament: A Concise Commentary in xxxii Chapters (Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1959), §§19,

186


mutilated state of the annals of Tiglath-pileser III, it is uncertain whether the site was captured en route to Damascus and so lay north of the capital, or was captured during a dismantling of the outlying districts, in which case it could have been located anywhere within the territory controlled by Damascus. All proposed historical-geographical equations rest solely on the basis of presumed name preservation44 and there simply is not enough evidence upon which to base a preference. Thus, this potential correspondence between Rezon and Resin cannot be confirmed or denied. Another datum of note is Rahianu's appearance alongside one Hiram of Tyre and one Menahem of Israel as a payer of tribute to Tiglathpileser III in his eighth year.45 The mention of Hiram of Tyre is particularly interesting since Solomon is also said to have had extensive dealings with a Tyrian king bearing the same name (1 Kgs 5; 9.10-14). While it is customarily presumed that these are Hiram I and Hiram II, both of whom are attested in the Tyrian king-list quoted from Menander, we cannot be certain that the later biblical writer knew of the early Hiram from old court records of Judah.46 It is not certain that Hiram I would have been Solomon's contemporary, since the dates for Solomon and David are both artificially set at forty years each and the exact dates of each remain undeterminable using currently available evidence. Is it possible that the biblical writer has retrojected details 1494-95; Mazar, 'Aramean Empire', p. 102; Malamat, 'Aspects', pp. 3-4; W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Anchor Books; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 5th edn, 1969), pp. 127-28; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (trans, and ed. A.F. Rainey; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1979), p. 293. 44. Forrer equated it with el-Hadhr, some 52 km SW of Damascus; Die Provinzeinteilung, p. 62; while Kraeling located it at Adarin, south of Yabrud; Aram and Damascus, p. 18 n. 2; and A. Dupont-Sommer at 'Adra, 20 km NE of Damascus; Les Arameens (L'Orient ancien illustre, 2; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1949), p. 65 n. 34. The equation with 'Adra is adopted by H.S. Sader, Les etats arameens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu'a leur transformation en provinces assyriennes (Beiruter Texte und Studien, 36; Beirut: Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenlandischen; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1987), p. 267. 45. For the text, see M. Weippert, 'Menachem von Israel und seine Zeitgenossen in einer Steleninschrift des assyrischen Konigs Tiglathpileser III. aus dem Iran', ZD/>V89(1973),p. 34. 46. For arguments that Solomon's Hiram is a literary reflex of a Phoenician ruler during the later Omride period, see Knauf, 'King Solomon's Copper Supply', pp. 177-78.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 187 concerning the careers of the historical contemporaries Rahianu of Damascus and Hiram II of Tyre to the time of Solomon to help create the myth of the Solomonic empire? If Hiram II is Solomon's Hiram and Rahianu is Solomon's Rezon, the writer has handled the retrojections differently. In the case of Hiram, he has maintained the name intact, whereas in the case of Rahianu, whose name is rendered in the Bible as Resin, he has changed it probably to Razon (versus Rezon). Although the underlying roots differ only in their medial sibilant, the vowels are also sufficiently different that there is no question of the two being variant spellings of a single name or of Razon being a corruption of Resin. Rather, it would have to be argued that the writer deliberately disguised the name from his source, Resin, in his use of Razon, which was built on a root that was close in sound, but which yielded the symbolic meaning 'ruler', which was then humorously expanded with the patronym 'son of God knows'. Why, though, would a writer feel compelled to disguise only one name? In light of the conflicting ideologies noted above over the punishment of a sinner that are currently reflected in 1 Kgs 11.14-25 and 11.26-12.25 and the way in which the threefold pattern of repetition with intensification breaks up the pattern of prophecy and fulfillment, it seems more likely to me that two different writers are responsible for the Hiram traditions and the Rezon tradition. The Razon subunit appears to be later and post-Deuteronomistic, so it probably was not derived from the same source as the Hiram material. Between the humorous nature of the name, the possibility that stock coup imagery has been used to develop his story, and the conflicting ideologies, there is sufficient reason to question the historicity of Razon as Solomon's contemporary. Like Hadad, he seems to be a fictitious 'bad guy' character. Jeroboam The historicity of Jeroboam seems to rest on firmer ground than the two preceding characters, due to his status as a king of Israel who appears to have been mentioned in the royal annals of Israel (1 Kgs 14.19). While it could be argued along the lines suggested for Hiram of Tyre that Solomon's adversary is none other than the infamous Israelite king Jeroboam who ruled during the first half of the eighth century BCE as Uzziah's contemporary, whose prosperity so upset the Judahite court that he became a measuring stick of rebellion and evil to be retrojected to the early years of the Israelite monarchy as a negative object lesson,

188


there has been little reason to contemplate such a possibility. A later king might well take the name of the founder of a dynasty, even a short-lived one, and the failure of the royal annals to be quoted as a source for Saul, David and Solomon tends to suggest that the biblical writer has not extended them beyond the limits of the kings whose careers are chronicled therein. It can be noted that the first pharaoh known by name in the Bible is Shishak = Sheshonq, who is said to have been Jeroboam's contemporary, suggesting that some sort of annalistic source has recorded events in Israel as early as c. 927 BCE.47 Since Jeroboam's reign would fall within the period for which there are no extant texts from Assyria, his failure to be mentioned in these extrabiblical sources has no significance. More concrete confirmation of the existence of Jeroboam I may be provided by the royal seal bearing the legend Ism' 'bd yrb'm, 'belonging to Shema, the servant of Jeroboam', which was found at Megiddo during Schumacher's excavations from 1903-1905. It was located 1 m below surface level in the vicinity of the north wall of the large courtyard south of the building Schumacher called the (northern) Palace, and was assigned by him to Level V. It has traditionally been assumed that this seal reflects an administrator of Jeroboam II. However, S. Yeivin has argued that paleographically, the seal is not later than the mid-ninth century BCE and that artistically, it belongs to the 47. G. Garbini (History and Ideology in Ancient Israel [trans. J. Bowden; New York: Crossroad, 1988], pp. 29-30) and Knauf ('King Solomon's Copper Supply', p. 181) argue that Sheshonq's invasion of Palestine may have taken place during Solomon's reign rather than Jeroboam's and Rehoboam's. This is certainly possible; as noted by Garbini, the Dtr writer may have deflected this negative occurrence onto Solomon's successor so as not to detract unduly from his portrait of Solomon himself. In this case, however, it would have to be argued that the name of the pharaoh ultimately derives from a source that reflects actual events during the reign of Solomon. The failure of Sheshonq to name Jeroboam in the campaign list from his invasion is not proof against the latter's historicity, contra Thompson, Early History, pp. 306-307; the incompletely preserved list reflects the common Egyptian practice of naming individual settlements as though each were an independent entity. The failure to recognize the existence of the states of Philistia, Israel or Judah to which many of these settlements belonged may well be part of an ideological strategy by which the Egyptian scribes expressed the view that all settlements in Palestine were part of the Egyptian domain of Kharu, a domain that had not existed since the late eleventh century, but which may still have existed in Egyptian imperial ideology. According to this reasoning, Sheshonq's campaign in Palestine restored order in the old northern holdings rather than reconquered lost territory.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 189 tenth-ninth centuries BCE. In addition, he has noted that Schumacher's Stratum V corresponds to Stratum IV of the University of Chicago excavations that were subsequently made in adjoining squares. Stratum IV is dated from 950 to 814 BCE.48 G.W. Ahlstrom has recently reexamined the archaeological evidence and agrees with Yeivin that the seal belongs to Jeroboam I.49 While not constituting unassailable proof of his historicity, the seal bolsters the probability that there was a king of Israel named Jeroboam who reigned at the end of the tenth century BCE. Conclusion In the Deuteronomistic version of the account of Solomon's reign, the account of Jeroboam's career in 1 Kgs 11.26-14.20 immediately followed the prophetic announcement of judgment against Solomon for apostasy in 1 Kgs 11.1-13, illustrating the fulfillment of the divinely mediated word. The resulting punishment that fell on the succeeding generation reflects standard Deuteronomistic ideology. Subsequently, the stories of Hadad the Edomite and Rezon of Damascus were inserted in their present location in 1 Kgs 11.14-25 by someone who shared the Chronicler's theology of immediate retribution, which would require Solomon to have suffered personal punishment for his reported apostasy. In their current position, they postpone the account of the fulfillment of the prophecy of the division of the kingdom, introducing a temporary element of suspense as the audience awaits the fulfillment of the divine word. A post-Deuteronomistic writer introduced two adversaries so that he could make use of the pattern of threefold repetition with intensification. He linked Hadad and Rezon by introducing both as foreign satans raised up by Yahweh against Solomon (vv. 14, 23) who 'did mischief, intensifying Rezon's mischief over Hadad's by having the former be a satan 'all the days of Solomon' (v. 25). In so doing, he created a contrast with Jeroboam, who already stood in the book as non-royal insider. He appears, however, to have deliberately created links between his two new entries and Jeroboam by having Rezon prefigure Jeroboam's flight from his former royal master (vv. 23, 26, 40) and by having Hadad 48. S. Yeivin, The Date of the Seal "Belonging to Shema' (the) Servant (of) Jeroboam"', JNES 19 (I960), pp. 205-12. 49. G.W. Ahlstrom, The Seal of Shema", SJOT1 (1993), pp. 208-15.

190


prefigure Jeroboam's flight to Egypt for asylum and his remaining there until the death of the reigning Israelite king (vv. 17-22,40). In this way, he was able to make Jeroboam the third and final element in his literary pattern and imply that in spite of his selection by Yahweh to succeed Solomon, he was the most dangerous satan Solomon encountered.50 It does not appear that the writer derived his knowledge of either Hadad or Rezon from sources dating to Solomon's reign; both rulers seem to be fictional 'bad guys' created so that Solomon would personally suffer for his apostasy. Both characters are associated with two traditional enemies of Israel and Judah, Damascus and Edom, and are placed in the chronological setting of David's wars against Aram and Edom reported in 2 Sam. 8.3-14. Hadad's name seems to have been selected from the list of alleged Edomite kings in Gen. 36.31-39, perhaps because of the two closely related forms Hadad and Hadar in vv. 35 and 39, which drew attention to the name. His flight to Egypt was probably derived from the existing Jeroboam account in 1 Kgs 11.40 in order to create a parallel between the first and third elements in the threefold pattern of repetition with intensification and then anchored by reference back to 2 Sam. 8.13-14. His purported marriage to a member of the royal court appears to be further embellishment based on the motif 'marriage to Pharaoh's daughter'. The lack of specific names for the pharaoh or the wife betrays its artificiality. The fictitious nature of the Hadad tradition is further reinforced by the lack of archaeological evidence for the existence of a state of Edom in the late tenth century BCE. Rezon's fictive origin is suggested by his humorous name and his purported coup. In the apparent absence of source material, the writer once again turned to Jeroboam's reported early career, especially 1 Kgs 11.26-12.25, for inspiration. He created a character who, like Jeroboam, broke from his royal master to become an independent king, using stock literary imagery associated with a coup to fill out his portrait and 2 Sam. 8.3-14 as a plausible geographical and situational setting. He also added a touch of humor by naming his resulting 'bad guy' 'Ruler, son of God knows'. The possibility was considered that Rezon's career was based 50. Contrast the results of the literary-critical and grammatical analysis of 1 Kgs 11 reached by G. Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kon 11-12 (Miinchener Universitatsschriften: Katholisch-Theologische Fakultat; Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alien Testament, 21; Munich: Erzabtei St Ottilien, 1984), p. 268.

EDELMAN Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam 191 on the career of the later Damascene ruler Rahianu/Resin, who was a contemporary of Hiram II and Menahem of Israel, but was found to be unlikely. Since the Deuteronomist may well have created Solomon's Hiram of Tyre from information about Hiram II, he would have had no reason to alter the name of Resin to Rezon had he used the same source for his information. Rezon, like Hadad, is best understood as a postDeuteronomistic creation.

CULT IMAGES, ROYAL POLICIES AND THE ORIGINS OF ANICONISM

Carl D. Evans

Introduction G.W. Ahlstrom contributed significantly to the view that religion was an instrument of royal policy and administration in the ancient Near Eastern world.1 In organizing the cult, the king sought to bring the total life of the nation under the domain of the national deity. The king built a temple for the nation's god and constructed a palace for himself as the god's earthly regent. He established sanctuaries as cultic and administrative centers, and erected other structures for storage and security. He appointed priests and other civil servants to implement royal policy, and deployed military personnel. He fixed the religious calendar and fulfilled the cultic duties of the head of state. Thus 'religion was an arm of royal administration' .2 Religious iconography was also an important aspect of the national cult which the king administered. The accounts of the biblical historiographers indicate that kings set up or removed cult images whenever they engaged in cultic organization or reorganization.3 This can be seen, for example, in Jeroboam's manufacture and installation of bull images as part of the official Israelite cult (1 Kgs 12.28-29). Ahab is said to have 1. G.W. Ahlstrom, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (SHANE, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1982). For earlier discussions see, for example, A.S. Kapelrud, 'Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings', OrNS 32 (1963), pp. 56-62, and A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (ed. E. Reiner; Chicago: University of Chicago, rev. edn, 1977), pp. 95-109. 2. Ahlstrom, Royal Administration, p. 7. 3. The assertion that 'every king builds temples and is an image maker' (G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest [ed. D.V. Edelman; JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], p. 582) acknowledges part of the king's role. Kings also removed or destroyed temples and images in their cultic reorganization programs.

EVANS Origins ofAniconism 193

193

made an (1 Kgs 16.33). One can also point to Asa's destruction of Maacah's 'abominable image' for Asherah (1 Kgs 15.13). In addition to the destruction of Moses' bronze serpent, Hezekiah is said to have cut down an which was probably located in the Jerusalem temple (2 Kgs 18.4),4 an innovation which was reversed when Manasseh made a new and placed it in the temple (2 Kgs 21.3, 7; cf. 2 Chron. 33.3, 7).5 Josiah is said to have removed and destroyed the temple's (2 Kgs 23.6) as well as the located elsewhere (2 Kgs 23.14). Even if the biblical historiographers have invented some of these details to conform to their ideological views, they are surely correct that kings paid close attention to cult imagery. This was especially the case when major policies were established or changed. At some point, a tradition emerged which prohibited the use of certain cult images in Yahwistic religion. The Second Commandment of the Decalogue formulates the restriction as follows: 'You shall not make for yourself a graven image ' (Exod. 20.4; Deut. 5.8). Similar prohibitions occur elsewhere: Exod. 20.23 ('gods of silver' and 'gods of gold'); Exod. 34.17 ('gods of cast metal', ; cf. Lev. 19.4); Lev. 26.1 . These prohibitions, (graven image, Deut. 27.15 when taken as a whole, obviously proscribe the use of a variety of images, whether direct representations of gods or not, regardless of the material or method of manufacture. At the same time, other artistic representations in the service of the cult were allowed. The decorated ark, the cherubim and the golden menorah, for example, were never regarded as illegitimate. Neither were the images that could be seen before Solomon's temple, such as the bronze pillars, the molten sea, oxen, lions, palm trees and pomegranates. This has led R.P. Carroll to observe that 'the ban on images only related to objects of immediate worship and need not be viewed as a total condemnation of artistic forms of representation' .6 Clearly, the ancient 4. The text does not specify the location of the , but it is reasonable to assume that it would have been a part of the Jerusalem temple's cultic imagery. So, also, S.M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult ofYahweh in Israel (SBLMS, 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 9. 5. For a fuller discussion of Hezekiah as an 'innovator' and Manasseh as a 'traditionalist' in these matters, see Ahlstrom, Royal Administration, pp. 75-81. 6. R.P. Carroll, The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images', ST 31 (1977), pp. 51-64; for the quotation, see p. 52. Cf. J. Gutmann ('The "Second Commandment" and the Image in Judaism', HUCA 32 [1961], pp. 161-74) who

194


Israelites had notions of permitted and forbidden iconography, but the matter is more complex than the issue of whether an image was the object of 'immediate worship'. What is at issue is the question of how the divine realm is 'represented' by images and the further conundrum of the perceptions—mistaken and otherwise—that were associated with particular images in ancient Israel. Images and Representation In a recent study on idolatry, M. Halbertal and A. Margalit7 suggest that the distinction between forbidden and permitted imagery in the biblical tradition is based on the nature of the representation involved. Following the typology of representation set forth by C.S. Peirce,8 they distinguish between similarity-based representations, causal-metonymic representations and conventional representations. In similar representation, 'a' represents 'b' because 'a' is similar to 'b' in the way that a photograph of a person is similar to that person. In causal representation, 'a' represents 'b' because 'a' is related to 'b' by way of metonymy or association; a scepter represents a king not because it resembles him but because it belongs to him. In conventional representation, 'a' represents 'b' not by way of similarity or metonymy but because of convention: thus, to use their example, 'the word "cup" represents a cup, without any similarity or causal relation between the word and the object'.9 Halbertal and Margalit maintain that the biblical tradition forbids similarity-based representations of God, but allows metonymic representations. The cherubim, for example, are not forbidden because they are not similar to Yahweh and no one made the mistake of claiming that surveys the literary and archaeological evidence from the biblical and HellenisticRoman periods and concludes that 'a rigidly and uniformly anti-iconic attitude on the part of the Jews remains as much a myth as the Procrustean bed on which Jewish art history has so often been made to lie' (p. 174). 7. M. Halbertal and A. Margalit, Idolatry (trans. N. Goldblum; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). 8. See, for example, C.S. Peirce, The Icon, Index, and Symbol', in C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. II. Elements of Logic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), §§274-308. For other writings of Peirce on semiotics, see the collection Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic (ed. J. Hoopes; Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991). 9. Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, p. 38.


195

they looked like God. The cherubim represent Yahweh, however, in a metonymic way. They represent God because they are associated with Yahweh's chariot. The same logic explains why the golden calves could have been viewed as legitimate in the Northern Kingdom. They were regarded as metonymic rather than similarity-based images. As for the third type of representation, the biblical tradition allows a remarkable degree of freedom in the linguistic descriptions of God. The failure to distinguish between similarity-based and causalmetonymic representations often leads to the accusation of idolatry.10 Thus, in the case of the golden calves, an accuser may reject these images as idolatrous on the mistaken assumption that they were intended to be similar to Yahweh in appearance or, worse yet, that they had taken the place of Yahweh as an object of devotion. These erroneous perceptions, whether innocent or willful, can lead to a polemic against certain images as well as to a desire for an imageless cult. The instruments of royal policy-making were especially effective in propagating mistaken views of unwanted images. We shall return to these issues below. Theories about Israel's Aniconic Tradition Scholars frequently observe that aniconism and exclusive monotheism are the two features of Israelite religion which most clearly define its differences from the other religions of the ancient Near Eastern world. But these marks of distinction prove to be very elusive when one inquires as to when and why they emerged in ancient Israel.11 Recent studies, however, have led to the general conclusion that the highly distinctive features of Israelite religion resulted from 'a process of evolution, not revolution'.12 Attempts to set forth the details of this evolutionary process indicate that considerable divergence remains on fundamental issues. Among these issues are questions concerning the origins of the aniconic tradition and the scope of its application. Did an 10. Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, p. 49. 11. See T.N.D. Mettinger, 'The Elusive Essence: YHWH, El and Baal and the Distinctiveness of Israelite Faith', in E. Bluhm, C. Macholz and E.W. Stegemann (eds.), Die Hebrdische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift fiir Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), pp. 393-417. 12. The phrase is Mettinger's ('Elusive Essence', p. 413).

196


early aniconic conception of Yahweh evolve eventually into a prohibition on all divine images?13 Or is the notion of an aniconic Yahweh a retrojection from a later period when all divine images were prohibited? And perhaps most slippery of all is the question of the underlying rationale and purpose of the aniconic tradition. Earlier theories about the aniconic tradition in ancient Israel have been summarized and critiqued in an illuminating article by R.S. Hendel, who sets forth a new proposal of his own.14 Acknowledging the 'West-Semitic cast of Israel's religion',15 Hendel considers the Israelite prohibition of divine images to be one of the most striking features differentiating Israel's religion from that of its neighbors. He points out that this differentiating feature is found not only in the Pentateuchal laws which proscribe making or worshipping divine images (cited above) but also in the comparative absence of divine images in the material remains of Israelite culture. Hendel identifies four distinct views set forth by previous scholars who have addressed this problem. W. Zimmerli16 argued that Yahweh was understood by the Israelites to be a god of history, as opposed to the nature gods of the ancient Near East, and thus the mere act of making a divine image to represent Yahweh would be an infringement upon the freedom of Yahweh. A closely related view, also set forth by Zimmerli in the same essay, is that because Yahweh was understood to act freely in history this means that Israel's god was immune to magical manipulation.17 A third view, proposed by G. von Rad, is that Yahweh's transcendent and hidden nature was at the basis of Israel's aniconic

13. W.W. Hallo (Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King', in J.A. Emerton [ed.], Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986 [VTSup, 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988]) suggests that 'it is possible that an essentially aniconic ethos (as applied to Israel's God) coexisted with a more tolerant attitude towards other icons from Mosaic to Deuteronomic times' (p. 55). 14. R.S. Hendel, The Social Origins of the Aniconic Tradition in Early Israel', CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 365-82. 15. Hendel, 'Social Origins', p. 365. 16. W. Zimmerli, 'Das Zweite Gebot', in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsdtze zum Alten Testament (TBu, 19; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1963), pp. 23448. 17. Cf. K.-H. Bernhardt, Gott und Bild: Bin Beitrag zur Begriindung und Deutung des Bilderverbotes im Alten Testament (Theologische Arbeiten, 2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1956), pp. 152-54.


197

tradition. 18 Still a fourth view, advocated by O. Keel19 and C. Dohmen,20 is that the prohibition arose to contrast Yahweh with the gods of Canaan. The latter were approached by means of cultic images, and to avoid association of Yahweh with the Canaanite deities the prohibition on images was introduced. This view, then, attributes Israel's aniconic tradition to an anti-Canaanite bias.21 Hendel correctly shows the inadequacy of these views, for they each assume greater differences between the religion of Israel and the religion of its neighbors on these points than was actually the case.22 Other gods were also gods of history; pagan deities were not generally considered to be available for magical manipulation; other gods in the ancient Near East were transcendent deities whose ways remained hidden from their worshippers; the view that Israel's 'anti-Canaanite' stance accounts for the prohibition fails to give an adequate explanation because Israel also adapted much of Canaanite culture. The last point requires additional comment. Recent studies have established that Israel's emergence as a sociopolitical entity out of the Canaanite milieu was the result of a much 18. Referring to the way Yahweh was related to the world, von Rad states: 'However powerful his sway in it was, theologically he still transcended it. Nature was not a mode of Jahweh's being; he stood over it as its Creator. This means that the commandment forbidding images is bound up with the hidden way in which Jahweh's revelation came about in cult and history' (Old Testament Theology [trans. D.M.G. Stalker; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962], I, p. 218). 19. O. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst: Eine neue Deutung der Majestatsschilderungen in Jes 6, Ez 1 und 10 und Sach 4 (SBS, 84-85; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 37-45. 20. C. Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot: Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung imAlten Testament (BBB, 62; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1985), pp. 237-44, esp. pp. 23940. 21. Other theories on the prohibition of images not discussed by Hendel—that it derives from the prohibition against the vain use of Yahweh's name, that it is a reaction against the theriomorphic cults of Egypt, that it issues from the theological view that the image of God is in humankind and so on—are discussed in Carroll, 'The Aniconic God', pp. 54-56. Joseph Gutmann attributes the law forbidding images to the desert experience of the Israelite tribes. Its purpose was 'to assure loyalty to the invisible Yahweh' and to keep the Israelites 'from creating idols or adopting the idols of the many sedentary cultures with which they came in contact during their desert sojourn' ('The "Second Commandment'", p. 163). 22. See B. Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (ConBOT, 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1967).

198


different process than that imagined by earlier historians.23 Instead of an encounter of Yahwism and Canaanite religion and culture which began when the generation after Moses entered Canaan, resulting in various kinds and degrees of syncretism between two quite different religious systems, we must now think of Yahwism as a religious system which became differentiated from the traditional heritage of Canaan at a much later period. Consequently, the questions we must now ask are quite different from those which guided the researches of previous historians.24 In response to the claim that Israel's aniconism arose from an 'anti-Canaanite' bias, the pertinent questions should now inquire as to when and why the use of divine images was eventually rejected as 'Yahwism' became differentiated from its Canaanite heritage. Hendel argues that early Israel's opposition to kingship provides the best explanation for the aniconic tradition. The anti-kingship bias, which Hendel locates in several early traditions,25 reflects the development of a fundamental shift in the basic structure of Israelite religion and society which took place in the formative period of Israel. As the society moved in the direction of an established monarchy, opposition to kingship was reflected on the level of religious iconography.26 In ancient Near Eastern 23. For some of the more significant studies, see especially G.W. Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986); I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (trans. D. Saltz; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988); and N.P. Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (VTSup, 37; Leiden: Brill, 1985). 24. M.S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990) makes an important contribution toward reformulation of the issues. 25. Hendel specifically cites Gideon's rejection of kingship in Judg. 8, Jotham's fable and the rejection of Abimelech's kingship in Judg. 9, and the 'anti-monarchic' source in 1 Sam. 8 and 10.17-27. 26. J.M. Kennedy (The Social Background of Early Israel's Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal', BTB 17 [1987], pp. 138-44) proposes that Israel's rejection of cultic images resulted from early Israel's revolutionary struggle against the oppressive 'priestly/political hierarchies' of the Canaanite city-state system—the images being used in such a system as a religious instrument 'to enhance the ruling elite's control over production and distribution of agricultural goods' (p. 141). Cf. N.K. Gottwald's observations: 'Renunciation of idolatry meant... that precisely in the "religious" act, peasants and herders were simultaneously refusing to reproduce and legitimate the prevailing hierarchies. The "unseen God" of Israel, receiving the "tribute" due, turned it back in large measure to the people who produced it' (review of Ancient Judaism, by I.M. Zeitlin, Rel 16 [1986], pp. 383-87; the quotation comes


199

ideology, he observes, 'the king was regarded as the earthly representative of the gods, and as such the image of the god was a symbol of the legitimacy of the earthly king' .27 Thus, the prohibition on the image of Yahweh was a natural extension of the anti-kingship bias. This also explains why, in Israel's identification of Yahweh with El who was 'enthroned on the cherubim', Israel could use the same epithet for Yahweh (1 Sam. 4.4; 2 Sam. 6.2; cf. 2 Kgs 19.15; Pss. 80.2 and 99.1), but refrained from a visual representation of Yahweh on the cherubim. Mendel's search for the social origins of aniconism is clearly a fitting way to proceed. It would be a mistake, however, to discount completely every theological ground for the prohibition on images, even if the Israelite understanding of Yahweh's freedom, transcendence and so on cannot completely explain the motivation behind Israel's aniconic tradition. If, as Hendel suggests, the problem must be understood within the total socio-cultural reality of ancient Israel, then one element of that total reality would have been the worldview which formed the rationale for the symbolization of order in the society as a whole. Hendel's proposal, while heading in the right direction, does not end up at the right place. In the first place, if one considers the account of the cultic foundations that Jeroboam I provided for the Northern Kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12.28-33), the production of cult images stands at the head of the list of the several measures that the new king introduced. And this follows the bad experience that the Israelites had had with kingship, especially under Solomon! Is it logical that Jeroboam, who had earlier led a revolt against Solomon's oppressive social and economic policies, would inaugurate the new Israelite kingdom by making cult images and presenting them to the people if the motivation for the prohibition of images were an anti-kingship bias? A second reservation is this: strictly speaking, Hendel's proposal is meant to address the issue of the prohibition of the image of Yahweh. But the aniconic tradition, at least in its elaborated form as reflected in the expansions to the Second Commandment of the Decalogue, prohibited more than the artistic representation of Yahweh. Hendel is aware of this and proposes that his view accounts also for the prohibition of from p. 386). These views, while valuable in exploring the social function of images, fail to explain all the evidence. A case in point is Jeroboam's use of bull images in a revolt that was designed to liberate the north Israelites from the oppression of the Solomonic state. On this, see the discussion below. 27. Hendel, 'Social Origins', p. 380.

200


divine images in general. He states: 'the prohibition of divine images was, in origin, a natural extension of the early Israelite bias against kingship in its social and religious dimensions'.28 But this leaves a basic question unanswered: what accounts for the tolerance of certain images in the Yahwistic cult long after the emergence of the monarchy and the social origins of the aniconic emphasis as proposed by Hendel? The issue seems to be more complex than simply an anti-kingship bias. Thus, Hendel's analysis has led to conclusions which are unsatisfactory. But he is surely on the right track when he inquires about social origins and sees that religious symbolism was used to legitimate political and social policies instituted by kings. The Issue of Differentiation The origins of the aniconic tradition in ancient Israel, I shall argue, can be found in the complex of social forces that produced an exclusive Yahwism in the late monarchic period. Fundamental changes took place in Judah following the destruction of Israel. We need only mention the immigration of Israelites into Judah, the devastation of Judah by the Assyrians at the end of the eighth century BCE, and the frequent changes in royal policy from Hezekiah onward to indicate the profundity of these changes. One fundamental change in Judahite society was the rejection of divine images and other cult objects as Yahwism was defined in more exclusive terms than ever before. The issue before us is what Mark Smith refers to as 'differentiation'— the process by which 'numerous features of early Israelite cult were rejected as Canaanite and non-Yahwistic'.29 Exod. 34.11-16, for example, warns against making a covenant with 'the inhabitants of the land'—identified here as Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, 28. Hendel, 'Social Origins', p. 381 n. 74. For a related study, see Hallo, 'Texts, Statues', who also sets the contrast between Mesopotamian and Israelite attitudes toward divine images in the context of the different views of kingship in the two cultures. Hallo points out, however, that just as Israelite attitudes toward artistic representations of deity underwent an evolution over time, a parallel evolution of the cult statue occurred in Mesopotamia: 'beginning with the deceased ruler (and his kin), passing on to the deified ruler, and concluding with the living god by the side of the deceased king' (p. 63). 29. See Smith, Early History, especially pp. 145-60, for an insightful analysis of the dual roles of convergence and differentiation in the evolution of Israelite religion. The quotation comes from p. xxiv.


201

Hivites and Jebusites—lest their ways become a snare to the worshippers of Yahweh. Instead, observant Yahwists are instructed to destroy the native altars, and The rationale for such action is that no other god besides the jealous Yahweh is to be worshipped (v. 14). The clear implication is that the cult objects that are to be destroyed are used to worship other gods (cf. vv. 16-17), despite the evidence that in various circles and were acceptable features of the Yahwistic cult.30 Thus, the differentiation process sought to define 'Yahwism' in narrow and exclusive terms. The native altars, masn and D'~fflto were rejected as 'non-Yahwistic', even though other Yahweh worshippers included these features in their form of 'Yahwism'. In most cases the terms and D'lBt* refer to a stylized wooden pole or poles which symbolized the goddess Asherah, but in other cases the evidence suggests that Asherah was represented by an image (for example, 1 Kgs 15.13; 2 Kgs 21.7). These and other cult images were rejected as strict 'Yahwism' was defined and implemented. This can be seen in the case of Jeroboam's 'golden calves'. In the calf images we have a prime example of a native Israelite cultic feature which was later rejected as Canaanite. A study of the polemic against these images will bring us closer to understanding the origins of aniconism. Calf and Bull Images and Imagery in the Worship of Yahweh Many scholars are agreed that Jeroboam I's religious measures, which were instituted to provide an official cultic establishment for the Northern Kingdom, were restorative in character.31 Keeping in mind 30. For evidence of the legitimacy of the see Gen. 28.18, 22; 31.13, 45; 35.14, 20. In Exod. 24.4 Moses builds an altar at the foot of Mount Sinai and sets up twelve pillars to ratify the covenant between Yahweh and the people of Israel. Although a distinction between the and the cultic object is proposed by some (see, for example, Smith, Early History, p. 81, and the literature cited there), others assume that both terms refer to wooden cult objects that symbolized the goddess Asherah (for a discussion of the various views, see J. Day, 'Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature', JBL 105 [1986], pp. 385-408). For a survey and discussion of the biblical evidence which indicates that the mete was 'a standard and legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh in non-deuteronomistic circles', see Olyan, Asherah (pp. 1-22). 31. The literature on Jeroboam as an archaizer is extensive. See, for example, the following: S. Talmon, 'Divergences in Calendar-Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah', VT 8 (1958), pp. 48-74; P.M. Cross, 'The Priestly Houses of Early Israel', in

202


that the Israelites had proved to be restive to the point of rebellion because of the innovations32 introduced by David and Solomon, it is unlikely that Jeroboam, had he been too innovative, could have maintained, as he did for twenty-two years, sufficient support to remain in power. The new king was wise enough to know that his Israelite subjects wanted to return to traditional ways of life, so he took steps to accomplish just that. This is evident, for example, in his choice of Bethel and Dan as official cult places.33 Unlike Jerusalem, whose Israelite associations went back no further than David, Jeroboam's national sanctuaries were located at traditional cultic sites from the period of the Judges (in the case of Dan) and the time of the ancestors (in the case of Bethel). The same can be said for his choice of priests34 and the cultic calendar that he followed.35 Given the archaizing tendencies evident in other aspects of Jeroboam's official cult, it is natural to inquire whether his choice of calf images reflects the same tendencies. Apart from the Exodus 32 narrative which places the manufacture of a calf image at the foot of Mount Sinai (most likely a retrojection from a later period), there are reasons to believe that a calf or bull image was used in Yahweh worship prior to the time of Jeroboam I.36 The evidence is admittedly indirect, and therefore must remain inconclusive. But it is plausible to conjecture that the obliqueness of the evidence is due to the work of later redactors who sought to Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 195-215, esp. pp. 198-99; B. Halpern, 'Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I', JBL 95 (1976), pp. 31-42; H. Motzki, 'Bin Beitrag zum Problem des Stierkultes in der Religionsgeschichte Israels', VT 25 (1975), pp. 470-85; J. Hahn, Das 'Goldene Kalb': Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildem in der Geschichte Israels (Europaische Hochschulschriften [Reihe 23, Theologie; Band 154]; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1981), esp. pp. 344-47. 32. I am including here the political, social and economic innovations as well as the religious ones. In the context to which I refer, any separation of the religious sphere from the others would be artificial. 33. See, for example, Hahn, 'Goldene Kalb', pp. 338-47. 34. Cf., especially, the discussion by Cross and Halpern in the works mentioned inn. 31. 35. Talmon, 'Divergences in Calendar-Reckoning'. 36. There are a number of studies which have examined the evidence I discuss below. See, for example, G.W. Coats, 'The Golden Calf in Psalm 22', HBT9 (1987), pp. 1-12 , esp. pp. 4-7.


203

obscure this part of Israel's past, allowing the calf image to remain only as a reminder of the evils of idolatry. The Balaam oracles twice present the following affirmation: 'God brings them37 out of Egypt; He is like the horns of a wild ox (Num. 23.22; 24.8).38 Coats suggests that the wild ox was the animal that served as the symbol of Moses' leadership in the exodus, and that this bovine symbolism has been preserved in the Balaam oracles in its original positive connotation.39 The term which is used of the manufactured animal in Exodus 32, Coats proposes, is a polemical substitute for . 40 While it is possible that the term is a pejorative 41 term, the association of with Moses should not be divorced from its obvious associations with Yahweh, and this pertains to the Balaam oracles as much as it does to Psalm 22. In the latter, as Coats has shown, v. 22b (English v. 21b) should be rendered: 'You [Yahweh] have answered me from the horns of the ,42 Thus, we have in these references various reflexes of a traditional association of Yahweh with the wild ox, or, more specifically, with the horns of the wild ox. The picture that emerges is that Yahweh was understood to be enthroned above the 37. At Num. 24.8 the MT reads 'He brings him [Jacob/Israel] out' 38. This understanding of the verse is similar to that of Coats ('The Golden Calf); cf. N.H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NCB; London: Nelson, 1967), p. 295 n. 22. For the contrary view that the expression no rajnro refers to Israel, not God, see, for example, W.F. Albright, The Oracles of Balaam', JBL 63 (1944), p. 215 n. 47; M. Noth, Das vierte Buck Mose: Numeri (ATD, 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), pp. 163-64; P.J. Budd, Numbers (WBC, 5; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), p. 255 n. 22b. But Coats correctly points out that the image of the horns of the wild ox is used here precisely in connection with an exodus formula, leading to the conclusion that the animal in question had traditional associations with the exodus. 39. Coats, 'Golden Calf. 40. Coats, 'Golden Calf, p. 5. 41. According to M. Dahood, Ugaritic 'gl is parallel to tar ('bull') in UT 51 VL41-42 (CTA 4 VL41-42); also UT 124:12-13 (CTA 22 B: 12-13). See L.R. Fisher, Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible (AnOr, 49; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972), II, p. 608. In Hebrew, the same word-pair C?a»AnB?) is used in Ps. 106.19-20 where the reference is to the apostasy represented by the image made at Horeb. 42. According to Coats's analysis, which I find convincing, the shift from petition to affirmation in Psalm 22 occurs between v. 22a and v. 22b. Without any emendation of the MT, the verse reads: 'Save me from the mouth of the lion. You have answered me from the horns of the wild ox ('Golden Calf, p. 7).

204


horns of the wild ox, analogous to the alternate iconographic tradition which understood that Yahweh was enthroned above the cherubim. Both images fall into the category of metonymic representation, as discussed above. The metonymic association of Yahweh with ox, bull and calf imagery explains why bovine creatures figure so prominently in Solomon's construction projects. The 'molten sea', it will be recalled (1 Kgs 7.23-26), was supported by twelve oxen ,43 and the top of Solomon's throne, according to the consonantal text of 1 Kgs 10.19, was decorated with the head of a calf 44 Piecemeal as the evidence is, there is reason to believe that bovine symbolism was used in a variety of ways in association with Israel's God—and this appears to be the case, from the evidence examined thus far, as late as the time of Solomon. Still another kind of evidence pertinent to this discussion is the divine epithet usually rendered 'Mighty One of Jacob' in the English translations. It occurs five times: Gen. 49.24; Isa. 49.26; 60.16; Ps. 132.2, 5; the similar occurs at Isa. 1.24. The same consonants, appear several times in the Hebrew Bible with a dagesh in the second radical, and in some of these instances the reference is clearly to a bull— for example, Isa. 10.13; 34.7; Ps. 50.13; 68.31 (Eng. 68.30). A.S. Kapelrud's conclusion is apt: 'from the way in which the Massoretes distinguished between the form of the word with a daghesh and without a daghesh in pointing a purely consonantal text, it may be concluded they clearly heard in the word the idea of a bull'.45 Thus, the divine epithet could be translated 'Bull of Jacob/Israel'. It is impossible to say how widespread the use of the bull image in pre-monarchical Israel was, but the 'Bull of Jacob' divine epithet, when taken with other evidence, provides a clue to one possible location where the image was used, that is, Bethel. We note, first of all, that important Jacob traditions have been localized at that site (Gen. 28.1022; Gen. 35.1-15). It is plausible, therefore, that the 'Bull of Jacob' would have been one of Yahweh's epithets at Bethel. Moreover, reference is 43. The term is not the same, but the bovine character of the animals is. Whatever symbolism the 'sea' and supporting oxen may have had in the larger world, I would suggest that, in Solomon's context, associations with Yahweh were intended. 44. This understanding follows the LXX (which actually reads 'calves' heads') instead of the MT which has pointed to read 'rounded top' instead of 'calf s head'. 45. A.S. Kapelrud, 'TDK 'abhir, 'abbir', in TDOT, I, p. 42.


205

made in Judg. 20.28 to Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, who ministered before the ark when it was located at Bethel. Thus, various Old Testament traditions have preserved a cluster of associations— Jacob, 'Bull of Jacob', Aaron, Bethel—which have suggested, further, a way of understanding the origin of Exodus 32. One suggestion is that the earliest tradition underlying Exodus 32 is a legend about the founding of a bull-cult at Bethel.46 However the connection of Bethel and Exodus 32 is understood, scholars often make the more modest suggestion that underlying the earliest tradition of Exodus 32 is a historical reminiscence that the bull-cult began with Aaron.47 In any case, bull iconography had strong associations with Aaronids and Bethel before the time of Jeroboam. This lends support to the view that Jeroboam was no innovator when he set up the images of golden calves in Bethel and Dan. The Polemic against Jeroboam's Images The account of Jeroboam's cultic organization in 1 Kgs 12.28-33 should not be dismissed as entirely unhistorical, despite the Deuteronomistic polemical Tendenz which has given the narrative its present character. Analysis suggests that the passage is based on an earlier Israelite cultic tradition which preserves a memory of the official cultic measures instituted by Jeroboam. Each of several measures, which set up different aspects of the official religious establishment, is introduced by the verbal form : golden calves (cult images); temples (sacred places); priests (religious personnel); a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month (holy days). And then the text says that Jeroboam offered a sacrifice (ritual acts) on the altar which he had made in Bethel. Such a complete description of a cultic establishment—cult images, sacred places, religious personnel, holy days and ritual acts—is not what we 46. See, for example, J.P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), pp. 301-302. According to this view, Aaron's manufacture of the bull image would have been presented favorably in the cult legend. 47. See, for example, M. Aberbach and L. Smolar, 'Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves', JBL 86 (1967), pp. 129-40. Aberbach and Smolar state: 'In this tradition, Aaron, so far from acting reprehensively, may well have been the originator of a genuine Israelite form of worship which retained its popularity during the period of religious and political anarchy prior to the establishment of the monarchy' (p. 134).

206


would expect to find if this account were a fabrication of the Deuteronomistic Historian. The historian, it seems, has preserved the memory of what Jeroboam did in the realm of the official cult, only to pass a negative judgment on each of its features.48 When Jeroboam presented to his people the calf images which he had made, he explicitly identified them with the God49 'who brought you up from the land of Egypt' (1 Kgs 12.28). That deity, of course, is none other than Yahweh. Even in Exodus 32, it is clear that the golden calf was intended for the worship of Yahweh. This is indicated not only by the exodus formula in vv. 4 and 8,50 but also by Aaron's announcement in v. 5: Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh'. Why, then, the consistent polemic against the use of calf images in the worship of Yahweh? When did the polemic first appear? Who would have been interested in originating the polemic, and for what reasons? W.I. Toews has made the case for seeing Hosea as the originator of the polemic against Jeroboam's bull iconography.51 Hosea's polemic 48. I have suggested elsewhere that 'although the account is overlaid with the Deuteronomist's polemical judgements, there is good reason to believe that the details pertaining to Jeroboam's cultic program are essentially reliable' ('Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography', in W.W. Hallo, J.C. Moyer and L.G. Perdue [eds.], Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983], p. 120). To the rationale set forth there for positing an earlier, possibly archival, source for this account, I suggest here that the repetitive use of to introduce Jeroboam's cultic measures provides additional support. Ahlstrom's wellfounded skepticism in giving historical credence to the claims of the Deuteronomistic History does not prevent him from finding in Jeroboam a traditionalist in religious matters. See his History of Ancient Palestine, pp. 550-54. 49. The plural verb, indicates that the subject of the action should be translated 'gods' rather than 'God'. It is not clear whether the plural is used here with reference to the plurality of images (but one God), or whether the Deuteronomistic redactor intended the plural verb to evoke the understanding that Jeroboam's images represented 'gods'. 50. What is said in the previous note about the plural verb in the exodus formula found in vv. 4 and 8 (requiring as its subject 'gods' instead of 'God') applies here as well. 51. W.I. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I (SBLMS, 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 151-72. Cf. T.N.D. Mettinger, The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God in Ancient Israel' (trans. S. Westerholm), in H. Biezais (ed.), Religious Symbols and their Functions (Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis, 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979), pp. 15-29, who maintains that,


207

against the bull iconography of the Israelite cult (8.1-6; 10.1-6; 13.1-3), according to Toews, should not be taken as an isolated phenomenon. It is grounded in the same principles which prompt Hosea to condemn other aspects of the Israelite cult, especially the altars, pillars and sanctuaries. The basic problem, as Toews sees it, is that while all of these aspects of the Israelite cult were intended to be representations 'to point the worshiper to Yahweh', they had lost their representative function and thus had become 'the object of devotion and of misplaced confidence'.52 Thus we find in Hosea an aniconic tendency which is rooted in his conviction that the calf images and other features of the Israelite cult had failed to promote covenant loyalty because they 'had become instruments of false worship'.53 In other words, Hosea's criticism of the calf images was based on his perception that the Israelites had substituted these images for Yahweh. Had there been no perception of substitution, however, Hosea's polemics offer no other rationale for opposing the images. Apart from reservations about Toews's confidence in the authenticity of the crucial texts in Hosea,54 one can question whether the utterances of any prophet would have carried sufficient weight to change longstanding attitudes and practices embedded in the social fabric of the nation. If we were to concede that Toews is justified in finding 'a very significant aniconic tendency' in Hosea's prophetic pronouncements,55 we would still need to explain how the aniconic tendency became an ideological principle for those in positions of authority and how their views were transferred to the society as a whole. As mentioned at the beginning, it was the responsibility of the king to by Hosea's time, the symbol of the bull had come to be associated with Baal or a 'baalized' Yahweh. But Toews correctly observes that there is no unambiguous evidence that Hosea identified the bull icon with Baal. For Toews, Hosea begins the aniconic emphasis for another reason. 52. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, p. 168. 53. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, p. 168. 54. In his analysis of other materials, for example, 1 Kgs 13.1-32, Judg. 17-18, Exod. 32 and 1 Kgs 14.1-18, Toews displays a splendid sense of the multiple layers of composition and redaction. His treatment of the book of Hosea, however, lacks the same rigor of critical analysis. He assumes, but does not demonstrate, that 8.1-6, 10.1 -6 and 13.1 -3 are authentic to Hosea. For a critical analysis which leads to different conclusions, see G. A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS, 102; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). 55. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, p. 168.

208


organize the national cult. The king made, or destroyed, cult images in carrying out royal policies. It follows, therefore, that we should look for the origins of aniconism in a period when royal iconoclastic practices were integral to cult reorganization programs. In such a setting the prohibition on images, especially when written into laws which claimed ancient authority, would have provided the ideological rationale for the king's iconoclastic actions. More than an aniconic tendency, as has been argued for Hosea, we would then have an official policy of aniconism. Official aniconism was expressed for the first time in the Deuteronomistic polemic against Jeroboam's calf images. The scribes accused Jeroboam of worshipping 'other gods' (1 Kgs 14.9). From the Deuteronomistic perspective, the use of bull iconography in the north was a 'sin' (1 Kgs 12.30) and added credibility to the charge that the people 'followed the nations that were around them' (2 Kgs 17.15); in doing so they rejected all Yahweh's commandments 'and made for themselves a —two calves; they made an worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal' (2 Kgs 17.16).56 In this Deuteronomistic peroration on the fall of the north, the calf images head the list of non-Yahwistic cult practices which resulted from imitation of the nations. If we recall that Jehu's Yahweh-inspired purge of Israel's national cult left the calf images untouched (2 Kgs 10.29), we can conclude that this disparaging view of the north's bull iconography (as well as other features of the northern cult) represents a type of Yahwism never known in Israel. This prompted Ahlstrom to observe: 'Obviously Jehu had not established the form of Yahweh religion that the narrator embraced and propagated'.57

56. For a perceptive study which finds in 2 Kgs 17.7-23 a 'chorus of answers' to the question of why the north was exiled, see M. Brettler, 'Ideology, History and Theology in 2 Kings xvii 7-23', VT39 (1989), pp. 268-82. Brettler's careful analysis of grammatical and stylistic features leads to the conclusion that 2 Kgs 17.7-23 is made up of four separate units which 'cannot be accounted for by positing a single or even a double redaction' of Dtr (p. 282). 57. G.W. Ahlstrom, 'King Jehu—A Prophet's Mistake', in A.L. Merrill and T.W. Overholt (eds.), Scripture in History & Theology: Essays in Honor ofJ. Coert Rylaarsdam (PTMS, 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1977), p. 61.


209

The Social Origins ofAniconism in the Cult Programs ofHezekiah and Josiah

Indeed, the Yahwism reflected in the Deuteronomistic corpus was a different type of Yahwism. The scribes who produced this literature promulgated a conception of Yahwism which, according to Weinfeld's assessment, 'represents a turning point in the evolution of the faith of Israel'.58 Like Weinfeld, I shall argue that this transformation of the cult of Yahweh took place in the period from Hezekiah to Josiah, and that the Deuteronomistic literature was produced in this period by royal scribes to provide both a law code (Deuteronomy) and a national history (the Deuteronomistic History) to support the religio-social programs of these kings. I shall not speak of 'reforms', however, because that language inevitably suggests a purging of pagan accretions from a more traditional religion—as is the case for Weinfeld. His comments about Hezekiah's 'reform' are particularly telling: We have to do here with deeds intended to purge pagan elements from Israelite religion. As is well known, the Canaanite cult was based on high places, which contained stone pillars and wooden symbols, and it seems that the inconoclastic [sic] stream that started in the north developed the struggle not only against the golden calves but also against high places, pillars, and Asherim.59

The problem with this way of thinking is that it assumes a clear-cut distinction between 'Israelite religion' and the 'pagan elements' that were 'purged' from it. It is more likely that such a distinction was created by the Deuteronomistic scribes and projected onto the literature they produced. They undertook this radical redefinition of Yahwism to justify Hezekiah's and Josiah's innovations in the sphere of religion. This is not to deny affinities between the Deuteronomistic ideology and the book of Hosea, which Weinfeld takes as evidence of the influence of Hosea on the scribes who produced the Deuteronomistic literature.60 It is very difficult, however, to take such affinities as evidence of a 'stream' of thinking which explains the iconoclastic actions of a Hezekiah or a Josiah. One could argue, for example, that Ahaz was 58. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB, 5; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), p. 37. 59. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1—11, p. 47. 60. See, especially, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, pp. 44-50.

210


an iconoclast of sorts, because according to 2 Kgs 16.17 he removed from outside the Jerusalem temple the bronze bulls which supported the molten sea and also the basin stands, which were decorated with lions, bulls and cherubim (see 1 Kgs 7.29). The biblical narrator says that Ahaz did this 'because of the king of Assyria' (2 Kgs 16.18), indicating that the purpose was to pay tribute. Thus Ahaz's removal of imagery was an iconoclasm necessitated by political exigencies. This merely underscores the hazards of assuming that Hezekiah's or Josiah's removal of images was prompted by an iconoclastic 'stream' of thinking. That could be the case; but there are other possible explanations, as the example of Ahaz demonstrates. Moreover, the presumed affinities between the iconoclasm of Hosea and the ideology of the Deuteronomistic scribes may be due to the editorial work of those same scribes on the book of Hosea. Rather than positing a 'stream' of thinking that influenced the development of iconoclastic royal policies, it is more plausible to posit that aniconic thinking was developed to justify policies that called for the elimination of images. Aniconism, in other words, had its origins in the social rather than the theological realm. According to the biblical accounts, Hezekiah and Josiah introduced radical changes in the national religion of Judah. For each king the destruction of divine images was part of a much more extensive cult reorganization program. The kings are said to have eliminated similar features of the national religion— , pillars, the image of and the bronze serpent, in the case of Hezekiah; vessels for Baal, Asherah and the host of heaven, the image of pillars, and so on in the case of Josiah—and yet these measures may not have been undertaken for the same reasons. Halpern makes the same point with the observation that 'Josiah's historians presumed the ideological congruence of Hezekiah's and Josiah's cultic policies'.61 He offers detailed reasons for interpreting Hezekiah's measures as integral to Judah's defense against Sennacherib's invasion and argues that Josiah's more extreme measures were the result of forces set in motion by Hezekiah. In Josiah's policy we see the 'exclusivist logic' of Hezekiah's elite carried to its 'logical extreme'.62 61. B. Halpern, 'Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability', in B. Halpern and D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOTSup, 124; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 69. 62. Halpern, 'Jerusalem and the Lineages', p. 78.

EVANS Origins of Aniconism

211

With Hezekiah's and Josiah's removal of the provincial sanctuaries and the suppression of the traditional religion practiced in them, Yahwism was transformed into the religion defined by the royal scribes in Jerusalem. But the transformation cut against the religious fibre of the nation, as the reversion to more traditional ways in Manasseh's reign indicates. If Hezekiah's cult reorganization had been justified by the requirements of defense, the realignment under Josiah required the extensive literary efforts of the royal scribes who articulated the new ideological vision. The Torah scroll 'found' in the temple set forth the view that Josiah's innovations were actually requirements delivered from Yahweh to Moses and that the features of the traditional cult which Josiah eliminated were 'alien' accretions from Israel's 'Canaanite' neighbors. The main challenge to the Yahwism propagated by Hezekiah and Josiah came from traditionalists—both those native to Judah and those who had immigrated to Judah from the territory of the Northern Kingdom.63 The former group's influence was neutralized by the cultic reorganization carried out by Hezekiah and Josiah. The latter group's Yahwism, symbolized by bull iconography, had traditionally been a rival to the Jerusalem cult; hence, the presence of Northerners in Jerusalem was disturbing to the new royal thinking. The Deuteronomists thwarted the influence of these 'aliens' by developing the polemic against the golden calves.64 Their polemic betrays a mistaken perception (probably willful) of the calf images, charging that they were 'other gods'. By this distortion, a metonymic representation of Yahweh was made to appear as entirely 63. For the expansion of Jerusalem caused by refugees who fled from the north after the fall of Israel, as well as refugees from the kingdom of Judah who were dislocated by events surrounding Sennacherib's invasion in 701 BCE, see M. Broshi, 'The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh', IEJ 24 (1974), pp. 21-26. 64. In his last book, Ahlstrom leaned toward the view that the Deuteronomistic History was a post-exilic creation on the grounds that the religious system presupposed by the Josianic 'reform' did not exist until after the exile (History of Ancient Palestine, p. 777). Assuming that the Deuteronomistic historian's report of Josiah's cult reorganization program is essentially reliable (Ahlstrom finds sufficient credibility in the account to consider Josiah an 'innovator'), then it is difficult to imagine how such a radical reorganization of society could have been accomplished without the mechanisms of royal administration. The propaganda of the royal scribes, formulated in the national traditions of law (Deuteronomy) and history (Deuteronomistic History) would have been essential for the success of Josiah's program.

212


illegitimate. This typically happens, as noted above, when there is a fear that the image will become a substitute for God. In this case, however, the fear was that the Yahweh symbolized by the bull imagery would become a substitute for the Yahweh symbolized by the cherubim in the Jerusalem cult. The anti-bull ideology was given the air of legitimacy by attributing its origins to none other than Moses (Exod. 32). The effectiveness of the Deuteronomists' rejection of the bull iconography was aided by the articulation of an ideological vision which 'alienated' much of native Israelite tradition. The bull image was only one of several features of the traditional Israelite cult which the Deuteronomists rejected as 'alien'. Of course, the metonymic-based images in the Jerusalem cult fell outside the prohibition against 'alien' images. Here, finally, we can point to a social context in which royal policies were supported by a fully articulated ideological vision. The occasional iconoclasm of earlier kings or prophets had been unrelated episodes. They followed no common ideological program. All of that changed, however, with the cult reorganizations of Hezekiah and Josiah. Episodic iconoclasm became an aniconic requirement which was written into the national traditions.

SITE PLANNING AND SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY: NEGEV SETTLEMENTS AS A CASE STUDY

Israel Finkelstein and Yitzhak Zilberman The subsistence economy of the inhabitants of an ancient site can be reconstructed by using different methods, which usually complement each other. Well known examples are analyses of spatial distribution of lithic and pottery assemblages and of animal remains. Quantitative methods employed in these studies make their results more reliable; they also enable comparison between sites of different periods and varied environmental backgrounds. The economic mainstay of an ancient site must also be reflected in its architectural layout. Several recent studies on the archaeology of Israel have dealt with the layout-paleoeconomy relationship,1 but this connection has never been investigated in a numerical way. This paper suggests a quantitative method for analyzing plans of ancient sites. Arad of the Early Bronze Age II is taken as a pivotal site, in an attempt to throw light on its nature and on the origin of its inhabitants.2 It is compared to sites located along two axes: (1) sites of different periods in the same geographical niche; (2) sites of the same period in different geographical locations. The first axis, that of the Beer-sheba/Arad valley and the northern Negev, is the more illuminating one. Large parts of several major sites in this region have been exposed, providing comprehensive data on their architectural layout. The sites chosen for this study are Tel Masos of the 1. A. Mazar, 'Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem', IEJ 31 (1981), p. 12; Z. Herzog, Beer-Sheba. II. The Early Iron Age Settlements (Tel Aviv University, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology, 7; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1984), pp. 70-87; I. Finkelstein, 'Izbet Sartah: An Early Iron Age Site Near Rosh Ha'ayin, Israel (BAR International Series, 299; Oxford: BAR International Series, 1986), pp. 106-28. 2. See I. Finkelstein, 'Early Arad—Urbanism of the Nomads', ZDPV 106 (1991), pp. 34-50.

214


Iron Age I,3 Beer-sheba of the Iron II, Byzantine Shivta and a contemporary Bedouin village (fig. 1). The second axis is more problematic. Only five sites (except Arad) revealed relatively large areas with Early Bronze remains: Tel Yarmut in the Shephelah,4 Numeira south of the Dead Sea,5 Zeraqun in northeastern Jordan, Tel Qashish in the Jezreel valley6 and Tell el-Far'ah (North) in the Samaria hills.7 In all of them the excavated area is too small for a comprehensive architectural analysis. We chose the last two, since their unearthed section comprises a larger part of the overall area of the site. Even so, the results are given only as a supplement. Method The architectural development of ancient settlements was influenced by a number of variables, which have been detected by both intersite and intrasite comparisons.8 Some of the most important are: 1. Environmental factors, such as topography, climate and vegetation.9 In the central hill country of Palestine of the beginning of this 3. The architecture of this site and its meaning for the debate over the emergence of early Israel were thoroughly discussed by G.W. Ahlstrom, The Early Iron Age Settlers at Hirbet el-Msas(T?lMasos)', ZDPV 100 (1984), pp. 35-52; see also idem, Who Were the Israelites? (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986), pp. 34-35. 4. P. de Miroschedji, Yarmouth 1: Rapport sur les trois premiers campagnes de fouilles a Tel Yarmouth (Israel) (1980-1982) (Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 76; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988). 5. M.D. Coogan, 'Numeira 1981', BASOR 255 (1984), pp. 75-81. 6. A. Ben-Tor, Y. Portugali and M. Avissar, 'The First Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish, 1978-1979: Preliminary Report', IEJ 31 (1981), pp. 137-64. 7. R. de Vaux, 'Les fouilles de Tell el-Far'ah, rapport preliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958-1960', RB 68 (1961), pi. xxxiv. 8. S. Kent (ed.), Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987); idem (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); I.E. De La Cruz, The Utilization of Space of a Residential Sector at the Village Site of Murcielago, Costa Rica', Atlatl Occasional Papers (1986), pp. 1-13. 9. R.A. Gould and I.E. Yellen, 'Man the Hunted: Determinants of Household Spacing in Desert and Tropical Foraging Societies', Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6 (1987), pp. 77-103; J.F. O'Connell, 'Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications', American Antiquity 52 (1987), pp. 74-108.

FINKELSTEIN AND ZILBERMAN Site Planning

2.

3.

4.

5.

215

century, villages located in rugged and steep topography were more densely built than villages in flat terrain.10 Social factors. There are two levels here: on the first, spatial organization of settlements is strongly influenced by the social structure of their inhabitants;11 on the second, a higher level of sociopolitical organization results in a more sophisticated planning. The socioeconomic origin of the population. For example, ethnographic studies have demonstrated that Bedouin who settle down tend to follow their previous 'architectural' traditions, such as keeping large open spaces between the family compounds.12 The economic mainstay of the inhabitants.13 For instance, it is reasonable to assume that sites capable of accommodating large numbers of animals needed vast open areas. This too is evident in the villages of the hill country in the beginning of this century.14 Other variables include mobility patterns, or anticipated mobility patterns, of the inhabitants15 and seasonally.16

10. I. Finkelstein, 'A Few Notes on Demographic Data from Recent Generations and Ethnoarchaeology', PEQ 122 (1990), pp. 47-52. 11. G. Bawden, 'Domestic Space and Social Structure in Pre-Columbian Northern Peru', in S. Kent (ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study (New Directions in Archaeology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 153-71. 12. A. Shmueli, Nomadism about to Cease (Tel Aviv: Reshafim, 1980 [Hebrew]), pp. 83, 154-55; Y. Ben-David, 'Stages in the Sedentarization of the Negev Bedouin, a Transition from Former Semi-Nomadic to Settled Population' (PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1982 [Hebrew]), p. 217; R.L.D. Cribb, 'Mobile Villagers: The Structure and Organisation of Nomadic Pastoral Campsites in the Near East',in C.S. Gamble and W.A. Boismier (eds.), Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites: Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist Case Studies (Ethnoarchaeological Series, 1; Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, 1991). 13. L.L. Layne, 'Village-Bedouin: Patterns of Change from Mobility to Sedentism in Jordan', in Kent (ed.), Method and Theory for Activity Area Research, pp. 345-73. 14. Finkelstein, 'A Few Notes on Demographic Data', p. 50. 15. S. Kent and H. Vierich, The Myth of Ecological Determinism—Anticipated Mobility and Site Spatial Organization', in S. Kent (ed.), Farmers as Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 96-130. 16. S. Powell, 'The Effects of Seasonality on Site Space Utilization: A Lesson from Navajo Sites', in S. Plog and S. Powell (eds.), Papers on the Archaeology of Black Mesa, Arizona (Publications in Archaeology; Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984), II, pp. 117-26.

216


Two important determinants in the layout of an ancient site, which can shed light on these factors, are the ratios between built-up and open spaces, and between courtyards and roofed areas in the built-up sections. Most significant is the fact that these ratios can be investigated in a quantitative method. This method is based on electronic scanning of site plans, and on storing the information in files as a collection of black and white dots (bit-maps). These files are then used as an input for a program which counts the dots and displays them. The different elements in the plans are colored and interpreted by an image-processing software. In the current study each plan was treated in four stages (the plan of Early Bronze Arad is given as an example): 1.

2. 3. 4.

The total area of the site was colored white, leaving the surrounding area black (figs. 2a, b). In our case this stage is optional, since the focus is on proportions rather than on absolute values. The examined portion of the site was left white, while the rest of the plan was darkened (fig. 2c). The roofed areas were darkened, which left courtyards and open spaces white (fig. 2d). The courtyards were colored black, so that the only white areas left were the open spaces (figure 2e).17 Sites Review

Negev Sites Early Bronze II Arad (fig. 2). The most up-to-date plan was published about 10 years ago, in a small scale and with no details;18 this plan was 17. The ratios were calculated in the following way: examined area = —= : —

=

Roofed area

=

:—; Occupied area

=

=

Courtyards ratio = ^—r-

. , examined area - margins total area - margin _ , . examined area - courtyards and open spaces examined area - margins

_ _ courtyards and open spaces - open spaces examined area - margins roofed area + courtyards „ . . courtyards occupied area

18. R. Amiran et al., 'The Early Canaanite City of Arad—The Results of Fourteen Seasons of Excavations', Qadmoniot 13 (1980), p. 5 (Hebrew); the plan


217

backed with the comments of Ornit Ilan of the Arad Expedition. A large portion of the excavated area was processed; the reservoir complex was eliminated, since it does not represent the layout of the living quarters. The architectural interpretation of the excavators has been adopted with no exceptions.19 Iron I Tel Masos. Stratum II in Area A is the most representative residential section of the site.20 The buildings were all interpreted as fourroom houses with an open courtyard in the center. The relatively limited area excavated makes the results more hypothetical than in the case of the other southern sites. Iron II Beer-sheba (Stratum II; fig. 3). This site is easy to examine, since large parts of it were unearthed, and because its plan is very regular.21 Here too it is assumed that each four-room house had an open courtyard in the center. Byzantine Shivta (fig. 4). The entire area of the town was examined.22 Most of the houses in Shivta have an inner patio. A contemporary Bedouin village (fig. 5). The village selected for the study is adjacent to the Arad highway, about 1 km east of the Tel Shoqet used here is the somewhat larger version published by A. Kempinski, 'Fortifications, Public Buildings and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Age', in idem and R. Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Period (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1992), p. 67. 19. R. Amiran, Early Arad: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City. I. First-Fifth Seasons of Excavation, 1962-1966 (Judean Desert Studies; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1978); Omit Ilan, personal communication. 20. The interpretation is based on data published by A. Kempinski, O. Zimconi, E. Gilboa, N. Rosel, 'Excavations at Tel Masos: 1972, 1974, 1975', El 15 (1981), pp. 159,162-65 (Hebrew); V. Fritz and A. Kempinski, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen aufder Hirbet el-Msds (Tel Masos)' 1972-1975 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), pp. 11-16 and pi. 3. 21. The study is based on the plan published by Z. Herzog, 'Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age', in Kempinski and Reich (eds.), The Architecture of Ancient Israel, p. 259, omitting the reconstructed quarters. 22. Based on the plan published by A. Segal, The Byzantine City of Shivta (Esbeita), Negev Desert, Israel (BAR International Series, 179; Oxford: BAR International Series, 1983), p. 57.

218


junction. Information on this spontaneous village of Bedouin who settled here in recent years23 was taken from an aerial photograph ordered for this purpose from the Survey of Israel. Northern Sites Tell el-Far'ah (North). A section of the Early Bronze settlement was unearthed in the northwestern corner of the site. The limited area excavated limits the reliability of the results. Tell Qashish. The excavated area in this Early Bronze site is even smaller than in Tell el-Far'ah (North). The only measurable section is that of a street flanked by two rows of houses.24 No courtyards can be identified. In this case too the results are questionable. Discussion Table 1 presents the results of the scanning (in percentage). The first significant factor is the ratio of the open spaces of the overall area examined. In the Negev sites there are two clear groups: Tel Masos, the Bedouin village and Arad, where the open spaces make a large portion of the site (c. 40-60%), and Shivta and Beer-sheba, where the open spaces are relatively limited (c. 15% of the site). Similar results emerge from the study of the ratio of the courtyards of the total occupied areas (fig. 6). In Beer-sheba and Shivta the courtyards comprise a relatively small portion of the built-up area, while in Arad, Tel Masos and the Bedouin village they make quite a large area.25 Figure 7 displays the location of each site on a two-dimensional graph. The x axis is the roofed area (in percentage) and the y axis is the courtyard ratio. The lowest percentages in the graph are Beer-sheba and Shivta. They are followed by Arad, Tel Masos and the Bedouin village. The results of this examination may shed light on the economic profile of the inhabitants. Beer-sheba and Shivta were well-organized towns, with limited open spaces and a relatively small area devoted to courtyards. It is therefore reasonable to assume that animal husbandry was 23. See Ben-David, 'Stages in the Sedentarization of the Negev Bedouin'. 24. Area B, Phase 3; Ben-Tor, Portugal! and Avissar, The First Two Seasons of Excavations at Tel Qashish', pp. 158-64. 25. The larger area in the Bedouin village is due to the fact that we were able to identify courtyards not only by architectural remains but also by the color of the ground.


219

not practiced at these sites, or had only a small role in their economy. This description fits what we know about these two sites from other sources. The impressive fortifications, large store houses and elaborate water system unearthed in Beer-sheba indicate that it was a provincial administrative center.26 Shivta, although a spontaneous town, also shows signs of public administration: it had two churches, advanced water supply and public buildings.27 On the other hand, the sites of Arad and Tel Masos, like the Bedouin village, had large open spaces, and in the case of Arad, a large portion of the built-up area was devoted to courtyards (compare figs. 5c and 5d). Hence we may assume that animal husbandry played a larger role in the economy of the two sites. With all the reservations expressed above, it is still interesting to note that the values for Early Bronze Tell el-Far'ah (North) and Tel Qashish are closer to those of Iron II Beer-sheba and Byzantine Shivta than to those for Early Bronze Arad. Plans of contemporary villages inhabited by Bedouin who settled down28 show similar features, which are very different from the layout of the typical Middle Eastern sedentary communities. They reflect past, pre-sedentarization, traditions of the tent clusters and tent encampments. This study singles out the uniqueness of Early Bronze II Arad and Iron I Tel Masos and may shed additional light on their nature and on the origin of their population. It seems to support the notion that both Arad and Tel Masos were southern phenomena.29 They were the

26. Y. Aharoni, 'The Israelite City', in idem (ed.), Beer-Sheba I (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1973), pp. 13-17; Z. Herzog, 'Israelite City Planning Seen in the Light of the Beer-Sheba and Arad Excavations', Expedition 20.4 (1978), pp. 38-43. 27. Segal, The Byzantine City of Shivta (Esbeita), Negev Desert, Israel. 28. L.E. Sweet, Tell Toqaan: A Syrian Village (Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 14; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1974), p. 111; V. Roux, 'Superficie et plan des villages: valeur de ces donnees arch£ologiques pour approcher les problemes d'organisation sociale', in O. Aurenche (ed.), Nomades et sedentaires: perspectives ethnoarcheologiques (Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 40; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984), pp. 97108; Ben-David, 'Stages in the Sedentarization of the Negev Bedouin', pp. 215,220, 244. 29. Finkelstein, 'Early Arad—Urbanism of the Nomads', pp. 34-50; idem, 'Arabian Trade and Socio-Political Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth-Eleventh Centuries BCE', JNES 47 (1988), pp. 241-52.

220


northern gateway communities of prosperous Early Bronze II and Iron I desert polity, rather than the southernmost strongholds of the sedentary lands. Roofed

Crtyrds

Open Sp.

Cn Ratio

100.0%

21.9%

35.6%

42.5%

61.9%

13.8%

24.8%

14.5%

60.7%

36.9%

7.9%

42.8%

20.2%

37.0%

32.1%

100.0%

64.0%

19.3%

16.7%

23.2%

52.9%

80.4%

6.9%

12.7%

7.9%

Tell el-Far'ah (N)

3.2%

64.8%

6.4%

28.8%

9.0%

Tel Qashish

?

81.3%

0.0%

18.7%

0.0%

Site

Exam.

Bedouin village Tel Masos Arad Shivta Beer-sheba

Table 1. Relative Proportion of Roofed Areas, Courtyards and Open Spaces in the Seven Sites Investigated Legend Exam. Roofed Crtyrds

Open Sp. Cn Ratio

Examined area: percentage of the examined section of the total area of the site; Roofed area, including courtyard walls; Courtyards: the unroofed, wall-enclosed sections in the examined area. In the case of the Bedouin village, the courtyards were also identified according to the color of the ground, that is, not all of them are enclosed by stone walls; Open spaces: areas which do not belong to the two previous categories; Courtyards ratio: percentage of area devoted to courtyards in the entire occupied area (roofed + courtyards).

Figure 1. General map indicating the location of the five Negev sites.

222


Figure 2. Early Bronze Age HArad (after Kempinski, 'Fortifications, Public Buildings and Town Planning in the Early Bronze Age', in Kempinski and Reich [eds.], The Architecture of Ancient Israel, p. 76): A: general plan; B: total area of the site; C: the examined portion of the site; D: roofed areas (in black) and courtyards and open spaces (white); E: built-up area (black) and open spaces (white).

Figure 3. Beer-sheba Stratum II (Iron Age II; after Herzog, 'Settlement and Fortification Planning in the Iron Age', in Kempinski and Reich [eds.], The Architecture of Ancient Israel, p. 259): A: general plan; B: examined section of the site; C: roofed areas versus courtyards and onen snares: D: huilt-un areas versus nnen snnrm

Figure 4. Byzantine Shivta (after Segal, The Byzantine City of Shivta [Esbeita], Negev Desert, Israel, pi. 14): A: general plan; B: roofed areas versus courtyards and open spaces; C: built-up areas versus open spaces.

Figure 5. A Bedouin village west ofArad: A: computerized image of aerial photograph; B: examined section of the village; C: buildings, courtyards and open spaces; D: buildings and courtyards versus open spaces.

226


Figure 6. Occupied areas (roofed in cross-hatching, courtyards in hatching) and open spaces (from top of each column to the 100% line) in five Negev sites.

Figure 7. Roofed area versus court ratios in five Negev sites.

UNITED MONARCHY-DIVIDED MONARCHY: FACT OR FICTION? Margaret M. Gelinas

Since the Bible is our only source of information regarding the so-called United Monarchy it has, therefore, been the basis of any historical evaluation of the nature and form of a posited state governance in Palestine during the period of the tenth century BCE. Attempts to illuminate or supplement the biblical account of the United Monarchy with evidence from the archaeological record have been disappointing. In general, scholars have believed the biblical sources relating to the United Monarchy to be rooted in some form of a 'court history' originating in Jerusalem and, therefore, imbued with some credibility.1 Even though many scholars recognize the apologetic and theological nature of the biblical material, many historical reconstructions of this period have tended to read much like a paraphrase of the biblical narratives in the books of Samuel and Kings.2 1. The observations and conclusions of L. Rost, 'Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids', in Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament (repr.; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965 [1926]), pp. 119-253, have been widely accepted. For a thorough discussion of Rost's views and a discussion of the historiography in the books of Samuel and Kings, see J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), esp. pp. 277-91. Van Seters's conclusion is that the Court History is a post-Deuteronomistic addition to the history of David from the post-exilic period. 2. So, for example, J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn, 1980), pp. 184-228; J. Gray, I & II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963); J.A. Soggin, 'The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom', in J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History (OTL; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1977), pp. 343-76; J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel andJudah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 149-217. A notable exception is the recent work of T.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE, 4; Leiden: Brill,

228


After a thorough investigation of the written and archaeological sources, T.L. Thompson has concluded that, contrary to both the biblical and scholarly tradition regarding the 'United Monarchy', 'one might do well to suggest that no kingdom of Israel yet existed'3 during the tenth century BCE. Moreover, 'not until well after the time that tradition marks out for the "United Monarchy" was the population of Judah sufficiently stable to support a comprehensive regional political entity'.4 The biblical tradition of the period from Saul to Solomon speaks to a time of major sociopolitical change for the people of Israel and Judah. The rapid movement 'from a segmentary society in the so-called tribal period (twelfth to early eleventh centuries BCE, to statehood under the later David and Solomon (first half of the tenth century BCE)'5 posits a period of major transformation which should have left some significant tracks in the material remains of the archaeological record. Yet the archaeological evidence for the biblical Davidic and Solomonic period in Jerusalem, the 'state' capital or seat of governance, is rather scarce and at best fragmentary.6 In his recent publication, A. Mazar states that 'the time of Saul hardly finds any expression in the archaeological record',7 and that 'the archaeological evidence concerning David's reign is also poor and ambiguous'.8 It is also notable that the transition from a chiefdom to a monarchy with a strong central government, such as the mighty 1992); see especially his discussion on the deconstruction of biblical historiography, pp. 105-26, as well as the sociological and archaeological issues relating to the question of a 'united monarchy', pp. 146-70; and his conclusions, pp. 401-15. 3. Thompson, Early History, p. 312. 4. Thompson, Early History, p. 312. 5. F.S. Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories (SWBA, 4; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985), p. 191. Scholars have yet to reach a consensus on the definition of 'statehood' as it would be applied to the regions of Palestine during the period of early first millennium BCE. Thompson (Early History, pp. 127-339) has taken this question seriously and started to identify the necessary socioeconomic data to be examined in the context of geographical, anthropological and archaeological studies of ancient Palestine that will lead to a clarification of processes of regional state formation. 6. For a recent introductory summary of the archaeological evidence for the period of the so-called 'United Monarchy', see A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586B.C.E. (ABRL; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1990), pp. 368402; also, Soggin, 'Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom', pp. 340-43. 7. Mazar, Archaeology, p. 371. 8. Mazar, Archaeology, p. 374.

GELINAS United Monarchy-Divided Monarchy

229

kingdom and the intensive building activity attributed to Solomon in the biblical account,9 does not find expression in the material record at Jerusalem, and limited expression in the outlying areas. Excavations at Megiddo, Razor, Dan and Gezer have uncovered urban architecture attributed to Solomon by many who practiced so-called 'biblical archaeology', in particular the proponents of the Albright-Wright 'school'10 of archaeology and biblical interpretation. During the tenth century BCE many of the small sedentary villages typical of Iron Age I were either abandoned or developed into small towns. Many of the towns were merely small unwalled clusters of dwelling units with their only defense being the outer walls of houses built on the perimeter.11 Aside from the reference in the Merneptah stele12 to an entity known as 'Israel'13 at the end of the thirteenth century BCE, the next known reference to Israel from extrabiblical sources is in the ninth century BCE, and the first reference to Judah occurs in an eighth-century BCE document.14 I do not include here the report of Pharaoh Shishak's 9. So, for example, W.G. Dever, 'Monumental Architecture in Ancient Israel in the Period of the United Monarchy', in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), especially his conclusions, pp. 270, 305-306. Even though Mazar (Archaeology, pp. 375-80) made a concerted effort to temper his interpretation of the biblical and archaeological evidence, he (as well as his predecessors) had to rely upon distant parallels (second millennium and eighth century BCE) and the biblical text for his posited reconstruction of the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem. 10. For a summary of the difficulties created by Albright and his followers by their interlocking of theological concepts with their interpretation of archaeological data, see Mazar, Archaeology, pp. 32-33, as well as Mazar's bibliographic references in his n. 16 on p. 34. For an excellent review of Albright's work see Thompson's discussion, The Rise of Biblical Archaeology', in Early History, pp. 10-26. 11. See Mazar, Archaeology, pp. 374-97. Thompson (Early History, p. 31 n. 42) observes that 'the size of Palestine's towns was exceedingly small prior to 7th century Jerusalem'. 12. For an excellent discussion on this inscription, see G.W. Ahlstrom and D.V. Edelman, 'Merneptah's Israel', JNES 44 (1985), pp. 59-61. 13. With Thompson (Early History, p. 306), I note that historians have failed to establish 'a continuity between the "group" called "Israel" that Merneptah claims to have destroyed and the proto-ethnic population of the ninth century political state of Samaria that is known to us in both biblical and extra-biblical texts as "Israel"'. 14. For Israel, the description of the battle of Qarqar in the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III (mid-ninth century) and for Judah, a Tiglath-pileser III text mentioning (Jeho-) Ahaz of Judah (IIR67 = K. 3751), dated 734-733, are the earliest

230


campaign into Syria-Palestine (c. 945-927 BCE), an incursion referred to in 1 Kgs 14.25-27 and 2 Chron. 12.1-12. There is no Egyptian narrative of the account and 'the references in the inscription to "tribute of the land of Syria," or to his victories over "Asiatics of distant foreign countries" are vague and generalized'.15 The Egyptian record gives a list of towns 'conquered' in this campaign; it does not, however, give witness to a 'state', either of Israel or Judah.16 If we were to accept only the archaeological record and the extrabiblical literary evidence from the ancient Near East, we would have to conclude that Omri of Samaria, who is referred to in the ninth-century BCE inscriptions of Shalmaneser III,17 is the first known king of Israel. The discrepancy between the biblical text, the archaeological record and other literary evidence raises several questions. Was there in fact a 'united' monarchy in Palestine which later divided into two kingdoms known as 'Israel' and 'Judah'? If there was such an entity, to which period does it belong? If there never was a 'united' monarchy, then how are we to reconcile not only the scholarly tradition regarding a 'united' monarchy, as well as the biblical accounts of Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeroboam, with the extrabiblical written and archaeological record relating to the history of Palestine during this period? The constraints of this essay do not permit us to explore all of the facets of these questions, but require that we narrow our focus to one. In an attempt to better frame our question, we turn to the biblical text. The narratives of the Deuteronomistic History give more than adequate witness to two separate political entities known as 'Israel' and 'Judah'. For example, in 2 Samuel it is only the men of Judah who come to Hebron and 'anoint David king over the house of Judah (2.4)'. The story of David's anointing as 'king of Judah' is followed by the accounts of the warring between the men of Israel and the men of Judah. It is not until the North sues for peace and David establishes a published to date. On these texts and their interpretation see S.A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS, 123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); A.L. Oppenheim (ed. and trans.), 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', in ANET, pp. 277-82. 15. J.A. Wilson (ed. and trans.), 'Egyptian Historical Texts', in ANET, p. 263. 16. See also Thompson's discussion of this issue, Early History, pp. 306-307; contra H. Donner, 'Separate States', in Hayes and Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History, p. 389. 17. See above, n. 14.


231

treaty (covenant) with the elders of Israel that they anoint him king over 'Israel' (2 Sam. 5.1-5). When David names Solomon as his successor, he states, 'for he shall be king in my stead; and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah' (1 Kgs 1.35). In the account of Solomon's administration we find the notices that 'Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea' (1 Kgs 1.20), and later, 'Judah and Israel dwelt in safety, from Dan to Beer-sheba' (1 Kgs 1.25). It is difficult to ignore the fact that in the biblical account of the early monarchical period Judah and Israel are portrayed as having distinctively separate identities. Of equal significance is the use of the name 'Israel'. Ahlstrom notes that 'statistically, Israel is used 564 times in the Old Testament for the Northern Kingdom, in contrast to [only] seventeen instances where it seems to refer to the Southern Kingdom'.18 For purposes of this essay, we will reserve the name 'Israel' as a designation for the 'northern kingdom'; that is the political entity with its seat of governance at Samaria, existing from the time of Omri in the ninth century BCE until its demise at the hands of the Assyrians in the late eighth century BCE. Perhaps the best place to begin our inquiry is with the biblical account of the division of the 'united' monarchy during the reign of Rehoboam, Solomon's son and successor, and Jeroboam's rebellion against him, 1 Kgs 11.26-14.30. What, might we ask, is the historical context for the sociopolitical upheaval evident in the Rehoboam-Jeroboam narratives of the book of 1 Kings? There are several prominent features in these stories: 1. 2.

3.

There is an alignment of the twelve tribes into two 'kingdoms', 1 Kgs 11.29-39. The houses of Judah and Benjamin are not to fight against their kinsmen, the people of Israel, 1 Kgs 12.21-24; yet, according to 1 Kgs 14.30, 'there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually'. The reason, or impetus, for the division of the kingdom is a rebellion by the northern citizens against excessive service imposed upon them by the crown, 1 Kgs 12.3-17.

18. G.W. Ahlstrom, Who Were the Israelites? (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986), pp. 101-102 n. 2.

232

The Pitcher is Broken 4.

According to the narrative in 1 Kgs 12.26-33, the cultic center at Jerusalem is of great political concern to Jeroboam and an obvious threat to his ability to rule over Israel.

Also prominent in 1 Kings 11-14 is the use of the prophetic oracle to give an ideological or theological 'explanation' for the events being recounted. At the center of this ideology is the promise of the continuity of the Davidic dynasty at Jerusalem, 1 Kgs 11.12-13, 32-36, 38-39; the House of Jeroboam will be destroyed, Israel will be cut off and torn from the land, and scattered 'beyond the Euphrates', 1 Kgs 14.7-16. The 'sin' of disloyalty to the cult at Jerusalem will be punished by the loss of political power. In the attempt to place both the events and the ideology of 1 Kings 11-14 in a historical context, the turbulent years at the close of the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh century BCE appear to be the most promising. It is within the broader history of the ancient Near East that we seek the context for our questions of Israelite and Judean history and, in particular, the biblical account of the 'Division of the Kingdom'. Let us begin by focusing our attention on 1 Kgs 12.26-33, the account of Jeroboam's establishment of an official state cult in the north as a rival of the cult at Jerusalem. This narrative embodies the theological perspectives of the authors or compilers of the books of Kings. There are two working principles operative throughout the accounts of the separate kingdoms: (1) the religious fidelity of the king; and (2) the extent to which he was loyal to the cult at Jerusalem was measured by his willingness to eradicate worship, Yahwistic or otherwise, at sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem.19 All of the kings of Israel except Shallum (2 Kgs 15.13-15), for whom there is no evaluation given, and Hoshea, the last king of Israel, are condemned by the Deuteronomist with a standard formula: 'He walked in the way of Jeroboam and in his sin which he made Israel to sin'.20 As Miller and Hayes have succinctly noted, 'most of the Judean kings had to be condemned as well, in varying degrees, because the principle itself was anachronistic'.21

19. Following Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, p. 222. 20. For an analysis of this formula, see T.E. Mullen, Jr, 'The Sins of Jeroboam: A Redactional Assessment', CBQ 49 (1987), pp. 212-32. 21. Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, p. 222.


233

It is, of course, simple to posit the 'post-exilic'22 or the 'restoration' period as an appropriate historical context for the centralization of the cult at Jerusalem. But we might also argue that the impetus for the centralization of regional sociopolitical structures at Jerusalem begins within the critical period immediately after the fall of Samaria at the close of the eighth century BCE. In other words, the centralization at Jerusalem of all necessary social structures may have been a response to the Assyrian threat. I would propose that the ideology of the exclusivity of the Jerusalemite sanctuary over matters of Yahwistic worship emerged at a later date. As stated above, it is not until the eighth century that we find the first reference to an entity known as 'Judah' in an extrabiblical text. Indeed, we might suggest that the turbulent years of the last half of the eighth century BCE may be the terminus post quern for the 'state' of Judah. Certainly the people of Judah were faced with the discomforting fact that their neighbor to the north had been virtually wiped off the map by the Assyrians. Perhaps it is at this point, when Israel ceased to exist as a state, that Judah coalesced as a centralized political entity. Against this historical context, we might examine anew the strong condemnation of Ahaz of Judah (742-727 BCE)23 for his alteration of the temple, 2 Kgs 16.10-16, the multiplication of altars throughout the city and the worship of Syrian gods, 2 Chron. 28.22-25. So too, Hezekiah's attempts to centralize the cult at Jerusalem could be seen as a politically expedient move to tie the people's allegiance more firmly to himself and the 'Davidic' family.24 Now let us return to the narrative of Jeroboam's revolt and the account of the people's rebellion against the hard service to the crown. The only reason given in 1 Kgs 12.3-17 for the northern tribes' rebellion against Rehoboam and the rule of the house of David is the heavy 'yoke' of hard service. The biblical writer had foreshadowed, in a literary sense, this development by his negative assessment in 1 Sam. 8.10-18 of 22. Certain questions have been raised regarding the historical validity of the modern chronological terms 'pre-exilic', 'exilic' and 'post-exilic' used by biblical scholars to designate the biblical community's transitions from the Assyrian to the Persian periods, most recently by Thompson, Early History, p. 419. 23. All proposed regnal periods are approximate dates. Dating follows that of Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah; for further discussion of their chronological framework, see pp. 226-29. 24. So Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, p. 357.

234


'the ways of the king who will reign over you' (v. 11).25 This is not a charge against one particular king but against all monarchs. The burden of taxation, conscription and forced labor must have been particularly onerous to the people of Palestine, first in the period of Assyrian domination (c. 732-612 BCE) and later under the Babylonians (early sixth century BCE). The payment of tribute to Assyria by 'Israelite' and 'Judean' kings is well attested in the extrabiblical sources; of particular interest are the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, where it is recorded that both Menahem of Israel (c. 745-736 BCE)26 and Ahaz of Judah (= Jehoahaz I, c. 742-727 BCE)27 paid tribute to the Assyrian ruler. The biblical sources also attest to a huge sum of money exacted from Israel by Menahem to pay as tribute to the Assyrians so that he might secure his hold on royal power in Israel (2 Kgs 15.19-20). We may also find a contextual parallel for the rebellion of Israel under Jeroboam I in the account of the assassination of Pekahiah, Menahem's son, by Pekah of Israel. The burden of Assyrian tribute may have convinced many Israelites to support Pekah's coup d'etat and to favor Rezin's antiAssyrian activities.28 During the reign of Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE), Manasseh of Judah is listed as one of twenty-two kings forced to provide corv6e labor for the Assyrian ruler.29 The period of the eighth and seventh centuries BCE in Syria and Palestine is marked by social upheaval and political turmoil. Assyria dominated the eastern Mediterranean seaboard. The kingdom of Israel ceased to exist when its territory was incorporated into the Assyrian provincial system (c. 720 BCE). In the decade prior to the fall of Samaria, Israel had to contend with the Syrian kingdom of Damascus. We can posit that Syria not only exerted influence over Palestine but had also taken a considerable amount of territory away from Israel, Amos 1.3-5; 2 Kgs 15.37; 16.6; Isa. 9.11-12. If we are to believe the biblical account of the so-called Syro-Ephraimite war, 2 Kgs 16.5-9; 2 Chron. 28.16-21; Isaiah 7-8, we find Judah having to defend itself against Pekah of Israel (736-735 BCE) and Rezin of Damascus because 25. This prediction is played out by the Deuteronomist in the description of the harsh service of forced labor which Solomon imposed upon the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 5.13-18; 9.15-20; 11.26). 26. See Oppenheim, 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', p. 283. 27. See Oppenheim, 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', p. 282. 28. So also Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, p. 328. 29. See Oppenheim, 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', p. 291.


235

Ahaz had refused to join their anti-Assyrian coalition. After the fall of both Damascus (c. 732 BCE) and Samaria (720 BCE), Judah appears to be nothing more than a vassal state of the Assyrian empire. Another factor to be considered is a certain literary pattern evident throughout the historical narratives. The ancient author consistently foreshadows events to come by placing prophetic tales or oracles at significant points in his narrative. Into this category we place the tale of the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite and the tearing of his garment into twelve pieces. This tale may point symbolically to several realities. 1. Perhaps there never was an inherently unified national structure but rather a personal union between Israel and 'Judah' that has been torn apart by the course of world events.30 The turbulent years at the close of the eighth century BCE would have been a period when social and political alliances were dissolved or destroyed. 2. Another significant feature of this oracle is the securing of the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem, 'Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem' (1 Kgs 12.36). After the fall of Israel, Judah's identity begins to emerge: there is a 'Davidid' on the throne and Yahweh's 'lamp' burns in Jerusalem. Toward the end of the account of Jeroboam I, and in the symbolic account of the death of his son, 1 Kgs 14.1-18, the author again has Ahijah the prophet issue an oracle against Jeroboam. Not only will Jeroboam's son die, but the promise of Yahweh building a sure house for Jeroboam, 'as [he] built for David' (1 Kgs 12.38), is negated by Yahweh's pronouncement that 'he will cut off the house of Jeroboam today. And henceforth the Lord will smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and root up Israel out of this good land which he gave to their fathers, and scatter them beyond the Euphrates' (1 Kgs 14.14-15). With the fall of Israel, the deportation of many of its citizens, and the settlement of 'foreigners' in its land (2 Kgs 17.6, 24),31 the old Israel came to an end and the new Israel was yet to be defined. The Israel that 30. Also suggested by Donner, 'Separate States', p. 385. Donner's comments (on a personal union that has been torn apart) are on the proper understanding of the phrase 'division of the kingdom' and are not directly related (as mine are) to the Ahijah-Jeroboam narrative. 31. On the deportation and resettlement of people in Palestine during this period see, for example, Oppenheim, 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', pp. 28486; also, B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (SHANE, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 61-104.

236


eventually would come into being would be more of a religious community than apolitical state.32 Among those proposing a pre-exilic date for the composition of the Deuteronomistic History, M. Weinfeld posits that the historical antecedents for the emergence of the Deuteronomistic movement lie in the period immediately after the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in 721 BCE.33 Given the apologetic nature of the biblical materials, we should not be surprised by the notion that the framework for the 'story' of the beginning of the northern kingdom of Israel evolved out of the historical context of its end and demise. With the reign of King Omri of Samaria securely fixed in the early ninth century BCE as its terminus post quern and its absorption into Assyria as a province at the end of the eighth century BCE as its terminus ante quern, a comprehensive study of the available material followed by a realistic reconstruction of its history and its relationship with its neighbor to the south needs to be undertaken. I believe that I have set forth a reasonable argument and legitimate reasons for questioning the historicity of the biblical account of the 'Division of the Kingdom'. By doing so I have placed into question the notion of a 'united kingdom'. These questions require that we put aside our long ingrained conceptions of the history of 'Israel' and 'Judah' before we can proceed along new lines of enquiry. With the availability of written source material for what we believe to be the final years of the state (??) of Judah, with perhaps its terminus ad quern fixed by the surrender of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar's army (597 BCE) and the destruction of Jerusalem (586 BCE), we need to establish a secure or, at least, a reasonable terminus post quern for the regional political entity known as Judah. Scholars attempting to write a history of Palestine from the tenth through the sixth century BCE must address issues relating not only to the geographical, archaeological and epigraphic studies of this period in Palestine, but also to questions arising out of anthropological research on states, both their formation and their collapse.34 A critical issue yet to be 32. A conclusion reached by Van Seters, In Search of History, p. 275 n. 120. 33. M. Weinfeld, 'The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents', in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt, undBotschaft (BETL, 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), pp. 7698; also noted by D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup, 121; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 18 n. 1. 34. Thompson (Early History, p. 324) suggests that the regional states of Israel


237

addressed is not only what would constitute an acceptable definition of a 'state' in ancient Syria-Palestine, but what are the discernable differences in the political structures of a 'nation-state', a 'city-state', a 'town' or a 'village'. Once the parameters for each political entity are established, will it be possible to discern and identify these structures from the available data? For example, if one determines a 'nation-state' to be a political entity that is not only defined by specific geographic boundaries but a uniqueness of culture (language, writing, religion, social mores and so on) as well, then Egypt is the only state in the ancient Near East that would approximate to this definition of a nation-state. Egypt's geographic and cultural features distinguish it from its neighbors. One can make the argument that Assyria's cultural features distinguish it from its neighbors. No doubt the petty Syro-Palestinian kingdoms had no trouble in identifying one from the other. But are they 'nation-states'? They may have had some discernible local characteristics, some diversity, but here we find a cultural continuum of language and religions. Many of the difficulties inherent in the reconstructions of the immediate pre-monarchical period and early monarchy in Palestine arise because they have been reconstructed from the biblical perspective, that is, first a 'united' monarchy, then a 'divided' kingdom. If we set that biblical perspective aside and treat the subject matter as two separate states that evolved, perhaps not simultaneously, but still in relation to each other, we might gain new insight into the sociopolitical and historical framework out of which the religious community of 'all Israel' eventually emerged in the later centuries. This, certainly, would be a worthwhile endeavor.

and Judah emerged during the Iron Age period 'as part of the new order of the Assyrian empire'. Although the suggestion is well founded, it needs to be further demonstrated. Thompson also states that the political foundations found in extended families and clans ultimately underlie the political development of statehood. I suggest that statehood may develop out of social organization and configurations that are not based upon extended families and clans; and not all organizations of families and clans evolve into states.

'CUSH' IN ZEPHANIAH*

Robert D. Haak 'Even you, Cushim.. .pierced by my sword are they.' Zeph. 2.121

This verse stands in a section of oracles against the nations in the prophecy of Zephaniah, the first of which is directed against the Philistine city-states (2.4-7), followed by pronouncements concerning Moab and Ammon (2.8-11). The oracle against 'Cush' is followed by a

* This study is dedicated to G.W. Ahlstrom, who first raised the question to me of the usefulness of the prophetic materials as historical sources when I was a student at the University of Chicago Divinity School. A version of this paper was read at the international SBL meeting, Miinster, Germany, 28 July 1993. The research for this paper was completed while I was Annual Professor at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem (1992-1993). I would like to thank Ms Edna Sachar of the Albright and Dr Eleanor Ferris Beach of Gustavus Adolphus College for reading this manuscript and providing helpful comments. 1. On the grammatical difficulties of this verse cf. E. Ben Zvi, A HistoricalCritical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (BZAW, 198; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 177-78 and nn. there; and K. Seybold, Satirische Prophetic: Studien zum Buch Zefanja (SBS, 120; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985), pp. 50-52. While the syntax of this verse is somewhat unusual, it is not without parallel in the Hebrew Bible (cf. GKC, §144 p). None of the 'solutions' proposed seems to be strictly necessary and none is entirely convincing. It seems best in this case to follow the MT tradition as it stands. On the redactional nature of this text cf. G. Langohr, 'Le livre de Sophonie et la critique d'authenticite', ETL 52 (1976), p. 17; and idem, 'Redaction et composition du livre de Sophonie', Le Museon 89 (1976), p. 66. He considers this verse to be 'authentic' to Zephaniah, although composed of fragments of a longer oracle, a view also typical of other commentators; cf. R. Edler, Das Kerygma des propheten Zefanja (Freiburger Theologische Studien, 126; Freiburg: Herder, 1984), p. 240.

HAAK 'Cush'in Zephaniah

239

condemnation of Assyria (2.13-15).2 A major problem in the interpretation of v. 12 is understanding the historical context in which it was composed. While a complete understanding must come from examining its context in the entire series of oracles and in the book of Zephaniah as a whole, this particular oracle may be singled out for special attention because of the problem of identifying the entity indicated by the term 'Cush'.3 In the biblical context 'Cush' is generally translated as 'Ethiopia'.4 Although there clearly are instances of this referent within the Hebrew Bible, in several cases this identification seems unlikely or impossible.5 The problem in Zephaniah (if the dating found in the superscription is reliable) is that the motive for this oracle is not evident, since the 26th Saite Dynasty of Necho I and Psammetichus I had long before (in 664 BCE) replaced the last strong Ethiopian 25th Dynasty.6 The recent comments of J.J.M. Roberts are indicative of the situation. 'The historical background for this oracle is not self-evident... We simply do not know

2. Cf. the recent form-critical studies of M.A. Sweeney, 'A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah', CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 388-408; and M. Floyd, Zephaniah (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). Floyd labels this genre 'Prophecy of Punishment against a Foreign Nation'. 3. An indication of the role that historical considerations play even in 'literary' studies may be exemplified by the forthcoming study of Floyd, Zephaniah, p. 57. He understands v. 12 as 'a rhetorical aside' directed against 'this southern super-power'. This rather truncated oracle is seen by Floyd as preparing the way for the main concern, the oracle against Assyria. If 'Cush' does not refer to a 'southern superpower', however, it might well be argued that v. 12 is more closely connected to the preceding oracles than to the one that follows. 4. Cf. NRSV, J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 191,202. On the location of the 'homelands' of the Cushites, cf. D. O'Connor, The Locations of Yam and Kush and their Historical Implications', JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 27-50. 5. Cf. BDB, pp. 468-69; S. Hidal, The Land of Cush in the Old Testament', SEA 41-42 (1976-77), pp. 97-106; and Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, p. 176. 6. Cf. A. Spalinger, 'Psammetichus, King of Egypt: I', JARCE 13 (1976), pp. 133-47; idem, 'Psammetichus, King of Egypt: IF, JARCE 15 (1978), pp. 49-57; idem, 'Egypt, History of (3D Intermediate-Saite Period [Dyn. 21-26])', in ABD, II, pp. 360-61. On the conflict between Cush and Egypt in the period of the 26th Saite Dynasty, cf. L. Torok, 'Kush and the External World', in S. Donadoni and S. Wenig (eds.), Meroitica 10: Studio Meroitica 1984. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference for Meroitic Studies, Rome 1984 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989), p. 87.

240


what provoked this oracle.'7 It is the purpose of this paper to suggest that the proper identification of 'Cush' in this text will help clarify the historical situation of the verse and ultimately the prophecy of Zephaniah as a whole. Several different approaches to the identification of 'Cush' have been advanced. Because of the proximity to the oracle against Assyria, some commentators have simply identified Cush with Egypt, which was both the subject of other oracles (for example, Jer. 46) and a nation with which Judah was in conflict in the Josianic period.8 In the final analysis, however, this equation fails when the use of the term in both biblical and extrabiblical sources is examined, confirming E. Ben Zvi's conclusion: 'Although many times Cush and Egypt are mentioned together, which is understandable on historical and geographical grounds, there is no clear instance of Cush meaning Egypt in the OT'.9 If it is unlikely on historical grounds that 'Cush' in Zeph 2.12 refers to Ethiopia and unlikely on lexical grounds that it refers to Egypt, to what does the term refer? One approach suggests that the oracle refers to events of a relatively distant past. Ben Zvi, for example, believes that the claim of the superscription is not determinative and dates the composition of the oracles to the post-monarchic period. Verse 12 thus becomes an example of 'fulfilled' prophecy which motivates the hearer to believe that the oracles expressed in terms of the future will be fulfilled (especially 3.920).I0 If this was the intent of the author, however, it does seem unusual that the one oracle which expresses 'fulfillment' would be abbreviated so sharply and that such a distant event would be cited. While from a certain future, all of these oracles may be seen as 'fulfilled' in some sense, the structure of the other oracles in the chapter does not indicate that fulfillment has occurred. Obviously, the prophet/author expected their fulfillment and at least hoped that this would be expected by his audience. However, why these expectations should be limited to a

7. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, p. 202. 8. For commentators who have discussed this 'solution', cf. Ben Zvi, HistoricalCritical Study, p. 176 n. 536, and B. Renaud, 'Le livre de Sophonie: Le jour de YHWH theme structurant de la synthese redactionnelle', RevScRel 60 (1986), p. 14. 9. Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 176-77, and literature cited there. This equation also seems unlikely in view of the study of Torok, 'Kush', pp. 49-215. 10. Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 304-306.

HAAK 'Cush' inZephaniah

241

post-monarchic setting is not evident. Is it not possible that this expectation could also be relevant in a pre-monarchic (that is, Josianic) setting?11 In a previous study of these oracles, I came to the conclusion that they are historically specific and exhibit a detailed understanding of the circumstances early in the reign of Josiah.12 Whether the setting is monarchic or post-monarchic, however, it seems unlikely that the author would, for this brief moment, seek out an example from a distant past. I expect that this oracle exhibits the same historical specificity as others in the series. I.J. Ball has taken the argument that the reference is to a distant past even further. He has argued that the term here (and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) may refer to the Kassite kingdom located in Mesopotamia.13 Ball believes that the term may indicate the eastern limits of the known world and, therefore, is a fitting parallel to Zeph. 2.II. 1 4 It might also be seen as an appropriate bridge to the oracle

11. Underlying the differences between the approaches of Ben Zvi and myself, I suspect, is a different understanding of the role of the oracles against the nations as a genre. I understand these oracles to be announcements of foreign policies within the royal cultic setting (R.D. Haak, 'Zephaniah's Oracles against the Nations', paper presented at the 299th meeting of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, Chicago, IL, 2 February 1992). One might also ask in what sense the oracles against the other 'nations' are 'fulfilled'. When, in the post-monarchic period, did Judah 'graze in the houses of Ashkelon' (Zeph. 2.7) or 'plunder' and 'take possession' of Moab and Ammon (Zeph. 2.9)? 12. Haak,'Zephaniah's Oracles'. 13. Cf. I.J. Ball, Zephaniah: A Rhetorical Study (Berkeley: BIBAL, 1988), pp. 141, 244-52. A. Berlin, Zephaniah (AB, 25a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 112-13, also believes that this is a reference to the Kassites based on literary parallels to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. 14. Ball (Zephaniah, pp. 140-41) reads v. 12a with v. 11 and understands as 'all the lands of the nations'. I do not find any convincing reason to abandon the traditional understanding of v. 12 as a unit. Reading v. 12b with vv. 13-14 removes one awkwardness of syntax (see n. 1 above), but creates a similar problem by juxtaposing the first person suffix of 'my sword' with the third person forms ('he will stretch out', etc.) of the following lines. It seems likely to me that the suggestion of J.D.W. Watts (The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], p. 171), that refers to 'jackals' as a parallel term to should be accepted. Watts believes that reference to 'jackals' may be found in other passages. These passages contain themes parallel to those found in the context of Zeph. 2.8-10.

242


against Assyria which follows. The problem with this approach is that if the equation of 'Cush' with Ethiopia is to be rejected on historical grounds as unlikely, the equation of 'Cush' with 'Kassites' in this context is even more unlikely. The Kassite kingdom of western Iran came to an end at the close of the Bronze Age. While it is possible that this kingdom was remembered in the ancient Near East, the motive for its inclusion in this set of oracles is unexplained. Since all other peoples included in the oracles against the nations in Zephaniah were active participants in the political events in the late seventh century, 'Cush' should also be found within this context. Another possibility is that the term refers to a tribal group on the southwestern border of Judah.15 This tribe is mentioned in both biblical and extrabiblical sources, beginning in the second millennium BCE, and

These verses include Isa. 13.22 (context includes mention of Sodom, Gomorrah, Arabs, shepherds and wildlife); Isa. 34.13 (context includes mention of Edom and wildlife); and Jer. 50.39 (context includes Sodom, Gomorrah and wildlife). Because of the thematic connections, I would see Zeph. 2.11 as integral to the unit of 2.8-11, rather than a later redactional element (contra Langohr, 'Livre Sophonie', pp. 14-17; Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 176, 312-13. Cf. Sweeney, 'Form-Critical Reassessment', p. 401, and Floyd, Zephaniah, pp. 51-55). It would appear that 'jackals' are associated with the southern region of Judah's border in these texts. I would suggest that the association of 'Cush' with this area, in part, leads to its mention in Zeph. 2.12. Although Langohr ('Livre Sophonie', pp. 14-15 n. 59) does not consider these words 'authentic', his suggestion that the terms here translated 'jackals' may refer to the islands of the Nile delta is a possible alternative, given the understanding of Cush developed below. For a different approach, connecting the 'islands of the nations' to the nations of Anatolia and the Aegean (cf. Gen. 10.5), see A. Berlin, 'Zephaniah's Oracle against the Nations and an Israelite Cultural Myth', paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Francisco, November 21 1992, p. 4. 15. Ben Zvi (Historical-Critical Study, p. 176 n. 534, cf. p. 44 n. 12) mentions this possibility, but dismisses it as 'unlikely' in this context. For evidence of the existence of 'Cush' in this area, cf. S. Yeivin, 'Topographic and Ethnic Notes, II: E. The Five Kushite Clans in Canaan', Atiqot 3 (1960-1961), pp. 176-80; W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr, (Agyptologische Abhandlungen, 5; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2nd edn, 1971), p. 41 n. 12; M. Gorg, 'Zur Geschichte der S3sw, Or NS 45 (1976), p. 427 n. 21; idem, '"Wo lag das Paradies?": Einige Beobachtungen zu einer alten Frage', BN 2 (1977), pp. 31-32; and Hidal, 'Land of Cush', pp. 100-103.


243

was active in overland trade between Egypt and Asia.16 While little is known of the group's history, it has been associated with Assyrian trade in this area in the eighth century. M. Elat has noted that Bedouins-Arabs, Amalekites, Kushites and Meunites inhabited the sandcovered coastal strip of northern Sinai since the beginning of the first millennium, and certainly conducted overland trade between Egypt and Asia, generations before the Assyrians arrived there. Therefore, Sargon did not initiate new trade nor did he open new trade routes. However, he did gain control of already existing overland trade, which the Assyrians were incapable of conducting by themselves, in order to reap its profits.17

There seems to be no reason to assume that there was a significant change in this situation in the seventh century as long as Assyria continued to dominate the area.18 Early in the reign of Josiah, however, 16. For references to this group cf. M. Elat, 'The Economic Relations of the NeoAssyrian Empire with Egypt', JAOS 98 (1978), p. 28 n. 49; I. Eph'al, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th-5th Centuries BC (Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982), p. 78; and D.W. Baker, 'Cushan', in ABD, I, pp. 1219-20, and the literature cited in these. Elat's article is especially important in understanding the role of 'Cush' in this area. Participation in the overland trade routes by 'Cushan' and Midian would explain their association in Hab. 3.7. While the terms are in parallel phrases in Hab. 3.7, this does not indicate that these groups are 'synonymous', as stated by Elat, following W.F. Albright, 'The Land of Damascus between 1850 and 1750 BC', BASOR 83 (1941), p. 34 n. 8. 17. M. Elat, 'Assyrian Imperialism and International Trade', paper presented at the 30th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Leiden, 1983, pp. 11-12. 18. For a survey of the economic impact of the Assyrians on the economy of Palestine, cf. S. Gitin, 'Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century BCE: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign Cultural Influences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State', in idem (ed.), Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West—Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor, Ashkelon (Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, 1995), pp. 61-80. For a survey specific to the Negev, cf. N. Na'aman, 'The Negev in the Last Days of the Kingdom of Judah', Cathedra 42 (1987), pp. 4-15 (Hebrew). In a comprehensive study, N. Na'aman, 'Pastoral Nomads on the Southwestern Periphery of the Kingdom of Judah in the Period of the Divided Monarchy', Zion 52 (1987), pp. 261-78 (Hebrew), concludes that the author of Chronicles made use of an ancient source which recorded conflicts between Judah and tribal groups on its southwestern border, including a clash with 'Zerah the Cushite' (2 Chron. 14.8-14 [Eng. 14.9-15]). Na'aman dates these clashes to the ninth-eighth centuries BCE; he finds no evidence of conflict between Judah and these groups in the seventh century. He attributes the lack of conflict in the seventh century to the pacification of the area under the domination of the Assyrians (p. 275). The present study indicates a re-

244


a policy was adopted that attempted to take advantage of the weakening Assyrian presence in the area. Its goal was to establish a trade network with the cooperation of Egypt, Edom and others which would supplant the network that had been dominated by the Assyrians.19 All of Zephaniah's oracles against the nations are directed against former Assyrian allies (and trading partners). The oracle in 2.12 fits this historical context well if the term 'Cush' refers to an Assyrian ally on the southern border of Judah.20 With this understanding of Zeph. 2.12, what are the implications for the other references to 'Cush'? Zeph. 3.10 announces the bringing of offerings 'from beyond the rivers of Cush'.21 Generally, this phrase is taken to refer to the Blue and White Niles.22 The difficulty in relating the spread of Judahite exiles23 to such a distant place in this period has led emergence of these ancient hostilities, at least on the literary level, at the time of the Assyrian withdrawal from the area toward the end of the seventh century. 19. For a close examination of the role of trade in the area, cf. I. Finkelstein, 'Hgrvat Qitmit and the Southern Trade in the Late Iron II', ZDPV 108 (1992), pp. 156-70. 20. A more complete picture of the political implications of Zephaniah's prophecy within the historical situation in the late seventh century can be found in Haak, 'Zephaniah's Oracles'; and idem, 'Zephaniah in 7th Century Judah', paper presented at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem, 18 March 1993. A detailed presentation of the evidence is in preparation. This understanding might also explain the 'time' of this phrase (cf. the discussion of 'fulfilled' prophecy above). The use of 'past tense' may indicate that these Cushites have already been defeated (by the Egyptian 26th Dynasty with the aid of Judah?) as part of the defeat of the Nubian 25th Dynasty (cf. n. 6 above). A conflict between the Saite Egypt-Judah alliance and a 'Cushite' tribe would be even more likely if a connection exists between 'Ethiopian' Cushites and the 'Cushites' dwelling in this region (see discussion below). The 'political' motivation of these oracles within the context seems more likely than that proposed by Berlin (Zephaniah, p. 120), who believes that the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 served as a 'conceptual undergirding, and...the literary model' for Zephaniah's oracles against the nations. 21. For the grammatical difficulties of this verse cf. Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 227-30; Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, pp. 205, 210 n. 25, pp. 217-18. Hidal ('Land of Cush', p. 102) has noted the connection of 'Cush' with rivers in Isa. 18.1; Zeph. 3.10; and Hab. 3.7. 22. Cf. the discussion in Ball, Zephaniah, pp. 244-46; Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, pp. 218-19, and the literature cited in these. Berlin (Zephaniah, p. 134) believes that this is a reference to the rivers of the Garden of Eden. Cf. below n. 30. 23. N. Lohfink (Option for the Poor: The Basic Principle of Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible [ed. D.L. Christiansen; trans. L.M. Maloney; Berkeley


245

many commentators to assume a late date for this passage. If 'Cush' in Zephaniah does not refer to the upper reaches of the Nile, however, an alternative understanding may be available. Archaeological evidence points to the fact that as early as the second millennium, the northeastern branches of the Nile delta were supplemented and extended with canals which provided irrigation and also linked the Mediterranean with the Gulf of Suez.24 These waterways formed the eastern boundary of Egypt. I would suggest that 'the rivers of Cush' refers to these waterways.25 That Zephaniah in the late seventh Lecture Series, 1; Berkeley, CA: BIBAL, 1987], p. 62) suggests that Zephaniah refers here to 'pagans' who will lead a return: 'Yahweh will cause his salvation to bypass his original chosen people and begin in the pagan world'. While the notion of universal worship of Yahweh is not out of the question in Zephaniah (cf. Berlin, Zephaniah), the formulation of Lohfink seems entirely unacceptable. Israel is hardly 'bypassed' in favor of 'pagans'! 24. Cf. E.D. Oren, 'Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta', BASOR 256 (1984), pp. 7-44, and the literature cited there. 25. Note that as early as 1924, W.F. Albright ('Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb', JPOS 4 [1924], pp. 146-48) suggested that a Cushite 'colony' founded in the tenth century BCE existed in the area of Gerar. Recent excavations by E.D. Oren at Tel Haror indicate that significant occupation in the tenth-ninth centuries is unlikely. He connects the reestablishment of the town in the eighth century to the presence of Assyrian administration in this period; E.D. Oren, 'Gerar', in ABD, II, p. 990. This fits well with the hypothesis presented here, since all areas condemned in Zephaniah's oracles against the nations are former Assyrian trading partners (see n. 20 above). If Gerar formed the eastern edge of Cushite territory, the western border could well have been the eastern canal of Egypt. Cf. n. 24. Indirect evidence indicates that the name of a tribal group ('Cushites') could be transferred to the name of a geographical area (rivers of 'Cush'). While Assyrian records do not specifically mention this tribal group, their reference to the Me'unites (KURMw- '-na-a) indicates that this related group was associated with a particular geographic region (Eph'al, Ancient Arabs, pp. 78-80, 91-92). The mention of 'Cushan' as a territory in Hab. 3.7 has been noted above (n. 16). A similar development may also be seen in Zeph. 2.6, '[The inhabitants of] the district of the sea, "the pastures of Krt", indeed will become shepherds...' The structure of this (and the previous) verse hinges on the treatment oj in the difficult phrase Most recent attempts have understood this term as related to 'to dig' (cf. BDB, p. 500; Ball, Zephaniah, pp. 103-104). Others understand the term as related to 'pasture' (cf. BDB, p. 499; Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, p. 157). Earlier understandings (based on the reading of the LXX) which connect the term directly to Crete have met with little success. While the historical conclusions which R. Dussaud (Les decouvertes de Ras Shamra [Ugarit] et I'Ancien Testament [Paris: Librairie

246


century envisioned the return of Judahites from 'beyond the rivers of Cush', that is, Egypt, is perfectly possible.26 The appearance of Judahites in this area and beyond is indicated in the slightly later prophecies of Jeremiah. Although the reference in Jer. 44.1 apparently is delivered after the fall of Jerusalem, the audience is simply 'the Judahites dwelling in the land of Egypt, (that is) in Migdol, in Tahpanhes and in Noph and in the land of Pathros'.27 These Judahites need not be defined as refugees from the 587 BCE destruction of Judah by the Babylonians. The dominance of the Saite Egyptians in the late seventh century and their connections with Judah make it likely that Judahites were among those who populated 'Egyptian' garrisons from the reign of Psammetichus I onward.28 This understanding is confirmed archaeologically by the discovery of the site of ancient Migdol near Tell el-Her in the area of the Eastern Canal. According to the excavator, this and many other sites in the area show evidence of contact with several foreign groups, including Judahites, and were founded in the late seventh century BCE, precisely the time attributed to the prophecy of Zephaniah.29

orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1937], pp. 57-59) drew must be rejected, his suggestion that this is a reference to Kirta of the Ugaritic texts may point in the right direction (cf. HALAT, II, p. 477). It seems quite possible that the area inhabited by the Kerethites (Zeph. 2.5) might have included an area called 'the pastures of Krt' (or this may have been a poetic designation of the area; cf. Lam. 2.2). This understanding, coupled with the recognition of the double designations of the objects of the Woe in vv. 5-6, reveals a relatively regular poetic structure to the verses and clears up the grammatical difficulties. The verb, s in agreement with the second term on the spelling cf. Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, p. 157). The distribution of the nominal forms shows a balance of gender m.; m. // f.) The word is understood here as a feminine plural participle from VTIJ rather than the more common nominal form (cf. BDB, pp. 154-55; the masculine plural participle is attested). The feminine form was chosen to provide 'gender balance'. 26. This is especially true if Zephaniah wrote during a time of close relations between Egypt and Judah. It would be even more appropriate if the basis of this relationship were trade, specifically trade across the southern border of Judah. Cf. Elat, 'Economic Relations'; idem, 'Assyrian Imperialism'; Haak, 'Zephaniah'; and Gorg, '"Wo lag das Paradies?'", pp. 28-30. 27. For other biblical references to Migdol, cf. Oren, 'Migdol', pp. 31-33. Note that the Jeremiah reference should be Jer. 46.14. 28. Cf. Oren, 'Migdol', pp. 35-36. 29. Oren, 'Migdol', p. 28. 'The late Iron Age ceramic group of Syro-Palestinian or Phoenician origin is well represented in Site T.21' (p. 17).

HAAK 'Cush' in Zephaniah

247

This understanding might also help to clarify the identical reference in Isa. 18.1. Ball has argued that, in fact, both passages refer to the Kassite kingdom, connecting it with the mention of 'Cush' in the story of the garden in Gen. 2.10-14.30 He correctly points out the difficulty in 30. Ball, Zephaniah, pp. 244-54. The identification of the 'Cush' found in Gen. 2.13, along with the other geographical terms in the unit, has been the subject of considerable debate; cf. Y.T. Radday, The Four Rivers of Paradise', HS 23 (1982), pp. 23-31; C. Westermann, Genesis. I. Teilband Genesis 1-11 (BKAT, 1.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), pp. 292-98; D. Neiman, 'Gihon and Pishon: Mythological Antecedents of the Two Enigmatic Rivers of Eden', in A. Shinan (ed.), Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1973), I, pp. 321-28. The relevance of the present paper to the discussion of the Genesis passage is uncertain. Y.T. Radday's conclusion that the author's intent in describing the rivers is to indicate that 'Eden is nowhere' might make it fruitless to search for geographical referents for the 'map'. Any understanding of the Genesis passage must conform not so much to geographic reality as we perceive it, but rather to the 'mental map' of the writer; cf. P.S. Alexander, 'Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish)', in ABD, II, p. 978; R. North, A History of Biblical Map Making (Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients; Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1979), passim. Even a brief review of the pre-modern maps of the Levant makes it clear that geographic knowledge was imprecise at best. It seems likely to me, however, that even if the intent of the author was to say, 'You can't get there from here', the implied mental map may be of significance. In Gen. 2.10-14 the second river, the Gihon, may have been understood as the spring which issued from the base of the City of David (cf. H.N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative [HSM, 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985], p. 74; and idem, 'Eden, Garden of, in ABD, II, p. 283). If Cush is identified with the tribal area on the southern border of Judah, the writer's comment that 'it meanders through all the land of Cush' might be sensible. Regardless of the hydrological realities, passages such as Ezek. 47 and Joel 4.18 (Eng. 3.18) show that the Gihon was 'mapped' as flowing to the east and south and into the Arabah rift at least as far as the Dead Sea; cf. Wallace, Eden Narrative, pp. 77-78. If this river was envisioned as flowing through the Arabah rift to the Gulf of Eilat (cf. Z. Vilnay, The Hebrew Maps of Palestine [Jerusalem: Jewish Palestine Exploration Society, 1944], maps 10, 15, 16); the 'land of Cush' might be located on the southeastern borders of Judah. This location would be somewhat different than that of the present texts describing contact with Cush on the southwestern border, but may conform to the mention of 'Cushan' in relation to Midian in Hab. 3.7 (cf. n. 16). The extent of the area associated with the tribal group 'Cush' is not clear and may extend across the entire southern border (cf. Baker, 'Cushan', p. 1220). Understanding the complete map is made more difficult because we lack knowledge of the first river, the Pishon, and the land of Havilah through which it flowed. If the writer conceived the Gihon as flowing (or having flowed) to the Gulf of

248


identifying the land described in Isaiah 18 as Egypt when the word 'beyond' is taken seriously. 'If Cush is taken as Ethiopia, is the reference then to some region beyond even this distant land?'31 The suggestion here is that the area designated 'beyond the rivers of Cush' refers, in fact, to Egypt. The description of the land 'beyond the rivers of Cush' found in Isa. 18.1-7 seems quite well suited to the understanding of the subject as Egypt, 'a land which sends envoys by sea in vessels of Eilat, a suggestion might be made that is consistent with the description in Genesis, if not with modern geography. B.S. Childs ('Eden, Garden of, in IDE, II, p. 23) has observed that in ancient times, the Persian and Arabian gulfs were considered to be lakes. The common 'source' (cf. S.N. Kramer, 'Dilmun, the Land of the Living', BASOR 96 [1944], pp. 27-28 n. 41; E.A. Speiser, 'The Rivers of Paradise', in J.J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg [eds.], Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E.A. Speiser [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967], pp. 28-29) of the Tigris and Euphrates in the 'lake' of the Persian Gulf might suggest that the 'source' of the Gihon and Pishon are to be found in the 'lake' of the Arabian gulf. This, in fact, has been suggested, mainly because of the description of the land of Havilah; cf. W.W. Miiller, 'Havilah', in ABD, III, p. 82, but note the comments of Gorg, '"Wo lag das Paradies?"', pp. 29-30. Without entering into the debate about the geographical location of the garden of Eden, one could envision the author of Genesis 'mapping' the world with the common source of the four rivers being in the two 'lakes' issuing from a garden in the far south (what today would be considered the southern end of the Arabian peninsula). It might be mentioned that Gorg ('"Wo lag das Paradies?"', and 'Zur Identitat des Pischon [Gen 2,11]', BN 40 [1987], pp. 11-13) draws a similar picture of the 'route' of the Gihon and Pishon based on quite different considerations. Ball (Zephaniah, pp. 245-46 [cf. Berlin, Zephaniah, pp. 112-13]) also brings into the discussion the mention of 'Cush' in the Table of Nations. In Gen. 10.6, Cush is associated with Seba, Havilah, Sabta and Ra'amah. These areas are usually identified with Arabia. This would generally conform to the suggestion presented here. The difficulty arises with the association between Cush and Nimrod in v. 8. Nimrod is clearly associated with the Mesopotamian region; cf. E.A. Speiser, 'In Search of Nimrod', in Finkelstein and Greenberg (eds.), Oriental and Biblical Studies, pp. 4152. It has been argued, however, that these two verses reflect different sources; cf. Alexander, 'Geography', pp. 980-81, and the comments of P. Machinist, 'Assyria and its Image in the First Isaiah', JAOS 103 (1983), p. 720 n. 2; note also the study of K. van der Toorn and P.W. van der Horst, 'Nimrod Before and After the Bible', HTR 83 (1990), pp. 6-7, who, while admitting the connection of Nimrod to Mesopotamia, still believe that the Cush of v. 8 refers to Ethiopia. It appears that one list associated 'Cush' with Arabia, the other with Mesopotamia. There is no compelling reason to associate Zephaniah with the later rather than the first source. 31. Ball, Zephaniah, p. 244.

HAAK 'Cush'in Zephaniah

249

papyrus...a people feared near and far...a nation mighty and triumphant whose land rivers divide', and so on.32 It does not seem necessary to look to the geographically and temporally distant Kassite kingdom for an identification. J.H. Hayes has suggested that the enigmatic reference to Cush in Amos 9.7 may also be related to the 'Cush' on the southern border of Judah.33 Although identifying Cush with Ethiopia in this case is not impossible, the understanding of the verse might be enhanced if Hayes's suggestion were adopted. The theme of the verse—the power of Yahweh over the nations of the world—would be illustrated by Yahweh's 'bringing up' various peoples into the land of Canaan, that is, Israel from Egypt, the Philistines from 'Caphtor' and the Aramaeans from 'Kir'.34 The reference to 'Cush' at the beginning of the oracle draws a parallel between 'Cush' and the 'sons of Israel' who were brought up from Egypt. Mentioning a group which settled in the area of Canaan would be unexceptional in the context and the parallel would be even closer if the group had originated in Ethiopia. In that case, the implied parallel would be between two peoples under the control of Yahweh who had been 'brought up' from the south and settled in the land of Canaan. The final reference to 'Cush' in Zephaniah is in the unusual genealogy in the book's superscription. It is generally acknowledged that these superscriptions are late additions to the prophetic books and, therefore, their value for understanding the prophecies themselves may be minimal.35 The most that can be said is that, if the theory presented 32. The translation is that of B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SET, 2nd series, 3; Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1967), pp. 44-45, which is followed by Ball. The statement of Hidal ('Land of Cush', p. 98) that the historical context of this chapter is without doubt reflecting an embassy sent from 'Ethiopic Pharao Shabako' to Hezekiah is not correct. While there is a mention of ambassadors in Isa. 18.2, the historical context is not clarified further. 33. J.H. Hayes (Amos, the Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and his Preaching [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988], pp. 218-19) discusses whether this is a reference to the tribal area of Cush or to Ethiopia. He cites evidence from 2 Chron. 14.9-15; 21.16; and 2 Sam. 18.21-23, 31-32 for this tribal area. He does not reach a firm conclusion regarding these options in the Amos passage. 34. On the identification of the 'homelands', cf. H.W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (ed. S.D. McBride; trans. W. Janzen, S.D. McBride and C.A. Muenchow; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 347-48. On 'Kir', cf. H.O. Thompson, 'Kir', inAJ5D,IV,pp. 83-84. 35. Cf. the (possibly overly) cautious remarks of Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical

250


above about the identification of 'Cush' with an area on the southern Judahite border is correct, there would be no reason why such close contact between Judah and 'Cush' could not be reflected in a seventhcentury name.36 The name 'Cushi' is relatively well attested in the Hebrew Bible and in epigraphic sources throughout the Levant.37 A Hebrew seal dated by Avigad to the seventh-sixth century reads 38 (son of Whether giving a person such a name implies anything about ethnic identity is unclear. In the texts concerning Cush that we have examined there does not seem to be any particular ethnic bias.39 It does not seem unlikely that a person of Ethiopian descent could become part of the political entity of 'Judah'40 and even be the father of a prophet. On the other hand, the name is given to persons who appear in every other way to be part of Judahite society. References to Cush in Zeph. 2.12 and 3.10 (and possibly 1.1) thus most plausibly refer to a 'Cushite' area on the southern border of Judah, particularly on the southwestern border, an area also mentioned in texts outside of Zephaniah. The origins of this tribal group may be related to earlier migrations of 'Cushites' from Ethiopia. The reason for the inclusion of this group in the oracles against the nations is its association with the policies of the defunct Assyrian trading network in a period of Study, pp. 41-51. On the dispute over the function of this genealogy cf. also J. Heller, 'Zephanjas Ahnenreihe', VT 21 (1971), pp. 102-104; G. Rice, The African Roots of the Prophet Zephaniah', JRT36 (1979), pp. 21-31. 36. Cf. Rice, 'African Roots'. On ethnic Cushites residing in the area of Judah in the Iron Age, cf. also I. Hofmann, 'Kuschiten in Palastina', Gottinger Miszellen 46 (1981), pp. 9-10. 37. Cf. E. Lipinski, review of The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah: Morphology and Ideas, by A.S. Kapelrud, VT25 (1975), p. 689; Ben Zvi, HistoricalCritical Study, p. 44, especially n. 14; Torok, 'Kush', p. 58. 38. N. Avigad, 'Six Ancient Hebrew Seals', in S. Abromsky and Y. Aharoni (eds.), (Seper Shemu'el Yeivin) (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1970), pp. 305-306 (Hebrew). 39. This would make it unlikely that the 'explanation' for the extraordinary genealogy of Zephaniah would be found in an attempt to verify that he was a 'real' Judahite, although this may be a concern of the later editor. Cf. Ben Zvi, HistoricalCritical Study, p. 50. The case of Jer. 36.14 seems to be a separate one. Cf. Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 44-45. 40. Cf. G. Molin,' 'Ebed-Melek, der Kuschit: Bemerkungen zu Jer. 38,7-13 und 39,15-18', in R.G. Stiegner (ed.), Al-Hudhud: Festschrift Maria Hofher zum 80. Geburtstag (Graz: Karl-Franzens-Universitat, 1981), pp. 219-23, for comments on 'Ebed-Melek, the Cushite, in the time of Jeremiah.

HAAK 'Cush' in Zephaniah

251

conflict between Judah and the former partners of Assyria. The conflict with 'Cush' was no doubt exacerbated by the alliance of Judah with the 26th Saite Dynasty in Egypt which had come to power with the defeat of the 25th Nubian Dynasty. The oracle accurately reflects the political realities of Judah early in the reign of Josiah.

HISTORICAL PROBABILITY AND THE NARRATIVE OF

JOSIAH'S REFORM IN 2 KINGS

Lowell K. Handy

The original presentation of this paper was made February 19, 1990, at the Midwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, held in Madison, Wisconsin, entitled then: 'Assyro-Babylonian Cult Narratives and Historical Probability for Josiah's Reform'. Gosta Ahlstrom was in attendance when, during the question and answer period at the conclusion of the presentation, I was asked by one scholar just what archaeological evidence would be acceptable to everyone in the room that Josiah had indeed carried out a major cult reform. I replied, without pause, 'Gosta Ahlstrom is in the room; there is no evidence which would be acceptable to everyone in the room'. Gosta's characteristic smile burst into a huge grin, and, beaming, he stood up bowing first to one side of the room, then to the other, and with an audible chuckle sat down. I humbly dedicate the delayed publication of this paper, in this revised form, to my doctoral professor, who doubted whether I could do my dissertation at all and began, believe it or not, arguing that Josiah (as well as Hezekiah) had held a major cult reform, essentially as described in the biblical texts. It is to his eternal (whether he wants eternity or not) honor that he took time to listen to the fumbling arguments of a mere graduate student on the other side of his own published position; that he came to change his position on the topic is a reflection of the scholar who was always, even to the end, willing to be open-minded. In 2 Kings 22-23 there appears a narrative concerning a cult reform in Judah carried out by the good King Josiah. In recreating the history of Judah it has been possible simply to take this material and represent it as historically accurate.1 The fact that the parallel narrative in 1. See, for example, M. Noth, The History of Israel (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 2nd edn, 1960), pp. 274-77; S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975),

HANDY Historical Probability and Josiah 's Reform

253

2 Chronicles 34-35 is a significantly different rendition of what purports to be the same event has traditionally been dealt with by arguing that the Chronicles account does not provide primary information, but is simply a reinterpretation of the narrative found in Kings (a text which is usually presumed to have been available to the Chronicler); this has a high probability of being a correct assumption, and therefore Kings remains the only text for serious investigation into the reform of Josiah's reign.2 Occasionally, however, it is noted that the Josianic material which appears even in Kings may not provide historically reliable information.3 Reading the narrative as a literary construction has been one way to avoid the question of its historical content or to suggest that, at this point, it is impossible to determine the historical events behind the text.4 If one concentrates solely on the biblical narrative of Josiah, this ambiguity of the relation of text to event remains insoluble. However, the relation of cult-concerned narratives in the ancient Near East to the actual events of cult reform which they purport to relate has not yet been systematically studied. This investigation is not going to do that either, though it needs to be done. Instead, this presentation simply wishes to look for a moment at certain Mesopotamian textual material pp. 265-71; J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), pp. 397-401; and M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB, 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 293-300. 2. H. Spieckermann (Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit [FRLANT, 129; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], p. 41) correctly notes the relationship, even if his use of the Kings text is seriously questionable; J.M. Myers, // Chronicles (AB, 13; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. 205-208; though Cogan and Tadmor (// Kings, p. 298) believe that Chronicles has retained the correct chronology for the reform. 3. N. Lohfink, The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22-23 as a Source for the History of Israelite Religion' (trans. C.R. Seitz), in P.D. Miller, Jr, P.O. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 465, though Lohfink holds that there was an older core (Dtr 1) which is viable as a historical source. See the cautionary notes in N.P. Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society (Biblical Seminar, 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 170-71, and R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOTSup, 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 1819. 4. See the studies by N. Lohfink, 'Die Bundesurkunde des Konigs Josias (Eine Frage an die Deuteronomiumsforschung)', Bib 44 (1963), pp. 261-88, 461-98; and R.M. Zorn, 'The Pre-Josianic Reforms of Judah' (PhD dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1977).

254


related to royal cultic activities, especially those recorded for reform or rebuilding of temples, to examine the extent to which these texts may claim to reflect what the modern world would take to be historical veracity. The object is to determine at what juncture in the progression of historical trustworthiness of cult reform narratives from the ancient Near East the story told of Josiah might exist. At the beginning of the discussion it needs to be pointed out that, in spite of a long scholarly tradition that Deuteronomy, in some form or other, was related to Josiah's famous 'book' found in the temple, there is no sustainable reason for this identification.5 The attempt by some scholars to place the composition of Deuteronomy earlier, as, for example, in the reign of Hezekiah, is not really likely and, moreover, it may not be assumed that the 'Second Law' existed in any form which might have been found by Josiah's workers.6 The rationale for assuming that Deuteronomy was in the Jerusalem temple to be found at the time of Josiah has to do with the, supposedly obvious, importance of the document which was recovered at that time, such that so important a manuscript should not have been lost (rather like divine intervention 5. For surveys of the position that Deuteronomy originated during Josiah's reign, see E.W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), pp. 1-7; J.A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon (trans. J. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), pp. 115-25; and A. Ohler, Studying the Old Testament from Tradition to Canon (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1985), p. 280. The position that the Deuteronomic writings, including Deuteronomy, are post-exilic, reflecting Jewish religious and social notions of the culture derived from returning exiles about the earlier Judean community, needs to be taken seriously: see J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (trans. A.I. Fausb011; London: Oxford University Press; Copenhagen: Povl Branner, 1940), pp. 547-48, 585-87; and G.W. Ahlstro'm, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (SHANE, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1982), pp. 51,69 n. 126. 6. See, for example, Nicholson, Deuteronomy, pp. 99-102; D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), pp. 99-101. Some scholars would also date the first edition of the 'Deuteronomistic History' to Hezekiah's reign; see A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Konigsbuches (Halle: Niemeyer, 1953), p. 10; and I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW, 172; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), p. 29; and some even earlier: R. Kittel, The Scientific Study of the Old Testament: Its Principal Results, and their Bearing upon Religious Instruction (trans. J.C. Hughes; Crown Theological Library; New York: Putnam's Sons; London: Williams & Norgate, 1910), pp. 80-84.

HANDY Historical Probability and Josiah 's Reform 255

255

preserving it). That the scroll which was found in the temple was the book of Deuteronomy has been the understanding of the Kings passage in Christian tradition since the Patristic period.7 Well before the time of de Wette, Christian scholars had accepted the identification of Deuteronomy with the text mentioned in 2 Kgs 22.8 as a given.8 De Wette, in his often cited work, merely reflected what was already the general understanding of the text.9 It should also be noted that, beginning with early critical reflection concerning the text, scholars assumed that the 'book' found was not the Deuteronomy which now exists in canon, but that it must have been some variant (or portion) of the text, since clearly the canonical Deuteronomy could not have been in existence at the time of Josiah; or, at least, that Deuteronomy contains more data than that of which the author of Kings had been aware.10 Traditionally, Jewish scholarship has accepted the Talmudic insistence that the 'book' found in the temple was the Torah in its entirety.11 This

7. That for the early Christian authors 2 Kgs 22 refers to the book of Deuteronomy is attested in the works of Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom and Procopius of Gaza; see E. Nestle, 'Miszellen', ZAW22 (1902), pp. 170-72, 305-17; and Nicholson, Deuteronomy, p. 1 n. 2. 8. It has long been noted that both T. Hobbes (Leviathan [ed. R. Tuck; Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], p. 262, and idem, De Cive: The Latin Version [ed. H. Warrender; Clarendon Edition of the Philosophical Works of Thomas Hobbes, 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983], pp. 246-47) and G.E. Lessing ('Hilkias', in K. Lachmann [ed.], Sdmtliche Schriften [Leipzig: Goschen, 1902], XVI, pp. 245-50) assumed that Deuteronomy was the book found in the temple, a position which had been already established as a fact, as far as they knew, in 1651 and 1784, respectively. 9. W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel. Alien undNeuen Testaments (Berlin: G.R. Reimer, 1817), I, p. 184 (= A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament [trans. T. Parker; Boston: Little, Brown, 1843], II, p. 150); M.J. Paul, 'Hilkiah and the Law (2 Kings 22) in the 17th and 18th Centuries: Some Influences on W.M.L. deWette', in N. Lohfink (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL, 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), p. 10; and J.W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography (JSOTSup, 126; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 42. 10. Both Lessing ('Hilkias', p. 245) and de Wette (Lehrbuch, I, pp. 168-79) state that it was some rendition of Deuteronomy, but definitely not the book in the Bible in its current form. 11. B. Ta 'an. 112; b. Mak. 162, 189; b. Sanh. 325. On the centrality of Moses as author of Torah in the tradition, see R. Hammer (ed. and trans.), Sifre: A Tannaitic

256


position would necessitate that the written text of the Torah had been preserved from the time of Moses and stored in the temple despite the problem that the laws were supposed to be placed on stone slabs, not in the temple on a scroll.12 Given that the complete canonical Pentateuch could not have existed before the Babylonian exile, the notion of Torah having been found in the temple needs to be dismissed as a historical impossibility in the same manner as does finding an entire copy of the scroll of Deuteronomy. It has been accepted for a quarter of a millennium that the 'book' supposedly found during Josiah's reign in the temple was not the present book of Deuteronomy; therefore, it is foolish to suppose that the content of the alleged work was an earlier edition of Deuteronomy, as there is very little material in 2 Kings 22-23 which finds a counterpart in Deuteronomy's legal corpus and even less of the Deuteronomic law code which appears in the Kings' version of Josiah. Rather one must acknowledge that Deuteronomy is not likely to have been the text referred to in Kings. At the very least, Deuteronomy cannot seriously be used as a primary source of data for Josiah's reform by anyone attempting to do historical reconstruction. Neither is it permissible to take as a fact that any part or rendition of the current narrative in 2 Kings came from the reign of Josiah. No matter how many 'Dtrs' one wishes to posit, it remains a fact that the current book of Kings ends with an event well after the reign of Josiah. All attempts to find an earlier edition of the work are based on an insupportable thesis that there were earlier editions of this particular text and that the final authors/editors did not substantially modify the manuscripts they were, in fact, consciously modifying. A recent flood of Frank Moore Cross-inspired books and articles have made numerous attempts to date the original edition of the theoretical 'Deuteronomistic

Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (Yale Judaica Series, 24; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 19, 23; L. Baeck, This People Israel: The Meaning of Jewish Existence (trans. A.H. Friedlander; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), p. 84; and S.T. Katz, Jewish Ideas and Concepts (New York: Schocken Books, 1977), pp. 183-204. However, note that Hobbes (De Give, p. 241) states that the Jews of his time understood the book found in the temple at the time of Josiah to have been Deuteronomy. 12. See Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (ed. and trans. M. Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 175, who notes that there is some question as to how the legal texts would have wound up in the temple.


257

History' to the reform of Josiah.13 This tidal wave of scholarship proposes that the Deuteronomistic History was written as booster literature for Josiah's reform, positing Josiah as the new David, while the 'ancient' laws of Moses are presented as being returned to their rightful place in the nation after having been forgotten by the evil monarchs who preceded Josiah.14 For this trajectory of scholarship to be taken seriously we have to assume the truth of Martin Noth's thesis that the biblical texts of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were composed at the same time with an intention of being a single historical narrative with internal cohesion.15 The dating of the first edition to the time of Josiah has tended to be based on a series of theories:

13. Though such theories are well known to pre-date Cross (see R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup, 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981], pp. 13-28), it was P.M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], pp. 274-89) who instigated a flurry of modern scholarly activity on the first and second editions (or even more) of the Deuteronomic History, as it was supposed to have appeared originally in the reign of Josiah and been updated in the exile. Repetitions of his own theories, and ever more dubious arguments to bolster it, have poured forth from a series of scholars: see Nelson, Double Redaction, pp. 18-55. A small sample of the studies would include: J.D. Levenson, 'Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?', HTR 68 (1975), pp. 222-25; R.E. Friedman, 'From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2', in B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 167-92; idem, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit Books, 1987), pp. 103-17; M.A. O'Brien, 'The "Deuteronomistic History" as a Story of Israel's Leaders', AusBR 37 (1989), pp. 14-34; idem, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO, 92; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); S.L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomic History (VTSup, 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991); and, finally, coming from the same scholarly circles, but with a critique of the whole Cross and company reconstruction is B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 107-278. 14. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 278-83; see, also, M. Weippert, 'Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins', VT23 (1973), pp. 415-42. 15. M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. I. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke imAlten Testament (Halle: Niemeyer, 1943), pp. 4554.

258

The Pitcher is Broken 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

the texts occasionally make reference to items which exist 'to this day';16 the prophecy of Huldah states that Josiah will die in peace, whereas the king dies in a military campaign;17 Josiah is said to be the greatest king since David, so this must have been royal propaganda during his reign;18 the material after Josiah is sparse and formulaic, not to mention gloomy, clearly presupposing the exile;19 and the Deuteronomistic History does not reflect a knowledge of the prophecies of Jeremiah even though narrative and theological parallels are apparent.20

There are serious problems with all of the theses which posit a Josianic date for the narrative account of the reform. Noth's single 'Deuteronomistic History' theory has never seriously confronted the basic problem of what the book of Deuteronomy is doing in the Torah (not to mention the Samaritan Pentateuch) if it was the first book in an extended history. However, that remains a minor question when set beside the problem of why this theoretically unified history repeats itself in Joshua and Judges and changes the focus of its attention from book to book (Samuel has few of the interests that concern Kings while Joshua's vision of God at work is quite different from Judges'); moreover, Joshua through Kings generally concerns itself so little with the social aspects often seen as the unique imprint of Deuteronomy over against other law codes. Nor do the various texts seem to have the contents of Deuteronomy before them as an ideal (what is Solomon doing going up 16. Levenson, 'Who Inserted', p. 218; see McKenzie, Trouble with Kings, p. 7. 17. The prophecy of Huldah has long been seen as evidence of a Josianic edition of the text; see C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), pp. 355-56; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 284-85; or J. Gray, I & II Kings (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 649. 18. Cross, CanaaniteMyth, pp.283-85;P.M. Cross andD.N. Freedman, 'Josiah's Revolt against Assyria', JNES 12 (1953), p. 56; M. Weippert, 'Fragen', pp. 439-40. The regnal name formulas of Kings have been used to demonstrate this point; H. Weippert, 'Die "deuteronomistischen" Beurteilungen der Konige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Konigsbiicher', Bib 53 (1972), p. 332. 19. Nelson, Double Redaction, pp. 37-38; H. Weippert, 'Die deuteronomistischen Beurteilungen', pp. 333-34. 20. Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 286 n. 45.


259

to Gibeon to meet Yahweh?). Even the characters change from book to book; David has little to do with religious matters throughout the entirety of Samuel, aside from bringing the ark into Jerusalem and not building Yahweh a temple (except to steal some shew bread and such signs of devotion as joining the enemies of God as a mercenary); moreover, David is nothing if not an unpopular 'tyrant' from 2 Samuel 11 on; while Kings insists he was always good and pious and the very king to emulate, which quite clearly reflects the David who is presented in 1 Chronicles, not he of 2 Samuel. In addition, each individual book has its own coherence which does not easily align into a single Deuteronomistic History. The standard method of dealing with the obvious lack of order to this theoretically single history is to insist that the last edition(s) of the book added vast amounts of material which significantly modified the original structure; this results in scholarly rejection of things like the entire Elijah/Elisha cycle (and/or all the prophecies in the 'Former Prophets' altogether), or the numerous references to the possibility of a coming exile, as having belonged to the 'original' history.21 However popular this form of dealing with the text of Kings may be, it must be taken at best as an exercise in academic hypothesis, since the notion of what the text should have looked like determines what the original text is recreated to have been. As for dating the original book of Kings in the time of Josiah, this seems highly unlikely. The volume ends with a notation of an event in the Babylonian exile. Clearly the book, as it now appears, cannot have been written prior to the sixth century. It is equally clear that the book contains large amounts of historically reliable information, not the least of which are the names of the Judean and Israelite kings. On the other hand, much of the data is dubious as reliable historical data and some narratives are not acceptable to modern historians at all (for example, Elijah flies off in a flaming chariot much like Medea in her dragondrawn chariot, and we happen to know what David thinks to himself in his innermost contemplations). All material which now appears in Kings has been written with an intention to edify the reader and everything which now finds a place in the text has been selected, adapted, created and edited to fit the needs of the author rather than the needs of historians. It must be assumed that the reasons for the selection were those of the 'final' writer/editor and, therefore, nothing may be readily 21. McKenzie, Trouble with Kings, p. 94; Friedman, Who Wrote, p. 138.

260


ascribed to earlier authors without acknowledging that the earlier purposes, and even narratives, have been rewritten or dismissed, but certainly can no longer be facilely recovered (if at all). The reasons given for dating the book to Josiah's reign have been reasonably questioned. The fact that the author says that places, or customs, were still in existence or practice 'to this day' may not have been a problem to the author, either because the phrase was loosely used (less likely), or because, in some sense, the references were still appropriate, which only assumes that the cult went on whether or not the sites were destroyed and the fragmented national existence was maintained by those people left in the land (and even those in exile); this would not even necessitate the writing of the book in Judah rather than in Babylon.22 The prophecy of Huldah may easily be divided into three parts, all of which cohere and all of which presuppose the exile; the comment about Josiah dying (or living) in peace reflects a commonplace for cultic omen statements in the ancient Near East and cannot be used to date the prophecy (which appears, in any case, to have derived from the exilic period at the earliest).23 The 'frame' reference to David in Josiah's segment was no doubt intended to compare Josiah favorably with the legendary King David, but not the David of Samuel and not even the David of 1 Kings (who merely dies, old and incompetent), but 'some other' vision of David, who appears to be the one described in 1 Chronicles. The bigger problem with the reference to David as a means for dating the text, however, is that Josiah is clearly portrayed in the book as the parallel to Solomon and it is this relationship which is central to the author rather than any supposed great affinity to David. It was Solomon who built the sanctuaries that Josiah destroyed; in addition, Josiah began a reign with a corrupt cult which he corrected to a proper form, in reverse parallel to Solomon who had built the proper cult, but ended his reign with corrupt religion. Finally, the gloomy and almost hopeless series of kings after Josiah who are treated very much as a single entity are a fairly transparent parallel to the David who appears at the beginning of 1 Kings. The book starts with an incapacitated and useless ruler, manipulated by those around him, and it ends with useless and incapacitated rulers, the final act being a manipulation by the Babylonian ruler over which the Judean king has no control, much like the aged David maneuvered by 22. Nelson, Double Redaction, pp. 23-26. 23. L.K. Handy, 'The Role of Huldah in Josiah's Cult Reform', ZAW 106 (1994), pp. 50-52.

HANDY Historical Probability and Josiah's Reform

261

Bathsheba at the beginning of the work. Both sections allow for a hopeful outcome from the manipulations, but the kings are out of control even of themselves. In short, there is neither demonstrable evidence for the book of Kings as a product of the court of Josiah, nor can it be understood as reflecting a cultic reform. Neither has archaeological data provided any confirmation of a reform under Josiah. To date there is nothing which has been excavated from Syria-Palestine which can be taken as evidence for Josiah's reform without dubious scholarly gymnastics pirouetting precariously on the balance beam of Josiah's reform precisely as presented in 2 Kings. Given the central position of this 'reform' in modern scholarly concerns, it is no wonder that a number of archaeological finds have been touted as proving, or, at least, reflecting, Josiah's wholesale reform of the cult. Perhaps the most famous of these presentations has been the interpretation provided for the sanctuary excavated at Arad.24 Unfortunately, in the end, the dating of the levels made the interpretation of the destruction of this religious site as a part of Josiah's reform an impossibility.25 It has been argued that the Hebrew letter from Mesad Hasavyahu provides circumstantial evidence for the reform of Josiah by way of demonstrating the obvious control of Josiah and Torah legal norms over Samaria and other areas.26 It is, however, unlikely that the inscription is Judean, and there is no plausible way to connect it to Josiah, even less to

24. For the destruction of the 'temple' of Arad having been a part of Josiah's reform, see Y. Aharoni, 'Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple', BA 31 (1968), pp. 26-27, 30, who first seriously proposed the Josianic connection. More recently, this theory, that the demise of the sanctuary was instigated by Josiah, has been repeated as though it were an established fact; see Z. Herzog, M. Aharoni and A.F. Rainey, 'Arad: An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh', BARev 13.2 (1987), p. 35; and A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 BCE (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1990), pp. 496-98. 25. See D. Ussishkin, 'The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad', 1EJ 38 (1988), p. 156. 26. In J. Naveh, 'A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century B.C.', IEJ 10 (1960), p. 139; it is argued that the laws are 'biblical' on pp. 133-36. This argument was widely accepted; see J.D. Amusin and M.L. Heltzer, 'The Inscription from Mesad Hashavyahu: Complaint of a Reaper of the Seventh Century B.C.', IEJ 14 (1964), pp. 148-49, 157; and Y. Aharoni, The Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Prehistoric Beginnings to the End of the First Temple Period (ed. M. Aharoni; trans. A.F. Rainey; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), pp. 270-71.

262


any sort of reform.27 A building containing hundreds of broken figurines, both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic, has been suggested as evidence of the very destruction of the images of 'other' deities under the directives of Josiah.28 This interpretation of these figurines also cannot be sustained either from the broken condition of the objects themselves or from the biblical texts, since the biblical narrative claims the objects were ground into powder. It has even been suggested that the form of jar impressions stamped with Imlk inscriptions and scarab or rosette motifs show, if not the religious reform, at least the expansion of the power of Josiah into formerly Israelite territory and so the possibility or probability of Josiah's vast religious reform.29 The stamps, however cannot be so easily dated and they cannot be so understood.30 The scattering of references to levels of destruction at various sites excavated in Israel as having been caused by Josiah was a common feature of earlier archaeological reports, but has now tended to disappear from formal notices.31 This leaves the Kings narrative itself as the sole serious 27. N. Na'aman, The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah', Tel Aviv 18 (1991), pp. 45-47. 28. For the figurines themselves, see K.M. Kenyon, Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History (New Aspects of Antiquity; London: Thames & Hudson, 1967), p. 101, and figs, on pp. 83, 102-103, all of which were broken; for the alleged connection to Josiah's reform, see W.G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990), pp. 159-60. 29. That the seals must be related to either Hezekiah or Josiah was maintained by P. Welten, Die Konigs-Stempel: Bin Betrag zur militdrpolitik Judas unter Hiskia und Josia (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palastinavereins; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1969), pp. 156-67. H.D. Lance (The Royal Stamps and the Kingdom of Josiah', HTR 64 [1971], pp. 329-32) insisted that their geographical distribution clearly confirmed the expansion of Judah under Josiah. 30. See a survey of the debate in Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, pp. 455-58. It should also be noted that there is no compelling reason for attributing these royal seals to either Hezekiah or Josiah, as opposed, say, to Manasseh, Amon, or no particular ruler at all. S.W. Holloway, in discussing this aspect with me, wisely pointed out that, were we to take seriously the absolute nature of the cult reforms ascribed to Hezekiah and Josiah, neither of these rulers would have turned to Egyptian symbols so laden with religious and political significance for the Kingdom of Egypt in order to symbolize the Judean's true devotion to Yahweh and the independence of their nation Judah from foreign domination. 31. In addition to the obvious case of Arad, noted above, the destruction and rebuilding of Megiddo has been ascribed to Josiah; J.N. Schofield, 'Megiddo', in D.W. Thomas (ed.), Archaeology and Old Testament Study: Jubilee Volume of the


263

evidence for the historicity of the Josianic reform. In order to investigate the reliable nature of documents retelling cult narratives, it is necessary to turn to other texts from the ancient Near East which deal with cultic activities. There is no lack of material to investigate. From Mesopotamia alone there are numerous references to temple activities, even when one discounts the numerous temple archive documents themselves. Of interest here are the texts which were produced in the name of the king regarding the cultic and religious sphere of the realm. For purposes of examination these texts may be divided into four basic types, each with its own distinct claim to historical veracity. These types are: (1) temple inscriptions and foundation tablets: (2) king annal lists referring to temple activities: (3) apologetical documents related to temple actions; and (4) propaganda about temple affairs produced after the event. As will be suggested, these run from useful to quite unreliable as historical documents. A pair of comments need to be made at the outset about the texts themselves. If one wishes to relate a particular text to any given reform undertaken in the ancient world it first needs to be ascertainable that the text being studied is genuine and not a forgery; this is not a minor problem, since forged documents from the ancient world have been discovered not only from modern hands, but also from the ancient world itself (a more difficult deception to uncover).32 In addition, it needs to be pointed out that, for all practical purposes, all texts which have survived to be studied have come from the styluses of professional scribes and were not the written copy of the rulers whose names appear on them. It has been shown that royal inscriptions tend to be stylized and that these standardized forms were the stock and trade of the professional scribe. Therefore what survives to be studied is not the primary text of the ruler itself, but a secondhand account which may well have been adapted to fit a normative literary form, a fact which should be clearly evident by the time the study of the fourth category is undertaken.

Society for Old Testament Study 1917-1967 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 326. Levels of destruction figure as evidence for Josiah's reforming activities and national expansion in volumes such as H.T. Frank, Bible, Archaeology, and Faith (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 208-209, among others. 32. M.T. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 4; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976), p. 59.

264

The Pitcher is Broken 1. Temple Inscriptions and Foundation Tablets

There are several varieties of inscriptions which have been found as markers to record the work of a ruler on behalf of a deity in the construction of a temple. Bricks used in the construction of the buildings themselves were often pressed with a note concerning the piety of the ruler who ordered the building project, or tablets were written with such sentiments and buried as a foundation deposit in the temple precinct.33 The content of these inscriptions is not generally lengthy and serves to provide information as to which sterling ruler (they do seem always to contain a few words about the greatness of the ruler) had the temple built or rebuilt and, occasionally, an admonition not to tamper with the building or the ritual of the cult, but definitely to rebuild the edifice if it should need repairs. It might well be taken as a safe assumption that, if a temple foundation is found with inscribed bricks stating that the work was done to build or reconstruct a dilapidated temple, the work on the temple was, in fact, contracted by whoever had the bricks inscribed. It is reasonable to assume that reigning kings would acknowledge their own effort, rather than another's, in making these inscriptions. One may question the veracity of a report made by a later ruler as to having found inscriptions set out by a former ruler, but recovery of inscribed bricks is a reasonably clear sign that the ruler named in the inscription was engaged in building that particular temple. This said, tablets which describe current activity on behalf of the cult by the king should be taken seriously as an accurate reflection of the actions of the ruler, or, at least, the intentions of that ruler, since many of these formulaic notations appear in the foundations and thus, were placed prior to the actual construction, let alone completion, of the given temple. 33. R.S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (YNER, 2; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 159-61, supplies a survey of the use of deposit texts down through the period that the Josiah narrative could have been written. It needs to be noted that these inscribed tablets and nails were generally 'predictive', describing the building of a temple which obviously had not yet been constructed, since the texts are often found beneath the foundations or in the lower walls, an observation stressed by B.N. Porter, 'Symbols of Power: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon's Babylonian Policy (681-669 B.C.)' (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1987), p. 101. Of similar format are those objects dedicated to deities, but not directly related to temple construction; see A.K. Grayson, 'Assyria and Babylonia,' Or NS 49 (1980), pp. 156-57, 162.


265

As an example of fairly reliable data for temple construction let us cite a text which may be considered hard evidence: a brick. Among the earliest Assyrian inscriptions for the cult in the city Assur are those by Erisum for the Assur temple. These provide an example of the basic, no frills, brick inscription: Erisum, Ensi of ASSur, son of Ilu-summa, Ensi of Assur, for ASSur, his lord, for his life, and the life of his city, the temple, all its precincts for ASSur he built.34

As these things go, such a simple narrative is hard to doubt as to its reliability. True, it is uncertain whether the ruler is finishing earlier construction or is rebuilding a temple in need of repairs (the ambiguity is explained by van Driel); however, that Erisum had major work done on the temple of Assur in Assur is not questioned.35 Simply reading the text supplies an interesting abundance of information, most of which modern scholars would accept as reliable. The name of the king may be checked with other archaeological sources and be confirmed. That the king of Assur was also the regent of the god of the city-state of Assur is a wellestablished theological posit of Assyrian religion.36 One may question the reality of the god Assur, but that would not affect the reality of a king's having built a temple to him or, for that matter, the faith (or lack of it) which the king held for the deity. Aside from the note on the king's father (which no doubt aids in legitimizing the actions of Erisum), the brick solidly states that the king built the temple for the benefit of his city (either the king's or the god's, it would be the same city), which the modern hermeneutics-of-suspicion scholars might doubt, and for his own life, which even the most cynical of historians will have to admit is an honest statement in some manner. The fact that the bricks (there are several of them) were found in the Assur complex, apparently at the correct stratigraphy for Erisum's construction crew to have put them there, means, barring forgery, that Erisum, in his reign, dealt in a cultic 34. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (RIMA, 1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), p. 28, no. 6; from transliterated text, see translation in parallel column. 35. G. van Driel, The Cult of Assur (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969), pp. 8-9. 36. P. Garelli, 'Les temples et pouvoir royal en Assyrie du XIVe au VHP siecle', in Le Temple et le Culte: Compte rendu de la vingtieme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Publications de 1'Institut historique et archeologique neerlandais de Stamboul, 37; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut, 1975), pp.116-17.

266


reform of at least a minimal nature, such as masonry work on the temple. The basic format of these bricks and foundation deposits surely constitutes clear and secure evidence that the king, who ordered them established, was doing work on the temple in which they are now fastened. Yet, when the inscriptions become expanded, the reliability of the text as historical witness declines. This is not so much the case when the text is expanded with ever longer glorifications of the ruler himself (which only displays royal self-satisfaction),37 but when additions are made which suggest that the king has done major work on the edifice with his own hands. In two variants of the Erisum inscription, for example, the king credits himself with installing the doors of the temple,38 which is possible, but more likely to have been ritually performed than actually handled by the ruler alone (ever try to fasten a door by yourself, let alone a huge Assyrian temple door?), and with laying one layer of bricks in every wall along with libations of butter and honey,39 which seems to be much more an action of ritual than of masonry (or one hopes so at least: butter and honey may be sticky, but it makes lousy mortar and an entire layer of unprofessionally laid brick would stick out noticeably from the work of professional bricklayers40). Here ritual actions seem to be given a literary form displaying a king who does the work on the temple building itself; this may be good inscription formula, but it may not be taken as reflecting historical event.41 Even less weight

37. Note the grand and glorious titles with which the basic temple inscription can expand on the name of the king in even such a mundane inscription as the clay peg of Lipit-IStar; F.J. Stephens, 'A Newly Discovered Inscription of Libit-Ishtar', JAOS 52 (1932), pp. 183-84. 38. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers, p. 27 n. 5. 39. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers, p. 32 n. 10. 40. Having either butter or sugar in the mortar would, in fact, cause the mortar to be useless as a bonding agent, while anyone who is not used to laying a straight course of bricks would have an almost impossible time laying bricks by themselves which would not obviously be the work of an amateur; I confirmed these suspicions by checking with my brother-in-law, Kevin Limper, who is a professional bricklayer. 41. On the king as sole worker in the construction of temples, see A.S. Kapelrud, 'Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings', Or NS 32 (1963), pp. 56-62; also, Stephens, 'Newly Discovered', p. 185; this is true of the narrative of Josiah as well: Lohfink, 'Die Bundesurkunde des Konigs Josias', p. 276. There were, of course, ritual actions in which kings were to take part and which are understood in the


267

may be attributed to claims appearing on bricks which contend that the deities themselves helped build their own houses; so EriSum's father's insistence that Assur helped him build the Istar temple in Assur may be good evidence for work on Istar's temple by Ilu-summa, but cannot be used to argue for the reality of the divine content of the text as historical event. 42 These observations serve as well for the longer temple inscriptions deposited by Assyrian and Babylonian rulers down to the time of Cyrus and the Persian inscriptions. This level of literary data may be described as 'contemporary and reliable'. For all practical purposes, these texts were written to reflect accurately events taking place in as concise a manner as possible and should be taken as basically historical. Even if the kings referred to in the texts did not personally write them, it is reasonable to assume that the scribes did write them at the request of the mentioned rulers for building activities instigated (or continued) by said ruler and were composed before or while the building activity was in progress. 2. King Annal Lists Referring to Temple Activities There is a gap in historical reliability when one turns to the annals kept by the rulers of Assyria.43 First of all, it should be pointed out that these lists tend to be composed to record annual military campaigns and there is sparse information about other activities. Moreover, the annals were often written late in the reigns of the rulers, or even after their deaths, so that there is a time gap between the events and the text. Comparing several texts from a single reign has also demonstrated that the annals can mix up, exclude or reinterpret events which they are recording.44 Usually this does not matter too much, since the normal form in which the temple and cult activities are recorded consists of a short sentence in the 'protocol' section beginning the document, saying nothing more

inscriptions as being actual work on the temples, but these may well have been more symbolic ritual than actual construction; Porter, 'Symbols of Power', pp. 151-64. 42. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers, p. 17 [ 11 ]. 43. Grayson, 'Assyria and Babylonia', pp. 150-52. 44. Note the confusion in the Nabonidus Chronicle; H. Tadmor, 'The Inscriptions of Nabonaid: Historical Arrangement', in H.G. Giiterbock and T. Jacobsen (eds.), Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (Assyriological Studies, 16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 352.

268


than that the ruler in question rebuilt some specific temple which had fallen into ruins. Many of the annals contain no information about cultic activities at all, but a few rulers were proud to include major religious activity in their documents. In a rather ambiguous manner Tiglath-pileser I records sweeping religious restoration in his kingdom: As soon as I controlled the enemies of ASSur, the dilapidated temple of Assyrian Ktar, my mistress, the temple of Amurru, the temple of Lord Labira, the temple of 10 gods, the temples of the gods of my city Assur I built and finished. I set doors in their temples; I brought the great gods inside; I pleased their divinity...45

Though this passage does not provide much detail, it nonetheless presents no reason seriously to doubt the fact that Tiglath-pileser I dealt in several religious renewal activities. The same sorts of questions may be asked about the pleasure of the gods and the work of the king as were asked of the foundation texts. Two further items of consideration, however, need to be pondered. First, to what extent does the inscription owe its content to any earlier inscriptional texts? This is an aspect which is often impossible to determine, though annals and chronicles alike retain a tremendous amount of stereotypical material. And, secondly, does the fact that the 'good' ruler will be one who rebuilds temples affect the need to record such events? For some rulers the actual interest in the cult may have been minimal and yet the traditional inscriptional heritage suggests that they ought to record their piety, which they may then do, but precisely how it reflects any real event is unclear. The Babylonian year lists would be useful in this area since the scribes did use the names of temples to designate individual years, but this, in itself, does not explain why the year was so named (except in cases where it is a year named for some gift or construction on the edifice; but is it a royal action of some significance? That is hard to tell from a year name).46 45. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC: I (1114859 BC) (RIMA, 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 26, vv. 85-94; see translation in parallel column and that in idem, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (RANE; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976), H, p. 16. 46. A.L. Oppenheim (ed. and trans.), 'Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts', in ANET, p. 271. The year names for Samsuiluna contain those for the temple E.BABBAR and temple tower, among others; alas, this does not tell much about the activities which provoked the names themselves. On problems with year/date lists for historical reconstruction see Grayson, 'Assyria and Babylonia', pp. 172-77.


269

This level of data, however, is fairly bias neutral in that these annal records attempt to produce a list of activities carried out by the rulers whose names they bear. Moreover, they do not really provide much more information than do the bricks; they just happen to be further removed from the events and have a slightly stronger reason for amplifying or stretching claims of such work than do texts immediately connected to temple building. In long lists of military campaigns, on the other hand, it may strengthen the reliability of a cult notice being a reflection of an actual event simply because it is uncommon in such annals. These may be designated 'non-contemporary but reliable'. Even though the ruler may have died recently (as, for example, when the annal list covers the entire reign of a ruler), the temple activities are for a recent ruler and taken, it is assumed, from rather mundane court records which do not attempt to make much more of a statement than that the ruler was pious in rebuilding dilapidated cult centers. Since military exploits were the central concern in such inscriptions, such cultic material as is recorded in them has a relative probability of having taken place in some manner or other. 3. Apologetical Documents Beyond the reports of actual deeds recorded of various kings, there are documents which actually make a propagandist^ plea for contemporary cult reforms being made at that moment. These are texts which are written at the time of the religious activity and therefore, if nothing else, can be taken as fairly secure evidence that something was being done in the cultic world. Unfortunately, it is precisely because there was something going on in the cult that caused a need for these contemporary royal proclamations that they provide less information about the historical reality than would be wished. It is hard to determine what the ruler was really trying to accomplish by making large cult reforms when the data and the scholar are separated by two to three millennia; however, the need on the part of the ruler to explain or justify religious behavior in extended arguments suggests that the current activities were not obvious to the populace of the kingdom, such that a simple building brick inscription would have sufficed. Therefore, the modern scholar should not assume that there was a simple understanding of the 'reform' at the time it was carried out.

270


In the case of Esarhaddon, where it is clear that he is attempting to restore the cult image of Marduk to a rebuilt Babylon, which his father had demolished, it is not too far-fetched to assume that what he was trying to do is at least partially recoverable: he was making an effort to straighten out a political and religious mess that he had inherited with the throne. The Black Stone inscription is a marvelous piece of propagandistic writing which takes earlier propagandistic material and reinterprets it by means of divine intervention.47 In this text, the king is called by the god Marduk to set things aright prior to the time previously determined for such action. This is facilitated by means of omens which allow the ruler to know what the deity wishes. There is nothing improbable about omens requiring some such action on the part of the ruler, but one must ask the question as to why the notion arose to check omens and how carefully were these omens to be checked for a predetermined answer. It is not being too skeptical to question the historical nature of the line of text which reads concerning the punishment of Babylon: Seventy years, the allotment for its abandonment, he wrote, but, compassionate Marduk, his heart quickly relented and he turned (it) upside down. He declared its inhabitation in eleven years.48

This information explains why the ruler is called to reform the cult of Marduk and why he goes to check the omens (which, not surprisingly, confirm the request). The report given by Esarhaddon of the manner in which the reform is commissioned would hardly be taken as historically reliable in the modern world, but the reform itself may have followed pretty much the way it is described; this is, after all, the rebuilding of the major city and cult of Babylonia and its god Marduk. However, the writing is clearly theological and not historical. If Esarhaddon's narrative represents a case where reality may be glimpsed behind the text, the Nabonidus inscriptions which explicate his attempts at cult reform appear only to confuse. Even with Beaulieu's 47. The relevant section of the Black Stone may be found in a conflated text edition in R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Konigs von Assyrien (repr.; AfO Beiheft, 9; Osnabriick: Biblio Verlag, 1967 [1956]), pp. 12-19; the following excerpt was translated by the author. For the obvious propagandistic purposes of this and other inscriptions used by Esarhaddon to sway Babylonians and Assyrians (in different manners), see Porter, 'Symbols of Power', pp. 85, 180-83. 48. On this section of text, see D.D. Luckenbill, The Black Stone of Esarhaddon', AJSL41 (1924-25), pp. 165-66.


271

recent dissertation (now a book),49 which valiantly attempts to sort sense out of these inscriptions, what Nabonidus was doing and why he was doing it remains an enigma. 50 These inscriptions form a particularly good example for this section since Nabonidus begins his reign attributing the reform work and temple rebuilding to the request of Marduk in a dream, even though the work is to be done for the god Sin: Marduk said to me: 'Nabonidus, king of Babylon, bear bricks on your horse, build E.HUL.HUL, and establish within the dwelling of Sin, the great god'. I said to the Enlil of the gods, Marduk:...5'

Apparently, later in his reign the same reform was recorded as having been called for by the god Sin himself, and Marduk has disappeared from the inscriptions, though the dream narrative has been retained: Sin, lord of gods and goddesses, who live in heaven, he who before Nabonidus, king of Babylon, came out of heaven... During the nighttime he made me to see a dream, thus: 'E.HUL.HUL, temple of Sin which (is) in Harran build. Lands, all of them, to your hands are given'.52

What this clearly demonstrates is that the primary material for the propagation of the reform work was rewritten and the very theology of the divine principals in the reform has changed. The latter text goes on to attack the religion of the nation as it had formerly been practiced. The questions this form of literature raises are numerous and of enormous importance. Since the genuine reason for this religious reform has eluded us, it is impossible to reconstruct Nabonidus's real motives for instigating cultic change. Moreover, the reforms themselves are left with a certain amount of ambiguity as recorded in the narratives. All that remains by which to determine the motives is theological narrative, 49. P.A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. (YNER, 10; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 50. For an excellent reinterpretation of the activities of Nabonidus which suggests there was no 'great reform' see A. Kuhrt, 'Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood', in M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 117-55. 51. Beaulieu (Reign of Nabonidus, pp. 107-108) provides the transliteration, and on p. 108 provides a translation; see also A.L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, NS 46.3; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), p. 250 n. 12. 52. C.J. Gadd, 'The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus', AnSt 8 (1958), p. 57, who provides the transliteration on which this translation is based as well as his own translation.

272


based on earlier formulas. The god (take your pick, Marduk or Sin) appears and requests the action to be taken. The god is either angry with the nation (Sin) or happy with it (Marduk) depending on which text is being read. The form of the propaganda for the reform is standardized and while the reform clearly took place (since that is what necessitated the composition of these documents), the very cause for it is totally obscure from the documents themselves. Moreover, the time when the reform supposedly occurred differs among the various 'documentations' of it. When one turns to an even more extensive Nabonidus inscription, the one describing the restoration of the high priestess of Sin, which does provide much information on the restitution of the religious center, the instigation of the reform is yet more confusing since divine intervention, omens, the finding of foundation documents, and even nepotism all appear in the very same text as causes for instigating this action.53 All the problems which affected foundation inscriptions also affect propaganda documents, but unlike the temple foundation texts, the propaganda literature purposefully changes the events in order to convey the author's point of view. Therefore, this material may purposefully misrepresent the events it records. In addition, it repeats standard formulas for legitimating religious action, but uses them to its own advantage. This literature clearly does, however, reflect a reform which needed to be explained to its contemporaries, a fact suggesting that it was either not popular or not obviously necessary at the time it occurred. In such documents the presentation of the ruler as the sole actor on the human level who undertakes these reforms at the request of some deity would have been useful as a legitimating device. The need for any given reform was explained to the contemporary populace in terms of divine desire; this left the ruler, by being the individual who received unique commands from the gods, as the first and last source of authority for a reform. It is 'contemporary, but unreliable' as historical data, however useful it may be for understanding royal propaganda.

53. For the text, see E. Reiner, Your Thwarts in Pieces Your Mooring Rope Cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (Michigan Studies in the Humanities, 5; Ann Arbor: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan, 1985), pp. 2-5.


273

4. Propaganda after the Fact Finally, there are those texts which have been written to explain reforms which have already taken place in a former ruler's reign. These documents also reflect a cultic reform of some kind, but after this length of time it is unclear what kind. Sometimes this type of text is related to apologetical documents, such as Esarhaddon's description of why Marduk wanted Babylon and the cult of Marduk destroyed. The explanation is totally unrelated to the events of the destruction of the cult, except in so far as it happened, because it now needs to be rectified. These documents are distanced in time and sometimes by culture from the events they purport to relate and serve a propagandistic purpose unrelated to the historical reform being described. The texts serve, rather, to explain actions at the time of their composition. They are unreliable as historical sources except in the most circumspect manner. The best example of this type of material is the Cylinder Inscription of Cyrus. The object in writing the inscription was to legitimate the rule of Cyrus and show that he was a true follower of Marduk, unlike that awful usurper, Nabonidus. In this inscription it is made clear that Marduk long ago picked Cyrus to set the cult aright and that Nabonidus had disdained the state cult of Marduk, ignoring its rituals. The extent to which this was true in Nabonidus's eyes is unclear, but in the eyes of the Marduk priesthood it was true enough to champion Cyrus (at least after he took control; remember that it is Cyrus's inscription that tells us that the Marduk priesthood championed him earlier). However, the reliability of the inscription is in doubt for at least three reasons: 1.

2.

Cyrus had the text written to legitimate his acquisition of Babylon, and the standardized inscription served his needs nicely, but leaves open for us the possibility that the text has exaggerated the cultic events under Nabonidus and the support of the priests of Marduk for Cyrus for the purpose of emphasizing Cyrus's legitimacy. The Cyrus inscription was apparently composed based on inscriptions made by the Assyrian king Assurbanipal, reference to whom actually occurs in the text;54 Harmatta has successfully shown that in both halves of the Cyrus inscription the

54. C.B.F. Walker, 'A Recently Identified Fragment of the Cyrus Cylinder', Iran 10 (1972), p. 159.

274


3.

scribes borrowed heavily from the Assyrian ruler's inscriptions which had been placed in the Marduk complex of Babylon.55 This suggests that the Cyrus inscription is as good a source of information for the reign of Assurbanipal as for Cyrus (meaning, not very good for either). Despite claims in the inscription of the unfailing devotion of Cyrus to the cult and city of Marduk and the desire to reform the cult to its proper form and glory, there is evidence that Cyrus was never a devotee of Marduk, that the reform so magnanimously described does not appear to have taken place, and that the citizens of Babylon did not simply assume that the Persians had been called in by their deity; indeed, it is not long afterward that the Babylonians began a series of revolts.56

So, while it may be true that the Marduk priesthood regained their status in Babylon (and, then again, they may never have lost it), the Cyrus inscription records two cult reforms of highly dubious historical veracity: the cult changes of Nabonidus, told in hyperbole, which reflect (possibly) an event that happened in some manner, but probably not in a fashion as reflected in Nabonidus's behavior as it appears in Cyrus's cylinder; and the restoration of the cult by Cyrus, which is told in stereotypical (indeed manifestly copied) scribal forms, which would seem more to reflect political expediency than any historical cult reform at all. This type of literary activity may justly be designated 'noncontemporary and unreliable'. 5. Josiah 's Reform Narrative When we turn to the Kings' narrative of Josiah's reform we may attempt to align the narrative with these other types of reform literature. Clearly, Kings is neither a deposit text nor a brick inscription; nor can it be called, in any serious manner, a contemporary text of any kind. Though formulaic passages in the book of Kings suggest that there had been annal-like records of the various rulers, Josiah included,57 there is 55. J. Harmatta, The Literary Patterns of the Babylonian Edict of Cyrus', Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19 (1971), pp. 217-31. 56. See J.M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York: Schocken Books, 1983), p. 43; J. Gates, Babylon (Ancient People and Places; London: Thames & Hudson, 1979), p. 138. 57. 2Kgs23.28.

HANDY Historical Probability and Josiah's Reform 275

275

no reason to assume that the story told in the book was taken carefully, or even haphazardly, from the royal annal literature; it simply makes no such claim. It is possible that the narrative records propaganda which the royal palace set forth when it made some cultic reforms, since the entire section which deals with the disclosure to Josiah of something amiss with the religion of Judah is composed of stereotypical cult-reform passages.58 The text, however, is clearly not contemporary with the events described in it and, in all probability, was written by persons unrelated to the reign of Josiah altogether. Therefore, the Josianic reform narrative of Kings would have to be construed as falling into the fourth category of reform literature; that of 'non-contemporary and unreliable'. Moreover, unlike Cyrus's cylinder inscription, this is a text which is not attempting to deal directly with the events involved, or their manipulation within living memory. What one has in the prose literary narrative form of the Josianic text is even further removed from a historically reliable source than is Cyrus's clearly form-composed inscription. The purposes of the author(s) of Kings had to do with issues contemporary with the writing of the story and not with events of Josiah's reign, then a century or more in the past. The tale, which is composed of stereotypical elements, we may safely assume relates nothing which can be taken by the modern historian as reliable data in the form in which it now appears. Nor, given the Cyrus inscription as a historiographical narrative for comparison, is it safe to claim, at such a remove in time, that there actually was a reform in Judah of any kind from which this tale of the good king Josiah derived.

58. The author presented these stereotyped passages in 'Calling the Kings to Reform: Josiah, Esarhaddon, Nabonidus', paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 22 November 1988; the material dealing with the double-check on divine requests for cult reform, found in Kings in the person of Huldah, appears in Handy, 'Role of Huldah', pp. 42-45, 48-52, which also explains why the Kings narrative of Josiah cannot be understood as having been written prior to the exile, pp. 48-51.

HARRAN: CULTIC GEOGRAPHY IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN EMPIRE

AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SENNACHERIB'S 'LETTER TO HEZEKIAH' IN 2 KINGS

Steven W. Holloway

Gosta Ahlstrom, despite his passionate convictions about virtually every topic in the ancient Near East, had the laudable grace to listen to the ideas of students and colleagues, however dissonant with his own preferred interpretations and interests, and to esteem—if suitably argued and copiously referenced—the intellectual fruits borne of these research anomalies. Never loath to air his opinions with tart observations uttered in his Swedish-encrusted English, a trait which convinced some who did not know the man's mind or spirit that he was a brittle martinet given to despotic ways, his commitment to intellectual freedom and insistence on the fullest measure of academic integrity was a source of inspiration to his cadre of dissertation advisees and honorary students. Gosta, who admired the formidable Assyrians from a cautious scholarly distance, found their religion and civilization intriguing, and encouraged the research behind this paper with enthusiasm. If Gosta's relentless yearning for exact knowledge of Iron Age religion in Palestine was an atavistic translation of the Viking lust for booty, conquest and maritime adventure of his ancestors, then perhaps he had more in common with the Assyrians than he himself knew. 1. Overview of Neo-Assyrian Cultic Involvement in 'Greater Assyria' With the exception of Harran and Babylonia, royal Assyrian interest in cults outside the Assyrian heartland appears to have been pragmatic and marginal. Provincial governors and officials stationed in vassal cities did not send routine dispatches to the Great Kings detailing the performance of ritual activities, the activities of the priesthood, or the status of sacrificial provisions in the local temples, unless these activities had

HOLLOW AY Harran in the Neo-Assyrian Empire

211

overtly political consequences, as, for instance, the temple of the Urartian national god Haldi at Musasir.1 Neo-Assyrian religious imperialism, as embodied by the formal requirement of polities in the 'Land of ASsur' to provide material support for the cult of A§§ur in the city of Assur, appears to have been exclusively a provincial duty.2 Provincial governors (LU.NAM.MES) were required to provide livestock, grain and bread for the regular temple offerings (ginu),3 the daily rations of the gods, as well as other types of perishable 1. Espionage reports on Urartian political developments and troop movements sometimes mention the performance of royal sacrifices (SAA 5, nos. 84 [= ABL 381], 85 [= ABL 148], 165 [= ABL 1298 +]); the interest lies in the possible preparations for military offensives, not worship of Haldi per se. Urzana, king of the buffer state of Musasir where the Urartian national temple of Haldi was located, was issued orders by Assyria that no one, meaning probably high officials and the king of Urartu, was to be permitted to participate in temple rituals without the express permission of the king of Assyria, pellucid evidence that Assyria endeavored to control Urartian affairs through limiting access to the tutelary cult of the nation; ABL 409 = SAA 5, no. 147. Lanfranchi and Parpola advance arguments that this letter was written after Sargon's eighth campaign, indicating that Urzana (and presumably the cult statue of Haldi) had been returned from Assyrian exile to Musasir (SAA 5, xvii-xviii); the letter is addressed to the Assyrian ndgir ekalli, evidence that the king of Musasir was administratively subordinate to this powerful figure. Earlier in Sargon's reign, support for Assyria among the neighboring nations had proved vexatious: Argisti of Urartu, quoted from a letter addressed to the Kummeans, complains that 'Ever since I have been on the throne, you have sent no-one for an audience with me; everyone comes to me in the name of AsSur and your gods', SAA 5, no. 95: obv. 3-5 (= CT53, no. 172 +). The Elamite king Tammaritu greeted Assurbanipal by invoking Bel, Nabu, Assur, Samas, and probably other Assyrian deities (ABL 1400 obv. 3-5), while in another letter king Urzana himself diplomatically blessed Sargon by AsSur, Bel, [Nabu], and Ktar; SAA 5, no. 146 (= ABL 768) rev. 6-7. 2. J.N. Postgate, The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur', World Archaeology 23.3 (1992), pp. 251-52. The system of providing offerings for the ASSur temple in a fixed rota by provinces is attested in administrative texts from the time of Tiglath-pileser I. For an orientation to the topic of Assyrian administrative organization, see the discussions in J.N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Studia Pohl, Series Maior, 3; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), pp. 200-244; idem, The Economic Structure of the Assyrian Empire', in M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), pp. 193-221. J. PeCirkova, The Administrative Methods of Assyrian Imperialism', ArOr 55 (1987), pp. 162-75, is an introductory work based on secondary studies. 3. On the materials identified as gmti-offerings in Neo-Assyrian texts, see G. van

278


offerings and provisions (sattukku, dariu, resetu) for the temple of Assur at Assur.4 Assyrian temples, including the national temple of Assur at Assur, had many sources of income and supply, including private lands and royal and private grants; it is reasonably clear, however, that provincial governors played an important role in the daily provisioning of the Assur temple in Neo-Assyrian times.5 The unique position Babylonia occupied in Assyrian foreign policy was mirrored in the variety of stratagems which were tried, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over Babylonia through its ancient city cults. In no other documented geographical region did Sargonid Assyria attempt such extreme measures of direct religious influence. Assyrian manipulation of the major cult-centers in Babylonia ranged from Sennacherib's destruction of Babylon's temples and divine images, couched in the royal inscriptions in the quasi-apocalyptic rhetoric of cosmogonic reversal, to the costly, labor-intensive and surely controversial program of physical reparations to the temples and cult images of Babylon carried out by his son, Esarhaddon. As we shall see, the cult of

Driel, The Cult of Assur (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969), Appendix III. gmw-offerings could be commuted for cash: 9 MA.NA 15 GIN KU.BABBAR gi-nu-u sa as + sur, available at the 'New Palace'; T. Kwasman, Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum (Studia Pohl, Series Maior, 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988), no. 40b obv. 1-2 (= ADD 49). For the latest treatment of the majority of the known Neo-Assyrian g/«w-offering texts, see SAA 7, nos. 188-192, 194, 196, 200-201, 204, 206-207, 209-12. 4. As Postgate observes, these were not elite luxury items, but were simply groceries for the daily menu of the AsSur temple; Postgate, 'The Land of Assur', p. 251. On the nature of the resell (SAG.MES) temple offering, see J.N. Postgate, review of Assyrische Tempel, by B. Menzel, JSS 28 (1983), pp. 156-59. 5. See the discussions in van Driel, The Cult of Assur, pp. 185-91; Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, pp. 214-16; B. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel (Studia Pohl, Series Maior, 10; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), I, pp. 59-61. The responsibility shared by certain Ur III ensis (city-governors) to supply the temples of Nippur on a monthly(?), or at least rotating basis bears a similarity to the cultic duties of the Neo-Assyrian governor. If Hallo's interpretation is correct, the ensis were held accountable for the provisioning of the national religious center, although it was their individual cities that bore the burden of the payments in kind; W.W. Hallo, 'A Sumerian Amphictyony', JCS 14 (1960), p. 89; see A.W. Sjoberg et al. (eds.), The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1984), II, pp. 65-67 (bala B).

HOLLOWAY Harran in the Neo-Assyrian Empire

279

Sin of Harran was financed and administered by the Neo-Assyrians on a par with the city cults of Babylonia and the Assyrian heartland itself. 2. Harran: From its Origins to the Neo-Babylonian Conquest Harran: Origins through the Early Assyrian Period The name of the northern Mesopotamian city of Harran first appears in the late third millennium6 administrative texts from Ebla; at that time the city is known to have had a queen, and engaged in gift exchanges and trade with Ebla.7 The cult of Sin of Harran is first attested in the Mari archives.8 A letter written to the court of Zimri-Lim describes a treaty 6. All dates in this article are BCE unless otherwise noted. 7. A. Archi, 'Harran in the III Millennium B.C.', UF 20 (1988), pp. 1-8; P.M. Fales, 'Harran: fonti e problematica per 1'eta preamorrea', in idem (ed.), Studi su Harran (Quaderni del Seminario di Iranistica, Uralo-Altaistica e Caucasologia deH'Universita di Venezia, 6; Venice: La Tipografica, 1979), pp. 13-41. The site itself shows the earliest evidence of occupation in Early Bronze III; K. Prag, 'The 1959 Deep Sounding at Harran in Turkey', Levant 2 (1970), pp. 75-76 ('Early Dynastic II-IIF); surface finds from nearby Asagi Yarimca revealed sherds of Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk and Jemdet Nasr wares. The Early Bronze III pottery assemblage from Tell Hammam et-Turkman corresponds closely with Harran Ha and lib; L.C. Thissen, 'An Early Bronze III Pottery Region between the Middle Euphrates and Habur: New Evidence from Tell Hammam et-Turkman', in O.M.C. Haex, H.H. Curvers and P.M.M.G. Akkermans (eds.), To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour ofMaurits N. van Loon (Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1989), pp. 199-200, 206-207. 8. P.M. Fales, Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira (Centro per le antichita e la storia deU'arte del Vicino Oriente: Studi economici e technologic!, 2; Rome: Centro per le antichita e la storia deU'arte del Vicino Oriente, 1973), p. 99 n. 54. For other discussions of the pre-Nabonidus cult of Sin of Harran, see A. Mez, 'Geschichte der Stadt Harran in Mesopotamien bis zum Einfall der Araber' (PhD dissertation, KaiserWilhelm-Universitat, Strasburg, 1892); E. Combe, Histoire du culte de Sin en Babylonie et en Assyrie (Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1908), pp. 54-62, 75-81; J. Lewy, The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus', HUCA 19 (1945-46), pp. 453-86; J.N. Postgate, 'Harran', in RIA, IV, pp. 124-25; J. Tubach, Im Schatten des Sonnengottes: Der Sonnenkult in Edessa, Harran und Hatrd am Vorabend der christlichen Mission (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1986,) pp. 129-31; T.M. Green, The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 114; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 19-43. M. Stol, 'The Moon God as Seen by the Babylonians', in D.J.W. Meijer (ed.), Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van

280


concluded in the temple of Sin of Harran (E DINGIR.EN.ZU sa ha-arra-mm.KI) between Asdi-Takim (identified elsewhere as king of Harran), the kings of Zalmaqqum, and the elders of the DUMU-iamina.9 Harran (URU.SA.KASKAL) is mentioned in an Old Babylonian itinerary listing the daily marches from Larsa in southern Babylonia to Emar on the Middle Euphrates.10 Little is known of the cult's history during the late second millennium. Harran was incorporated into the Mitannian kingdom of Hanigalbat together with the greater region of northern Mesopotamia. The city of Harran is mentioned in a smattering of Hittite texts,11 but Sin of Harran figures only in Hittite sources in the treaty of Suppiluliuma with Sattiwaza of Mitanni. There, Sin of Harran appears in the list of Mitannian gods, probably owing to the role the city played in the actions leading up to the treaty.12 Hanigalbat and its resources were avidly Wetenschappen Verhandelingen, Afd. Letterkunde, NS 152; Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1992), pp. 245-77, is an important exploration of Sumero-Akkadian terminology for the lunar phases and religious thought concerning the moon. Y. Kobayashi, 'Haran', in ABD, III, pp. 58-59, is to be avoided. 9. G. Dossin, 'Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari', in Melanges Syriens offerts a Monsieur Rene Dussaud (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique, 30.2; Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939), II, p. 986: 10-11; for other references to Asdi-Takim, see ARM XIV 95; XXVH 80:8; 81:6-7. 10. W.W. Hallo, The Road to Emar', JCS 18 (1964), pp. 76-77; BJ. Beitzel, 'From Harran to Imar along the Old Babylonian Itinerary: The Evidence from the Archives royales de Mart', in G.A. Tuttle (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 209-19; idem, The Old Assyrian Caravan Road in the Mari Royal Archives', in G.D. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 35-57. The toponym ha-ra-na, which appears in several Kultepe tablets as a city located on the caravan route between Assur and KaniS, is probably Harran; see K. Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der altassyrischen Zeit (Repertoire geographique des textes cundiformes, 4; Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, series B, 7; Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1991), p. 51. 11. G.F. del Monte and J. Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewassernamen der hethitischen Texte (Repertoire geographique des textes cuneiformes, 6; Beihefte zum Tiibinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, series B, 7; Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1978), p. 90; add now P. Cornil, 'Liste des noms geographiques des textes hittites: KBo XXIH-XXX, XXXm, KUB XLV-LVH', Hethitica 10 (1990), p. 24 (KBo XXVmil4,6). 12. KBo, 11 n 54 = 2 II 30; KBo, I 3 II 23; E.F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente


281

contended for by the Hittite emperors and the resurgent Middle Assyrian kingdom. According to the 'Deeds of Suppiluliuma', Harran and WaSsukanni were burnt by the king of Carchemish, Piyassili, son of the Hittite emperor Suppiluliuma, in a move against the Assyrian-backed Mitannian ruler Suttarna.13 Considering the quantity of Hittite texts devoted to the plethora of active cults within the empire (and beyond), the silence regarding Sin of Harran, broken only once, is probably symptomatic of its unimportance in the eyes of the Hittite rulers and their religious specialists.14 Although the cult of the goddess Nikkal, spouse of the moon god, spread throughout northern Mesopotamia with the Hurrians and is attested in both Hittite15 and Ugaritic sources,16 no second-millennium texts from the region identify her with the city of Harran; despite Gurney's speculation, it remains an unproven assumption that the Human version of the Nikkal cult was 'borrowed' from Harran.17 aus Kleinasien (Boghazkoi-Studien, 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923), I, p. 53: rev. 40 (no. 2); restored in p. 33: rev. 54 (no. 1). Prag ('The 1959 Deep Sounding at Harran', p. 73 n. 23) observes that 'the invocation of Sin of Harran in the list of Mitannian gods is doubtless due to the part played by the inhabitants of Harran in the preceding campaign, not purely to his status as a god of high repute, a worthy guarantor of the Hittite-Mitannian Treaty'. 13. H.G. Guterbock, The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili II', JCS 10 (1956), p. I l l : 30'-31' (Guterbock's no. 35 = KUB, XIX 13 II 30-31). 14. On lunar deities in the Hittite, Hurrian and Neo-Hittite cults, see E. Laroche, 'Divinites lunaires d'Anatolie', RHR 148 (1955), pp. 1-24; idem, 'La lune chez les Hittites et les Hourrites', in D. Bernot et al. (eds.), La lune: mythes et rites (Sources Orientales, 5; Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1962), pp. 119-25; M. Kala9, 'Das Pantheon der hieroglyphenluwischen Inschriften', Or NS 34 (1965), p. 406. Sin of Harran is unattested so far in texts from Ugarit, Alalakh and Meskene-Emar, further evidence from silence of the cult's international unimportance in the Late Bronze Age. 15. O.R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1976; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 13-14,18,23-24. 16. A. Herdner, 'Nouveaux textes alphabetiques de Ras Shamra—XXIV6 Campagne, 1961', in C.F.-A. Schaeffer (ed.), Ugaritica VII (Mission de Ras Shamra, 18; Bibliotheque archeologique et historique, 99; Paris: Mission Archeologique de Ras Shamra and Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner; Leiden: Brill, 1978), p. 287: 14 (RS 24.250 + 259, a ritual text); J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit. IV. Textes accadiens des archives sud (Mission de Ras Shamra, 9; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale and Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1956), p. 52: rev. 20' (RS 17.340, a Hittite vassal treaty with Niqmaddu of Ugarit); KTU 1.24 (RS 5.194, a mythological account of Nikkal's marriage to the moon god). 17. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, p. 14. The city of Harran appears neither as a toponym nor as an element of a proper name in the Nuzi texts canvassed

282


The 'fortress Harran' was (re)captured by both ASsur-uballit I and Shalmaneser I during the largely successful Middle Assyrian push to dominate and colonize Hanigalbat.18 Sporadic mentions in the inscriptions of the Middle Assyrian kings Adad-nerari I, Shalmaneser I, Tiglathpileser I and A§sur-bel-kala suggest that, while the city functioned as a regional hub (halsi and KUR [URU].Mrram), Assyrian political influence was limited: there is no solid evidence that Harran was a provincial capital at this date.19 By the time Tiglath-pileser I endeavored to reassert Assyrian control in this region, the population had shifted or was in the process of shifting from predominantly Hurrian to Aramaean.20 Postgate plausibly surmises that Harran entered the in A. Fadhil, Studien zur Topographic und Prosopographie der Provinzstddte des Konigreichs Arraphe (Baghdader Forschungen, 6; Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), passim. The iconography of the moon god Anna (Hittite) and Kushuh (Hurrian) are notably different from Neo-Assyrian Sin; see D. Collon, 'The Near Eastern Moon God', in D.J.W. Meijer (ed.), Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, p. 25. 18. A. Harrak, Assyria and Hanigalbat: A Historical Reconstruction of Bilateral Relations from the Middle of the Fourteenth to the End of the Twelfth Centuries B.C. (Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik, 4; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1987), pp. 12, 64, 66, 135, 172; on the political constants between the Middle and early Neo-Assyrian regimes in this region, see M. Liverani, 'The Growth of the Assyrian Empire in the Habur/Middle Euphrates Area: A New Paradigm', SAAB 2 (1988), pp. 87-92. Adadnerari I (1307-1275) claimed that the great gods gave him rulership over fortress (halsi) Harran and other cities as far as the Euphrates; K. Kessler, 'Das Schicksal von Irridu unter Adad-narari I', RA 74 (1980), p. 63: 12' (K. 2650); A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia EC (To 1115 BC) (RIMA, 1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), A.0.76.3.37-43. 19. Prag, 'The 1959 Deep Sounding at Harran', p. 73; Postgate, 'Harran', p. 123. Unpublished Middle Assyrian tablets from Tell Fray indicate that a relationship existed between the site and Harran, and that the former was placed in charge of administering water rights on the Euphrates for irrigation; A. Bounni and P. Matthiae, 'Tell Fray: ville frontiere entre hittites et assyriens au XHIe siecle av. J-C.', Archeologia (Dijon) 140 (1980), p. 34. It would appear that the Late Bronze city was destroyed by Shalmaneser I (p. 39). For a current archaeological overview of the Balikh and Habur regions in the twelfth century, see T.L. McClellan, Twelfth Century B.C. Syria: Comments on H. Sader's Paper', in W.A. Ward and M.S. Joukowsky (eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C.: From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1992), pp. 164-73. 20. Administrative documents from the time of Tiglath-pileser I suggest that Assyria had lost control of the lands between the Habur and the Euphrates to the west; see J.N. Postgate, review of Die Orts- und Gewdssernamen der mittelbaby-


283

Assyrian administrative network at the time of Shalmaneser Ill's annexation of Til-Barsib on the Upper Euphrates; in 814 Bel-lu-balat could claim to be governor (Mkin mdti) of Tahiti, Harran, Huzirina, Dura, Qibani, and Balihu, a sizeable region encompassing the upper half of the Balikh river basin.21 Huzirina but not Harran is listed among the cities that joined the rebellion against Shalmaneser III and SamSi-Adad V;22 there is no hard evidence that Harran was subject to Assyrian military reprisal at any time during the Neo-Assyrian period, early or late. Motives for sustained early Neo-Assyrian political and cultural investment in this region are not difficult to fathom. Domination of the Mitannian kingdom of Hanigalbat appears to have been the paramount political objective of Middle Assyrian expansionism;23 consequently, the early Neo-Assyrian kings treated their hegemony over this territory as a 'right'. Harran (URU.KASKAL), meaning 'road', 'carrefour', was advantageously situated on the ancient east-west caravan artery across the Fertile Crescent linking the city with Til-Barsib, Carchemish, Aleppo and other points west and with Guzana, Nasibina, and central Mesopotamia to the east; riverine traffic on the Balikh allowed access to major Aramaean cities on the Middle Euphrates and the trade-rich cities of Babylonia.24 Assyrian westward expansion, as witnessed by the tally of luxury goods seized or extorted from North Syrian and Anatolian polities in the annals of Shalmaneser III and later emperors, had as its lonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, by K. Nashef, AfO 32 (1985), p. 100. 21. Bel-lu-balat is the only certain example of an Assyrian official who held the office of both turtanu and governor of Harran; on the debunking of Potter's theory that these offices were routinely held by the same individual, see Postgate, 'Harran', p. 123, and the discussion of NabQ-paSir in S.W. Holloway, 'The Case for Assyrian Influence in Israel and Judah: Inference and Evidence' (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1992), pp. 341-42. 22. IR, 29: 45-51; D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. I. Historical Records of Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon (Ancient Records, 1; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926), §715. 23. Harrak, Assyria and Hanigalbat, pp. 278-84; P. Machinist, 'Assyrians and Hittites in the Late Bronze Age', in H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alien Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (XXV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Berlin, 3. bis 7. Mi 1978; Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient, 1; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1982), p. 266. 24. S.W. Cole, 'Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, 750-612 B.C.' (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1990), pp. 82-89.

284


frank objective the funnelling of moveable wealth from the West into the Assyrian heartland, and the political and administrative sequestering of the commercial activities of the major trade and production centers for Assyrian exploitation.25 Booty trains, shipments of timber and other valuable raw goods and annual tribute processions passed eastward along the harrdn sarri, while Assyrian armies bound for campaigns in Anatolia, Syria-Palestine and ultimately Egypt marched west; mastery of the major overland highways in the Harran province was strategically crucial for sustained Assyrian expansion in the West.26 Besides the city's proven worth as an economic and administrative fulcrum, the ancient cult of the moon god of Harran carried a prestige that was both acknowledged and augmented by pre-Sargonid Neo-Assyrian kings: Shalmaneser III is credited with rebuilding Ehulhul, the temple of Sin of Harran (Table 1: 1), while Adad-nerari III erected at least two lunar crescent standard steles in Anatolia/North Syria bearing annalistic campaign inscriptions (Table 2: 1-2). In historical retrospect, Harran's location on the major caravan routes, and its career as a major cultic and administrative center for northern Mesopotamia, won for it a remarkably consistent investment in Assyrian Realpolitik. Harran in the Sargonid Period Sargon II stated that he reestablished the coveted exemptions from taxation and military levy (zakutu and kidinnutu) of Assur and Harran 'which had been forgotten for ages';27 it is impossible at present to 25. On the variety and quantities of this booty, see N.B. Jankowska, 'Some Problems of the Economy of the Assyrian Empire' (trans. G.M. Sergheyev), in I.M. Diakonoff (ed.), Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History (Moscow: 'Nauka' Publishing House, 1969), pp. 253-76; I.J. Winter, 'North Syria in the Early First Millennium B.C., with Special Reference to Ivory Carving' (PhD dissertation, Columbia University, 1973), pp. 484-514. 26. On the historical geography of the Neo-Assyrian 'royal road', see the discussion and maps in K. Kessler, Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographic Nordmesopotamiens nach keilschriftlichen Quellen des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Beihefte zum Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, series B, no. 26; Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1980), pp. 183-236. The discussion of 'Horse Reports' in Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, pp. 7-18, gives some idea of the quantity of horses that passed through this region to their destination in Assyria proper. 27. H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons nach den Papierabklatschen und Originalen (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1889), II, no. 26, pi. 56: 5; F.H. Weissbach, 'Zu den Inschriften der Sale im Palaste Sargon's II. von Assyrien', ZDMG 72


285

determine whether Harran had actually enjoyed this special status before, or whether Sargon, in his quest for political legitimation, invented a 'traditional' civic right in order to bestow it upon a grateful population. In any event, the ranking of distant Harran with the ancient capital city of Assyria is indicative of the pivotal position Harran occupied on the political chessboard of the late eighth-century empire. Parpola ascribes a total of sixteen ABL and CT 53 letters to Nabu-pa§ir, a high official of Sargon II stationed in Harran.28 Parpola identifies him as 'governor of Harran' without stating why;29 I assume his reasons stem from the fact that (1) the majority of the known correspondents of Sargon II were provincial governors,30 and (2) the responsibilities of Nabu-pasir as gleaned from his letters are consonant with those of a provincial governor.31 Nabu-pasir had the authority to deal with royal petitions;32 he forwarded large quantities of oil to the governor of DurSarrukin,33 sent clothing to soldiers in Til-Barsib,34 added men to the 'royal corps',35 dealt with deportees and fugitives,36 and, perhaps most

(1918), p. 176: 5; on the nature of such royal exemptions, see Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, pp. 238-44; J.A. Brinkman, 'Babylonia under the Assyrian Empire, 745-627 B.C.', in M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), p. 228, and nn. 38-41. 28. SAAl.nos. 188-203. 29. S. Parpola, 'Assyrian Royal Inscriptions and Neo-Assyrian Letters', in P.M. Fales (ed.), Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis (Orientis Antiqui Collectio, 17; Rome: Istituto per 1'Oriente, 1981), p. 137; idem, SAA 1, p. 234. 30. Parpola, 'Assyrian Royal Inscriptions and Neo-Assyrian Letters', p. 122. 31. If Nabu-paSir was in fact the governor of Harran, then the letters in which he reports on activities of the turtdnu are proof that, at this time at least, these positions were held by different individuals; ABL 1073 = SAA 1, no. 194, and ABL 701 = SAA 1, no. 195. The only certain instance of a single individual holding the offices of turtdnu and governor of Harran is Bel-lu-balat, eponym for 814; W. Andrae, Die Stelenreihen in Assur (WVDOG, 24; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913), p. 52, no. 44; for a list of known Assyrian governors and officials at Harran, see Postgate, 'Harran', p. 123. 32. ABL 131 = SAA 1, no. 190. 33. CT53, no. 20 = SAA 1, no. 192. 34. ABL 642 = SAA 1, no. 193. 35. ABL 1073 = SAA 1, no. 194. 36. ABL 1073 = SAA 1, no. 194; ABL 701 = SAA 1, no. 195; CT 53, no. 208 = SAA 1, no. 196; CT53, no. 839 = SAA 1, no. 197.

286


telling, organized the (re)building of a city, DQru.37 One letter in its entirety is a report to the king on a festival of Sin: the 'king's sacrifices' were performed and all went smoothly.38 Another letter, partially lost, is concerned with a priest of the moon god (Sahr) from Nerab.39 Letters from Tab-sill-ESarra, the provincial governor of Assur,40 and A§Sur-bani, the governor of Kallju,41 display a similar mixture of authority over secular and cultic activities falling within their administrative districts, with the differences one would expect from their respective geo-political positions in the empire. A series of Quyunjik tablets published by Johns as an 'Assyrian Doomsday Book' appears to have been part of a cadastral survey of Harran and its environs in the seventh century.42 Pales's detailed onomastic analysis of these texts reveals that the population, both within the major cities themselves and in the surrounding villages, was predominantly West Semitic (Aramaean), with a sizable minority bearing Assyro-Babylonian names.43 Sennacherib's published royal inscriptions

37. ABL 1223 = SAA 1, no. 201. Parpola's translation and caption for the letter 'Building the Town of Duru' would lead the reader to believe that Nabu-paSir built the city de novo. Bel-lu-balat, eponym for 814, claimed to be Sdkin mdti of Tahiti, Harr^n, Huzirina, Duru (URU.BAD), Qibani, the land of Zallu, and Balihu; Andrae, Die Stelenreihen in Assur, p. 52, no. 44. Evidently Duru fell within the jurisdiction of the governorate of Harran. 38. ABL 134 = SAA 1, no. 188. 39. ABL 1227 + CT53, no. 923 = SAA 1, no. 189. 40. SAA 1, nos. 75-109. Most deal with military, diplomatic and administrative affairs; however, ABL 577 = SAA 1, no. 75, presents the king with candidates for the position of priest at the AS§ur temple, while SAA 1, nos. 77-79, describe construction work on temples and a ziggurat. 41. SAA 1, nos. 111-14, deal with cultic affairs, nos. 116-18 are devoted to taxation, and nos. 119-21 describe construction projects. 42. C.H.W. Johns, An Assyrian Doomsday Book, or Liber Censualis of the District Round Harran; in the Seventh Century, B.C. (Assyriologische Bibliothek, 17; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901); Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, pp. 28-39; Fales, Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira, pp. 12,91-98. 43. Fales, Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira, pp. 105-14. Zadok finds evidence of Arab names (those with Southwest Semitic precative elements) in the cuneiform sources for the Harran region. 'Most of these names show that the Arabians were not only influenced by the Aramaic cultural and linguistic substratum, but also assimilated to some extent with the Arameans'; R. Zadok, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods: An Onomastic Study (Jerusalem: H.J. & Z. Wanaarta and Tel-Aviv University, rev. edn, 1978), p. 220


287

are devoid of references to Harran, but a much-weathered lunar crescent standard stele bearing what was probably a dedicatory inscription of his was found at Asagi Yarimca, a 'suburb' of Harran (Figure 1 and Table 2: 3). Numerous letters and royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal deal with cultic affairs in Harran (see Table 1: 6-17). As is well known, A§§ur-uballit II set up a government-in-exile at Harran after the Assyrian heartland fell to the Medo-Babylonian confederacy, only to be routed from the city with his Egyptian allies and vanquished at Carchemish.44 Significantly, the Babylonian Chronicle asserts that 'he [Nabopolassar] carried off the vast booty of the city and temple [of Harran]';45 in other words, the victorious armies dealt with the temple of Sin of Harran as an enemy, that is, Assyrian, temple. There is currently no published epigraphic material from ancient Harran (= Altinbasak) dating from the Neo-Assyrian occupation.46 Table 1: Assyrian Involvement in the Cults of Harran King

Act

Source

Area/City and Political Status

1) Shalmaneser HI (re)building of Ehulhul, royal inscriptions Harran: provincial the temple-complex of (Assurbanipal)',47 capital Sin of Harran 2) Sargon II

letter informing the king that the 'king's sacrifices' had been performed before Sin of Harran

royal Harran: provincial correspondence'.48 capital

44. M. Smith ('Did Psammetichus I Die Abroad?', OLP 22 [1991], pp. 101-109) raises the intriguing possibility that Psammetichus I perished while defending Harran against the Babylonians (sic) in 610. 45. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS, 5; Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975), no. 3, p. 95: 64. 46. See Holloway, 'Case for Assyrian Influence', p. 325 n. 1; add now N. Yardimci, '1989 Yili Harran Kazilari', Kazi Sonuflari Toplantisi 12.2 (1990), pp. 363-78, and idem, '1990 Yili Harran Kazi ve Restorasyon Calismalari', Kazi Sonuclari Toplantisi 13.2 (1991), pp. 423-42, which both describe the recovery of inscribed bricks fashioned by Nabonidus for the temple of Sin found, however, in eighth-century CE levels. 47. M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Konige bis zum Untergange Niniveh's (VAB, 7; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916), II, p. 170: rev. 37-38 (K. 228 + 2675).

48. obv. ii: [UDU.SISKUR!].MES fa LUGAL-, ABL 134 = SAA i, no. iss

(writer: Nabu-pa§ir).

288

The Pitcher is Broken Harran: provincial royal correspondence49 capital

3) Sargon II

king informed that Sin had entered the akitutemple, and that the 'king's sacrifices' had been performed

4) Sargon II

Harran: provincial letter involving a royal royal correspondence50 capital decision, probably cultic affairs, regarding Si'-gabbari, a priest of Nerab

5) Sargon II

news regarding the 'emblem of the moon god of Harran'

Harran: provincial royal correspondence51 capital

49. ABL 134 = SAA 1, no. 188 (writer: Nabu-paSir). 50. ABL 1227 + CT 53, no. 923 = SAA 1, no. 189 (writer: Nabu-pasir). The import of the letter's obverse has been lost in a lacuna: Si'-gabbari, 'servant of the king' (LLT.IR [s\d]- LUGAL), together with a prefect (LU.GAR-ww) and a servant of the governor of Arpad are brought to the king's attention. The reverse tenders the request that the king let someone go to their duty {masartu) and invoke blessings upon the king before Sin and Nikkal. The identification of this Si'-gabbari with a priest of the moon god Sahr at Nerab of the same name, known from a funerary stele, is virtually certain (S. Parpola, 'Si'gabbar of Nerab Resurrected', OLP 16 [1985], pp. 273-75); to refer to him as a servant of the king in a royal letter probably means that the subsidies for his cultic duties were arranged, directly or by prebendal grant, by the Assyrian administration. Nerab was located a few km south of Halab (Aleppo), a distance of 200 km or more from Harran on the principal caravan routes; the gist of the letter implies that Nabu-paSir, stationed in Harran, exercised some form of authority over events in Nerab. If the priest Si'-gabbari was in fact the individual referred to on the letter's reverse, it is conceivable that the Assyrians perceived the cult of the Aramaean moon god Sahr as equivalent to that of Sin. The spellings dSe-e-ri-, d XXX-er-id-ri-' for the name of the same person support the view that *$ahr was identified with Sin at Neirab', Zadok, On West Semites, p. 42. 51. DINGIR.su-ri-in-ni sa DINGIR.30 fa URU.KASKAL, ABL 489 = SAA 1, no. 50 obv. 4-5 (writer: Tab-Sar-ASSur). ABL 1194 deals with the manufacture of valuable cult objects for a temple of Sin and Nikkal (whereabouts unknown), including the casting of a divine emblem (rev. 10-15); ABL 997 rev. 2-3 also describes the casting of a divine standard.

HOLLOW AY Harran in the Neo-Assyrian Empire 6) Esarhaddon

king informed as to the propitious month and day in which to set up statues of himself and the two crown princes in the temple of Sin at Harran

royal

289

Harran: provincial

correspondence 52 capital

7) Esarhaddon

Harran: provincial report of a (treasonous) royal correspondence53 capital oracle from Nusku of Harran to an individual named Sasi, to the effect that the Sargonid dynasty shall be terminated and Sasi made king in its stead

8) Esarhaddon (670-669)

restoration work on a cella of Nasuh = Nusku, probably at Harran

royal Harran: provincial correspondence 54 capital

52. ABL 36 = LAS I, no. 7 (writer: Istar-Sum-ereS). 53. ABL 1217 rev. 4'-8' (writer: Nabu-rehtu-usur). On the theory that the oracle in this letter, together with other documents, reflects a widespread anti-Assyrian conspiracy centered at Harran, see LAS II, pp. 238-40, and M. Dietrich, Die Aramaer Sudbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700-648) (AOAT, 7; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), pp. 50-56, 160. 'There is no evidence that the Sasija of the oracle was an official of or headquartered in Harran or that he instigated a widespread revolt in Babylonia'; J.A. Brinkman, 'Notes on Arameans and Chaldeans in Southern Babylonia in the Early Seventh Century B.C.', review of Die Aramaer Sudbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700-648), by M. Dietrich, Or NS 46 (1977), pp. 314-15. 54. ABL 673 = LAS I, no. 8 (writer: Istar-sum-eres). Interestingly, the writer notes that the restorations are to take place on a 'favorable day' (1)4 DUG + GA), according to the hemerological series Iqqur-ipus (LAS II, p. 12), thus lending evidence that royally sponsored acts of cult renewal, even at a considerable distance from the Assyrian heartland, were occasionally guided by the calendrical prescriptions in the various omen series. For other examples of hemerological guidance sought and given in royal Assyrian correspondence, see R. Labat, 'Hemerologien', in RIA, IV, p. 323. Portions of Iqqur-ipus and various Akkadian menologies have been recovered from the Late Bronze Age occupation of Meskene-Emar, an indication of the widespread interest in this form of religious organization of time; D. Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d'Astata, Emar 6.4: Textes de la bibliotheque: transcriptions et traductions (Mission archeologique de Meskene-Emar, Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 28; Paris: Editions Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1987), nos. 608-49.

290


9) Esarhaddon

request for a kuzippugarment of the king to accompany Sin to his bit akiti in Harran

royal Harran: provincial correspondence55 capital

10) Esarhaddon

news regarding the moon-god cult at Harran

Harran: provincial royal correspondence56 capital

11) Assurbanipal

copy of a royal inscription in the bit o&friofNikkalof Harran

royal inscriptions57

Harran: provincial capital

12) Assurbanipal

restoration work on Ehulhul, temple of Sin of Harran



13) Assurbanipal

restoration work on temple of Nikkal of Harran



14) Assurbanipal

restoration work on royal Emelamanna, temple of inscriptions60 Nusku at Harran


55. ABL 667 = LAS I, no. 272; the king's kuzippu-gannents are also involved in ritual activities in ABL 612 = LAS I, no. 269 and ABL 29 = LAS I, no. 271, all written by Urad-Ea, the chief chanter-priest (galamo.hu) of Sin of Harran; on the professional 'title' of this individual, see the colophon transliterated and translated in LAS II, p. 452 (81-2-4, 306). Three 'astrological reports' written by an Urad-Ea, probably the same individual, are published in SAA 8, nos. 181-83 (K. 1405, K. 853, K. 1383). On the religious and social role of a first-millennium galamahu within his city, as revealed by his archive, see now C. Janssen, 'E'iltam patarum: awat hade!', in Mesopotamie et Elam: Actes de la XXXVIeme Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, 10-14 juillet 1989 (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications, 1; Ghent: University of Ghent, 1991), pp. 77-107. 56. ABL 625 = LAS I, no. 268; ABL 612 = LAS I, no. 269; ABL 669 = LAS I, no. 270; ABL 667 = LAS I, no. 272; ABL 28 = LAS I, no. 273. Most of these texts deal with lamentation rites explicitly performed for the king's sake. 57. Streck, Assurbanipal, H, pp. 286-92 (BM 89,4-26, 209). 58. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, pp. 170-74: 48-73 (K. 228 + 2675); Cyl. C 150: x 62-65, and p. 216 (K. 3065) both describe work on Ehulhul temples of Sin, but do not specify the city. 59. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, p. 290: obv. 19-23 (BM 89, 4-26, 209; text mentions a bit akiti). 60. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, Cyl. C 150-52: x 66-79.


291

15) Assurbanipal

claims to have sacrificed royal in person at Ehulhul, inscriptions61 temple of Sin at Harran


16) Assurbanipal

'took the hands' of Sin royal and Nusku and guided inscriptions 62 them into their refurbished cellas


17) Assurbanipal

installation of youngest royal brother, ASSur-etilinscriptions'63 Same-erseti-muballissu, as «riga//w-priest of Sin of Harran


18) unknown Neo- oracle of Sin of Harran royal Assyrian king commissioning a royal inscriptions64 land grant in the region of Huzirina (= Sultantepe), for the support of a temple of Zababa and Bau, probably in the capital city Assur


3. Harran: Neo-Assyrian Cultic Patronage Assyrian Cultic Patronage at Harran and Babylonia: A Comparison Royal supervision of the cult of the moon god at Harran in the Sargonid period entailed almost item for item the same conspicuous acts of patronage as did the maintenance of the great cult centers of Babylonia. 61. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, p. 174: 63 (K. 228 + 2675). 62. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, Cyl. C 152: x 78-79. On the 'taking of the hands' of cult images by Babylonian kings, see J.A. Black, 'The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: "Taking Bel by the Hand" and a Cultic Picnic', Rel 11 (1981), pp. 45-46. 63. Streck, Assurbanipal, II, p. 250: obv. 17-18 (K. 891). 64. J.N. Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Land Grants and Decrees (Studia Pohl, Series Maior, 1; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), no. 40 (= 57T44), pp. 7782. Postgate's collation of obv. 6' supports the reading of Sin of Harran as the deity who instigated the land grant; the discovery of the tablet at Sultantepe lends cogency to the reading. Although the text poses numerous lexical difficulties quite apart from its physical breaks, the general sense of the document, the entitlement with tax exemptions of lands in northern Mesopotamia to a temple in the Assyrian capital city, is reasonably straightforward.

292


The Great Kings periodically rebuilt portions of the temple-complex (Table 1: 1,8, 12-14) and immortalized the fact with royal inscriptions in the temple itself (Table 1: 11), arranged for the performance of special royal sacrifices (Table 1: 2-3), erected statues of themselves and their crown princes in the cellas and sent their personal kuzippu-gannents as proxies for participation in cultic ceremonies (Table 1: 6, 9), manufactured cultic paraphernalia (Table 1:5), monitored the temple oracles for adverse political implications (Table 1: 7), justified a royal bequest of northern Mesopotamian real estate to a temple in the Assyrian heartland through an oracle of Sin of Harran (Table 1: 18), and were kept apprised of seasonal cultic ceremonies (Table 1: 3, 10). Assurbanipal appointed his youngest brother to the priesthood of Sin of Harran (Table 1: 17), the only recorded instance of a Neo-Assyrian prince assuming a purely sacerdotal office outside the Assyrian heartland. Assyrian investment in the Harran cult differed from that of Babylonia with respect to established traditions of royal patronage and administrative office, and as an epiphenomenon of northern Mesopotamia's political tractability. There is no indication that the Great Kings participated in New Year festivals at Harran. The Assyrian kings never styled themselves 'king of Harran', a fact suggesting that there was no traditional role of Harranian kingship comparable to that of Babylonia, which royal participation in the New Year's festival publicly affirmed.65 There are no records that a satammu was ever appointed specifically for Harran: this office is attested only in Assyria and Babylonia.66 Since Harran never revolted against Neo-Assyrian control, its divine images did not suffer the indignities of capture and restoration, nor were the Assyrians put to the torture of devising a baroque piece of apologetic propaganda (such as 'The Sin of Sargon', an attempt to gloss over Sennacherib's sacrilege against Babylon, which he committed in the heat of political desperation)67 in order to conceal violent acts against the temples of Harran. If Ehulhul of Harran was actually rebuilt in the time of Shalmaneser III (Table 1: 1), then the Harran cult had probably been under Assyrian control for a full century before Tiglath-pileser III 'took the hand of Bel', and began

65. See Holloway, 'Case for Assyrian Influence', Table 11:1 (Tiglath-pileser HI), 3-4 (Sargon II). 66. Holloway, 'Case for Assyrian Influence', p. 338. 67. H. Tadmor, B. Landsberger and S. Parpola, 'The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib's Last Will', SAAB 3 (1989), pp. 3-51.


293

in earnest the checkered history of active Neo-Assyrian religious administration of the major cult centers of Babylonia. Ideology Expressions of the union of Neo-Assyrian royal ideology and the cult of Sin of Harran are diverse. In a remarkable letter addressed to both Assurbanipal and the god Assur, the author appears to describe a ceremony that occurred at Harran while Esarhaddon was passing through the area en route to Egypt. In a temple erected outside the city, Esarhaddon was commanded to take a crown (AGA) from an image of Sin and to crown himself; whereupon the king was commanded by the god to conquer nations with it. '[He we]nt (and) conquered Egypt; the king (Assurbanipal), the lord of kings, shall conquer the remainder of the lands [that] have not submitted to (the gods) Assur (and) Sin'. 68 Evidently, the cult of the moon god of Harran was associated in a unique fashion with Neo-Assyrian imperial aspirations in the West;69 in the citation from the letter to Assurbanipal above, Sin's legitimating authority is collocated with that of the patron god of the nation, Assur. There is a curious correspondence between the dimensions of S argon IFs palace chapels and temples located on the acropolis at Dur-SarrukTn, and his pattern of cultic patronage in Greater Assyria, which I submit is not due to chance. Palace-chapels were constructed as an architectural annex to the king's palace for Samas, Sin, Nikkal, Adad and Ea; the largest and most elaborately designed were conspicuously those of Sin

68.

15) [it-ta-l]ak KUR.mw-swr ik-ta-sad re-eh-ti ma-ta-a-ti 16) [sa a-na] AN+SAR DINGIR.30 la kan-sd-a-ni LUGAL EN LUGAL.MES i-kas-sad

LAS I, no. 117 (= ABL 923), obv. 15-16; see the comments on this enigmatic letter in LAS II, pp. 100-101. Whether the ritual actions of Esarhaddon at Harran actually took place is immaterial: the writer clearly ascribed to Sin the authority for sanctioning Assyrian imperialism in the West. 69. Lewy assembles a number of royal Neo-Assyrian texts from the Sargonid era which point to the special relationship that existed between the king, kingship and the cult of the moon god; J. Lewy, 'The Late Assyro-BabyIonian Cult of the Moon', pp. 453-73. In this connection, it will be recalled that the inscriptions of both Adadnerari III and Shalmaneser IV, inscribed on the same lunar crescent standard stele, conclude with a curse-clause in the name of Assur and Sin of Harran alone (Table 2: 1): the effective power of Sin of Harran in the western marches of the Neo-Assyrian expansion was already being exploited in the late ninth and early eighth century.

294


(Room XXVI) and Nikkal (Room XXIX).70 The imposing Nabu temple, connected to the palace by an elevated causeway, was larger than the entire suite of palace chapels.71 Outside of Assyria, Sargon's patronage of the cults of Harran, as attested by his royal inscriptions and correspondence, was exceeded only by his diplomatically enthusiastic patronage of the major northern Babylonian cult centers, possibly represented at Dur-Sarrukln by the massive Nabu complex. If it be recalled that Sargon self-consciously claims to have built a bit hilani in this palace and to have landscaped it with conifers, thus creating a North Syrian tableau en petit,12 then it is perhaps not too far-fetched to suppose that this king mapped out his religio-political ideals in the floorplans of the acropolis temples constructed in his idiosyncratic capital.

Figure 1. Neo-Assyrian lunar crescent standard stele, found atAsagi Yarimca near Harran.

The majority of royal Neo-Assyrian steles had the classic 'tombstone' form replete with text and images of the emperor and divine symbols. In the West (Anatolia, North Syria) the Neo-Assyrian kings created freestanding cult steles for the moon god of Harran with the image of a lunar crescent standard with tassels, in two instances adding royal display inscriptions;73 no such steles have been found in other parts of the empire. Identifiable cult steles of the imperial god AsSur have not been discovered beyond the borders of the Assyrian heartland; in contrast, Sin of Harran was the recipient of conspicuous reverence by the 70. V. Place and F. Thomas, Ninive et I'Assyrie (Paris: Imprimerie imperiale, 1867), m, pi. 6. 71. G. Loud and C.B. Altman, Khorsabad. II. The Citadel and the Town (OIP, 40; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), pp. 56-64, pis. 70-71. 72. See Holloway, 'Case for Assyrian Influence', pp. 95-98, 103. 73. The kings Adad-nerari ffl, Shalmaneser IV and probably Sennacherib.


295

Assyrian kings through their exclusive use of this deity's symbol as an alternative to the traditional royal stele iconography of self-portraiture. The propaganda value of the royal lunar crescent steles, publicly erected as monumental bearers of the state cult, should be compared with the empire-wide 'code' of the royal stele with worshipful king and divine emblems. A Neo-Assyrian text, possibly dealing with recipients of largesse at a royal New Year's reception in the Assyrian capital, lists scholars in the service of Esarhaddon from the cities of Assur, Nineveh, Arba'il, Kalhu and Harran, and speaks of a certain Balassu, priest of Harran.74 A recently published Quyunjik text composed in the Neo-Assyrian dialect provides evidence for Sargonid 'appreciation' of selected foreign cults.75 The hymn, an unexceptional composition written in the voice of IStar of Uruk, enumerates cities, temples and deities, most if not all of which were heavily sponsored by royal patronage in the Sargonid period, a Who's Who as it were of Neo-Assyrian cultic investment. Not unexpectedly in such a catalogue, Harran with its ancient patron deity Sin is also included. Popularity in Assyria Aside from the examples of royal patronage documented above, the relative popularity of the cults of Harran in Sargonid Assyria may be gauged by the number and variety of penalty clauses in legal documents that name Sin of Harran,76 his consort Nikkal77 and 'the divine lords of Harran' ,78 The theophoric elements Bel-Harran and Harran alone occur in many Neo-Assyrian proper names.79 Impressions of seals with lunar 74. R. Mattila, 'Balancing the Accounts of the Royal New Year's Reception', SAAB 4 (1990), p. 12: 348-50, 354-59 (ADD 834 + 837 + 849 + 903, 981, 1046); SAA 7, no. 151, rev. I'5', 16'. 75. Editio princeps: A.R. George, 'A Neo-Assyrian Literary Text', SAAB 1 (1987), pp. 31-41 (K. 1354); SAA 3, no. 9. 76. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel, II, T 215, nos. 298-301; in no. 298, only URU.KASKAL remained, leaving open the possibility that some other god from Harran was originally written. No. 299, a text from Assur, is dated 639. 77. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel, II, T 208, nos. 234-36; no. 234 is dated by eponym to 682. 78. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel, II, T 215, no. 302, dated 629. 79. K.L. Tallqvist, Assyrian Personal Names (ASSF, 43.1; Helsingfors: Societas Orientis Fennica, 1914), working primarily from ADD documents, listed seven names based on the form dBel-Harran-;c, pp. 56-57, but no instances of forms such as dSin-

296


crescent standards, the symbol of Sin of Harran, figure on several NeoAssyrian administrative and economic texts found at Assur, Khorsabad and Nimrud.80 In the absence of archaeologically controlled floorplans, cult reliefs and temple archives from the Assyrian period at Altinbasak, site of ancient Harran, the actual extent of the cultural' Assyrianization' of the cult of Sin of Harran remains guesswork: the perspective of the Assyrian rulers themselves, however, reveals that the Harranian templecomplex was dedicated to the worship of Assyrian gods with Assyrian cultic functionaries following Assyrian ritual protocol housed in Assyrian temples. 4. Harran: The Cult in Greater Assyria The city name appears compounded in many forms in the Iron Age Akkadian,81 Aramaic82 and hieroglyphic Neo-Luwian onomastica.83 The moon god of Harran appears in several Neo-Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions, some of which belong to a ruler mentioned in Assyrian historical inscriptions.84 Til-Barsib Stela B, commissioned by king Harran-.*, dNikkal-Harran-jc, dBelet-Harran-;t, or dNusku-Harran-;c. In addition to Harranaia, 'the Harranian' (p. 86), Tallqvist found Harran-Sadu (p. 86), Kdi-Harran (p. 104), Mannu-kl-Harran (p. 126), and Tukulti-Harran (p. 234), forms indicating that the moon god was so intimately wedded to the city of Harran that the theophoric element could drop out. I encountered only one example of the toponym Harran in the Middle Assyrian onomasticon (KASKAL-m, 'the Harranian'); C. Saporetti, Onomastica medio-assira. I. / nomi di persona (Studia Pohl, 6; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), p. 225; it is to be expected that unpublished Middle Assyrian archives recovered from northern Mesopotamian sites will provide other examples. 80. S. Herbordt, Neuassyrische Glyptikdes 8-7. Jh. v. Chr. (SAAS, 1; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1992), pp. 100-101, pis. 2,4,5,10,14. 81. See above n. 79; K.L. Tallqvist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den geschdftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Samassumukin bis Xerxes (ASSF, 32.2; Helsingfors: Officina typographica Societas litterariae fennicae, 1905), p. 292 (Harranaia, middle Neo-Babylonian period). 82. In Aramaic clay tablets probably produced in the Harran region, seventh century, the name harranay appears; D. Homes-Fredericq, 'Coquillages et glyptique arameenne', in M. Kelly-Buccellati, P. Matthiae and M. van Loon (eds.), Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada (Bibliotheca Mesopotamia, 21; Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1986), pp. 111-118 (Brussels O. 3658, 3659). 83. E. Laroche, Les noms des Hittites (Etudes linguistiques, 4; Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1966), mha + ra-na-muwa-s, 'the Harranian', no. 296 (Cekke Stele). 84. See the discussion and examples in E. Laroche, 'Divinites lunaires


297

Hamiyatas, mentions the Weather God, Ea, Tesub, the moon god of Harran, the sun god, and Kubaba; presumably the inscription cannot be dated later than the Ahuni of Bit Adini encountered by Assur-nasir-apli II and captured by Shalmaneser III.85 In Aleppo Museum no. 2460, a Neo-Luwian stele of unknown provenience, a ruler whose name is lost mentions 'my brother Hamiyatas', a clue that the inscription is contemporary with the Til-Barsib steles; in a stock phrase he claims to be a servant of the Weather God, but then says 'and to me the moon god of Harran [ x x x ] has given'.86 Wassurme, son of Tuwatis, king of Tabal, is known from Neo-Luwian inscriptions set up by himself87 and his d'Anatolic', RHR 148 (1955), pp. 7-9. A possible glyptic equivalent is reproduced in E. Porada and B. Buchanan, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections: The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library (Bollingen Series, 14; Washington, DC: Bollingen Foundation, 1948), no. 1102, a skillfully executed cylinder seal showing a lunar crescent standard with tassels in center; an adorant with hair, beard and clothing arrayed in Mesopotamian fashion faces a stagheaded snake atop a standard: stags feature prominently in Hittite, not first-millennium Mesopotamian, religious texts and symbolism. Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions, possibly reading the names of the Weather God and Kubaba, flank the scene. The authors date the seal to the early seventh century (p. 156, text). 85. E. Laroche, Les hieroglyphes Hittites. I. L'ecriture (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1960), no. 193; P. Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II.2 (Incunabula Graeca, 15; Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1975), no. 281; J.D. Hawkins, review of Untersuchungen zur spdthethischen Kunst, by W. Orthmann, ZA NS 63 (1973), p. 308; idem, The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia', in CAH2, III.l, p. 384. Til Barsib Stela A, composed by a son of Ariyahinas and probable successor to Hamiyatas, mentions the Weather God, Ea, the moon god of Harran, the sun god, and Kubaba; Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, 11.2, no. 280. As Hawkins observes, it is currently impossible to determine whether these rulers were displaced by the Aramaean House of Ahuni, or whether the early members of the Aramaean dynasty used the available Neo-Luwian language and dedicatory textual conventions. The gods cited in the texts consisted of the regionally popular Weather God; TeSub, Ea, and the sun god, deities venerated by the Hurrians, the moon god of nearby Harran and the patron goddess of Carchemish, Kubaba. 86. R.D. Barnett, 'Hittite Hieroglyphic Texts at Aleppo', Iraq 10 (1948), pp. 13739, pi. 33; Laroche, Les hieroglyphes Hittites, no. 193; Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II.2, no. 307; J.D. Hawkins, 'The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian',An5r 25 (1975), p. 134. The inscription also mentions the sun god, Kubaba and Ea. The badly weathered surface reveals a god holding forked lightning: Weather God iconography. 87. P. Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II. 1 (Incunabula Graeca, 14; Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1967), no. 31 (Topada).

298


vassals,88 and from the historical inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. In the Assyrian inscriptions, Wassurme appears among a group of North Syrian vassals of the Great King in 738,89 but is captured for rebellion in 730.90 The dedicatory inscriptions erected by his servants mention the moon god of Harran;91 his own text, a lengthy and difficult account of a battle fought with seven kings, cites the Weather God, Sarruma and two other deities, but does not identify the moon god.92 Sipis, a king of Tabal whose dates are uncertain, cites only the moon god of Harran and Kubaba as deities in his inscription at Karaburun, located approximately 450 km from Harran in eastern central Anatolia.93 Both the Assyrian and the Neo-Luwian scribes recognized the existence of several minor kings within the greater area of Tabal; Sipis might have reigned before, during or after the time of Wassurme.94 The moon god of Harran is the only deity in the Neo-Luwian texts cited above to be identified with a particular city; neither 'Nikkal' nor 'moon goddess' appears in these inscriptions, a fact suggesting that the contemporary cult of the Harranian moon god enjoyed a career independent of Human Nikkal. Popularity of the cult of the moon god of Harran, on the part of Late Hittite rulers in North Syria, should not be sought in the past glories of 88. Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II. 1, no. 30 (Sultanhan); idem, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, n.2, no. 67 (Kayseri); Laroche, Les hieroglyphes Hittites, no. 193. 89. P. Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers HI. nach den Papierabklatschen und Originalen des Britischen Museums. II. Autographierte Texte (Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1893), pi. XVI, 153; M. Weippert, 'Menachem von Israel und seine Zeitgenossen in einer Steleninschrift des assyrischen Konigs Tiglathpileser III. aus dem Iran', ZDPV89 (1973), p. 52: 9'. 90. Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, pi. XXXVH, 14-15. 91. Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II. 1, no. 30: 56 (Sultanhan); idem, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, 11.2, no. 67: 15 (Kayseri); Hawkins, The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia', p. 413. 92. Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II. 1, no. 31 (Topada); on the god Sarruma, see E. Laroche, 'Le dieu anatolienSarrumma', Syria 40 (1963),pp. 277-302. 93. Laroche, Les hieroglyphes Hittites, no. 193; Meriggi, Manuale di eteo geroglifico, II. 1, no. 26 (Karaburun); Hawkins, The Negatives in Hieroglyphic Luwian', p. 148; idem, The Neo-Hittite States in Syria and Anatolia', p. 423; J.D. Hawkins and J.N. Postgate, Tribute from Tabal', SAAB 2 (1988), p. 39. 94. On the question of cultural constituency in Tabal, see N.A. Khazaradze, Tabal: Remarks on the Ethnocultural Description of Eastern Asia Minor. Ethnopolitical Entities of the 9th-7th Centuries B.C.', in J. Harmatta and G. Komoroczy (eds.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im Allen Vorderasien (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1976), pp. 429-32.


299

Hatti, when the cult was probably identified with the Mitannian Kulturkreis, but in religio-political developments in the first millennium. Shortly before the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, the eighth-century Akkadian treaty between A§sur-nerari V and MatT'-'Ilu of the North Syrian kingdom of Arpad singles out 'Sin, the great lord who dwells in Harran' as a divine guarantor.95 Bar-Rakkib, the outspokenly proAssyrian vassal king of Sam'al, inscribed in Aramaic above a relief of his seated majesty in his own palace, 'My lord is Ba'al Harran. I am BarRakkib, son of Panammu'.% The inscription surrounds the stereotypic emblem of the Iron Age moon-god cult, a lunar standard stele with pendent tassels on either side (Table 2: 9).97 Bar-Rakkib, like Wassurme of Tabal, was a vassal of Tiglath-pileser HI. Table 2. Examples of Lunar Crescent Standard Iconography in the Assyrian West Object

Findspot

1) Neo-Assyrian royal Kizkapanli Koy stele, lunar crescent (Turkey) type98

Description

Date

boundary (tahumu) stele inscribed by both Adad-nerari in and Shalmaneser IV

805 and 773

95. SAA 2, p. 11: rev. iv 4 (no. 2); the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, designed for international implementation, simply calls upon-the oath-takers to '[swear each individually] by all the gods of Harran!', p. 30: 36 (no. 6). 96. £A/,no.218. 97. H. Genge, Nordsyrisch-sudanatolische Reliefs (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser, 49; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1979), pi. 55; W. Orthmann, Untersuchungen zur spathethitischen Kunst (Saarbrucker Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 8; Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1971), pi. 63c (Zincirli F/la). 98. J. Borker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Baghdader Forschungen, 4; Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1982), no. 166. For photographs, hand-copies, transliterations and translations of the inscription, see now V. Donbaz, 'Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kahramanmaras Museums', Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8 (1990), pp. 8-10, photographs on pp. 15-24. The Kizkapanli Koy stele, found near Pazarcik, bears only the relief image of a lunar crescent atop a pole, without tassels or socle. The inscription of Adad-nerari III on the obverse recounts how he and his mother, the famous Sammu-ramat, crossed the Euphrates to wage battle with Atarsumki of Arpad and his allies. The stele was erected as a boundary marker between the kingdoms of Kummuh and Gurgum. The concluding curse clause finishes by citing 'ASSur, my god, (and) Sin who dwells in Harran' (obv. 23). The reverse

300


2) Neo-Assyrian royal Tavla Koyii (Turkey) stele, probably lunar no crescent type

inscribed by Adadnerari III

c. 800

3) Neo-Assyrian royal Asagi Yarimca (Turkey) stele, lunar crescent type100

inscribed by Sennacherib(?)

c. 705-681(7)

4) Neo-Assyrian stele, lunar crescent type101

Sultantepe (Turkey)

uninscribed; possibly c. 648-610 reign of Assurbanipal

face, inscribed by Shalmaneser IV, describes tribute received from the king of Damascus, and reaffirms the boundary of USpilulume of Kummuh. The text of Shalmaneser IV repeats the last line of obv. 23, formulaic appeal to ASSur and Sin of Harran. 99. Borker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, no. 167; O.A. Tasyiirek, 'Some New Assyrian Rock-Reliefs in Turkey', AnSt 25 (1975), p. 180. For texts and photographs see now Donbaz, Two Neo-Assyrian Stela', pp. 6-7, and photographs on pp. 11-14. The iconography of this carefully executed stele shows two male figures in Assyrian costume flanking a tasselled standard mounted on a stepped socle. Since the top of the stele, which contained the divine symbol, is broken away, it is an educated guess that the symbol was originally that of Sin of Harran. However, the findspot, surviving formal design, and multiple references to Sin of Harran in the inscription are strongly suggestive that the missing portion of the design bore a lunar crescent. In the text, Adad-nerari III and his generalissimo Sam§i-ilu claim to have established a boundary between Zakkur of Hamath and AtarSumki of Arpad. Four deities are twice identified as 'the great gods of Assyria': ASSur, Adad, Ber and Sin of Harran. The presence of AsSur in a royal Assyrian stele is obvious. Weather gods, such as Adad, had been revered in northern Syria and Mesopotamia for millennia, and were worshipped under many names by Aramaean and Neo-Luwian populations. The authority of Sin of Harran was invoked in most, if not all Neo-Assyrian treaties concluded with rulers located in western Anatolia and North Syria. The name of the fairly obscure Assyrian god Ber is a phonetic variant of ancient (Ilu-)Wer, attested in texts from Bronze Age Mari and Meskene-Emar: the Aramaic inscription of Zakkur of Hamath identifies Ilu-Wer as his god; see J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, 2: Aramaic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), p. 8, A 1; W.G. Lambert, The Pantheon of Mari', Mari Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4 (1985), pp. 533-35. 100. C.J. Gadd, 'Note on the Stele of Asagi Yarimca', AnSt 1 (1951), pp. 10810; Borker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, no. 206 (see figure 1). 101. Borker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, no. 230.


301

5) Neo-Assyrian stele, lunar crescent type 102

Goktaskoyii (Turkey)

Neo-Assyrian uninscribed; two diminutive adorants in period Assyrian dress flank a tasselled lunar crescent standard mounted atop a stepped socle

6) Neo-Assyrian stele, lunar crescent type103

'Aran (Syria)

uninscribed; lower half missing; upper portion preserves relief of a tasselled crescent atop a pole

7) Neo-Assyrian stele, lunar crescent type 104

Zaraqotaq (Syria) uninscribed; relief of a tasselled crescent atop a pole mounted on a stepped socle

8) Neo-Assyrian royal Qaruz (Syria) stele, lunar crescent type105

Neo-Assyrian period

Neo-Assyrian period

Neo-Assyrian inscribed; much weathered relief of a period tasselled crescent atop a pole mounted on a stepped socle

102. Borker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, no. 244. The object is badly weathered and broken, but the relief design is clear. 103. K. Kohlmeyer, 'Drei Stelen mit Sin-Symbol aus Nordsyrien', in B. Hrouda, S. Kroll and P.Z. Spanos (eds.), Von Uruk nach Tuttul: Eine Festschrift fiir Eva Strommenger, Studien und Aufsatze von Kollegen und Freunden (Munich and Vienna: Profil Verlag, 1992), pp. 91-94, pi. 38.1. 'Aran is 19 km southeast of Aleppo. 104. Kohlmeyer, 'Drei Stelen mit Sin-Symbol aus Nordsyrien', pp. 94-95, pi. 39.3. Zaraqotaq is near Tell Ahmar. 105. Kohlmeyer, 'Drei Stelen mit Sin-Symbol aus Nordsyrien', p. 96, pi. 39.5. The stele, found in Qaruz (a village south of Arslan Tash), bears approximately 18 lines of cuneiform text. Kohlmeyer, who did not publish a copy of the badly weathered text, read the divine names Adad, Anu, Nabu(?), and Sin, and some city names which include Harran and Sahlalu. The deities cited and a broken reference to a king of AS[sur] suggests a royal Assyrian origin of the object.

302


9) North Syrian royal orthostat106

Zinjirli (Nordlicher Hallenbau)

above the seated c. 733-718 figure of the king, running between a fringed lunar crescent standard, an Aramaic text states 'My lord is Ba'al Harran. I am Bar-Rakkib, son of Panammu'.

10) Assyrian-style mixed standard and cult stele107

Ali Gor (near Urfa, Turkey)

uninscribed; male Neo-Assyrian deity facing lunar period crescent standard half its height

11) Assyrian-style cult Til-Barsib (Syria) uninscribed; male deity whose weapons standard or relief108 and headpiece sport diminutive crescents is flanked by two huge lunar crescent standards

ninth-eighth century(?)

12) bronze lunar crescent standard109

Zinjirli (Turkey)

eighth-seventh century

13) bronze lunar crescent standard110

Tell Halaf (Syria) bronze standard top fitted with socket

bronze standard top fitted with socket

Neo-Assyrian period

106. Genge, Reliefs, pi. 55; Orthmann, Untersuchungen zur spathethitischen Kunst, pi. 63c (Zincirli F/la). 107. Borker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, no. 240. 108. Bb'rker-Klahn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, no. N 240. Kohlmeyer ('Drei Stelen mit Sin-Symbol aus Nordsyrien', pp. 99-100, pis. 41-42) has made a perfect join between Borker-Klahn no. N 240, and F. Thureau-Dangin and M. Dunand, TilBarsib: album (Bibliotheque archeologique et historique, 23; Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1936), pi. 14.5, thereby restoring the entire relief and providing it an archaeological context. Kohlmeyer's suggestion that the structure flanked by gigantic lunar crescent standards and surmounted by the god Sin represents the facade of the temple of Sin of Harran is plausible; the architectural design is entirely in keeping with depictions of temples in the Neo-Assyrian heartland. 109. F. von Luschan and W. Andrae, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. V. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, 15; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1943), pi. 48z. 110. B. Hrouda, Tell Halaf. IV. Die Kleinfunde aus historischer Zeit (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1962), p. 49, pi. 34(1).


303

14) bronze lunar

TelleS-Seri'a

bronze standard top

eighth-seventh

crescent standard111

(southern

fitted with socket

century

stamp and cylinder seal depictions of a tasselled lunar crescent standard, often flanked by adorants

Neo-Assyrian period

Palestine) 15) glyptics

urban sites of most national polities of the Neo-Assyrian West

To date, nine examples of Neo-Assyrian lunar crescent standard steles have been recovered in Anatolia and North Syria (Table 2: 1-8, 10); none have been found east of the Tigris. Ritual paraphernalia in the guise of socketed bronze crescent standard tops have been found at Zinjirli (ancient Sam'al), Tell Halaf and Tell e§-Seri'a in Palestine (Table 2: 1214). Glyptics with lunar crescent standards are thickly attested across the Fertile Crescent in the Iron Age; they are frequently crude in execution, and occasionally evince syncretistic modifications in keeping with the regional cults.

Figure 2. A bullafrom Gezer. The iconography is that of a lunar crescent standard with tassels, mounted on a socle. A star hangs to the right.

111. A socketed bronze crescent standard top with perforations for bells or tassels was discovered in the Assyrian citadel at Tell eS-Seri'a (Stratum 6); E.D. Oren, 'Ziklag—A Biblical City on the Edge of the Negev', BA 45 (1982), p. 159. Oren's bronze standard is certainly not 'the first example found outside Assyria' (p. 159). The design of the object is indistinguishable from those that appear on royal steles and Iron Age glyptics. Tell e5-Seri'a is one of several sites in southern Palestine garrisoned by the Assyrians in the seventh century; presumably the standard was imported or locally manufactured by the Assyrians for their own use.

304


Royal Assyrian sponsorship of the cult of the moon god in the West was centered at ancient Harran, but was by no means limited to that city. Both the interchange of Sin and Sahr in the onomastica and the manifold points of cultural and administrative overlap between the moon-god cults at Harran and Nerab strongly suggest that, from the perspectives of both the Assyrians and the regional population, these moon gods were perceived as one and the same, and that Assyrian underwriting of a moon-god priest in the North Syrian city of Nerab was a tangible extension of Assyrian authority in the familiar livery of a popular regional cult. The Assyrian scribe who composed the land grant for the temple of Sin of Eluma, a city near Carchemish, crafted its divine epithets and possessive pronouns in such a fashion as to leave no doubt that its (local) moon god was as one with the celestial (and Assyrian) moon god worshiped by Assurbanipal.112 Again, the onomastica found in the Carchemish tablet which involved the royal iskaru of Eluma is primarily West Semitic, with Nasuh, son of the moon god, as the leading theophoric element.113 Heavy attestation of the Akkadian and Aramaic forms of the divine names Sin and Nusku as theophoric elements occur in Sargonid northern Mesopotamia in a region as far southwest as Nerab, with an eastern perimeter somewhat to the west of Guzana, and a range north to Huzirina, with the heaviest concentration along the 'royal road' (harrdn sarri) between the Euphrates and the Balikh.114 Glyptic representations of the lunar crescent standard was a common

112. T. Bauer, Das Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. I. Keilschrifttexte (Assyriologische Bibliothek NS, 1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933), p. 90, pi. 21 (K. 2564), appears to be a copy of a stone inscription (obv. 16, NA4.NA.RU.A) set up probably in the temple of 'Sin who dwells in Eluma' (obv. 8, DINGIR.30 a-Sib URU.e(?)-/wma). The land and garden (obv. 21, URU.SE A.SA GlS.KIRI6) of the grant were earlier given to the god by an individual, perhaps the Ilija-abi mentioned in obv. 6, but were dishonestly taken back by stealth (obv. 11, ina surqi). 113. See the edition in Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, pp. 360-62. Fales dates this tablet to 702 on the basis of the restored eponym; Fales, Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira, p. 108 n. 102. It is possible, though not very likely, that the Assurbanipal land grant and the Carchemish tablet refer to two different cities with the same name. 114. Fales, Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira, pp. 105-109; Zadok, On West Semites, p. 44.


305

motif in glyptic art in Syria-Palestine and Transjordan. The pattern is attested at fourteen stratified sites in Palestine and Transjordan alone.115 5. Summary Proliferation of the moon-god cult in the Neo-Assyrian West is the most distinctively 'regional' development in religious praxis to have left traces in the archaeological matrix of this vast geographical area. The Assyrians 115. H. Weippert, 'Siegel mit Mondsichelstandarten aus Palastina', BN 5 (1978), p. 58; on the historical geography of lunar crescent glyptics in the ancient Near East, see A. Spycket, 'Le culte du Dieu-Lune a Tell Keisan', RB 80 (1973), pp. 384-95. Two stratified examples of lunar crescent standard stamp seals are known from Late Bronze Age Palestine; Weippert, 'Siegel mit Mondsichelstandarten aus Palastina', nos. 14 (Gezer), 18 (Tell Beit Mirsim). The majority of datable finds, however, are from the first millennium, the period of the Assyrian expansion, part of the proliferation of lunar cult glyptic iconography stretching across the Assyrian empire from the borders of Egypt to the Zagros; see B. Buchanan and P.R.S. Moorey, Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. III. Iron Age Stamp Seals (c. 1200350 BC) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 54. Stratified examples of first-millennium lunar crescent standard glyptics in the Mesopotamian style have been found at Razor, Tell Kesan, Tell es-Samak, Megiddo(?), Tell Dothan?, Samaria, Gezer, Tell enNasbeh, Tell Jemmeh, Horvat 'Uzza, and Nebo and Tawllan in Jordan; Weippert, 'Siegel mit Mondsichelstandarten aus Palastina', nos. 1 (Razor), 2 (Tell Kesan), 4-5 (Tell es-Samak), 8 (Tell Dothan?), 10 (Samaria), 13 (Gezer), 15 (Tell en-Nasbeh), 16 (Nebo, Jordan), 19 (Tell Jemmeh), 22 (Tawllan, Jordan). Add: P. Beck, 'A Bulla from Horvat 'Uzza', Qadmoniot 19 (1986), pp. 40-41 (Hebrew): a crude, squat, tasselled lunar crescent standard mounted on a socle, centered in the circular seal, top portion failed to leave an impression; a dot beside the standard socle might represent a star; R. Hestrin and M. Dayagi-Mendels, Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period: Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Phoenician and Aramaic, from the Collections of the Israel Museumand the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (trans. I. Pommerantz; Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1979), no. 126 (Phoenician, eighth-seventh century); P. Bordreuil, Catalogue des sceaux ouest-semitiques inscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, du Musee du Louvre et du Musee biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte (Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, 1986), no. 4 (Phoenician, eighth century). Many more unstratified examples have been published. The impression of a stamp seal taken from a cuneiform economic tablet found at Gezer, dated by Assyrian eponym to 649, has the form of a lunar crescent standard with a pendant star on the right; the owner was a certain Natan-Yahu, a traditional Israelite name with an impeccable Yahwistic theophore; B. Becking, 'The Two Neo-Assyrian Documents from Gezer in their Historical Context', JEOL 27 (1981-82), p. 87, Gezer tablet no. 2 obv. 1 (figure 2). E. Stern, 'Excavations at Tel Dor—A Canaanite-Phoenician Port-City on the Carmel Coast', Qadmoniot 20 (1987), p. 69 (Hebrew), has published a worn Assyrian stamp

306


aggressively invested capital, labor and publicity in the cults of three regions only: Harran, Babylonia and the Assyrian heartland itself. The emperor, as vicar of Assur, was duty bound to sustain the worship of the 'great gods of Assyria'. To control the rich transit trade coursing through Babylonia and to maintain order in the region in the face of perennial Elamite and Chaldean hostility, it was vital for the Assyrian kings to adopt the tradition-laden role of Babylonian kings, supplying sacrifices and personnel, repairing the crumbling walls of the ancient temples and beautifying their cellas and cult images. Harran, possessed of comparatively little hinterland, nevertheless occupied a key position on the Fertile Crescent and boasted an ancient cultus which was perceived—or exploited—by the Assyrians as peculiarly charged with subjugation of the West. The fact that the Assyrian kings chose to exercise decisive control over the physical maintenance and routine operation of the ancient cult center at Harran, dedicated royal steles in seal showing an adorant holding a libation dish at mouth level, left, facing an anthropomorphic bearded deity surrounded by a melammu (stars radiant), right: over all hovers a large lunar crescent. O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gottinnen, Cotter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels Aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (Quaestiones Disputatae, 134; Freiburg: Herder, 1992), pp. 164-65, 327-61, describe one by one the known examples of lunar crescent standard glyptics found in stratified digs in Palestine and Transjordan and also those purchased on the antiquities market. They claim forthrightly that the explosion of these iconographic types in Iron Age IIC is due to the widespread worship of Sin of Harran, an Assyrian cult that legitimated and promoted Assyrian claims of rulership over the West—a most welcome confirmation of the thesis of this paper. I am reluctant, however, to accept all of the glyptic scenes they treat as examples of the Assyrian cult of Sin of Harran. Some of the unprovenanced seals may be postAssyrian in date (the cult of Sin of Harran survived the Medo-Babylonian sack of the city in 610-609, until it was definitively suppressed in Islamic times); others, which represent cult scenes performed under moon and stars but not a lunar crescent standard, were not necessarily inspired by the cult of Sin of Harran, since there were moon gods indigenous to Palestine and Egypt. On pp. 340-41, Keel and Uehlinger discuss a dubious example of a lunar crescent standard from a seventh-century hoard of bullae found in Jerusalem. They propose that examples of locally manufactured scaraboid glyptics with a bearded, enthroned god riding an open boat represent Sin of Harran in his celestial ship (pp. 349-55). Intriguing as this interpretation may be, in my view they have taken insufficient stock of Egyptian mythological traditions of celestial barks, both solar and night, to rule out the possibility that a deity other than Sin of Harran was intended by the artisans who crafted these objects.


307

honor of the moon god, that the pro-Assyrian vassal Bar-Rakkib singled out that cult for conspicuous devotion,116 and that locally-manufactured glyptics symbolizing the cult of Sin of Harran proliferated in the western arm of the Fertile Crescent, intimate that the Assyrians, far from being merely tolerant of a local cult, actively promoted its spread. It is conceivable, of course, that the Assyrians and their western subjects attached no particular political or ideological meaning to the moon-god cult: for reasons that are unclear to us, this cult experienced a surge of popularity in the first half of the first millennium, attracting the devotion of Assyrian emperors, local rulers and commoners across Western Asia. My reluctance to accept this line of interpretation rides upon the massive and self-conscious ideological craftsmanship expended on Neo-Assyrian royal steles, the 'political posters' of the Assyrian empire.117 The unique iconography of Sin alone, not Assur or Marduk or any one of the other members of the Assyrian state pantheon, marked in enduring stone the vanguard of the Assyrian empire in the West. Given the substantial body of evidence from Assyrian, North Syrian and Anatolian iconographic and textual sources, it is historically probable that the spread of the moon-god cult of Harran by Assyria was a self-conscious act of imperial statecraft, designed to foster the acceptance of a cult whose pantheon was understood as protecting and legitimating Assyrian interests in the West. Perhaps the land grants to the cult of the moon god at Eluma, near Carchemish,118 and the cross-cultural achievements of the priest of Nerab, near Aleppo, who was an employee of the royal administration under the supervision of the governor of Harran (Table 1:4), serve notice that lunar cults in general in this region played a systemic role in the international community, a situation that the Assyrians in true colonial fashion were prompt to exploit. The equivalent of the cross, Constantino's 'in hoc signo vinces', for the Neo-Assyrian kings in the West, was the lunar crescent of the moon god. Finally, it is a reasonable inference that the demonstrated empire-building qualities of the cult of 116. Two vassals of Tiglath-pileser III, Bar-Rakkib of Sam'al and Wassurme of Tabal, each mention the moon god of Harran in a votive context in inscriptions authored either by themselves or their servants. 117. A felicitous expression by I.E. Reade, 'Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art', in M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assynology, 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), p. 340. 118. Seen. 113 above.

308


the moon god of Harran under the Assyrians were a leading motive for its resurrection by the enigmatic Nabonidus, the last reigning NeoBabylonian king. 6. Harran and Sennacherib's 'Letter to Hezekiah' I believe the speeches of the Rabshakeh and the 'letter' of Sennacherib to Hezekiah which appear in 2 Kings 18-19 to be theologically tendentious works of the Deuteronomistic authors, composed long after the events they purport to describe. These narratives are plausibly cast in the rhetoric of a besieger's speech, complete with superficially convincing historical allusions, but in reality provide no supplementary historical data to the cuneiform or Hebrew narratives.119 Although several studies of 119. The traditional view of the narratives' essential historicity, whether recorded verbatim or transmitted as oral tradition, is often supported by reference to a letter from the time of Tiglath-pileser III, edition princeps in H.W.F. Saggs, 'The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part I', Iraq 17 (1955), pp. 23-24 (ND. 2632), and other examples drawn from the ancient Near East of political propaganda used by besiegers; see A.R. Millard, 'Sennacherib's Attack on Hezekiah', TynBul 36 (1985), pp. 74-77; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB, 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 242-43. For treatments of the speeches of the biblical Rabshakeh as historically factual, see B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SET, 2nd series, 3; London: SGM Press, 1967), pp. 76-93; H. Wildberger, 'Die Rede des Rabsake vor Jerusalem', TZ 35 (1979), pp. 35-47; E. Vogt, Der Aufstand Hiskias und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr. (AnBib, 106; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986), pp. 3350; F.J. Goncalves, L'expedition de Sennacherib en Palestine dans la litterature hebraique ancienne (Publications de 1'Institut orientaliste de Louvain, 34; Louvain-laNeuve: Universite catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1986), pp. 442-44; L. Camp, Hiskija und Hiskijabild: Analyse und Interpretation von 2 Kon 18-20 (Miinsteraner Theologische Abhandlungen, 9; Altenberge: Telos Verlag, 1990), pp. 294-99, although he is certain there is extensive literary structuring of the units. H. Tadmor ('On the Role of Aramaic in the Assyrian Empire', in M. Mori, H. Ogawa and M. Yoshikawa [eds.], Near Eastern Studies Dedicated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday [Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 5; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1991], pp. 422-23) adduces a Botta and Flandin drawing of a Khorsabad palace relief that supposedly shows a helmeted Assyrian reading terms from a moving siege-engine(l) to the inhabitants of a city under siege as a visual parallel to the biblical Rabshakeh's diplomacy. J.A. Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings [ed. H.S. Gehman; ICC, 10; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951], p. 487) calls the speeches 'authentic in colour, even if literally fiction' and likens them to the orations found in Greek and Roman historians; J. Gray (/ & II Kings [OTL;


309

the historiography in Kings in general and 2 Kings 18-19 in particular voice a similar historical agnosticism,120 I find the ninety-year silence regarding Assyria's role in the life of Sargonid Judah a particularly compelling instance of the Deuteronomistic authors' willingness to substitute theologically edifying fiction for distasteful or 'irrelevant' historical facts.121 Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1970], pp. 664-65) follows Childs's interpretation of the speeches' historicity. G.H. Jones (/ and 2 Kings. II. 1 Kings 17:1-2 Kings 25:30 [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984], p. 570) straddles the fence by claiming that 2 Kgs 18.19-25, 28-35 are products of the authors of the 'Isaiah narratives' but 'cannot be dismissed as worthless'. 120. On the issue of tendentious historiography in 2 Kgs 18-19 in general and the historical inconcinnities of the speeches of the Rabshakeh in particular, see H.-D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT, 66; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980), pp. 149-51; R.E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (JSOTSup, 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 52-62, 72-85; idem, The Prophecies of Isaiah to Hezekiah Concerning Sennacherib: 2 Kings 19.21-34 // Isa. 37.22-35', in R. Liwak and S. Wagner (eds.), Prophetic und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alien Israel: Festschrift fur Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991), p. 75; K.A.D. Smelik, 'Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii', in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), Crises and Perspectives: Studies in Near Eastern Polytheism, Biblical Theology, Palestinian Archaeology and Intertestamental Literature (OTS, 24; Leiden: Brill, 1986), pp. 70-93; A. van der Kooij, 'Das assyrische Heer vor den Mauern Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Chr.', ZDPV 102 (1986), pp. 107-109; E. Ben Zvi, 'Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 79-92; C. Hardmeier, Prophetic im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzdhlkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzdhlungen in II Reg 18-20 und Jer 37-40 (BZAW, 187; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 406-408; idem, 'Die Propheten Micha und Jesaja im Spiegel von Jeremia xxvi und 2 Regum xviii-xx: Zur Prophetie-Rezeption in der nach-joschijanischen Zeit', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (VTSup, 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), pp. 185-86; P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 32-36. 121. From Hezekiah's reception of Merodach-baladan's envoys in Jerusalem, 2 Kgs 20.12-14, to the slaying of Josiah by Necho, 2 Kgs 23.29, the historical narration in 2 Kings makes no allusion to international politics. The biblical writers' historiography regarding the Assyrians is breathtaking in its boldness: the miraculous repulse of Sennacherib's army from Judah was such a resounding success that the Assyrians withdrew from the borders of Palestine and left the kingdom in untrammeled peace, until Egypt and Babylonia fatefully extended their might at the end of the seventh century. Geo-political reality is utterly silenced for ninety years in

310


The so-called Letter of Sennacherib in 2 Kgs 19.10-13 reads in translation Thus you shall speak to King Hezekiah of Judah: Do not let your God in whom you trust deceive you by promising that Jerusalem will not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. Behold! You have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, utterly annihilating them. Shall you be saved? Have the gods of the nations saved them, the nations that my forefathers destroyed, Gozan, Harran, Rezeph, and the people of Eden who were in Telassar? Where is the king of Hamath, the king of Arpad, the king of Lair, of Sepharvaim, of Hena, or of Ivvah?

The Hebrew textual tradition is free of major variants, with the expected orthographic variation and sense-making among the obscure foreign toponyms in the major versional traditions. Lucianic manuscript b has, for 2 Kgs 19.12-13, '...Raphes and the the people of Edem who were in Thaesthen? Where is the king of Math, the king of Arphath? And where is [the king of] Sepharvaim, Hanes and Oudou? All their surrounding cities and their kings?'122 Sennacherib's 'Letter to Hezekiah' is a polished example of the rhetorician's craft that suasively continues the propaganda blitz of the Rabshakeh, to wit, that Judah's—Hezekiah's—god is powerless to save Jerusalem from Assyrian military siege, and that the doom of rebellious Judah shall be the same as that of the Northern Kingdom. The Deuteronomistic authors use the addresses of the Assyrian adversaries to showcase the theological dogmas of the Deuteronomistic History through stunning irony. The bold blasphemer Sennacherib, who claims in effect that Yahweh is just one among many national patron deities who cannot withstand Assyrian imperialism, perishes ignominiously 'in the house of Nisroch his god', 2 Kgs 19.37. The insignificant capital city of Jerusalem, whose king humbly worships Yahweh and who takes the service of the theological agenda of the writers of Kings. Na'aman has suggested that this was so in order to conceal the truth that the reign of Josiah, most cultically exemplary of Judahite kings, was in fact humiliatingly subject both to Assyrian and Egyptian vassalage; N. Na'aman, The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah', Tel Aviv 18 (1991), p. 56. In light of the elastic manner in which Assyrian geo-politics are manipulated in 2 Kings, it is not surprising that Sennacherib's 'Letter to Hezekiah' should address itself to the pressing historical and religious realities of the writers, rather than the ideological struggle for Judah waged in the late eighth century. 122. A. Catastini, Isaia ed Ezechia: studio di storia della tradizione di II Re 1820//Is. 36-39 (Studi Semitici NS, 6; Rome: Universita degli Studi 'La Sapienza', 1989), pp. 192-93.


311

counsel from the true prophet, Isaiah, paradoxically survives to see the invincible Assyrian host slaughtered by divine intervention in a single night, 2 Kgs 19.35. Inspiring homiletics, perhaps, but is it history, and if so, whose history? As several recent studies have shown, the geographical names in 2 Kgs 19.12-13—with the possible exception of Harran—invite the intertextually erudite reader to compare the impending fate of Judah with that of Samaria.123 2 Kgs 19.13 reproduces exactly and in order the toponyms in 2 Kgs 18.34, save that the latter ends with a scornful dig at Samaria. 2 Kgs 17.24, a list of captive peoples resettled by the Assyrians in the territory of the former Northern Kingdom, mentions Avva (= Ivvah?), Hamath and Sepharvaim; hence, Sennacherib in 2 Kgs 19.13 also alludes to the origins of the defeated foreigners who inhabit the Assyrian province of Samerma, contiguous with Hezekiah's rump state of Judah. 2 Kgs 19.12 catalogues four Aramaean strongholds along the northern marches of the Fertile Crescent; barring Media, the geography of 2 Kgs 17.11, which describes the destination of the Israelites deported after the fall of their kingdom to Assyria, corresponds to the same territory in northern Mesopotamia, and even shares the toponym Gozan. In terms of historical verisimilitude, the figure of Sennacherib more or less plausibly boasts of the victories of his forefathers over Gozan (= Guzana), Rezeph (= Rasappa) and Eden (= Bit Adini), all secured through Neo-Assyrian expansion by the late ninth century,124 and Arpad and Hamath, conquests of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II, 123. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, p. 235; Ben Zvi, 'Who Wrote the Speech', pp. 90-91; B.O. Long, 2 Kings (FOIL, 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 21516. 124. Akkadian Guzana, modern Tell Halaf, yielded tribute to Adad-nerari II in 894 and was established as a provincial capital by the second half of the ninth century. Biblical Rezeph, if it is the same as the Neo-Assyrian Rasappa (= modern Sheniya?), was the capital of one of the largest provinces in the empire, first appearing as an eponym in the reign of Shalmaneser III; A. Ungnad, 'Eponymen', in RIA, II, p. 433. The territory surrounding Guzana and portions of Rasappa were both conquered by the Middle Assyrian king Adad-nerari I. There is, however, no record of violent conquest of Rasappa in Neo-Assyrian sources. The strategic stronghold of Bit Adini, Til-Barsib (= modern Tell Ahmar), was decisively defeated by Shalmaneser III in 856. For a concise survey of these events, see A.K. Grayson, 'Assyria: Ashurdan II to Ashur-nirari V (934-745 B.C.)', in CAH2, III.l, pp. 250-61; J.N. Postgate, ' Habur', in RIA, IV, pp. 28-29.

312


respectively.125 Biblical Lair, if this is equivalent to Akkadian Lahfru, a Babylonian city located between the Lower Zab and the Diyala intermittently under Assyrian control from the late tenth to the early eighth century, was militarily incorporated into Greater Assyria by Tiglathpileser III,126 and served as a provincial capital throughout the Sargonid era.127 Whether or not the cities Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah were located in Syria, Babylonia or Media, chances are they would have fallen prey at the latest date to Sargon II, Sennacherib's father.128 But Harran? The reader of this essay who has paid only perfunctory attention to the previous section must realize that, to claim for the figure of Sennacherib that his forefathers destroyed Harran—and its gods could not save it—is to commit a fantastic historical howler. For the historical Sennacherib to have made such a preposterous statement about a city whose cult ranked in Assyrian eyes alongside the great city temples of 125. Ungnad, 'Eponymen', p. 430 (Cbl); A.K. Grayson, 'Assyria: Tiglathpileser HI to Sargon II (744-705 B.C.)', in CAH2, III.2, pp. 74-75 (Tiglath-pileser III); R. Borger, 'Historische Texte in akkadischer Sprache aus Babylonian und Assyrien' (TUAT, 1.4; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), pp. 379, 383-87 (Sargon II). The toponym Arpad occurs in a Neo-Babylonian administrative text from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II; Zadok, Geographical Names, p. 29. 126. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, no. 21, p. 168: iv 3-6 (the so-called Synchronistic History). 127. J.A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158-722 B.C. (AnOr, 43; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), p. 178 n. 1093. Lahlru is attested in post-Assyrian Neo-Babylonian administrative documents written during the Judahite exile (Zadok, Geographical Names, p. 208), when it is more probable that the biblical authors would have become acquainted with this relatively obscure Babylonian city. 128. Most commentators have located Sepharvaim either in Babylonia or Syria; for a rehearsal of the arguments, see Holloway, 'Case for Assyrian Influence', pp. 421-22. R. Zadok's identification of the biblical toponym with Sipira'ni, a site near Nippur infrequently attested in Neo-Babylonian administrative documents, is suggestive, but needs more evidence. Add to the discussion H. Avalos, 'Sepharvaim', in ABD, V, p. 1090. Inconclusive suggestions for Hena and Ivvah/Avva include sites in Syria, Mesopotamia and Media; see R. Zadok, 'Geographical and Onomastic Notes', JANESCU 8 (1976), pp. 115-17; H.O. Thompson, 'Hena', in ABD, III, pp. 137-38; H. Avalos, 'Ivvah', in ABD, III, pp. 587-88. Ben Zvi ('Who Wrote the Speech', p. 88) accurately observes that Lair, Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah were not mighty kingdoms or cities of renown, like Guzana, Arpad and Hamath, but were instead relatively insignificant enclaves of West Semitic tribespeople: for the historical Sennacherib or his Rabshakeh to flaunt such political backwaters in an otherwise brilliant propaganda speech would have been severely anticlimactic.


313

Babylonia and Assyria itself129 would have been no less ridiculous than supposing that George III of England wrote to George Washington during the American Revolution and boasted that his forefathers had destroyed Canterbury Cathedral—and its god(s) had failed to deliver it! Having seen that a triumphalist Neo-Assyrian setting for 2 Kgs 19.12, with a self-declared destruction of the cult center of Harran, is absurd, I will venture a Sitz im Leben that does literary and historical justice to the context of a besieger's speech calculated to erode the resolve of the defenders of Jerusalem. Hardmeier perceptively explores the numerous thematic and literary parallels between the thwarted Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 18-19 // Isaiah 36-37, and the successful NeoBabylonian siege in Jeremiah 37^4-0, which suggest that the narratives of Sennacherib's aggression against Jerusalem were patterned on the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II.130 In 610-609, a Medo-Babylonian coalition stormed the city of Harran and, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, sacked the city temple.131 A Neo-Babylonian plenipotentiary, 129. The last recorded Assyrian conquest of the city was by Shalmaneser I (1274-1245); Harran entered the Assyrian provincial system no later than 814, and apparently was never subject to military assault during the time of the Neo-Assyrian empire. In Assyrian royal inscriptions, when the memories of the Great Kings are not jogged by the discovery of foundation inscriptions, steles, or divine statues, it would be excessively rare for them to allude to events earlier than two centuries back. What possible relevance would an Assyrian capture of Harran in the thirteenth century have for seventh-century Judah? Harran was violently captured and plundered by a Mesopotamian conquest nation that might have commissioned a similar speech before the walls of Jerusalem: the city of Harran fell in 610-609 to a Medo-Babylonian alliance, and such a speech plausibly might have been made by an official of Nebuchadnezzar II, whether in historical fact or as a dramatic rhetorical exercise by the biblical historiographer. Putting it in the mouth of Sennacherib was, to say the least, anachronistic. 130. Hardmeier, Prophetic im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas, pp. 399-408. Hardmeier overlooks the anachronistic use of Harran in Sennacherib's 'Letter to Hezekiah', a usage that strengthens his general thesis. 131. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, no. 3, p. 95: 64. The Babylonian Chronicle is clear on this point: the Ummanmanda (in context, the Medes and other allies) besieged the city and forced its abandonment. Nabopolassar is credited with the city's capture and the plundering of the temple. Even if the Chronicle has deliberately glossed over the temple's sack by the victorious Medes, it is notable that the Babylonian historiographer saw fit to award Nabopolassar the laurels for its spoliation; on this matter see D. Baltzer, 'Harran nach 610 "medisch"? Kritische Uberpriifung einer Hypothese', WO 1 (1973), pp. 86-95; S. Zawadzki, The

314


boasting in the name of Nebuchadnezzar II while parleying with those trapped behind the walls of Jerusalem that the gods of Harran had failed to save the city would have carried dramatic conviction, since the deed had occurred less than twenty-five years before, and the prestige of Harran in the late Sargonid era would have been little less than the ancient capital cities of Assyria and Babylonia.132 The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of its Yahweh temple in 586 exercised an immeasurably greater influence on the biblical writers than the 'salvation' of Jerusalem in 701: subtle historical allusions to that fall are in keeping with the theological program of the Deuteronomistic authors. The historical aptness of citing Harran during the final siege of Jerusalem, however, is no more a convincing proof that a historical besieger actually interjected the fall of Harran as a terror tactic than the feint of putting Hamath and Arpad in the mouth of the Assyrian Rabshakeh proves that 2 Kgs 19.12-13 faithfully records verbatim speeches, or even digests of such speeches. It is plausible that the stirring historical fiction that is 2 Kings 18-20 was composed when Harran rose to international prominence during the late exilic and post-exilic periods, at which time the authors of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis led the ancestor Abram from 'Ur of the Chaldees' to Canaan—by way of Harran—with his numerous kinfolk whose names appear to have been Aramaean enclaves located in northern Mesopotamia in the general region of fabled Harran.133

Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the Nabopolassar Chronicle (trans. U. Wolko and P. Lavelle; Uniwersytet im Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 149; Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press; Delft: Eburon, 1988), pp. 122-26. 132. Hardmeier (Prophetic im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas, pp. 402-404) points out the aptness of Nebuchadnezzar II's mocking the gods of Hamath in light of his capture of the former kingdom. 133. T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW, 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), pp. 304-308; J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 23-26; idem, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 202203, 205, 209.

JOSHUA 7: A REASSESSMENT OF ISRAELITE CONCEPTIONS OF CORPORATE PUNISHMENT

Joel S. Kaminsky

But the people of Israel acted treacherously with regard to the dedicated things:1 Achan2 son of Carmi son of Zabdi son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the dedicated things, and the Lord became angry at the people of Israel. Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai3 which is near Beth-aven—east of Bethel—and he told them, 'Go up and spy out the 1. 'Dedicated things' is a translation of the single word The word clearly connotes the idea of consecration to God in many instances and surely in our story (Josh. 6.17). On the concept of see the following: M. Fretz, 'Herem in the Old Testament: A Critical Reading', in W.M. Swartley (ed.), Essays on War and Peace: Bible and Early Church (Occasional Papers, Institute of Mennonite Studies, 9; Elkhart, IN: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1986), pp. 7-44; N.K. Gottwald, The Tribes of YHWH: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979), pp. 543-50; M. Greenberg, 'Herem', in EncJud, VIII, pp. 344-50; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (trans. M. Greenberg; New York: Schocken Books, 1972), pp. 247-54; N. Lohfink, haram', TDOT, V, pp. 180-99; A. Malamat, 'The Ban in Mari and in the Bible', in Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of 'Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika' (Potchefstroom: University of Stellenbosch, 1966), pp. 40-49; S. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 28-77; G. von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (ed. and trans. M.J. Dawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 49-51; C. Sherlock, 'The Meaning of HRM in the Old Testament', Colloquium 14.2 (1982), pp. 13-24; P.D. Stern, The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel's Religious Experience (BJS, 211; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 1-226; and R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel. I. Social Institutions (ET; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 258-67. 2. His name is Acher in the LXX and in 1 Chron. 2.7. This probably reflects a further growth in the narrative's attempt to explain the name of the location where this story supposedly occurred (Josh. 7.24, 26). This location is also mentioned in Hos. 2.17 and Isa. 65.10. 3. Archaeological excavations have called into doubt the likelihood that Ai was destroyed in Joshua's time. This problem is inherently linked to the larger question of the historicity of the conquest in general. For an excellent discussion of the data

316

The Pitcher is Broken land'. And the men went up and they spied out Ai. Then they returned to Joshua and said to him, 'All the people should not go up, but only two or three squads4 of men should go up and attack Ai; do not trouble all the people to go there, because they are few'. So about three thousand men from the people went up there; but they retreated before the men of Ai. And the men of Ai killed about thirty-six men and chased them from before5 the gate as far as the Shebarim,6 slaying them at the descent. And the morale of the people melted and became like water. Then Joshua and the elders of Israel tore their clothes and lay prostrate on the ground before the ark of the Lord until evening; and they scattered

and the major theories about the conquest of the land, see J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), pp. 213-84. For a more focused discussion of the problems surrounding the archaeological evidence found at Ai, see the following works: J. Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 3rd edn, 1981), pp. 130-33; J.A. Callaway, 'New Evidence on the Conquest of 'AF, JBL 87 (1968), pp. 312-20; R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (trans. D. Smith; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), pp. 61220. For a full summary of all the relevant archaeological data, see Z. Zevit, 'Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy in Joshua 7-8', BASOR 251 (1983), pp. 23-35. It should be noted that the thrust of this investigation does not hinge on the historical accuracy of Josh. 7. Even if the final verdict of the historian is that this narrative is substantially an invented memory, it still sheds light on the Weltanschauung of ancient Israel (or at least of those Israelites who produced and preserved the story as a cultural memory). On the power and importance of memory as opposed to actual history see Y.H. Yerushalmi, Zachor, Jewish History and Jewish Memory (The Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies; New York: Schocken Books, 1989). 4. Although the word is often translated as a thousand, in certain contexts it appears to indicate a large military troop, but not necessarily one composed of a thousand men. If there were only thirty-six men killed out of three thousand this would not be a serious military defeat. On the development of the term and its various meanings in different periods, see G.E. Mendenhall, 'The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26', JBL 77 (1958), pp. 52-66. 5. Reading instead of Here it seems likely that a mem has fallen out as a result of haplography with the preceding plural suffix. This reading follows J.A. Soggin, Joshua (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p. 93. Soggin follows M. Noth, Das Buch Josua (HAT, 7; Tubingen: Mohr, 1953), p. 38. 6. Perhaps it should be translated as 'the quarries' as suggested by J. Garstang, The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges (London: Constable, 1931), p. 152. No one is quite sure of the exact meaning or location of this site. Zevit argues that the root is not associated with quarries but with ruined walls, and thus he translates the phrase as 'they pursued them in front of the gate to the ruined walls'; Zevit, 'Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy', p. 31.

KAMINSKY Joshua 7 and Corporate Punishment 317

317

dust on their heads. Joshua cried, 'Alas, O Lord God, Why did you even lead this people across the Jordan,7 only to give us into the power of the Amorites and destroy us? If only we had been willing and had stayed on the other side of the Jordan! O Lord, What can I say after Israel has turned its back before its enemies? The Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear [of this] and will turn upon us and destroy our name from the earth. And what will you do about your great name?' The Lord answered Joshua: 'Get up! Why are you lying prostrate? Israel has sinned! They have transgressed my covenant that I imposed upon them; they took some of the dedicated things; they have stolen, and acted deceitfully, and placed them with their equipment. Therefore, the people of Israel will not be able to withstand their enemies; they will turn their backs to their enemies, because they have become utterly dedicated. I will not be with you again unless you purge the dedicated things from your midst. Go sanctify the people, and proclaim: Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow; for thus says the Lord God of Israel: Something utterly dedicated is in your midst, O Israel, and you will not be able to withstand your enemies until you have removed that which is utterly dedicated from your midst. In the morning you will come forward according to your tribes; and the tribe that the Lord takes will come forward by clans, and the clan that the Lord takes will come forward by households, and the household that the Lord takes will come forward man by man. And the one who is caught with the utterly devoted things shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has,8 because he transgressed the covenant of the Lord and he committed an abomination in Israel.' Early in the morning Joshua had Israel approach by tribes, and the tribe of Judah was taken. He then had the clans9 of Judah approach, and the clan of the Zerahites was taken. Then he had the clan of the Zerahites approach man by man,10 and Zabdi was taken. And he had his household approach man by man, and Achan son of Carmi son of Zabdi son of Zerah of the tribe of Judah was taken. 7. LXX reads 'why did your servant lead this people across the Jordan?' This would solve the difficulty of the forrr ?y turning it into One could also emend it to the infinitive absolute On this form, see GKC § 113x. 8. Certain interpreters such as Rashi understand the act of burning as only applying to the tent and chattels. Rashi argues that the Masoretic disjunctive accent of indicates that the burning does not apply to Achan who is zaqefover the word signified by the following word iriK. This interpretation does not seem particularly compelling to me, but it would explain the multiple punishments of burning and stoning in v. 25. 9. Here I follow the LXX and read the plural 'clans' rather than the MT's singula 10. One expects 'by households' here as found in the Syriac, but the text is understandable without the emendation.

318

The Pitcher is Broken Then Joshua said to Achan, 'My son pay honor to the Lord God of Israel and make confession to him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide from me'. Achan answered Joshua and he said, 'Truly, I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel. This is what I did: I saw among the spoil1' a beautiful Shinar mantle, two hundred silver shekels, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, and I desired them and took them. Indeed, they are hidden in the ground in my tent, with the silver underneath.' So Joshua sent messengers and they ran to the tent; and truly it was hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. And they took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites; and they poured them out before the Lord. Then Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, the mantle, the wedge of gold, his sons, his daughters, his oxen, his asses, his sheep, his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor.12 And Joshua said, 'How

11. Boling sees the word as evidence that there are two separate traditions that were originally unrelated. 'It appears that memories of (1) a contaminating heremviolation at Jericho and (2) Achan's theft ofsdldl, 'booty' (the latter given a Jericho setting), have been combined by a historian in such a way as to protect Joshua from any charge of poor military judgment in the debacle of the first battle of The Ruin'; R.G. Boling and G.E. Wright, Joshua (AB, 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), p. 230. Although it is possible that the Achan story is an intrusion into the story about the conquest of Ai, I think one could interpret the word in a literary way. One expects Achan to give his side of the story which might include a different perception of the facts. Achan would admit to having taken certain goods from Jericho, but in this scenario, would place this act within the law by categorizing the items he took as rather than as Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the Achan story is not intrusive in its present context. The book as a whole seems aware of this story of disobedience (Josh. 6.17-19; 22.20) and it is far from uncommon for the Bible and particularly for the Deuteronomistic Historian to elucidate the consequences of past disobedience in order to preclude the possibility of such errors in the future. An excellent study of the way in which Josh. 7-8 functions as a holistic literary unit and fits into the larger theological agenda of the Deuteronomistic History can be found in C.T. Begg, The Function of Josh 7,1-8,29 in the Deuteronomistic History', Bib 67 (1986), pp. 320-33. It should be noted that I do not object to the idea that Josh. 7 may be a composite narrative; I only object to the criteria invoked by Boling as proof for his particular reconstruction of this narrative's prehistory. 12. It should be noted that this location is mentioned in Hos. 2.17, a passage that informs the reader that, in the prophetic future, the past place of apostasy will now be called the door of hope; M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), p. 361. Fishbane's insight was adumbrated earlier by H.W. Wolff, Hosea (ed. P.D. Hanson; trans. G. Stansell; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 43. Although one should be cautious about assuming that Hosea knows the story we have in Josh. 7, this reference indicates that the basic story

KAMINSKY Joshua 7 and Corporate Punishment

319

you have troubled us! May the Lord trouble you this day'. And all Israel stoned him with stones; they burned them with fire and stoned them with stones.13 They raised a great heap of stones over him, which remains today. Then the Lord turned from his hot anger. Therefore to this day that place is called the Valley of Achor.

about an instance of apostasy occurring shortly after Israel's entrance into the land has roots that are older than the seventh century BCE. 13. This verse is clearly corrupt with the double reference to stoning and the ambiguity over exactly who, or what, is stoned, or burned. One way to solve this difficult text is to follow the LXX which reads It lacks the last clause found in the MT that states 'they burned them with fire and they stoned them with stones' and thus it eliminates the textual ambiguity. But there are reasons to give priority to the longer reading found in the MT. To begin with, the MT contains the theologically and philologically more difficult text and one could argue that on these grounds alone it should be preferred. Note R. Klein's succinct statement on this type of textual difficulty: 'The Hebrew text may have seemed difficult already to the translator. Consequently, a superior reading in LXX is not necessarily original; it may only result from the translator's glossing over a problem'; R.W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran (Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament Series; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), p. 62. Secondly, if one follows the LXX's reading, one is left with the logical difficulty of explaining why in v. 24 Achan's sons, daughters and livestock are all led up to the Valley of Achor if, in fact, they are not executed; and the fact that v. 15 calls for the complete destruction of the guilty party's household. Instead, I would be more inclined to view the first mention of 'they stoned him with stones' as a later interpolation into the text. Verse 15 points in this direction because it calls for the culprit and all he owns to be burned. He or his livestock may have been stoned as well, but it would be odd if they were not burned at all. If both acts occurred, it makes more sense to have burning followed by an act of heaping stones upon the burning remains, than vice versa. Other evidence also suggests that the first mention of 'they stoned him with stones' is a later addition to the text. While is used four times in Deuteronomy and seven times in the Deuteronomistic History, is used only once in Deuteronomy and aside from Josh. 7.25, only one other time in the Deuteronomistic History. Who added the phrase with and why is an interesting question. The restricting of the punishment to Achan alone could be an attempt by a very late hand to remove the theological difficulty that one encounters if Achan's children and livestock are executed together with him. This position is advocated by B.S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 62 n. 1. But it is possible that this addition is simply a gloss that crept into the text explaining that the older term is equivalent to the newer term If a later editor had wanted to change the story and have only Achan killed by stoning, one wonders why he did such a poor job of editing.

320


Modern Western civilization tends to understand justice to mean the equitable distribution of reward and punishment in fair proportion to the nature and type of deeds that a person performs.14 So indeed one should expect that in the Hebrew Bible, a book that openly proclaims a belief in a just God (Deut. 32.4), those and only those who have committed a crime are punished and only in fair proportion to their crime. Inasmuch as Joshua 7 contains narrative details that seem to reject this ideal of justice, it thereby raises certain difficult theological questions about the Hebrew Bible's conception of divine retribution. In particular, three specific aspects of this narrative call into question the fairness and equitability of God's retribution. 1.

2.

3.

Verses 24 and 25 appear to indicate that innocent family members and sentient animals are executed for Achan's crime. This procedure appears to be both inequitable and unjust. Verse 5 tells us that approximately thirty-six innocent soldiers died in the first battle against Ai. The chapter as a whole implies that these deaths would not have occurred if Achan had not taken some of the utterly devoted things into his possession. Thus these innocent men died on account of Achan's crime.15 Verse 12 informs us that God will not be with Israel again until the utterly devoted things are removed from their camp and the culprit who violated the rules of holy war has been executed. For the time that God has removed himself from the Israelite camp, all Israel remains susceptible to attack and destruction. Thus it appears that all Israel is suffering innocently on account of the sin of one individual.

The exact rationale behind why the taking of by Achan alone would cause all Israel to be punished (issues 2 and 3) will be taken up further below in the discussion of holiness and its place in ancient Israelite religion. For now I will focus specifically on the question of why 14. For example, The World Book Dictionary gives the following as one definition for the word justice: 'just treatment; deserved reward or punishment: Justice consists in giving everyman what he deserves' (their italics); The World Book Dictionary, 1974edn, s.v. 'Justice'. 15. Whether these deaths should be viewed as a punishment inflicted against Israel, or as an omen to alert them to the fact that a covenantal breach has occurred, remains in doubt. But in either scenario, apparently innocent men die for the sin of Achan.


321

Achan's whole family is killed for his act of taking these dedicated goods. There are several options that scholars have proposed to explain why Achan's family and chattels were destroyed. Ancient Israel Was Pre-Logical There are numerous instances in the Hebrew Bible in which God acts in a way that offends modern sensibilities. For example, it is well known that God may punish other apparently innocent family members for the crimes of a single individual (Josh. 7 and 2 Sam. 21). The first extensive scholarly discussion of the rationale behind these cases was put forward by H.W. Robinson who, as early as 1911, began to use the term 'corporate personality' as a conceptual key to elucidate these disturbing cases.16 Although he never completely defines the term 'corporate personality', one can gain a fairly clear idea of the concept from the following statement:17 The larger or smaller group was accepted without question as a unity... The whole group, including its past, present, and future members, might function as a single individual through any one of those members conceived as representative of it.18

Robinson drew many of his ideas from contemporary scholars in related areas and particularly from the field of anthropology. He relied very heavily on Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl, who employed the notion of 16. H.W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), p. 8. 17. Here I am only discussing Robinson's ideas in relation to Josh. 7. For a more complete discussion of the importance of his ideas within biblical scholarship and a fuller critique of his position, see the following works: P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup, 51; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 79-87; J. Kaminsky, 'Punishment Displacement in the Hebrew Bible' (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1993), pp. 9-36; G. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS, 126; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 113-58; G.E. Mendenhall, 'The Relation of the Individual to Political Society in Ancient Israel', in J.M. Myers, O. Reimherr and H.N. Bream (eds.), Biblical Studies in Memory of H.C. Alleman (Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1960), pp. 89-108; J.R. Porter, 'The Legal Aspects of the Concept of "Corporate Personality" in the Old Testament', VT 15 (1965), pp. 361-80; J.W. Rogerson, The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Re-Examination', JTS NS 21 (1970), pp. 1-16. 18. H.W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (repr.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. edn, 1980 [1936]), p. 25.

322


'primitive psychology' in their attempts to explain totemism among socalled 'primitive' peoples. It was often asserted by these anthropologists that tribes with a totemic religion inhabited a very different psychic reality from the one in which we now live. This primitive mind-set was described by terms such as 'synthetic thinking' or 'psychical unity', implying an inability of individuals to separate themselves totally from nature, and especially of their inability to differentiate themselves from other members of their clan and from the totemic species that represented their clan. As evidence for the existence of such a psychology, Durkheim once quotes a field report in which the anthropologist is showing a native a photograph of himself. Upon observing it, the native said, 'that one' referring to the photograph, 'is the same as me; so is a kangaroo' (the totemic symbol of his clan).19 Quite similar is a quote of Levy-Bruhl's actually cited by Robinson in his article on corporate personality. Things, beings, and phenomena can be incomprehensible for us, at once themselves and something other than themselves.'20 Often this totemic psychology was called 'pre-logicaT and it was considered to be a type of mystical union with reality as a whole. It is clear that Robinson never suggested that ancient Israelite religion was totemistic in any way. But it is equally clear that he fully believed that ancient Israel, especially in the earlier period, exhibited a very similar, or perhaps even the same psychology that these anthropologists believed they had found among 'primitive' tribes. Robinson explicitly invoked the concept of corporate personality as an explanation for some of the theological difficulties raised by Joshua 7. No one can overlook this unity of corporate personality in its more legal aspects. Familiar examples from the Old Testament are given when Achan breaks the taboo on the spoil of Jericho, and involves the whole of Israel in defeat and, on discovery, the whole of his family in destruction.21 Although Robinson never elaborated on exactly how the notion of corporate personality is operative in this case, it is likely that he understood the execution of Achan's family as due to an inability on the part of ancient Israelites to distinguish between the individual and the

19. E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (trans. J.W. Swain; New York: The Free Press, 1915), p. 157. 20. Robinson, Corporate Personality, p. 31. 21. Robinson, Corporate Personality, pp. 25-26.


323

group.22 The most basic difficulty with this approach is that there has been an extensive critique by later anthropologists of the whole notion of a pre-logical mentality. It seems that much of the evidence used to support such a construct is rather tenuous.23 Even more problematic is that such a solution cannot account for all of the actions that occur in this narrative. If one assumed that ancient Israel had an inability to distinguish between the group and the individual, then why would God order Joshua to find the specific offender and punish him with the death penalty (Josh. 7.13-15)? Indeed, in vv. 20-21 Achan confesses that he, alone, committed this crime. Furthermore, in v. 24 there is a clear distinction made between Achan, the goods he stole, his sons and daughters, and his other worldly possessions. All of these facts suggest that ancient Israelites could and did distinguish between the real offender and other members of his family and his tribe. Thus it seems highly questionable to invoke the idea of a pre-logical mentality involving some type of psychical unity as an explanation for the execution of Achan's sons, daughters and cattle. People Could be Reckoned as Personal Property There is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that the clear division that we make between persons and things (including animals) may not have existed in the ancient Near East in general.24 Although many scholars have recognized that ancient Israel maintained a clear

22. Porter, 'Legal Aspects', p. 362. 23. For a fuller discussion of the anthropological critique of the notion of primitive mentality, see the following: E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), pp. 123-43; Rogerson, 'Hebrew Conception', pp. 1-16; J.Z. Smith, Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (SJLA, 23; Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 265-88; and N.H. Snaith, review of The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, by A.R. Johnson, JTS 44 (1943), pp. 81-84. 24. 'In Mesopotamia no qualitative discontinuity was perceived between the phenomenon of man and any other phenomena of the natural universe. An accidental untoward occurrence in which a person is the victim therefore did not, by virtue of that element alone, transpose the event or the procedure by which it was to be emended into some exclusive categorical sphere which would not have obtained had the victim been other than a human being'; J.J. Finkelstein, The Ox that Gored (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 71.2; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981), p. 39.

324


distinction between property (objects and animals) and people,25 there is still much evidence that certain people were sometimes reckoned within the category of property. The fact that one could own slaves suggests that a class of people existed who were treated, at least in certain ways, as chattels (Exod. 21.4, 21). Daughters appear to belong to their fathers as a piece of valuable but disposable property (Exod. 21.7; Deut. 22.29). The Decalogue includes a man's wife among his possessions (Exod. 20.17).26 And there is also evidence that male children may have been viewed as property that could be sacrificed by their father (Gen. 22; Mic. 6.7), or killed as part of their father's punishment (Exod. 20.5; 2 Sam. 21). These points might allow us to infer that Achan's family members are not executed because they are in some way guilty, but rather, because his crime warranted his death and the total destruction of his property as well. According to this line of reasoning, his family was destroyed as part and parcel of his property.27 This reconstruction may provide at least part of the rationale behind the execution of Achan's family and his cattle. However, as we will see shortly, there are other factors that play a more prominent role not only 25. M. Greenberg, 'Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law', in J. Goldin (ed.), The Jewish Expression (repr.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976 [I960]), pp. 18-37. 26. It should be noted that in the version of the Decalogue found in Deut. 5.17 the phrase 'you shall not covet your neighbor's house' occurs after 'you shall not covet your neighbor's wife'. This word order may indicate an attempt to elevate the status of women out of the category of property. This line of interpretation is suggested by M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB, 5; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 317-18. 27. This view accords well with the concept of 'ruler punishment' developed by D. Daube. Daube describes ruler punishment as a case in which 'a sinner might be punished by being deprived of human "property" (his men if he was a king, his son if he was a father, his wife if he was a husband) just as well as being deprived of any other goods'; D. Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), p. 165. Porter applies Daube's idea of ruler punishment to Josh. 7 and several other cases such as 2 Sam. 21. If one presumes that in ancient Israel the man was considered the owner of his whole household, material possessions as well as human beings, 'then what happened to Achan's household might be no different in principle from the custom of ancient warfare, when the wives of the defeated and slain king would become the property of his conqueror, or from that of the sixteenthcentury England, whereby the property of an executed traitor was forfeit to the crown'; Porter, 'Legal Aspects', pp. 368-69.


325

in explaining why Achan's family and chattels had to be eliminated, but also in helping to elucidate the death of the thirty-six men in the first battle of Ai and God's excommunication of all Israel until they executed the culprit (points two and three respectively). This Case is an Extra-Legal Case One could argue that certain crimes fall outside of the normal legal system and thus that penalties in such cases may be exceedingly severe. For example, Joshua 7 may be analogous to Lev. 21.9 in which a priest's daughter is convicted of prostitution and sentenced to death by burning. Porter suggests that both cases may involve such severe punishments inasmuch as they are beyond the boundary of the normal legal system. As long as a person is within the covenant relationship, his offences can be coped with by society and dealt with by regular judicial procedure, but if he puts himself outside the covenant relationship, he can have no place in 78 society.

This solution would explain the death of Achan's whole family as a drastic measure that was imposed in this unusual case in order to eradicate a dangerous evil (Deut. 13.13-19).29 The major flaw in this particular proposal resides in its suggestion that this case falls outside of the normal purview of the legal system of ancient Israel. Inherent in such a view is the tendency to create a false dichotomy between the categories of the ritual and the ethical. The ethical is understood to be rational and is connected to the legal system, while ritual is considered irrational, strange, marginal and exceptional. Porter argues that ancient Israelites clearly understood that criminals were responsible for their crimes, in a way that those around them were not. Yet this basic recognition was qualified, as far as the operation of the law was concerned, not so much by ideas of 'corporate personality', as by the notion that a man can possess persons in much the same way that he possesses property and by early religious beliefs about the contagious nature of blood, holiness, sin and uncleanness.30

28. Porter, 'Legal Aspects', p. 371. 29. It does not appear to be useful in solving problems 2 and 3 listed above. 30. Porter, 'Legal Aspects', pp. 379-80. Emphasis is mine.

326


By attributing the corporate elements in these cases to early religious beliefs and by separating these cases from the legal domain, Porter creates a false dichotomy and leaves one with the sense that there is a sharp contrast between the legal sphere in which individualism reigns supreme and the religious sphere in which certain older corporate ideas seem to persist. It is clear that Porter is on the right track when he suggests that notions such as holiness, sin and blood-guilt are operating in the cases that are corporate in nature. What is problematic is his assumption that these ideas are early holdovers that are unconnected to more normative legal trends in ancient Israel. Porter is being anachronistic both in his tendency to draw a sharp distinction between secular and religious law, and in his subtle preference for describing the former as being more equitable than the latter.31 This proposition is inaccurate because it imposes a modern set of assumptions about the clear separation between ethical and ritual norms onto the Hebrew Bible, which is composed of a set of documents that appear to

31. Note the language Porter employs in his celebration of the modern propensity to separate secular and religious law. That we do not share these [early religious] concepts no doubt makes our recognition of individual justice more equitable than it often could be in practice in Old Testament times'; 'Legal Aspects', p. 380. In Porter, this anachronistic tendency seems to be produced from a pervasive modernist bias that views the sequence of historical periods as progressing toward more refined stages of civilization. It should be noted that a secularized evolutionism is sometimes compounded by a specifically Christian supersessionism. In this Christian version, the content of the Hebrew Bible is evaluated through the lens of the New Testament. Therein, the Hebrew Bible is seen as an imperfect expression of ideas that reached fruition in the New Testament period. Thus certain scholars have characterized the religion and morality of the Hebrew Bible as inferior to that of the New Testament. In the New Testament, 'the decisive question is, "What must I do to be saved?" The salvation here meant is the salvation of the individual soul, and it is a supramundane, heavenly salvation. Compared with this, the Old Testament is on a lower level, for in its pages religion deals in the first instance with national life'; H. Gunkel, 'What is Left of the Old Testament?', in What Remains of the Old Testament (trans. A.K. Dallas; repr.; New York: Macmillan, 1928 [1914]), p. 42. It should be noted that the tendency to characterize the Hebrew Bible as inferior to the New Testament still occurs. Note the comment made in a recent book that applies R. Girard's ideas to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Uncomfortable with the conflicting views of God and violence in the Hebrew Bible we are told not to worry because 'a real center can be found only when all the writings are interpreted anew in the light of the fate of Jesus'; R. Schwager, Must there Be Scapegoats? Violence and Redemption in the Bible (trans. M.L. Assad; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 135.


327

stress the organic connection between ethical and ritual ideas.32 Ritual laws, including the procedures found in Joshua 7, are found in biblical texts that claim to be a part of the biblical legal system (Lev. 27.28-29; Deut. 13.18). Rather than arguing for a very narrow definition of legal material in the Hebrew Bible and then being forced to exclude Joshua 7 and other troubling cases from this definition, it makes more sense to acknowledge that notions of contagion, holiness and blood-guilt are internal to Israelite law just as they are internal to much of Israelite theology. Once one acknowledges that the biblical legal system also contains ritual ideas, it becomes much easier to comprehend why the ancient Israelites executed Achan and his family. As I will demonstrate, this action was taken because ritual violations, inasmuch as they endangered the community as a whole, were considered a criminal offence punishable by the human legal system. Two other scholars make arguments that resemble Porter's. JJ. Finkelstein views this case as particularly severe in that it threatens the 'cosmic hierarchy' and thus like 'a physical malignancy, the drastic excision of which entails the removal of some of the surrounding and apparently non-infected tissue...Achan's family and property had to be destroyed' ,33 Here, Finkelstein views the punishment as a psychological maneuver to make an example of Achan, rather than a normal legal and ritual procedure, as I will argue below. Lastly, J. Milgrom treats this as a case of divine retribution that happens to be executed by humans. Milgrom maintains that the deity always reserves the right to collective liability and thus one should not treat this as a case of human jurisprudence.34 Milgrom's rationale for placing Joshua 7 under the rubric of divine retribution does not seem to be related to Porter's maneuver to segregate the ethical from the ritual. Milgrom, a very sensitive reader of Leviticus, would have no interest in 32. The deep connection between ethical and ritual ideas that one finds in texts such as Lev. 19 and Ezek. 18 will be documented in greater detail further below. 33. Finkelstein, The Ox that Gored, p. 28. 34. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 33-35. Speaking about Israelite legislation Milgrom informs us that 'for both cleric and layman, master and slave, the doctrine of collective culpability is reserved to divine justice; it never functions in the jurisprudence of men'; Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, p. 34. Milgrom appears to be expanding on a point made by Greenberg several years earlier that the 'principle of individuality in fact governs all of biblical law'; Greenberg, 'Some Postulates', p. 30.

328


creating such a false dichotomy. Rather, his argument appears to flow from two assumptions, both of them problematic. He presumes that all cases found within the Hebrew Bible fit neatly into one of two categories: those that fall solely under the rubric of divine retribution, and allow for communal responsibility; and others that fall solely under the heading of human retribution and punish only the offending party. Additionally, he assumes that Israelite law is highly ethical and highly rational and thus that the Israelite judicial system would never allow a human court to impose a trans-generational punishment.35 Although I concur with Milgrom that the deity always reserves the right for collective liability, instances such as Achan's reveal that the existing cases do not always fall neatly into one category; Milgrom's system of classification is thus dubious. To argue as Milgrom does, that this case is simply a case of divine retribution, is to force the data into a Procrustean bed. There are several instances in the Hebrew Bible that straddle this dualistic categorization, and Achan's is one such example.36 In these 35. Behind this view is an apologetic bias that is based on an attempt to contrast what he sees as the high ethical standard of the biblical legal system with the less ethically developed ancient Near Eastern law codes. An insightful critique of this method of contrasting biblical to ancient Near Eastern law can be found in B.S. Jackson, Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (SJLA, 10; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 25-63. A response to Jackson can be found in M. Greenberg, 'More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law', in S. Japhet (ed.), Studies in Bible, 1986 (ScrHier, 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), pp. 1-17. A discussion of the more general problem of the exact ways in which Israel might or might not be different from its ancient Near Eastern neighbors can be found in R. Gnuse, Heilsgeschichte as a Model for Biblical Theology: The Debate Concerning the Uniqueness and Significance of Israel's Worldview (College Theology Society Studies in Religion, 4; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989). Also see J. Kaminsky, review of Heilsgeschichte as a Model for Biblical Theology: The Debate Concerning the Uniqueness and Significance of Israel's Worldview, by R. Gnuse, JR 71 (1991), pp. 255-56. 36. Here Fishbane is on the right track when he calls for caution and suggests that a simple dualistic model fails to account for all the evidence. He constructs his argument by first noting that 'some of the early rules against vicarious punishments are the product of deliberate exegetical revision'. Additionally, he points out that laws such as Deut. 24.16, which explicitly prohibit human courts from using trans-generational punishments, indicate 'a considerable concern to curb this practice'. Thus 'the available evidence requires one to draw the qualified conclusion that while the legal corpora tend to reject vicarious punishment, this latter notion probably coexisted with other ones'; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 336-37.


329

medial cases humans, albeit by divine imperative, are carrying out a punishment that is collective in nature. I acknowledge that the egregious nature of Achan's violation is a factor that can help explain the severity of the punishment inflicted on Achan's family and chattels.37 But the fact that the Achan case involves a particularly egregious violation is not equivalent to acknowledging that it, or other cases that resemble it, fall outside of the purview of the ancient Israelite legal system (Lev. 24.13-16; Num. 15.30-31). In order to demonstrate that Joshua 7, despite its unusual features, still falls within the normal operation of Israelite law, we must first clarify the precise role that the institution of plays within our narrative. As we will see, several key difficulties can be explained by reaching a fuller understanding of the way in which functions in the Hebrew Bible in general and in Joshua 7 in particular. in the Hebrew Bible The term is not employed in a consistent manner within the Hebrew Bible. It sometimes appears to be a voluntary practice undertaken by the Israelites (Lev. 27.28; Num. 21.2) and other times it seems to be commanded by God (Deut. 20.17; Josh. 6.17-18).38 On some occasions one is allowed to keep parts of the booty (Josh. 8.2) and at other times everything is to be destroyed (Deut. 13.16-18; 1 Sam. 15.3). It is possible that this practice changed over time,39 or it might just be that different sources represent this institution in different ways.40 37. So Daube tells us that 'it is safe to infer that theft of anything sacred was deemed a particularly grave offense'; Daube, Studies, p. 203. 38. In general, there are many more occurrences in which God orders the as opposed to instances in which it is done as part of a vow. It appears that the voluntary idea occurs almost exclusively in texts of priestly origin (Lev. 27.21, 28; Num. 18.14; Ezek. 44.29). It is fair to say that in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History the institution of never appears as a vow and often, although not always, is explicitly ordered by God (Deut. 7.2; 13.16; Josh. 10.40; 11.15, 20; 1 Sam. 15.2-3). For full bibliography on this topic, see n. 1 above. For a comprehensive chart of all occurrences of the root see Fretz, 'Herem', Appendix 1, pp. 29-31. For a philological examination of this root, see Stern, The Biblical Herem, pp. 5-17. 39. For example, von Rad thinks that the idea of a vow found in Num. 21.2 is more recent than the notion that was a divine imperative; von Rad, Holy War, p. 50. 40. For example, it is possible to argue that Josh. 6.19 is a late, perhaps Priestly

330


Joshua 7 is a narrative that speaks about a that was absolute and commanded by God.41 One would expect to rind this type of in the Deuteronomistic History because this is the type of one finds in the speeches and laws of Deuteronomy. Compare the language of the four following passages from the book of Deuteronomy with the fifth passage which is taken from the book of Joshua. The Lord your God has given them (these nations) before you and you shall smite them, utterly destroying them, you will not make a covenant with them nor shall you show any mercy to them (Deut. 7.2). You will burn the idols of their gods with fire and you will not covet the silver and gold upon them and take it for yourself, lest you become ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to the Lord your God. And you will not bring an abominable thing into your house or you will become proscribed like it; you shall completely abhor and detest it for it is a proscribed thing (Deut. 7.25-26). You will surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword, utterly destroying it and all that is in it including its livestock. You will gather all of its booty into the center of its square and you will burn the town and all its booty as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It will remain an eternal ruin and will not again be rebuilt (Deut. 13.16-17). You shall utterly destroy them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God commanded you (Deut. 20.17). And the city and all that is in it will be utterly dedicated to the Lord (Josh. 6.17a). It is clear that all these passages share a similar model of the institution ol Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is evidence of variation within this institution. In Josh. 6.19, Joshua commands the Israelites to take the silver, gold, bronze and iron vessels that are sanctified to the Lord and bring them to his treasury, whereas in Deut. 7.25-26, the Israelites are commanded to burn such items. It is possible that Josh. 6.19 along with the second half of v. 24 are late (perhaps Priestly) addition to a text which originally stressed the total destruction of the city and everything in it (Josh. 6.17). 41. By 'absolute' I mean only that everything was dedicated to God, not necessarily that everything had to be destroyed. As noted further below, Josh. 6.17 and 6.24a seem to call for utter destruction, while 6.19 and 6.24b indicate that certain objects went 'to the treasury of the (house) of the Lord'. On this problem, see discussion further below.


331

additions to a text that calls for complete destruction rather than destruction of everyone and dedication of valuable objects. But it is that are employed equally possible that there are different levels ol at different times. There are at least two instances in Deuteronomy that allow one to plunder livestock and booty of a nation that has been put to the ban (Deut. 2.34-35; 3.6-7). Interestingly, after the misfortune resulting from Achan's sin the severity of the ban is reduced in Joshua 8 and the people are now permitted to keep the booty and the livestock (Josh. 8.2,27).42 These texts make it clear that when one treats something as it means that the object is consecrated or dedicated in an almost sacrificial manner. Support for such an understanding of can be found in several biblical passages. Notice the way in which Deut. 13.17 uses terminology that is strongly reminiscent of the language surrounding the 43 idea of sacrifice: Sacrificial terminology can also be found in Josh. 6.17a, and in Lev. 27.28b, is most holy to the Lord). also extends to the effect it has on those who The sacral character o misuse it. It is clear from Deut. 7.25-26 cited above and from Josh. 6.18 cited here that when one misappropriates one runs the risk of having the tabooed status of the transferred to oneself.44 42. This may be connected to a larger biblical tendency to ease the rules after God realizes that he has set an unreachable standard. This might be compared to God's allowing human beings to consume meat after the flood (Gen. 9.3), even though he had initially limited them to a strictly vegetarian diet (Gen. 1.29). 43. The term is used several times in reference to sacrificial procedures (Lev. 6.15,16; Deut. 33.10; 1 Sam. 7.9; Ps. 51.21). 44. As pointed out by Greenberg, 'this is wholly analogous to the contagiousness of the state of impurity, and a provision of the law of impurity is really the best commentary on the story of Achan's crime: "This is the law: when a man dies in a tent every one that comes into that tent, and every thing that is in that tent, shall be unclean" (Num. 19.14)'; Greenberg, 'Some Postulates', p. 31. It should be noted that both Stern and Sherlock object to the use of the idea of taboo and to the notion of having a contagious element to it. The objection to the use of taboo is based upon the fact that the biblical concept of does not correspond precisely to the idea as it is used in Polynesian thought; Sherlock, 'The Meaning', p. 15, and Stern, The Biblical Herem, pp. 145-49.1 acknowledge this to be the case, but still feel the term 'taboo' can be used more loosely to mean something banned or prohibited. The same is true of the use of the word 'contagion'. It need not be limited to the idea of disease and Stern correctly criticizes those scholars who attempt to understand the Jericho incident as primarily a form of health control. But it is important to recognize that CTTI

332

The Pitcher is Broken Only be very vigilant about the utterly dedicated goods, lest you covet45 and you appropriate some of the utterly dedicated goods and you make the camp of Israel into an utterly dedicated thing and bring trouble upon it (Josh 6.18).

The sacral character of and the fact that an individual who misappropriates such an object can also become proscribed can also be supported by various extrabiblical parallels. Ancient Near Eastern Analogues to the Idea ofBiblicat The fact that the notion of holy war, perhaps more accurately described in ancient Israel as YHWH war, and the idea of do appear to have analogues in other ancient Near Eastern cultures strongly suggests that these practices did occur in certain periods and should not be viewed as fictional concepts invented by certain biblical writers who were romanticizing about the glorious past.46 The single closest analogue to the way can spread and thus can be described as something that is contagious. For theories of as a preventive health measure, see Boling, Joshua, pp. 207, 214-15; C. Meyers, The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel', BA 41 (1978), pp. 91-103; and G.E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), pp. 105-21. Stern's critique is found in The Biblical Herem, p. 143. 45.This part of the verse is problematic inasmuch as the MT only has the hiphil verb with no object following it. Here I have emended the text to following the LXX which reads ev0i)UT|6evTe

The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOT Supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

The Chronicler As Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (JSOT Supplement)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOT Supplement)

The Book of the Covenant' (JSOT Supplement)

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City (JSOT Supplement)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Everything Is Broken

Everything is Broken

Reality Is Broken

Reality Is Broken

Reality Is Broken

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud (JSOT Supplement)

Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOT supplement)

Second Temple Studies (JSOT Supplement) (v. 2)

The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOT Supplement)

On the Way to the Postmodern : Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998. Volume I (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOT Supplement)

The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOT Supplement)

The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOT Supplement)

The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOT Supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Understanding the Word (JSOT supplement)

The Chronicler As Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (JSOT Supplement)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOT Supplement)

The Book of the Covenant' (JSOT Supplement)

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City (JSOT Supplement)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Everything Is Broken

Everything is Broken

Reality Is Broken

Reality Is Broken

Reality Is Broken

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud (JSOT Supplement)

Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOT supplement)

Second Temple Studies (JSOT Supplement) (v. 2)

The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOT Supplement)

On the Way to the Postmodern : Old Testament Essays, 1967-1998. Volume I (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Jsot Supplement Series, 10)

The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOT Supplement)

The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOT Supplement)

The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (JSOT Supplement)

Recommend Documents