A History of the Kingdom of Israel (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta): 275 904293655X, 9789042936553

Citation preview

O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA A History of the Kingdom of Israel

by EDWARD LIPIķSKI

P E E T ERS

A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

Silver goblet from ‘Ayn Samiya (Ephraim), Middle Bronze I (photo: Israel Department of Antiquities)

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 275 —————

A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

by

EDWARD LIPIŃSKI

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2018

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2018, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-3655-3 eISBN 978-90-429-3744-4 D/2018/0602/87

CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VII

FOREWORD .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XI

I. PROTO-HISTORY .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

Egyptian sources: Joseph-El . . . . Simeon . . . . . . . . . . . Jacob-El. . . . . . . . . . . Reuben . . . . . . . . . . . Abram, Ḥatt . . . . . . . . . Mount Yahwe-El . . . . . . . . Shasu . . . . . . . . . . . Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Apiru . . . . . . . . . . . Deportation and Exodus of šꜢsw people . The Holy Mountain of Yhw’l . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

2 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 18 20 24

II. FROM TRIBAL CONFEDERACY TO MONARCHY .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

.

Israel’s sedentarization . . . . Beth-Maakah . . . . . . . The days of the Judges . . . . Institution of Israelite monarchy . The reigns of Saul and Ishbaal . The reigns of David and Solomon The reign of Jeroboam I . . . Successors of Jeroboam I . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

33 38 40 43 49 51 56 61

III. THE DYNASTY OF OMRI .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

65

The reign of Omri . . Districts of the Kingdom Relations with Phoenicia The reign of Ahab . . Anti-Assyrian alliance . Relations with Judah. . The reign of Ahaziah . The reign of Jehoram .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

66 72 77 82 87 89 89 91

VI

CONTENTS

The reign of Jehu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 The reigns of Jehoahaz and Joash . . . . . . . . . . . 103 The reign of Jeroboam II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 IV. ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL

AND THE

ASSYRIAN CONQUEST .

Events of the years 743-723 B.C. . The siege of Samaria . . . . . Samarian deportees . . . . . . Resettlement of Samaria . . . . Demographic shifts . . . . . . From the end of the Assyrian Empire

.

.

.

. 111

. . . . . to

. . . . . the

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 129

El’s worship . . . . . . . . Shechem . . . . . . . . . Bethel . . . . . . . . . . Shiloh . . . . . . . . . . ’Ăšērāh . . . . . . . . . . Former Prophets . . . . . . . Priestly teaching . . . . . . . Foreign cults in 7th century Samaria . Babylon . . . . . . . . Kutha . . . . . . . . . Hamat . . . . . . . . . ‘Awwā / Amat . . . . . . Shupria . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI. SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 159

V. THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persian period

.

. . . 111 . . . 116 . . . 119 . . . 123 . . . 126 . . . 127

129 130 134 137 139 144 147 149 150 151 151 154 156

Aramaic documents from Wadi Daliyeh . . . . . . . . . 160 Governors of Samaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 EPILOGUE .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 181

INDEXES .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 185

Personal names . . . . . . Divine and mythological names . Geographical and ethnical names . Other subjects . . . . . . . Index of authors . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

185 188 189 194 195

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR ADAJ AfO AHw AJSL ANEP ANET ANRW AOAT ARM(T) BAH BASOR BeO BibAn BIFAO BiOr BOT BSOAS BTAVO BZAW CAD CAH CIG CIS II DAWW DDD DEB DJD DMOA DNWSI E e, f

= = = =

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. AnnualoftheDepartmentofAntiquitiesofJordan. ArchivfürOrientforschung. W. von Soden, AkkadischesHandwörterbuch I-III, Wiesbaden 196581. = AmericanJournalofSemiticLanguagesandLiteratures. = J.B. Pritchard, TheAncientNearEastinPicturesrelatingtotheOld Testament, 2nd ed., Princeton 1969. = J.B. Pritchard (ed.), TheAncientNearEasternTextsrelatingtotheOld Testament, 2nd ed., Princeton 1955; Supplement, Princeton 1969. = H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischenWelt, Berlin-New York. = Alter Orient und Altes Testament. = Archives Royales de Mari. (Transcrits, traduits et commentés). = Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. = BulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch. = BibbiaeOriente. = TheBiblicalAnnals. = Bulletindel’Institutfrançaisd’archéologieorientale, Le Caire. = BibliothecaOrientalis. = Boeken van het Oude Testament. = BulletinoftheSchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies. = Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. = TheAssyrianDictionaryoftheOrientalInstituteoftheUniversityof Chicago, Chicago 1956-2010. = The CambridgeAncientHistory. = CorpusInscriptionumGraecarum, Berlin. = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Pars II Inscriptiones Aramaicas continens, Paris 1889 ff. = Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. = K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary oftheDeitiesandDemonsintheBible, 2nd ed., Leiden-Grand Rapids 1999. = DictionnaireencyclopédiquedelaBible, Turnhout 1987. = Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. = Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui. = J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Leiden 1995. = Execration Texts edited by G. Posener, Princes et pays d’Asie et de Nubie.Texteshiératiquessurdesfigurinesd’envoûtementduMoyen Empire, Bruxelles 1940. = Execration Texts edited by K. Sethe, DieÄchtungfeindlicherFürsten, VölkerundDingeaufaltägyptischenTongefäßscherbendesMittleren Reiches(Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1926, 5), Berlin 1926.

VIII

EA

ABBREVIATIONS

= The El-Amarna tablets numbered according to J.A. Knudtzon, DieElAmarna–Tafeln (VAB 2), Leipzig 1915; A.F. Rainey, ElAmarnaTablets359-379 (AOAT 8), 2nd ed., Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978; id., TheEl-Amarna Correspondence.ANewEditionoftheCuneiformLettersfromtheSiteofEl-AmarnabasedonCollationofAllExtantTablets, ed. by W.M. Schiedewind, Leiden 2015; W.L. Moran, Leslettres d’El Amarna (LAPO 13), Paris 1987; id., The Amarna Letters, Baltimore 1992. EAEHL = M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), EncyclopediaofArchaeologicalExcavationsin theHolyLand I-IV, Jerusalem-Oxford 1975-78. HAT = Handbuch zum Alten Testament. HSM = Harvard Semitic Monographs. IAA Reports = Israel Antiquities Authority Reports. IEJ = IsraelExplorationJournal. IGLSII = L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la SyrieII.ChalcidiqueetAntiochène (BAH 32). JAOS = JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety. JBL = JournalofBiblicalLiterature. JCS = JournalofCuneiformStudies. JEA = JournalofEgyptianArchaeology. JNES = JournalofNearEasternStudies. JPOS = JournalofthePalestinianOrientalSociety. JSS = JournalofSemiticStudies. K = Kuyundjik clay tablets in the British Museum. KAI = H. Donner and W. Röllig, KanaanäischeundaramäischeInschriften, Wiesbaden 1962-64 (3rd ed., 1971-76). KTU = M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, DieKeilalphabetischenTexte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24), Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1976; īd., Die KeilalphabetischenTexteausUgarit,RasIbnHaniundanderenOrten, 3rd ed. (AOAT 360), Münster 2013. LÄg = LexikonderÄgyptologie, Wiesbaden 1979-89. LAPO = Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient, Paris. NEAEHL = E. Stern (ed.), TheNewEncyclopediaofArchaeologicalExcavationsin theHolyLand I-V, Jerusalem 1993-2008. O = Inventory numbers of the Near Eastern Collections in the Royal Museum of Art and History, Brussels. OBO = Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. OIP = Oriental Institute Publications. OLA = Orientalia Lovaniensia. Analecta. OLZ = OrientalistischeLiteraturzeitung. PEFQS = PalestineExplorationFund.QuarterlyStatement. PNA = K. Radner and H.D. Baker (eds.), The Prosopography of the NeoAssyrianEmpire, Helsinki 1998-2011. RB = RevueBiblique. RIMA III = A.K. Grayson, AssyrianRulersoftheEarlyFirstMillenniumBCII: 858-745BC (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 3), Toronto 1996. RIMB II = G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to theEndofAssyrianDomination:1157-612BC (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods II), Toronto 1995.

ABBREVIATIONS

RLA RS SAA SAAB SBO TAD I-IV

TM TSSI I-III VAB ZAW ZDMG ZDPV

IX

= ReallexikonderAssyriologieundvorderasiatischenArchäologie. = Inventory numbers of the Ras Shamra - Ugarit tablets. = State Archives of Assyria. = StateArchivesofAssyriaBulletin. = ScriptaBiblicaetOrientalia. = B. Porten and A. Yardeni, TextbookofAramaicDocumentsfromAncient Egypt I. Letters, Winona Lake 1986; II. Contracts, Winona Lake 1989; III. Literature, Accounts, Lists, Winona Lake 1993; IV. Ostraca & AssortedInscriptions, Winona Lake 1999. = Inventory numbers of Tell Mardiḫ / Ebla excavations. = J.C.L. Gibson, TextbookofSyrianSemiticInscriptions I. Hebrewand MoabiteInscriptions, 2nd ed., Oxford 1973; II. AramaicInscriptions, Oxford 1975; III. PhoenicianInscriptions, Oxford 1982. = Vorderasiatische Bibliothek. = ZeitschriftfürdiealttestamentlicheWissenschaft. = ZeitschriftderDeutschenMorgenländischenGesellschaft. = ZeitschriftdesDeutschenPalästina-Vereins.

FOREWORD

The history of the Kingdom of Israel did not even last three centuries, but its spirit did not die in the following generations and its proto-history reaches the early second millennium B.C. This is the reason why the first part of this book starts with the study of documents going back to those ancient times and with a summary presentation of the main archaeological findings in the land of Canaan, both in Cisjordan and in Transjordan, as well as in the Negeb and in the Sinai. The biblical texts, collected for their religious value, are examined as historical sources of the first millennium B.C. They contain some valuable information, often presented from a particular point of view by authors or redactors who were active several centuries after the events which they are reporting, commenting, and interpreting in the light of the beliefs and views current in their own time. It is today a truism to say that investigations based on ancient sources, epigraphic and literary, as well as archaeological researches in Canaan and in the surrounding lands have transformed our knowledge and understanding of ancient Israel and of its remote past. It is now widely recognized that Israel’s history in Antiquity can no longer be studied in isolation, without using Egyptian, Akkadian, Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite, Old Arabian, Greek sources from those times. One should admit that information gathered from sources close to the time of the events has a greater scientific value than reports written several centuries later, even if they are found in the Bible. Proto-history of ancient Israel should thus be based on Egyptian and Akkadian sources of the second millennium B.C., but one should pay attention also to archaeology and to ethnographic studies of tribal regroupings and integrations. Egyptian texts from the Bronze Age reveal the presence of the tribal entities of Joseph-El, Reuben, Simeon, Jacob-El, and Israel in Canaan, the Negeb, and Se‘ir, as well as the existence of a mountainous area of Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ in the very same region. This holy mountain might be the present-day Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra near the road from Egypt to Midian (I Kings 11, 18), where Moses met God for the first time (Ex. 3, 1-12). Egyptian sources also recall a mass deportation of desert nomads or semi-nomads (šꜢsw) to Egypt at the time of Ramesses III. Instead, El-Amarna letter EA 289 records that in the 14th century ‘apiru people have occupied the Shechem area, which was the core of Israel’s territory in early times. Ethnographic studies show, on the other hand, that name-changing and adoption characterize tribal integrations. This concerns Jacob, brought by God into Israel at Penuel (Gen. 32, 29), in the territory of Gad, a tribe which did not yet belong to Israel at the time when the Canticle of Deborah (Judg. 5) was composed. The

XII

FOREWORD

land of Gad and of Reuben is precisely the area of Transjordan in which ends the biblical Exodus and where Moses dies. Considering all these data, one can assume that early Israel was constituted by ‘apiru countrymen living in the Cisjordanian highland and by šꜢsw nomads or semi-nomads, which integrated this large tribal unit before and after the Exodus of some of their congeners, an event that should be dated from the second half of the 12th century B.C. The creation of the Kingdom of Israel goes back to ca. 1000 B.C., as one can infer from the ostracon of Khirbet Qeiyafa. The reign of Saul and of his son Ishbaal lasted at least a quarter of a century. It was not followed by a real United Kingdom of David and of Solomon, although their power extended to some places in the territory of Benjamin and in Transjordan, like Maḥanaim. A period of instability followed the reign of Jeroboam I until Omri seized the power in 882 B.C. and founded a dynasty that lasted until the second half of the 8th century B.C. In fact, it results from a comparison of Aramaic and Assyrian sources that Jehu did not kill Jehoram, Omri’s grandson, and that he must have been a member of a side-branch of Omri’s progeny. After the death of Jehoram and of the latter’s son Ahaziah, both killed by the Aramaeans at the battle of Ramoth Gilead, probably in 841 B.C., he seized the power and his descendants continued Omri’s dynasty until the crisis of the mid8th century B.C. Political anarchy prepared the downfall of Israel, achieved in 722/720 B.C. by the conquest of its capital Samaria by Assyrian troops. Despite deportations, mass emigrations to Jerusalem or Judah, and resettlements of foreign people in Cisjordan, the Wadi Daliyeh papyri of the 4th century B.C. show that the population of Samaria remained basically Israelite, notwithstanding the too long held opinion that the Samaritans were descendants of a new body of settlers brought by the Assyrians from Mesopotamia. Samarian religion was Yahwistic, like in the time of the Kingdom of Israel. As shown in an apposite chapter, its earliest period was characterized by the cult of El, whose name and nature have been specified by the theonym Yahweh-El, “God caused (everything) to be”, first attested in the 14th century B.C. by the mountainous area Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ of the Shasu pastoralists living in the northern Sinai. The writer should thank his wife Małgorzata for helping him to bring this book to a happy end. He must also acknowledge that it was a pleasure to work once again with the competent and friendly staff of the Uitgeverij Peeters and of the printing office NV Peeters S.A.

CHAPTER I

PROTO-HISTORY

The history of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500-1150 B.C.) is often based on the narratives in the Pentateuch, complemented by isolated and scattered pieces of information from sources outside the Bible. Such an approach cannot provide a clear picture of the situation, because the framework is given by a literary composition written in the first millennium B.C. The latter cannot even serve as basis for sketching a proto-history of biblical Israel1. Historians of the Ancient Near East, of Canaan and of Israel, should first realize that Old Hebrew literature, preserved in the Bible, does not go back to the second millennium B.C., although some legal traditions, tribal names, the core of certain folk tales or poems may date from those times. No written records from the past are required. Even legal rules, heroic poems or liturgical cantillations could be transmitted orally for many centuries before they were written down. The texts that reached us should thus be studied as the result of an oral transmission which was subject to modifications, additions or omissions, as well as to grammatical and phonetic changes. Archaeological research, although very useful, rarely provides substantial information about nomadic or semi-nomadic populations, and the lack of written records hinders their tribal or ethnical identification. Therefore, it is not possible to recognize the possibly pre-biblical data without referring to Egyptian and Akkadian sources dealing with Canaan and the surrounding areas, especially the Sinai and the Negeb, Midian and Transjordan. Since we are not concerned here with States or City-states, but with clans, tribes or tribal associations2, the chapter does not deal with the Egyptian allusions to Canaanite princedoms of the 1 This approach differs from the biblical history presented usually in traditional scholarship, described by M.B. Moore and B.E. Kelle, BiblicalHistoryandIsrael’sPast.TheChangingStudy oftheBibleandHistory, Grand Rapids 2011. However, it is not helpful to refer to sources dealing with internal Egyptian affairs, like the Hyksos or the religious reform of Akhenaten. Cf. E. North, Perspective of the Exodus Author(s), in ZAW 113 (2001), p. 481-504; J. Lemański, Exodus — pomiędzyhistorią,mitemikoncepcjąteologiczną, in BibAn 4 (2014), p. 279-311. For an archaeological overview, one should recommend H. Weippert, PalästinainvorhellenistischerZeit, München 1988. 2 They were called ben‘ameh by Transjordanian Bedouin: A. Jaussen, CoutumesdesArabes au Pays de Moab, Paris 1908, p. 149-162. The original meaning of ‘amm is “ancestor”, hence Nabataean “great-grandfather”; cf. DNWSI, p. 866. Similar studies were done later near Bethlehem by H. Granqvist and B. Couroyer: H. Granqvist, MarriageConditionsinaPalestinianVillage (Commentationes humanarum litterarum III/8 and VI/8), Helsingfors 1932-35; B. Couroyer, Histoired’unetribusemi-nomadedePalestine, in RB 58 (1951), p. 75-91.

2

PROTO-HISTORY

20th-19th centuries B.C., like in the Story of Sinuhe or in Ḫu-sebek’s tomb inscription mentioning Shechem. Instead, some attention should be paid also to ethnographic research on the formation and development of tribes in the concerned area. A well documented, first-hand study by A. Jaussen showed in 1908 how integration of individuals, families or larger groups into an existing tribe was feasible among the Arabs of Moab3. Such integrations required a participation “in the blood” (damawī) and “in the name” (samawī) of the tribe. This means that the new member had to renounce to his former appellation and ancestral traditions, and he himself or his children had to marry within the tribe which has accepted his membership. This institutional background of a name-changing, especially if imposed by God, shows the crucial importance of Gen. 32, 29 for understanding the earliest history of the Israelite tribal entity: “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel”. This has been perfectly understood by Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) more than a century ago4, while referring to the ethnographic studies of Richard Andree (1835-1912)5. Adoption could have the same effects as name-changing, and this is expressed in Gen. 48, 5.12-14.17-20, but viewed from a different point of view, since it is Israel / Jacob who adopts Ephraim and Manasseh, forming “the great house of Joseph”. EGYPTIAN SOURCES: JOSEPH-EL “The great house of Joseph” is attested already in the early second millennium B.C. by the Execration Texts6, which call it Yἰsἰpἰ (e 31, f 21) or ’Isἰpἰ (E 12), both followed by the determinative of place names. As noticed already by Hugo Gressmann (1877-1927)7, it is easy to recognize here the name of 3 A. Jaussen, CoutumesdesArabes(n. 2), p. 114-116; P. Kevers, ÉtudelittérairedeGenèse, XXXIV, in RB 87 (1980), p. 38-86 (see p. 77-79). 4 H. Gunkel, Genesis (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament I/1), 3rd ed., Göttingen 1910, p. 268 and 362. Israel and Jacob were originally two distinct figures, as stressed by H. Seebass, Der ErzvaterIsraelunddieEinführungderJahwesverehrunginKanaan (BZAW 98), Berlin 1966. 5 R. Andree, EthnographischeParallelenundVergleiche, Leipzig 1889, p. 173 ff. 6 K. Sethe, DieÄchtungfeindlicherFürsten,VölkerundDingeaufaltägyptischenTongefäßscherbendesMittlerenReiches (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1926, 5), Berlin 1926; G. Posener, Princesetpaysd’AsieetdeNubie.Texteshiératiquessurdesfigurinesd’envoûtementduMoyenEmpire, Bruxelles 1940. The names of chieftains and the toponyms inscribed on the pottery bowls, published by K. Sethe, are referred to by a small e (names) or f (toponyms), followed by a numeral, while those of the clay figurines, published by G. Posener, are indicated by majuscules E (names) or F (toponyms) with a numeral. The Execration Texts found at Mirgissa, south of Wadi Halfa (Sudan), concern Nubia: Y. Koenig, Lestextes d’envoûtementdeMirgissa, in Revued’Égyptologie 41 (1990), p. 101-125. The two spellings of the toponym “Joseph” can be found also in R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen.Grosses HandwörterbuchÄgyptisch-Deutsch(2800-950v.Chr), 2nd ed., Mainz a/R 1997, p. 1312b, s.v. Ysp. 7 H. Gressmann, rev. in ZAW44 (1926), p. 282. Cf. EAEHL II, Jerusalem 1976, p. 544-545.

EGYPTIAN SOURCES: JOSEPH-EL

Clay figurine with Execration Texts

3

Reconstituted bowl with Execration Texts

Joseph (Ywsp), used as a toponym designating a tribal territory. The hieroglyphic notation of the samek in Ysp nevertheless raises a question, because this Semitic graph usually corresponds to Egyptian ṯ in literary texts of Late Bronze II8, but this was not the rule in the Middle Bronze period9, as shown by personal names recorded according to their actual pronunciation and acoustic perception. Since in the period of the Middle Kingdom z (“s”) and s (“ś”) were no longer distinguished phonetically, the equivalence of the Egyptian s and of the Semitic s or z is shown for instance by SmꜢ-Hr, the name *Zimri-Hār or Šamar-Hār borne in Execration Texts (E 20) by a ruler of the Bēqa‘ (Bq‘tm). This appears also from common words, like Hebrew sl‘m and Egyptian snḥm, “locust”, Hebrew lšn and Egyptian nś, “tongue”, from theonyms known from remote times, like Isis, Ꜣś.t in Egyptian and ’sy/ysy in West Semitic script, or from later personal names10. 8 E. Lipiński, Semitic Languages. Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA 80), 2nd ed., Leuven 2001, §2.5; id., On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 252. 9 Contrary to the partly anachronistic argumentation of W.F. Albright, TheEgyptianEmpirein AsiaintheTwenty-FirstCenturyB.C., in JPOS 8 (1928), p. 223-256 (see p. 249); id., TheVocalizationofEgyptianSyllabicOrthography, New Haven 1934, p. 34. 64-65, followed by R. de Vaux, Histoireancienned’Israël I, Paris 1971, p. 297, n. 87. 10 See, for instance, W. Kornfeld, Onomastica Aramaica aus Ägypten, Wien 1978, p. 29, §2.3.7, and p. 77-78.

4

PROTO-HISTORY

Since Semitic final l is sometimes omitted in Egyptian writing or indicated by ἰ, like in Mἰ-ἰ-š-ἰ(E 29), identifiable with Myšl (Peshitta, I Chron. 6, 59), it is possible that the last sign ἰof ’Isἰpἰ implies the presence of the theophorous element ’Il, thus “Joseph-’I(l)”. This applies also to the name of the tribal chief (ḥqꜢ), written ‘prw-’Isἰpἰ (E 12). It should be read “‘Abdu-Joseph-’I(l)”, Egyptian r/l being used here as an alternative spelling for d. In the topographical list of Tuthmosis III11, composed in the 15th century B.C., the full name of the Joseph tribe is written Y-šꜢ-p-ἰ-ror Y-šꜢ-p-ἰ-Ꜣ-r,i.e. Ysp-’l. The spelling with šꜢ might appear problematic, but the distinction of Canaanite s/š is not followed consistently either in the list or in other Egyptian texts. This is partly due to changes occurring in Semitic languages, as shown later in Neo-Assyrian and in NorthArabian. It is quite possible that Yāsūf in the hill country, nearly 20 km south of Samaria and 13 km south of Shechem, near a rich water source, represents the core of this tribal area, named after a presumed forebear and sheikh12. The souvenir of this ancestral figure was thus preserved through centuries, while the biblical Joseph story is a literary composition, written down in the 9th or 8th century B.C., as confirmed by the Egyptian names of the story, like Potiphar or Asenath, which were currently used only from the time of the 22nd dynasty on (ca. 943-715 B.C.). In the redaction of the Pentateuch, the Joseph story connected Patriarchal accounts with the Exodus story. The village called Yāsūf by Samaritans and Arabs is situated at the traditional border between the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, presented in the Bible as sons of Joseph. It is built on a rock dominating a rich source, which the inhabitants, asked about in 1937, called ‘Ayn et-Tuffaḥ13. Yāsūf is located to the north of the spring, while the mound of Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad is situated south of it. Late Bronze, Iron Age, and Hellenistic pottery was found at the site14, which must have been a major tribal centre. Some authors identify Yāsūf with Yāshūb, mentioned in Jewish midrashic literature and in the mediaeval Chronicle of Jerachmeel15. The place-name occurs in the Samaria ostracon 48, 3 (Yšb) and in the Septuagint (I Chron 7, 1, Ιασουβ), which locates it on the territory of the tribe of Issachar. This place has thus been 11 J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists relating to Western Asia, Leiden 1937, p. 118; Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible, London 1967, p. 150, n° 78. 12 The place is indicated on map V in F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine I, Paris 1933. 13 R. de Vaux, rev. in RB 48 (1939), p. 491. 14 F.-M. Abel, Tappouaḥ, in RB 45 (1936), p. 103-112 (see p. 106-107); E. Jenni, HistorischtopographischeUntersuchungenzurGrenzezwischenEphraimundManasse, in ZDPV 74 (1958), p. 35-40. 15 S. Klein, Palästinischen in Jubiläenbuch, in ZDPV 57 (1934), p. 7-27; M. Noth, Das DeutscheEvangelischeInstitut…imJahre1965, in ZDPV 82 (1966), p. 255-273 (see p. 270273).

EGYPTIAN SOURCES: JOSEPH-EL

5

Area of Yāsūf, after F.-M. Abel

identified more correctly with Kafr Sīb, 4 km north of Ṭūl-Karem16. Besides, the Chronicle of Jerachmeel refers to “the water of yšwb, north of Tappuaḥ”, commonly identified with Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad, situated just south of Yāsūf. Confusion could have happened quite easily, since Samaritans sometimes articulate p like b, but yšwb can be a verb here: “water comes back (yšwb) north of Tappuaḥ”, a reference to the rich source of Yāsūf. One thing is certain: there is a place-name Yāsūf in the very centre of the traditional territory of “the great house of Joseph”. The inscription e 31 of the Execration Texts provides additional information, since it mentions “all the rulers of Yἰsἰpἰ”. This points at a large tribe with several clans or even implies the existence of a federation of tribes, each with its own head. This perfectly corresponds to the later biblical tradition regarding 16 W.F. Albright, TheAdministrativeDivisionsofIsraelandJuda, in JPOS 5 (1925), p. 1754 (see p. 39); B. Maisler (Mazar), DerDistrict śrq indensamaritanischenOstraka, in JPOS 14 (1934), p. 96-100 (see p. 97). This opinion was followed, among others, by S. Moscati and F.M. Cross.

6

PROTO-HISTORY

Ephraim and Manasseh as sons of Joseph, sometimes associating Simeon to them17 and recording a close relation between Joseph and Benjamin, the “Southerner” (Gen. 46, 19), and Makir (Gen. 50, 23), listed as a distinct tribe in Judg. 5, 14. SIMEON Egyptian sources still provide further information concerning biblical figures in the Bronze Age and Iron Age I, giving quite a clear picture of the situation at that time. The permanence of many toponyms and names of tribal areas during more than three or four thousand years makes such researches possible and fruitful. It suffices to recall here, following G. Posener, that the tribe of Simeon (Šm‘Ꜣnw) is probably mentioned in the Execration Texts of the 19th or early 18th centuries B.C. with its sheikh ’Ibwrhnἰ, “The Father is my pledger” (E 55). Its name reappears most likely in the shorter list of Tuthmosis III (1479-1425 B.C.)18 and, in the 14th century B.C., it is spelt uruŠa-am-ḫu-na(EA 225, 4). Although the location of this city is still controversial, everything favours its identification with Khirbet Sammūniyah, now called Tel Shimron, 8 km west of Nazareth. This prominent mound is as yet unexcavated, but pottery on the surface includes types of the Bronze Age and there are springs in the vicinity. The ruler of Šamḫuna, called Šamu-Adda, is mentioned also in EA 8, 18.35, where he is accused, as well as the ruler of Akko / Acre, of having killed or retained merchants sent to Canaan by Burna-Buriyaš, king of Babylon. The misdeeds committed jointly, as it seems, by the rulers of Acre and Šamḫuna show that the latter city was not very distant from Acre. This supports its localisation at Khirbet Sammūniyah, situated ca. 28 km south-east of Acre. The Septuagint constantly mentions a city Συμοων in this area, what obviously corresponds to Šm‘wn, although the Hebrew text refers to Šmrwn19. The place appears in later periods as Σιμωνιας, a village on the border of Galilee, 60 stades (ca. 12 km) east of Gaba/Geba20. It is mentioned as Symwnyh in Talmudic sources21. All the witnesses thus testify to Šm‘wn as the original form 17

II Chron. 15, 9; 34, 6. This was noticed already by R.H. Kennett, OldTestamentEssays, Cambridge 1928, p. 27, 30. Benjamin, associated to Ephraim and Manasseh, must be distinguished from the Benjamites of the Mari texts, attested around the Middle Euphrates. Cf. M. Anbar, Les tribusAmurritesdeMari (OBO 108), Freiburg-Göttingen 1991. 18 Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 11), p. 148, n° 35; R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 6), p. 1388b. The sign D38 (Gardiner’s sign-list) should be read as D36. The conventional date 1479 of Tuthmosis III is lowered by some authors to 1468 B.C. 19 Josh. 11, 1; 12, 20; 19, 15. 20 Josephus Flavius, TheLife 115. 21 Talmud of Jerusalem, Megillah I, 1, p. 70a; Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 13a; Kilaim 28b; Tosefta, Shebuoth VII, 13; cf. F.-M. Abel, GéographiedelaPalestine II, Paris 1938, p. 464,

JACOB-EL

7

of the toponym, while Šmrwn should be regarded as a tiqqūnsoferīm, justified by the biblical location of Simeon in southern Canaan, not at the border of Galilee. The deeds of violence reproached to Šamu-Adda in the correspondence of the kings of Babylon and of Egypt, recall the Blessing of Jacob in Gen. 49, 6-7, where the dispersion of Simeon and Levi is presented as a consequence of their mischievous actions. Since no concrete events are recorded there, a later redactor added an apparent justification of this accusation in Gen. 34, 25.3022. Historically, the dispersion of Levi may have completely different origins23 than the expulsion of Simeon from the western part of the valley of Jezreel. This must have happened before the composition of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5), where Simeon is not mentioned at all, although the souvenir of a connection of Simeon with Ephraim and Manasseh is preserved in II Chron. 15, 9 and 34, 6. It seems therefore that Simeon belonged to Israel’s tribal federation before the 11th century B.C., and its dispersion, recorded in Gen 49, 7, could be linked to Merneptah’s claim to have destroyed Israel.24 Since a large body of biblical tradition locates the Simeonite territory in the Negeb25, a migration of surviving Simeonites from northern Israel to the Negeb ought to be assumed around the 12th century B.C., before the composition of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5). It is remarkable that the Book of Joshua does not trace the boundaries of Simeon’s territory, but only lists its towns, some of which are composed with the element Ḥăṣar, “enclosure”. The latter is likely to designate a settlement enclosed by a “casemate wall”, which originally was no fortification. JACOB-EL The topographical list of Tuthmosis III, probably copied by Ramesses II (1290-1223 or 1279-1212 B.C.) and Ramesses III (1182-1151 B.C.), also lists a place-name or a tribal area called Y‘qb-ἰr or Y‘qbr, i.e. Ya‘qub-’Il 26. It does s.v. Šimeron; M. Avi-Yonah, GazetteerofRomanPalestine (Qedem 5), Jerusalem 1976, p. 97, s.v. Simonias; id., Shimron, in EncyclopaediaJudaica 14, Jerusalem 1971, col. 1407-1408. 22 S. Lehming, Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Gen. 34, in ZAW 70 (1958), p. 228-250; P. Kevers, Étudelittéraire (n. 3), p. 40-63. 23 On the Levi tribe, see E. Lipiński, MiastaLewickiewZajordanii, in SBO 3 (2011), p. 19-29, especially p. 20-21. Levi was also a personal name, written perhaps RwꜢ in Egyptian and La-wi-ia in cuneiform script: G. Dossin, DeuxlistesnominativesdurègnedeSûmu-Iamam, in RA 65 (1971), p. 37-60 and p. 184-190 (see p. 60, col. III, p. 37). 24 ANET, p. 376-378; ANEP, nos 342-343. Cf. here below, p. 17. 25 Josh. 19, 1-9; I Chron. 4, 28-33.42-43; cf. Josh. 15, 20-32. 26 Tuthmosis III, n° 102; Ramesses II, n° 9; Ramesses III, n° 104: J. Simons, Handbook(n. 11); Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 11), p. 151; ANET, p. 242; R. Hannig, DieSpracheder Pharaonen(n. 6), p. 1299. These attestations are important because they refer to a place or a tribal

8

PROTO-HISTORY

not belong to the segment of Tuthmosis’ list in which places are arranged in strict geographic sequence (nos 61-71)27, but refers to Canaan, where one can hardly assume the co-existence of two distinct, quite important tribes, bearing the same name. As stories dealing with the biblical Jacob were transmitted during centuries, he was obviously viewed as the ancestor of a major tribal entity. Since God changed Jacob’s name into Israel at Penuel (Gen. 32, 29), presentday Deir ‘Alla28, while an old tradition placed Jacob’s grave east of the Jordan (Gen. 50, 10), one can assume that this was a tribe from Transjordan, quite important in the 15th century B.C., since it is recorded in the list of Tuthmosis III. Y‘qb’l may be hidden in Judg. 8, 11 behind the Ιεγεβαλ of the CodexVaticanus; the place is situated near Penuel (Judg. 8, 8-9). The toponym is replaced by Ygbhh in the masoretic text (cf. Numb. 32, 35); the latter place is usually identified with Khirbet el-Ġubeihāt, 13 km west of the old centre of ‘Ammān, on the way to es-Salṭ. ‘Aqaba, originally an oasis with freshwater wells and refreshing palm groves in an otherwise hot desert29, possibly preserves the name of an area, where Ya‘qub nomads were coming in Antiquity. A tribe Benī ‘Aqaba, once powerful, existed in Moab until the 20th century30, but ‘qb, sometimes with a suffix, appears as a personal or tribal name also in several Arabian dialects31. Its connection with the biblical Jacob is therefore a simple possibility. The change of Jacob’s name into Israel means that the tribe or some Jacobite clans have joined Israel, renouncing to their distinct ancestry. This happened certainly in the second millennium B.C., after the 15th century. No approximate date can be proposed, since the mentions of Jacob-El in the lists of Ramesses II and III are not based on an independent knowledge of the tribe. The latter did not subsist in Canaan as a self-supporting, distinct entity. REUBEN The earliest mention of the tribe Reuben, one of the šꜢsw nomads, dates from the 14th century B.C. Its original name was *Rabbana: TꜢ-ŠꜢ-śwR-b-bꜢ-bꜢ-n-Ꜣ32, area. The personal name Jacob is attested already in Canaan towards the end of the 17th or in the early 16th century B.C.: A. Kempinski, TwoScarabsofYakubum, in S. Israelit-Groll(ed.), Studies inEgyptologypresentedtoMiriamLichtheimII, Jerusalem 1990, p. 632-634. 27 Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 11), p. 44-45. 28 E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 290. 29 The same name, ‘AqabatArīḥā, “‘Aqaba of Jericho”, is borne in the Middle Ages by a site near Jericho (Tell el-‘Aqaba): A.-M. Eddé and Fr. Micheau, ChroniquedesAyyoubides, Paris 1994, p. 197. 30 A. Jaussen, CoutumesdesArabes (n. 2), p. 114. 31 G.L. Harding, AnIndexandConcordanceofPre-IslamicArabianNamesandInscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto 1971, p. 426, cf. also p. 68 (’l‘qb), p. 676 (y‘qb); A. Negev, PersonalNamesintheNabateanRealm (Qedem 32), Jerusalem 1991, p. 34, n° 936. 32 ‘Amāra West, N 94, in H.W. Fairman, PreliminaryReportontheExcavationsat‘Amāra West,Anglo-EgyptianSudan,1938-9, in JEA 25 (1939), p. 139-144 and pl. XIII-XVI (see pl. XIV, 4). Cf. R. Giveon, LesBédouinsShosoudesdocumentségyptiens (DMOA 18), Leiden 1971, p. 75; R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 6), p. 1359a.

REUBEN

9

where three different hieroglyphs indicate the consonant b33 and serve to signify its gemination and possibly an articulary fluctuation, due to a spirantization of the first b. By dissimilation, this b later became w (*Rwbn), like in kwkb < kbkb, “star”. Since wāw was no materlectionis, an ’aleph was added in the script (R’wbn) to prevent the reading Ρουβην. A similar phonotactic procedure was followed in Š’wl, where ’aleph prevents the reading Šūl, the original name being Šuwala34; we find it also in Rṣy’n (1QIsaa 9, 10), where ’aleph corrects the improper reading Rǝṣīn, instead of *Raṣiyān. The old form of the name Reuben appears as patronymic on a clay envelop found at Gezer and datable ca. 1500 B.C.: Rab-ba-n[a]35. As the Shasu-land of Reuben is mentioned in the ‘Amāra list next to TꜢ-ŠꜢswŠ‘rr, it was very likely located in the Negeb or in Transjordan. This list was apparently copied from a list preserved in Amenophis III’s temple at Soleb in Sudan36, and therefore should witness to the existence of the Reuben tribe in the 14th century B.C.37 Reuben enjoys a prominent position in the biblical history prior to the conquest of Canaan. It is traditionally located east of the Dead Sea, north of the Arnon river (Josh 13, 15-23; I Chron. 5, 1-17), what suits its listing among the Shasu tribes. Its territory included the area of Mount Nebo (Numb. 32, 3.38; I Chron. 5, 8), what may explain its heading role in early times. However, a change took place in the standing of the tribe. Deborah still reprimands Reuben for not taking part in the war against Sisera, rather “lingering by the cattle-pens and listening to the piping for the flocks” (Judg. 5, 15-16), but Deut. 33, 6 already contains a prayer for its survival. The tribe obviously dwindled into insignificance and it is not mentioned in the Moabite inscription of Mesha, although the latter records the conquest of Mount Nebo by king Mesha (lines 14-18). Two surviving Reubenite clans were integrated in the first millennium B.C. into Judah, namely Karmi and Heṣron. 33 In A.H. Gardiner’s sign-list of the Egyptian Grammar (3rd ed.), Oxford-London 1957, p. 438-548, these are D58, W10a, and G29. 34 E. Lipiński, Šuwala, in O. Drewnowska (ed.), Here&There.AcrosstheAncientNearEast. StudiesinHonourofKrystynaŁyczkowska, Warszawa 2009, p. 115-120. 35 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 8), p. 362-363. The fragment was published by A. Shaffer, FragmentofanInscribedEnvelop, in W.G. Dever, H.P. Lance, and G.E. Wright(eds), Gezer I. PreliminaryReportofthe1964-1966Seasons, Jerusalem 1970, p. 111-114. It was collated by M. Anbar and N. Na’aman, AnAccountTabletofSheepfromAncientHebron, in TelAviv 13-14 (1986-87), p. 3-12 (see p. 7-8 and p. 10-11), line 3: GAL-ba-n[a]; cf. I.J. Gelb etal., Computer-aided AnalysisofAmorite (Assyriological Studies 21), Chicago 1980, p. 632, nos 5231 (Ra-ba-ba-an), 5232 (Ra-ba-ba-nu-um), and 5233 (Ra-ba-nu-um). 36 H.W. Fairman, rev. in JEA 26 (1940), p. 165. 37 The spelling and the geographical context preclude the identification of the toponym with R-b-n, n° 10 in Tuthmosis III’s list, pace M.C. Astour, YahwehinEgyptianTopographicalLists, in M. Görg and E. Pusch (eds.), FestschriftElmarEdel (Ägypten und Altes Testament I), Bamberg 1979, p. 17-34 (see p. 20, 23). This R-b-n must be localized in the northern Bēqa‘ Valley and be probably identified with La-pa-na in the Amarna letters (EA 53, 35.57; 54, 27.32) and the mediaeval Lebona of Ibn el-Aṯīr: R. Dussaud, TopographiehistoriquedelaSyrieantiqueetmédiévale (BAH 4), Paris 1927, p. 409.

10

PROTO-HISTORY

ABRAM, ḤATT The name Abram can be read on a tablet from Ta‘anach, datable from the later part of the 15th century B.C.38, where the name is written A-bi-ra-[am]. This only shows that the anthroponym was used in Canaan during the Bronze Age. However, biblical Abram is very likely recorded by the toponym “Abram’s enclosure”, which is listed in the 10th century B.C. among places in the Beersheba Basin bordering the Negeb highlands on the north39. The Bubastite Portal of Shoshenq I mentions PꜢḥ-q-r’I-b-r-m40, where ḥ-q-r corresponds to Hebrew ḥāṣēr41. Considering the sequence of the toponyms, the place in question was very likely located to the west of Š-b-pꜢ-r-ṯ n G-b-r-y, the “Lowland of the Ruler” (nos 73-74), marking the main centre of the entire region in the 10th century B.C., i.e. Khirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Masos)42, one of the largest settlements from this period in entire Canaan. “Abram’s enclosure” should thus be identified with Tell es-Seba‘ (Tel Beer-Sheba), 5 km east of the modern town of Beersheba. The excavations of the mound have defined a sequence of occupation lasting from the 11th century B.C. until the final destruction of the site at the end of the 8th century B.C.43 This does not mean that Abram, better known as Abraham, was the founder of the settlement. The toponym only shows that Abram was a well-known figure among the pastoralists of the Beersheba Basin, but its historical dating remains problematic. It should be looked for in the period preceding the foundation of the settlement around the 11th century B.C. The stories relating Abram to Mesopotamia date from a much later period, and result from oral and literary accounts. Two archaeological data are important from a historical point of view. The first one concerns the plan of Stratum VII, whose dwellings of the four-room type include narrow spaces of a casemate-wall and surround a central area. 38 F. Hrozný, Die neugefundenen Keilschrifttexte von Ta‘annek, in E. Sellin, Eine Nachlese aufdemTellTa‘annekinPalästina (DAWW 52/3), Wien 1905, p. 36-41, pl. I-III (see p. 41 and pl. III, 12, line 2). A reprint of Hrozný’s article can be found in S. Kreuzer (ed.), Taanach/Tell Ta‘annek.100JahreForschungenzurArchäologie,zurGeschichte,zudenFundobjektenundzu denKeilschrifttexten (Wiener alttestamentliche Studien 5), Frankfurt a/M 2006. All the texts from Ta‘anach were reedited by W. Horowitz and T. Oshima, CuneiforminCanaan.CanaaniteSources fromtheLandofIsraelinAncientTimes, Jerusalem 2006, p. 127-151. 39 Cf. the maps in TelAviv 29 (2002), p. 88, or in E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 113. 40 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak III. The Bubastite Portal (OIP 74), Chicago 1954, nos 71-72. 41 E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 105-107, 115. 42 Ibid., p. 115-116. Cf. A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, New York 1990, p. 340-344; R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen(n. 6), p. 1388b. 43 Y. Aharoni (ed.), BeerSheva I. ExcavationsatTelBeer-Sheba1969-1971, Tel Aviv 1973; Z. Herzog, Beer-ShebaII. TheEarlyIronAgeSettlements, Tel Aviv 1984; id., TelBeersheba, in NEAEHL I, Jerusalem 1993, p. 167-173.

ABRAM, ḤATT

11

Beersheba and environs, showing 1962-68 and 1997 excavations (after N. Panitz-Cohen)

Such an oval-shaped settlement deserves a name such as “Enclosure of Abram”44. The second noteworthy element is the deep well hewn into the bedrock on the south-eastern slope of the mound; its oldest strata go back to the 10th century B.C.45 It records the old aetiological story of Gen. 21, 25-3246, which deals with the well of Abraham (Gen. 21, 30), the seven ewe-lambs, and the oath sworn by Abraham and Abimelek. Therefore, as the story tells, “the place was called Beersheba”, i.e. “Well of Seven (lambs)” and “Well of the Oath”. Since the Bubastite Portal does not list here any site bearing a name similar to Beersheba, it is likely that the place was first called “Enclosure of Abram”, as listed at Karnak. Recent salvage excavations at Bīr es-Seba‘, at the south-eastern edge of modern Beersheba, reveal instead that this place was occupied only during the 8th century B.C.47 Therefore, one should not look for the well of Abraham among the ancient wells near Bīr es-Seba‘, although they supplied water to the local Bedouin until quite recent times. 44

E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 115, linked this appellation to Strata IX-VIII, but the shape of the settlement of Stratum VII, attested elsewhere in the 11th-10th centuries B.C., rather suggests to link this stratum with the campaign of Shoshenq I. 45 Z. Herzog, WaterSupplyatTelBeersheba, in Qadmoniot 15 (2002), p. 87-101 (in Hebrew). 46 Cf. Gen. 26, 23-25. — Of course, one can imagine the pseudo-scientific hypothesis that another Abrām was well known in the same period and in the same area, and his name was then given to a close settlement of the same region. Someone has already imagined such a hypothesis. 47 N. Panitz-Cohen, ASalvageExcavationintheNewMarketinBeer-Sheba:NewLighton IronAgeIIBOccupationatBeer-Sheba, in IEJ 55 (2005), p. 143-155.

12

PROTO-HISTORY

In the same area, one also finds a “Clan of Ḥatt”, [’I]-r-ḥ-ṯ, mentioned in Shoshenq’s list of Negebite toponyms48. It should be interpreted as ’Āl-Ḥatt, where ’āl is the Semitic word ’ahl, “tent, clan”. This was a group of camelnomads, which two hundred years later paid homage to Tiglath-pileser III during his campaign in southern Canaan. Among the tribes “dwelling on the border of the countries of the setting sun”, which brought camels and spices as tribute, Tiglath-pileser III lists the āl (URU) Ḫa-at-te-eor [āl (URU) Ḫa-at]-ti-a-a49. The cuneiform spelling shows that Assyrian scribes have confused ’āl, “clan”, with ālu, “town”, and consequently have added the ethnic ending -iy to the name. The clan or tribe in question is mentioned also at Hebron, in Gen. 23, where its members are called BǝnēḤēt, and Esau’s marriage with “Hittite” women at Beersheba50 must refer to the same tribe, as shown by the Semitic names and patronymics of these “Hittites”. One might surmise that these marriages initially implied an integration of Esau into the Ḥatti tribe. Its name may be related to Arabic ḥatt, “swift”, attested as a Ḥaḍramitic and Ṣafaitic personal name51. MOUNT YAHWE-EL The southern location of the Clan of Ḥatt and of the Enclosure of Abram invites now to pay attention to Mount Yahweh (Numb. 10, 33), which is recorded in the 14th century B.C. as an area where šꜢswnomads were living. The inscription TꜢ-šꜢswY-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ occurs twice in a “geographical” list from the temple of Soleb (Sudan), built by Amenophis III, and once in a copy from the reign of Ramesses II, found at ‘Amāra West. The inscriptions from Soleb were published by J. Leclant52 and ‘Amāra West N 97 was edited by H.W. Fairman53. The inscriptions are included in R. Giveon’s Corpus of texts dealing with the šꜢsw54. 48 N° 129; cf. E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 8), p. 127. Cf. also id., Hittites et HourritesdanslaBible, in BibAn 2 (2012), p. 9-25 (see p. 16-17). 49 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Critical Edition with Introduction,Translation,andCommentary, Jerusalem 1994, p. 142, Summ. 4, line 28’; p. 208, Summ. 13, line 10’. The group was also mentioned on p. 168, Summ. 7, rev., line 2. Cf. I. Eph‘al, TheAncientArabs, Jerusalem 1982, p. 34, 87, 89, 217. 50 Gen. 26, 34; 27, 46; cf. Gen. 36, 2. 51 G.L. Harding, AnIndex(n. 31), p. 175. Ḥty in II Sam. 11; 12, 9-10; 23, 39; I Kings 15, 5; I Chron. 11, 4, is the Hurrian name Ḫutiya; cf. E. Lipiński, HittitesetHourrites (n. 48), p. 17-18. 52 J. Leclant,LesfouillesdeSoleb(Nubiesoudanaise):Quelquesremarquessurlesécussons despeuplesenvoûtésdelasallehypostyledusecteurIV, in NachrichtendesAkademiederWissenschafteninGöttingen I. Philologisch-historischeKlasse1965, no 13, Göttingen 1965, p. 206-216 and pl. (see fig. 15 c and e). The results of the excavations at Soleb were published by M. Schiff Giorgini and C. Robichon, Soleb I-V, Firenze-Le Caire 1965-2002. 53 H.W. Fairman, PreliminaryReport (n. 32), pl. XIV, 4, last to the right. 54 R. Giveon, Les Bédouins Shosou (n. 32), no 6a, p. 26-28 (Soleb) and n° 16a, p. 74-77 (‘Amāra West). Cf. also M. Weippert, Jahwe, in RLA V, Berlin 1976-80, p. 246-253, especially p. 250. However, the natural reading is not J-h-wꜢ, butJ-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ, as stressed already by E. Edel, DieOrtsnamenlistenausdemTotentempelAmenophisIII. (Bonner biblische Beiträge 25), Bonn

MOUNT YAHWE-EL

13

The full biblical theonym Yhwh-’l is preserved only in Gen 16, 1155, where the preposition ’l after Yhwh is superfluous, since šm‘ used in the sense “to hear” is constructed with the direct object. In fact, some Greek manuscripts and the VetusLatina translate Κύριος ὁ Θεός, DominusDeus, and a Hebrew manuscript introduced here ’lhym to clarify the situation. The original text was thus šm‘ Yhwh-’l, corresponding to the name given to Yšm‘-’l. Also the Egyptian spelling Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ must stand for *Yahwil 56, since Ꜣ can indicate a Semitic l/r, like in the name of Jerusalem, spelled ꜢwšꜢmm in the Execration Texts (e 27, e 28, f 18, E 45). Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ is presumably an old traditional spelling. At any rate, a final r/l is sometimes omitted in proper names written syllabically. As seen by W.F. Albright half a century ago, Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ is formed by a short sentence, the verb of which is the ancient accomplished causative *yuhaqtal > *yaqtal of hwy, “to be”, meaning “He created”, literally “He caused something to be”. The subject is the common Semitic noun ’l, “God”. It seems that the name Yhwh šlwm of the altar at Ophra-of-Abi-ha-‘Ezri, allegedly built by Gideon (Judg. 6, 23-24), still expresses the causative meaning of yhwh: “He caused peace to be”. Besides, one wonders whether Yhwh ’lhym in Gen. 2, 4 - 3, 22 was no later attempt at restoring the full divine name, at least in this Elohistic creation story: “God caused (everything) to be”. It is well known that names of holy places often designate deities worshipped at the site. Hor, the mountain at the northern border of Canaan (Numb. 34, 7-8), is the theophorous element of SmꜢ-Hr, the name borne in the Execration Texts (E 20) by a ruler of the Bēqa‘ (Bq‘tm), and of the names Y‘qb-Hr and ‘nt-Hr, borne by Hyksos kings57. The original theonym-oronym was Hār, as shown by 1966, p. 64. A hieroglyphic copy of the toponym is given by R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen(n. 6), p. 1311b, but its transcription Yhw (YhwꜢ) is incomplete. 55 According to B. Sass, The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second MillenniumB.C. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 13), Wiesbaden 1988, p. 101, the oldest occurrence of the theonym Yhw is found in the dedication lyhw painted on the shoulder of a well-preserved cup (11 cm in diameter) with handle and spot, discovered by W.M.F. Petrie at Tell el-Aǧǧūl, in Tomb 109 of a presumably XVIII Dynasty necropolis (rather 13th century B.C.), during the excavations in 1931-32. The cup is housed in the Institute of Archaeology, University of London (XXIII 115/1). A reproduction can be found in W.M.F. Petrie, AncientGaza—TellelAjjul II, London 1932, pl. XXX: 37A5, and in B. Sass, op.cit., fig. 268-270. 56 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 8), p. 362-366, with further literature. Ia-wiDINGIR or Ia-wi-I-la occur frequently as Amorite personal names around the 16th century B.C.: Th. Bauer, DieOstkanaanäer, Leipzig 1926, p. 31; M. Birot, in ARM XVI/1. Répertoireanalytique, Paris 1979, p. 237; I.J. Gelb etal., Computer-aidedAnalysis (n. 35), p. 74-75. These names cannot be explained by the root ḥwy, “to live”, as proposed by some authors, because its ḥ is indicated in Amorite names by signs with ḫ, either in the middle of the names, e.g. in Ya-aḫ-wi-Ilu (ARM VII, 25, 5), or as their first phoneme, e.g. Ḫa-a-ia-a-bu-um (ARM XIII, 28, 4) or Ḫa-a-ià-ilu-ú (ARM XIII, 146, 5). Cf. H.B. Huffmon, AmoritePersonalNamesintheMariTexts, Baltimore 1965, p. 191-192. It is useless to discuss hypotheses which are not supported by Akkadian or Egyptian sources of the second millennium B.C. 57 Cf. here above, p. 3, and E. Lipiński, Studia z dziejów i kultury starożytnego Bliskiego Wschodu, Kraków 2013, p. 180. Idiosyncratic readings of Y‘qb-Hr, viz. Jakubhaddu and Jakub-El,

14

PROTO-HISTORY

the Amorite names A-bi-Ḫa-ar or I-ṣi-Ḫa-ru, where the cuneiform sign ḫa serves to mark ha. Mount Ṣaphon, the holy mountain north of Ugarit, is the deity to which offers are brought according to ritual texts, but it remains a mountain: Mount Ḫazzi, Mount Casius58. The god Aššur is the deified City built on its initial hill59. The deified Mount Amanus in south-eastern Turkey is the Baal Ḥamon worshipped in North Africa until Roman times. The theonym does not designate the Lord of Mount Amanus, for the mountain itself was the Baal revered by people. Turmasgada, “Mountain of the Holy Place” in Anatolia, was worshipped in various places of the Roman Empire, even in Europe and in Palestine, in the 2nd century A.D.60 This list can be easily complemented. Sometimes inverse cases occur as well, like with the goddess Šuwala, which finally became the netherworld, the šə’ôl61. SHASU Considering the Egyptian mention of the šꜢsw of Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ, one can assume that the šꜢsw were mainly associated with the south-eastern steppes that border the Arabian Desert, thus the Negeb and Transjordan, and that they are linked to pastoralism and nomadic life, what their Egyptian appellation already suggests62, since it derives from šꜢs, “to go, to wander”. However, texts occasionally mention the existence of towns in the “šꜢsw-land”63, what corresponds in fact to archaeological findings in the area where they are supposed to have lived, both in the Negeb and in Transjordan. While some šꜢsw groups of Transjordan integrated Israel, other created independent States, like Ammon, Moab, Edom64. Still other groups of the central Negeb highlands settled in this area, building hamlets, isolated farmsteads, are reported by J. Lemański, Exodus(n. 1), p. 302, without stressing that such readings are quite problematic in sound linguistics. 58 N. Hunt, Mount Saphon in Myth and Fact, in E. Lipiński (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible (Studia Phoenicia XI; OLA 44), Leuven 1991, p. 103-115. 59 W.G. Lambert, TheGodAshur, in Iraq 45 (1983), p. 82-86. 60 É. Puech, Noted’épigraphielatinepalestinienne:LedieuTurmasgadaàCésaréeMaritime, in RB 89 (1982), p. 210-221. 61 H. Niehr, Unterwelt,Unterweltsgottheiten.D.Nordwestsemitisch, in RLA XIV, Berlin 201416, p. 348-350 (see p. 348b, 349b). An unfortunately outdated study of the underworld in the biblical and post-biblical literature appeared recently in Polish: Z. Kołakowska-Przybyłek, Władza Boga nad krainą umarłych w Starym Testamencie oraz w literaturze okresu drugiej świątyni (Biblica et Judaica 2), Pelplin 2014. 62 Fifty-seven documents referring to the šꜢsw have been collected and analyzed by R. Giveon, LesBédouinsShosou(n. 32). Some general conclusions of the Author are problematic, especially the connection of the šꜢsw with Northern Syria. 63 B.E. Routledge, MoabintheIronAge.Hegemony, Polity,Archaeology, Philadelphia 2004, p. 77-78. 64 P. Bieńkowski, ‘Tribalism’and‘SegmentarySociety’inIronAgeTransjordan, in P. Bieńkowski (ed.),StudiesonIronAgeMoabandNeighbouringAreasinHonourofMichèleDaviau (Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Supplement 29), Leuven 2009, p. 7-26, in particular p. 19-22.

ISRAEL

15

even fortified enclosures. I. Finkelstein dated the zenith of these settlements to the 11th century B.C., ascribing them to the desert nomads, possibly also to the remains of the tribe of Simeon65. They were destroyed and deserted in the 10th century B.C., probably as a result of Shoshenq I’s military campaign in the Negeb ca. 925 B.C. Shoshenq’s topographical list, preserved on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak, includes fifty-five readable place-names in the Negeb, some of which were likely located in the Negeb highlands66. The change of Jacob’s name in Israel happened in Transjordan, at Penuel, near the ancestral territory of the tribe of Gad, which did not yet belong to Israel when the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) was composed67. In other words, Israel existed before some Transjordanian and Negebite clans joined Israel’s Cisjordanian tribal grouping, since it is already mentioned in the late 13th century B.C. on Merneptah’s stele, i.e. some hundred years before Moses’ days and the biblical Exodus, later regarded as a foundation of ancient Israel’s identity. However, the religious background of Israel from Iron Age I on can hardly be understood historically without considering the just mentioned integration of šꜢsw people, as well as the role of Moses and the significance of the Holy Mountain Yhw’l of some šꜢsw people. ISRAEL Now, Israel is not mentioned either in the Execration Texts of the 19th18 centuries B.C. or in the list of Tuthmosis III, in the 15th century B.C., and one can assume that this tribal unit did not yet exist at that time under this name. It came thus into existence between the 15th and the 13th centuries B.C., when Israel is named on the stele of Merneptah68. Since its name does never occur in the Amarna letters of the 14th century, the period near 1300 B.C. or the early 13th century B.C. seem to be the most likely date of its constitution under the name Yiśrā’ēl. The latter means “El strove” or “May El strive!” (jussive), as suggested by the use of the verb śry in Gen. 32, 29 and in Hos. 12, 5. This was a personal name, attested already at Ebla in the 23rd century B.C., when it was spelled Iš-ra-il69. The same anthroponym occurs at Ugarit around 1200 B.C., th

65

Z. Herzog, Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb and the Wilderness of Beer-sheba, in BASOR 250 (1983), p. 41-50; I. Finkelstein, TheIronAge‘Fortresses’oftheNegevHighlands: SedentarizationoftheNomads, in TelAviv 11 (1984), p. 189-209; id., TheIronAge“Fortresses” oftheNegev—SedentarizationofDesertNomads, in NahmanAvigadVolume (Eretz-Israel 18), Jerusalem 1985, p. 366-379 (in Hebrew) and 78* (English summary). 66 B.U. Schipper,IsraelundÄgypteninderKönigszeit (OBO 170), Freiburg-Göttingen 1999, p. 125-132; E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 105-130. 67 Cf. here below, p. 34 and 76. 68 ANET, p. 378a. 69 TM.75.G.1323, rev. III, 8, edited by G. Pettinato, TestiamministratividellaBibliotecaL. 2769 (Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 2), Napoli 1980, p. 149 and pl. XXV, n° 20; TM.75.G.1789, obv. VII, 21, edited by P. Mander, AdministrativeTextsoftheArchive L.2769 (Materiali epigrafici

16

PROTO-HISTORY

when it is written Yšrἰl 70. The choice of such a name for a larger confederation of tribes seems to imply an external danger, which must result from the Egyptian policy. Textual evidence for a large scale replacement of local princes by pharaonic functionaries is lacking, but a recent study of the pottery, especially at Hazor, Megiddo, and Lachish, witnesses to an Egyptian occupation of Canaan in the 13th century B.C.71 Besides, Egyptian finds from the end of the 13th century B.C., uncovered in the area of the St. Étienne monastery and of the Biblical School of the Fathers Dominicans at Jerusalem, suggest the presence of an Egyptian temple at that site in Late Bronze II72. Such data imply a dangerous situation for the nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes and clans of Canaan, which would have felt the urgent need of creating a stronger tribal unit with the name of an ancestral sheikh, indicating the purpose of this organization: “May El strive!” The inscription of Merneptah confirms the existence of such a danger in the 13th century B.C.: “The princes are prostrate, saying: ‘Mercy!’ Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows73. Desolation is for Tehenu (Libyans); Hatti is pacified; Plundered is the Canaan with every evil; Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yanoam is made as that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together, they are pacified; Everyone who was restless, he has been bound by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt. . .Merneptah. . . .”74

This poem on the victories of Merneptah, composed in about 1217 or 1208 B.C., contains a reference to Israel in a context which must refer to Cisjordan, although northern Transjordan has also been taken into consideration. This depends to some degree on the location of Yanoam, mentioned before Israel. An inscription of Tuthmosis III in the Temple of Karnak locates Yanoam in Upper Retenu75, di Ebla 10), Roma 1990, p. 20 and pl. III, n° 3; etc. Cf. E. Lipiński, Formesverbalesdanslesnoms propresd’Eblaetsystèmeverbalsémitique, in L. Cagni (ed.), LalinguadiEbla, Napoli 1981, p. 191-210 (see p. 195). 70 KTU 4.623, line 3. 71 K.Ch. Nataf,CéramqueetoccupationégyptienneenCanaanau13esiècleav.J.C. (BAR International Series 2490), Oxford 2013. 72 G. Barkay, ALateBronzeAgeEgyptianTempleinJerusalem?, in IEJ 46 (1996), p. 23-43; E. Lipiński, ItinerariaPhoenicia(Studia Phoenicia XVIII; OLA 127), Leuven 2004, p. 497. 73 A designation for the foreign countries. 74 Translation by J.A. Wilson in ANET, p. 378a. 75 K. Sethe, Urkundender18.Dynastie, Leipzig 1906-09 (reprint 1984), p. 744; ANET, p. 237, n. 42. Yanoam is mentioned there with Ngs and Ḥr(n)kr, like in the “Annals” of Tuthmosis III: ANET, p. 237b; cf. R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen(n. 6), p. 1356a and 1370b. Ngs is possibly Nuḫašše in central Syria (H. Klengel, Nuḫašše, in RLA IX, Berlin 1998-2001, p. 610-611),

ISRAEL

17

Relief of Seti I’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings (photo: AramcoWorld)

the mountain territory of northern Canaan, and Yanoam seems then either to lay in the area of lake Ḥūleh or rather to correspond to Tell en-Na‘am, a small but prominent mound southwest of the Sea of Galilee. It was surrounded by a marshy area, crossed by Wadi Feǧǧās. The remains of the tell include Bronze Age and Iron Age I pottery. Some clans of Israel would then have lived in a nearby region, what favours the assumption of a relation between Merneptah’s claim of victory and the dispersion of the Simeonites. In fact, their centre at Khirbet Sammūniyah is situated only 27 km west of Tell en-Na‘am76. This hypothesis would partly justify Merneptah’s claim of destroying Israel and would solve the uncertainty on the precise part of the country meant in his inscription. In this text, the determinative used for Israel is the seated man and woman with plural strokes, what means “foreign people” or “foreign tribe”, not the triple hill indicating a “foreign land”. That should be interpreted to mean that the bulk of this people were still nomads or rather seminomads, living in a large countryside. Such tribes had both nomadic and sedentary structures. while Ḥr(n)kr might be Qarqar, also in central Syria (M. Weippert, Qarqār, in RLA XI, Berlin 2006-08, p. 154-155). These identifications are not supported by the location of the three towns in Upper Retenu. 76 Cf. here above, p. 6-7.

18

PROTO-HISTORY

Tell en-Na‘am should in any case be identified with Yanoam conquered by Seti I (1299-1290 or 1293-1279 B.C.) in the first year of his reign. This is recorded by one of the stelae discovered in the excavations at Beth-shean77 and by a scene of Seti I’s Karnak reliefs, portraying Yanoam as a town surrounded by a river and a heavy thicket78 . The proposed identification of the site is more suitable than its location at Tell el-‘Abeidiyeh, 20 km north of Beth-shean79, since it corresponds to the line of Seti I’s march from Beth-shean to Acre through Tell en-Na‘am and Q-Ꜣ-m-‘-h-(Ꜣ-)mw, not yet identified80. ‘APIRU The question should now be raised to what extent Israel’s original population had something in common either with the ‘apiru or with the šꜢsw of the Egyptian texts. It has now become clear that the ‘apiru were stateless, semi-nomadic countrymen, speaking different languages of Syria and of Canaan, while the šꜢsw were Bedouin of southern Canaan and of the Sinai Peninsula. From the Egyptian point of view, the ‘apiru rarely appear as enemies, while Egyptians had to fight against the šꜢswin the 13th-12th centuries B.C. ‘Apiru is certainly no ethnic name, but an appellation coined in the Middle Bronze Age. The notation of initial ‘a by ḫa in cuneiform script points to a WestSemitic origin of the noun. Arabic ‘afara means “to cover with dust”, but this classical and literary meaning is quite general, while the dialectal and EthioSemitic use of the root alludes to an agricultural context. Carlo de Landberg already noticed that in Colloquial Arabic ‘afar was a piece of land which had been irrigated, but became dry because it has absorbed the water81. The word clearly refers to arable land, like ’afär/afär/’apar in most Ethio-Semitic languages82, where the initial ‘ayin was lost. In Palestinian dialects, Arabic Stem II ‘affar is used for sowing after the first rain, when land had become dry enough for re-ploughing, and ‘afīr designates seeds sown at that time. These particular circumstances would be implied also by the use of ‘fr in the Sabaic inscription CIS IV, 570, 983. 77 A. Rowe, TheTopographyandHistoryofBethShean I, Philadelphia 1930, p. 24-29 and pl. 41; ANET, p. 253-254; ANEP, no 320. 78 ANET, p. 254b; ANEP, no 330. 79 As proposed by Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 11), p. 165-167. 80 R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen(n. 6), p. 1392a. 81 C. de Landberg, Glossairedaṯinois I-III, Leiden 1920-42, p. 2307. 82 G. Hudson, NortheastAfricanSemitic:LexicalComparisonsandAnalysis (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, n.s. 26), Wiesbaden 2013, p. 76, 111, 118 (“earth, soil”). 83 M.A. Ghūl, Early South Arabian Languages and Classical Arabic Sources, Irbid 1993, p. 148 and 260-262; A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghūl, W.W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans, SabaicDictionary (English-French-Arabic) / Dictionnaire sabéen (anglais-français-arabe), Louvain-la-Neuve – Beyrouth 1982, p. 13-14.

‘APIRU

19

Seen in this context, ‘apiru was a sower, a seedsman, but a disparaging use of the term by townsmen would have served to designate a “dusty” countryman. A frankly pejorative connotation appears in the Amarna correspondence, in which they can be regarded as pillagers or the like. One could compare ‘apiru with the sense of Arabic ‘ifrīt, “malicious, mischievous, demon”. The renewed proposal to connect ‘ibrî, “Hebrew”, with the same root84 is unconvincing, but its use presents some similarities with ‘apiru. It can be compared semantically with nokrî, “foreigner”, but should be linked with the root ‘br, “to go beyond”, hence “person from across or beyond” the border, a “trans-borderer” in relation to Egyptians and Philistines, but inhabitant of the ‘EbarNahara province in post-exilic times85, as distinguished from a Babylonian Jew, speaking East Aramaic. Egyptian sources only once report a war against Israel, and Seti I clashed near Beth-shean with some ‘apiru people — probably one of Israel’s clans, living on Mount Yarmut (PꜢ-ḏwY-rꜢ-m-t)86. We cannot deduce from these rare struggles that Israel did not belong to the category of rather peaceful ‘apiru countrymen. The area of Mount Yarmut should be identified with the Yarmut (Ιερμωθ) of Issachar (Josh. 21, 29), misspelled wrmt in Josh. 19, 21 and r’mwt in I Chron. 6, 58. It is a hill region to the north or north-west of Beth-shean, where a clan qualified as ‘apiru was thus settled as early as ca. 1300 B.C.87. In other words, these people seem to represent a rural population. The ‘apiru were sharply distinguished by Egyptian vassals of the Amarna age from townspeople ruled by them, but they were no “landless” people or “social bandits”, as stated in an idiosyncratic book of W.G. Dever88. The accusations uttered against Simeonites in EA 8 and in Gen. 49, 6-7 point nevertheless at people behaving like bandits, but one should not generalize. D.E. Fleming characterizes the ‘apiru as “people without town”89; they were viewed by the 84 D.E. Fleming, PeoplewithoutTown:The‘apiruintheAmarnaEvidence, in R. Hasselbach and N. Pat-El(eds.), LanguageandNature.PaperspresentedtoJohnHuehnergard(Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 67), Chicago 2012, p. 39-49 (see p. 39, n. 2). 85 E. Lipiński, ‘ApīrūetHébreux, in BiOr 42 (1985), p. 562-567; id., Hébreu, in DEB (Turnhout 1987), p. 566-567, where the link with the root ‘br is still vague. 86 The Beth-shean stele mentioning this event was published by B. Grdseloff, Unestèlescythopolitaine du roi Séthos Ier, Le Caire 1949. Cf. ANET, p. 255a; R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen(n. 6), p. 1309a. 87 Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 11), p. 168-169. This place should not be confused with Khirbet Yarmouk, Iermucha in St. Jerome’s version of Eusebius’ Onomasticon, unfortunately rebaptized Tel Yarmuth, about 5 km southwest of Beth-Shemesh. Khirbet Yarmouk was excavated in 1970 by A. Ben-Tor, TheFirstSeasonofExcavationsatTell-Yarmout1970 (Qedem 1), Jerusalem 1975, p. 54-87, since 1981 by P. de Miroschedji, in RB 92 (1985), p. 394-404, pl. XI-XII; 95 (1988), p. 217226, pl. II-III, etc., followed by M. Jasmin, who presented Lesrésultatsdesfouillesdel’acropolede TelYarmouthenIsraël in a lecture given in Paris on 10.02.2016; cf. PJBR 15/1 (2016), p. 143-144. 88 W.G. Dever, WhoweretheEarlyIsraelitesandwheredidTheycomefrom?, Grand Rapids 2003, p. 179, 181. 89 D.E. Fleming, PeoplewithoutTown (n. 84), p. 39-49.

20

PROTO-HISTORY

city-rulers as dwellers of a no man’s land, like Mount Yarmut. Most of them lived in the highland of Cisjordan with Shechem as its centre: a letter sent in the mid 14th century B.C. by the ruler of Jerusalem to Amenophis IV records in fact that the ‘apiru were in control of Shechem (EA 289, 23-24). To counter them an Egyptian fort was built at Pr-R‘-ἰtny (Pr‘twny), to-day Far‘ata90, a strategic hill, 14 km south-west of Shechem and of Nablus (p. 5). From this site one could control southern Samaria and the 30 km long pass between Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, the Wadi eš-Ša‘īr, better known nowadays as Wadi Nablus (p. 5). The place-name referring to Re-Aton suggests dating the construction of the fort from the later part of the reign of Amenophis IV. In the early 15th century B.C., instead, Shechem was ruled by Hurrian or Indo-Aryan personages from Mittanni, as shown by the names of Biraššena, the addressee of a letter found at Shechem, and of Šukri, named on a limestone stele from Shechem with a Proto-Canaanite inscription91. Shechem played a central role in Israel’s early history, as recorded in the Iron Age: it was the scene of the great covenant for which Joshua assembled the tribes (Josh. 24) and Jeroboam was elected there as king after Solomon’s death. Shechem is not mentioned among the cities conquered by the Israelites, but the ruler of Jerusalem in the 14th century, as mentioned above, records in a letter to the pharaoh that Lab’ayu has given the land of Shechem to the ‘apiru (EA 289, 23-24). One can thus assume that Israel appeared as a great tribal unit in the 14th/13th century B.C. and that its name records a recognized ancestor, called Israel, i.e. “El has striven” or “May El strive!” This is a real personal name, attested at Ebla and at Ugarit92, and it witnesses to the cult of El, just like the names Y(’)sp’l and Y‘qb’l. The choice of such an appellation and the presence of ’Il or ’El, “God”, in the proto-Israelite tribal names, instead of naming a particular deity, seem to reveal a basically monotheistic religion. DEPORTATION AND EXODUS OF ŠꜣSW PEOPLE A forcible departure from Egypt, undertaken by larger groups of Semitic nomads or semi-nomads, called šꜢsw in Egyptian, should be distinguished from movements of šꜢsw herdsmen authorized to enter Wadi Tumīlāt in order to water their flocks and to leave it afterwards. This was an old practice, already attested at the time of the Middle Kingdom and bringing to mind biblical memories (Gen. 47, 1-6). These migratory movements may be partly related to the 90

Judg 12, 13.15; II Sam. 23, 30; I Chron. 11, 31; 27, 14; I Macc. 9, 50. E. Lipiński, HurriansandTheirGodsinCanaan, in RocznikOrientalistyczny 69/1 (2016), p. 125-141 (see p. 129-131). 92 Cf. here above, p.15-16. 91

DEPORTATION AND EXODUS OF ŠꜢSW PEOPLE

21

infiltration of groups of West Asiatic peoples into the Delta during the declining years of the Middle Kingdom. They were coming generally from northern Levant93 and were forced southwards by the Hurro-Mittannian expansion, recognizable also in Canaan94. They rose to power in the Delta ca. 1650-1550 B.C. and their leaders, called by Egyptians ḥqꜢw-ḫꜢswt, “Rulers from the Uplands”, formed the Manethonian “Hyksos dynasty”. Their capital was Avaris, now identified with Tell eḍ-Ḍab‘a, in the north-eastern Delta95. Their expulsion from Egypt in the 16th century B.C. has obviously no connection with a flight of šꜢsw people, deported to Egypt by Ramesses III (1182-1151 B.C.), whose wars against the Shasu of Se‘ir are summarized in the Great Papyrus Harris I 96. The historical portion of this long and stately document, dated on the day of the death of Ramesses III, records campaigns against the Shasu of the Mount Se‘ir region. It attributes to the pharaoh the following claim of one or more successful campaigns: “I destroyed the people of Se‘ir among the Shasu tribes. I razed their tents; their people, their property, and their cattle as well, without number, I pinioned and carried away in captivity as the tribute of Egypt. I gave them to the Ennead of the gods as slaves for their houses”.

A feature of unique interest is the recorded donation of Shasu spoils, made to the temples of Egypt. The deported šꜢswpeople thus became slaves of these religious centres and their children probably got names recording their status of temple slaves, either in general, as mś-ḥm, “slave’s child”, or concretely by naming the deity. This may explain the origin of Moses’ name which is certainly Egyptian97. It might be an abbreviation of the phrase mśnḥwt/pr-DN, “child of the temple of such a god”, but it is most likely a hypocoristicon of anthroponyms like Ḏḥwtἰ-mśἰ.w, “Thoth’s child”, ’I‘ḥ-mśἰ.w, “Moon-god’s child”, KꜢ-mśἰ.w“Ka’s child”, Ka being the spiritual “double” of each person. Names of this kind were giving better chances in life. Mśἰ seems to have been used in Egyptian as an abbreviation of such names in the later 13th century B.C., as 93 M. Bietak, FromwherecametheHyksosandwheredidTheygo?, in M. Marée (ed.),The SecondIntermediatePeriod(Thirteenth-SeventeenthDynasties).CurrentResearch,FurtherProspects (OLA 192), Leuven 2010, p. 139-181. 94 E. Lipiński, Hurrians (n. 91). 95 M. Bietak, Dab‘a,Telled-, in TheOxfordEncyclopediaofAncientEgypt I, Oxford 2001, p. 351-354. 96 Papyrus Harris I, 76, 9-11. Text in W. Erichsen, PapyrusHarrisI.HieroglyphischeTranscription (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 5), Bruxelles 1933, p. 93; P. Grandet, Le Papyrus Harris I, vol. I (Bibliothèque d’étude 109), Le Caire 1994, p. 337. English translation by J.A. Wilson, ANET, p. 262. Cf. K.A. Kitchen, TheEgyptianEvidenceonAncientJordan, in P. Bieńkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 7), Sheffield 1992, p. 21-34 (see p. 27). 97 J.G. Griffiths, TheEgyptianDerivationoftheNameofMoses, in JNES 12 (1953), p. 225231; R. de Vaux, Histoireancienned’Israël (n. 9), p. 312.

22

PROTO-HISTORY

shown by Pap. Anastasi I, 18, 1-2 and Pap. Salt 124, obv. 2, 17-1898. The Semitic notation and vocalization of the second element of such names can be found in the Amarna letters from the 14th century B.C., for instance mḪa-a-ra-ma-aš-ši99, “Horus’ child”, mTáḫ-ma-aš-ši100, “Ptah’s child”, mḪa-a-maš-šior mḪa-mašš[e](?)101, “Setting Sun’s child”. Cuneiform -ma-aš-ši corresponds to hieroglyphic -mśἰ.w, to Hebrew mšh, and to later Aramaic -msy102. There is a similar list of Egyptian names with the same element mśἰ and a pronominal suffix, like R‘-mśἰ-św, “the Sun-god is his begetter”, ’Imn-mśἰ-św, “Amon is his begetter”. Now, the name of Ramesses, “the Sun-god is his begetter”, is spelled in the Bible R‘mss103 with samek, what could provide an objection against the proposed interpretation of Moses’ name. However, the biblical spelling R‘mss is based on the pronunciation current in the mid-first millennium B.C., while the articulation of Moses’ name with š must go back to the 14th-12th centuries B.C., as shown by the cuneiform notation ma-aš-ši. In the Bible R‘mss qualifies a place-name, probably Per-Ramesses, still mentioned ca. 350 B.C. by a governor of Tanis104. The knowledge of Ramesses and the biblical spelling of the name may thus date from the mid-first millennium B.C. This explanation is confirmed by the Aramaic spelling ’ḥmsy of ’I‘ḥ-mśἰ.w in the late 6th or early 5th century B.C. (TAD IV, D7.38, 6) and by the Phoenician spelling ’ḥmsof the same name among the graffiti of Abu Simbel (CIS I, 111, 1), in the early 6th century B.C., probably in 591 B.C. The vocalization Mošeh implies the usual change ā>ō and the change of final i into e. Beside Μωυσης and Μωσης of the Septuagint, of the New Testament, of Philo and Josephus Flavius, variant vocalizations are attested by Jewish personal names in Greek papyri from Egypt, viz. Μουσῆς or Μουσαῖος, rarely Μούσιος or Μουσεῦς105. Μουσαῖος is attested already in papyri of the 98 A. Gardiner, EgyptianHieraticTexts I/1. ThePapyrusAnastasiIandthePapyrusKoller, Leipzig 1911, p. 20*; J. Černý, PapyrusSalt124(Brit.Mus.10055), in JEA 15 (1929), p. 243-258. 99 EA 20, 33.36. In Egyptian Ḥr-mśἰ.w. 100 EA 303, 20. In Egyptian Ptḥ-mśἰ.w. 101 EA 11, 9.16; 27, 37.40.52; 29, 25; 198, 15. In Egyptian, probably Ḥ‘ἰ-mśἰ.w. The spelling m A-ma-an-ma-ša, “Amon’s child” (EA 113, 36.43; 114, 51), is probably erroneous, although -ma-ša corresponds to the consonantal form mšh. 102 This -msy must be distinguished from Palmyrene Mšy (PAT 2333, 4) and Ṣafaitic Ms1y (G.L. Harding, An Index [n. 31], p. 546), a personal name based on the participle māšiy (cf. Syriac mš’, “to sweep”), as well as from Neo-Assyrian Māšī/Māsī and Old Aramaic Msy, “My twinbrother” (cf. Akkadian māšu) or “Refiner”, attested in the 7th century B.C. At Ma‘lānā in the early 7th century B.C., we find a certain Msy (O. 3645, 4; O. 3654, 9) or mMa-a-si-i(O. 3682, 2), while a different individual is called mMa-a-ši-I (O. 3710, 4) in the late 7th century B.C. Cf. E. Lipiński, StudiesinAramaicInscriptionsandOnomastics III, Ma‘lānā (OLA 200), Leuven 2010, p. 49-50, 53-54, 89. 103 Gen. 47, 11; Ex. 1, 11; 12, 37; Numb. 33, 3.4. 104 L.B. Couroyer, L’ExodeetlabatailledeQadesh, in RB 97 (1990), p. 321-358 (see p. 356). 105 D. Foraboschi, Onomasticon alterum papyrologicum (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’Antichità 16), Milano-Varese 1971, p. 199-200.

DEPORTATION AND EXODUS OF ŠꜢSW PEOPLE

23

3rd century B.C. and could be chronologically related to the biblical name Mwšy/ Μουσι, borne by a Levite106. The forcible departure from Egypt of deported šꜢsw people and of their descendants is not conceivable historically without the turmoil caused by the internal problems of Egypt in the decennia that followed the reign of Ramesses III (11821151 B.C.), and before the collapse of the Egyptian power in Canaan, in the later part of the 12th century B.C.107 In particular, a Turin papyrus refers to a civil war in the reign of either Ramesses V (1145-1141 B.C.) or Ramesses VI (11411134 B.C.)108, the last pharaoh to be mentioned at Megiddo and in the mines of Serabit el-Khadem, in the Sinai. Besides, the fear of Libyan incursions was such at that time that the king’s workmen at Thebes were staying away from work and keeping safe within the wall of their village109. In such circumstances, the šꜢsw or “nomads” deported to Egypt at the time of Ramesses III110, as well as their children, could attempt to return to their homeland. Moses, their traditional leader, was probably borne in the mid-12th century B.C., one or two generations after the deportation of Shasu people by Ramesses III. The story of the deliverance by the sea (Ex. 13, 17 - 14, 31) may go back to some event at the Lake Timsāh, near the eastern end of Wadi Tumīlāt, or at the Great Bitter Lake111, situated near the outset of the way from Egypt to Edom112, but no certain interpretation can be given, except that YāmSūph cannot be the Red Sea, not even the Gulf of Suez113. Besides, šꜢsw deportees and their descendants could have escaped from Egypt in various groups and along different ways. This Exodus could have happened in the last third of the 12th century, a date 106

Ex. 6, 19; Numb. 3, 20.33; 26, 58; I Chron. 6, 4.32; 23, 21.23; 24, 26.30. Except occasional short revolts, Canaan remained within the Egyptian Empire until the late 12th century B.C.: E. Lipiński, Studia (n. 57), p. 185-186. 108 Pap. Turin 2044: J. Černý, in CAH, 3rd ed., vol. II/2, Cambridge 1975, p. 612-614. 109 Ibid., p. 616-619. The interpretation of these events as general strikes seems to be a modern misinterpretation. 110 Papyrus Harris I, 76, 9-11. Cf. ANET, p. 262a; P. Grandet, LePapyrusHarris I, vol. I (n. 96), p. 337; E. Lipiński, Studia (n. 57), p. 186. 111 This was already proposed by H.H. Scullard, ThePassageoftheRedSea, in Expository Times 42 (1930-31), p. 55-61. For a long discussion, see C. Bourdon, Laroutedel’Exode,dela terredeGesséàMara, in RB 41 (1932), p. 370-392, 538-549, summarized by H. Cazelles, Les localisations de l’Exode et la critique littéraire, in RB 62 (1955), p. 321-364 (see p. 328-329). — The link between the story of Joseph in Egypt and the account of Exodus is not historical, but literary. According to H.Chr. Schmitt, it is anterior to the “Sacerdotal” redaction of the Pentateuch and represents a sapiential reworking of old Israelite traditions: H.Chr. Schmitt, DieJosefs-und die Exodus-Geschichte: Ihre vorpriesterliche Weisheitstheologische Verbindung, in ZAW 127 (2015), p. 171-187. 112 This is probably the area referred to in an Egyptian model letter from the end of the th 13 century B.C., reporting the pursuit of two slaves escaping from Egypt to Asia: ANET 259b. Cf. R. Caminos, LateEgyptianMiscellanies, London 1954, p. 254-259. 113 An overview of the opinions is provided by M. Vervenne, TheLexeme ‫( סוף‬sûph) andthe Phrase ‫( ים סוף‬yam sûph), in K. Van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), ImmigrationandEmigrationwithintheAncientNearEast.FestschriftE.Lipiński (OLA 65), Leuven 1995, p. 403-429. 107

24

PROTO-HISTORY

roughly suggested also by chronological data preserved in the Bible: Moses was followed as chief by Joshua (ca. 1100 B.C.) and by the “small judges”, while the beginning of David’s rule in Jerusalem can be put about 960 B.C.114 The date of the material related to the Exodus (Ex. 15-40) ranges from postsettlement times of the Shasu tribes, around the 11th century B.C. (Josh. 22), to the reorganization of the First Temple in the late 8th century B.C., under king Ahaz (II Kings 16, 10-17; cf. I Kings 6, 7). Of course, there were later redactional revisions and additions, in particular from the Priestly Document115. THE HOLY MOUNTAIN

OF

YHW’L

The Yahwistic conception of El was introduced in Israel with the integration of new tribes, living in Transjordan or in the Negeb. They must have belonged to the desert nomads, inclusive of the worshippers of Yahwe-Il, who had fled from Egypt. Unfortunately, the location of the biblical Holy Mountain, called either Sinai or Ḥoreb (cf. p. 28-29), cannot be established with certitude. One cannot even be sure that biblical texts refer to a single mountain, since holy places were often located on mountainous tops. The earliest temple of Yahweh mentioned in Transjordan by historical sources is the one of Mount Nebo, taken by king Mesha of Moab in the mid-9th century B.C.116 There is a clear link here with the biblical tradition concerning Moses (Deut. 34), the more so because sherds of Iron Age I (1150-1050 B.C.) have been found at both concerned sites: Khirbet ‘Uyūn Mūsā (“Springs of Moses”), northeast of Rās Siyāġa (probably Pisgah), and Khirbet el-Muḫayyaṭ, south-east of the mountain. One may surmise that the Yahwistic conception of El, based on the šꜢsw worship of the God revered at Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ, penetrated in the Cisjordanian highland and gave Israel’s religion a peculiar shape. Their divinity was no humanized being with a family, a wife and children, but a steadfast Mountain-god, source of law and order in the world. In early poems, like Judg. 5, 4-5; Ps. 68, 8 (cf. Deut. 33, 2), He is referred to as “The One of Sinai”. According to I Kings 20, 23, the Aramaeans were describing the God of Israel as “the God of the Mountains”. Old Near-Eastern traditions, already known in Canaan, were thus linked to His revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai, starting with the Decalogue, as presented later in the Pentateuch. 114 E. Lipiński, Najstarszainskrypcjahebrajska, in StudiaJudaica 14 (2011), p. 143-150 (see p. 145). Of course, one should leave aside all the symbolic figures 40 (a full life-time) and their multiples or fractions. 115 Compare M. Greenberg, Exodus, Book of, in Encyclopaedia Judaica 6, Jerusalem 1971, col. 1050-1067, in particular col. 1064. 116 Mesha inscription 17-18; cf. E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 340-343. For possible later references to people from Nebo, cf. M. Cogan, TheMenofNebo—Repatriated Reubenites, in IEJ 29 (1979), p. 37-39.

THE HOLY MOUNTAIN OF YHW’L

25

Proto-history of Israel thus seems to be based on two pillars: the countrymen of the Cisjordanian highland, with Shechem as its centre, and the desert nomads or semi-nomads, called šꜢswby the Egyptians, with their worship of the God of Mount Sinai. We cannot precisely establish the location of the latter. The biblical Exodus narratives do not help us, not even the accounts related to Kadesh-barnea, appearing as an assembly point for the Israelite tribes in the desert (Deut. 1, 46). A thorough archaeological research in the oasis of ‘Ayn el-Qudeirat (75 km south-west of Beersheba), assumed to be Kadesh-barnea, did not reveal even one potsherd from the Late Bronze Age117. The Painted Qurayya Ware from Stratum 4C might go back to the early Iron I, after the collapse of the Egyptian power, and witness to the use of the site as a way station on the copper route from the Feinan sites in the northern Arabah to the Mediterranean coast118. The small well of ‘Ayn Qedeis, 7 km further south, does not change the basic data, although it preserves the ancient name. The glossator of Deut. 1, 2 estimated the distance from Kadesh-barnea to Mount Ḥoreb at eleven days. Edward Robinson (1794-1863) thus travelled in 1838 from the traditional site of Ǧebel Mûsa, in southern Sinai, to ‘Aqaba, and hence across the desert to ‘Ayn Qedeis, and this journey occupied exactly eleven days119. The distance would be ca. 250 km. According to St. Paul., however, “Sinai is a mountain in Arabia and it represents the Jerusalem of today” (Gal. 4, 25). Since the authenticity of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians is not contested, his mention of Arabia does not refer to the Roman province, created when in A.D. 106 the emperor Trajan annexed the kingdom of the Nabataeans. In The JewishWar, achieved ca. 75 A.D., Josephus Flavius regards Petra as the capital city of Arabia (I, 6, 2, §125) and considers that Gilead and Moab are situated in Arabia (I, 4, 3, §89), as well as Ṣo‘ar, at the southern tip of the Dead Sea (IV, 8, 4, §482). ArabiaFelix is instead the area along the Red Sea (Jewish Antiquities I, 15). There is no need therefore to look for St. Paul’s Sinai in Saudi Arabia. A mountain close to Edom would perfectly suit the notion of Arabia in those days. Moses’ good relations with Midianites — a branch of šꜢsw people — and his first meeting with God in Midian120 favour such a location of the Holy Mountain. 117 R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg, Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell el-Qudeirat) 1976-1982 (IAA Reports 34), Jerusalem 2007. 118 The date proposed by L. Singer-Avitz, TheEarliestSettlementatKadeshBarnea, in Tel Aviv 35 (2008), p. 73-81, should be slightly lowered in the light of the study by I. Finkelstein and E. Piasetzky, RadiocarbonandtheHistoryofCopperProductionatKhirbeten-Naḥas, in TelAviv 35 (2008), p. 82-95. For the location of the sites, cf. E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 371, nos 25 and 35. 119 E. Robinson, BiblicalResearchesinPalestineandintheAdjacentRegions, Boston-London 1841, vol. II, p. 565-567. 120 Ex. 2, 15 - 4, 19; 18. These passages inspired Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities II, 11, 1; 12, 1, §257-264, written towards the end of the first century A.D. The historiographer then places Mount Sinai in a country in which there is a city Μαδιανη, obviously Midian.

26

PROTO-HISTORY

The unique biblical text giving a somewhat concrete situation of Midian is I Kings 11, 18, which locates it on the road from Edom to Egypt, thus at the northeastern border of the Sinai. This suggests the identification of the Hr Yhwh (Numb. 10, 33) with Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra, “the Mountain of Worship”. This location is supported by the fact that the area of Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ is one of ŠꜢsw-lands mentioning Š‘r121. The name of Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra preserves the souvenir of a holy place at the top of the mountain122. The latter is 1030 m high and it is situated 45 km west of Elat and 23 km south-est of Bīr eṯ-Ṯamad, as the crow flies. Its top is about 15 km south of the ancient caravan track from ‘Aqaba to Egypt and of the way of al-Ḥaǧǧ. This was the overland road used by Egyptians travelling to their copper mines at Timna, about 25 km north of Elat. Recent studies show that mining, smelting and trade in copper formed an integral part of the indigenous ŠꜢsw people’s material culture long before the coming of the Egyptians and long after, as stated in a proceedings volume edited by J.M. Tebes123. The Egyptian involvement in the exploitation started in the early 13th century B.C. and came to an end with Ramesses V (1145-1141 B.C.)124. Moses apparently knew this road, since he would have been previously in Midian according to Ex. 2, 15 - 4, 19, and he was perhaps involved in the traffic between Egypt and Timna. ŠꜢsw nomads flying from Egypt could have followed this track in the last third of the 12th century. To evaluate the time needed for such a journey, one may recall that a one-day distance of al-Ḥaǧǧ is about 35 km. Assuming a slower progression and more halts on the way, the desert wandering of the Exodus between Egypt and the Arabah, south of the Dead Sea, could have lasted a few weeks, the fugitives finding some help among the kindred Shasu of the northern Sinai Peninsula and of the Negeb. As far as the writer knows, no archaeological research or significant survey has been conducted on the Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra125, although it could explain why the Exodus ends in Transjordan. This location corresponds very well to Josephus 121

‘Amāra West N 93 in: H.W. Fairman, PreliminaryReport (n. 32), pl. XIV, 4. The cultic connotation of the root ś‘r, “to know, to be aware”, occurs already in the Old Assyrian hapax noun maš’ertu and in the title maš’artu of a Syrian priestess at Emar. See L.I. Spar etal., CuneiformTextsintheMetropolitanMuseumofArt I, New York 1988, n° 78a+b, 31; D.E. Fleming, TheInstallationofBaal’sHighPriestessatEmar (Harvard Semitic Studies 42), Atlanta 1992, p. 209-211. 123 J.M. Tebes (ed.), UnearthingtheWilderness.StudiesontheHistoryandArchaeologyofthe NegevandEdomintheIronAge (Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Supplement 45), Leuven 2014, p. 144. 124 B. Rothenberg, Timna,ValleyofBiblicalCopperMines, London 1972; id., TheEgyptian MiningTempleatTimna, London 1988. See also J.D. Muhly, TimnaandKingSolomon, in BiOr 41 (1984), col. 275-292. 125 Researches were nevertheless made in the nearby Wadi Huwara, which yielded typically Egyptian rock drawings from the 15th-13th centuries B.C.: E. Anati, ArtrupestredansleNegueb etleSinaï, in RB89 (1982), p. 225-228, pl. I-II (see p. 227-228). 122

THE HOLY MOUNTAIN OF YHW’L

27

The region of Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra

Flavius’ statement that Mount Sinai, ascended by Moses, is situated “between Egypt and Arabia”, τὸ μεταξὺ τῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ τῆς ’Αραβίας ὄρος (Contra Apionem II, 25). This was most likely the common opinion in the first century A.D., followed also by St. Paul. However, one might wonder whether this could not refer to the Sinai Peninsula in general. The Arabic name of Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra may easily go back to Hellenistic times, since this area was then occupied by Nabataeans, whose native language was North-Arabian. They had sanctuaries in the Sinai, even in the south of the peninsula, thus on Ǧebel Moneiǧah, 770 m high, where in 1868 the English orientalist Edward Henry Palmer (1840-1882) copied fifteen Nabataean graffiti in the sanctuary at the top of the mountain126. Ǧebel Moneiǧah, “The Mountain of the Conference (between God and Moses)”, was still visited in 1889 and 1890 by G. Bénédite, who found seven new graffiti, then in 1976 by Sh. Levy and A. Goren, who photographed the inscriptions, soon reedited by A. Negev127. The large concentration of men holding religious titles, mentioned in these inscriptions, shows that this was a sanctuary in Nabataean times, and local Bedouin still consider this place to be sacred, associating it with the memory of Moses. It lies between Ǧebel Banāt (1510 m) and Ǧebel Sirbāl (2070 m), 40 km north-west of St. Catherine’s Monastery, as the crow flies. It witnesses to a tradition at least two thousand years old, but this location does not suit either the site where Moses met God in Midian (Ex. 3, 1-12) or the land Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ of šꜢsw nomads. 126 E.H. Palmer, TheDesertoftheExodus II, Cambridge 1871, p. 565. He also visited other sites during the survey of the Sinai, undertaken in 1868 by the Palestine Exploration Fund. 127 A. Negev, A Nabatean Sanctuary at Jebel Moneijah, Southern Sinai, in IEJ 27 (1977), p. 219-231 and pl. 31-35; N. Cohen, ANoteonTwoInscriptionsfromJebelMoneijah, in IEJ 29 (1979), p. 219-220.

28

PROTO-HISTORY

Now, the Arabic name of Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra comes from Śe‘īr, the toponym linked by the Egyptians to the šꜢsw nomads: TꜢ-šꜢsw S‘r, “Se‘ir, the land of the Shasu”128. One can thus assume that the appellation Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra goes back to the Late Bronze Age, but it designated a larger territory, while the holy place certainly had a specific name. This name is given as Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ in the Egyptian inscriptions referring to the TꜢ-šꜢsw Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ129, where Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ, later Yhwh-’l, qualifies a “land of the Shasu”. Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra should be distinguished from Ǧebel eš-Šara’, south-east of Petra. This was the holy mountain of the Nabataean god Dusares (Dwšr’), named “He of Šara’”130. His main feast was celebrated on December 25th and he was supposed to be born from the virgin Kaamou131. The Ṣafaitic personal name S2‘r’l, “Se‘ir is god”132, is not related to the worship of Dusares and may go back to the Ǧebel eš-Ša‘īra. This cult is condemned in Lev. 17, 7; II Kings 23, 8; II Chron. 11, 15, because no connection was made between the theonym and the Sinai or Ḥoreb. The original spelling Ś‘yrm of the divine name, with archaic mimation like in the Ammonite theonym Milkom, is preserved in the pre-exilic text of Lev. 17, 7, but this was not understood by later scribes, who changed Ś‘yrm into a plural ś‘rym (II Kings 23, 8) or ś‘yrym (II Chron. 11, 15), “he-goats, satyrs”. Ǧebel Ḥarb, 2040 m high, may have given its name to Mount Ḥoreb in one of the biblical traditions. It is situated in north-western Saudi Arabia, 200 km south of ‘Aqaba, as the crow flies, in an area which probably belonged to Midian and was crossed by caravans aiming for Tell el-Ḫeleifeh133. The eleven-days distance from Mount Ḥoreb to Kadesh-barnea, given by the gloss in Deut. 1, 2, may indeed be correct and witness to the knowledge of caravan journeys, estimated at 35-40 km a day. However, one can hardly regard Ǧebel Ḥarb as a mountain situated between Egypt and Arabia, as Josephus Flavius says, and sacred to the šꜢsw nomads of the Egyptian texts from the Late Bronze Age. Our present historical documentation nevertheless extends the territory that should be taken into consideration, since a relief of Ramesses III was discovered in 2010 near Teima in the northern Ḥiǧāz134, 400 km south-east of ‘Aqaba. 128

R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 6), p. 1379a. E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 362 with further literature. 130 Ibid., p. 364. 131 St. Epiphanius, Panarion LI, 22:9-12. Cf. J. Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums, 2nd ed., Berlin 1897, p. 49-50; D. Sourdel, LescultesduHauranàl’époqueromaine (BAH 53), Paris 1952, p. 67-68. 132 G.L. Harding, AnIndex(n. 31), p. 351. 133 E. Lipiński, EdomattheCrossroadsof‘IncenseRoutes’inthe8th-7thCenturiesB.C., in RocznikOrientalistyczny 66/2 (2013), p. 64-85. 134 C. Somaglino and P. Tallet, Unemystérieuseroutesud-orientalesouslerègnedeRamsès III, in BIFAO111 (2011), p. 361-369; G. Sperveslage and R. Eichmann, EgyptianCulturalImpact onNorth-WestArabiaintheSecondandFirstMillenniaBC, in ProceedingsoftheSeminarfor ArabianStudies 42 (2012), p. 371-384. 129

THE HOLY MOUNTAIN OF YHW’L

29

El-Ǧaw (adapted after H. von Wissmann)

One could assume therefore that some šꜢsw people of the passage quoted above from Papyrus Harris I135 were deported also from this area. If this hypothesis is correct, Ǧebel Ḥarb or Ḥoreb may have been the sacred mountain of some nomadic clans that later joined Israel with their own tradition. A hypothesis based on Moses’ Midianite relations (Ex. 2, 15 - 4, 19; 18) goes somewhat further south, looking for an area with possible volcanic eruptions (el-Badr), which would explain the theophany on Mount Sinai. J. König thus identified the biblical Mount Sinai/Ḥoreb with a mountain close to the preIslamic site of el-Ǧaw, about 350 km south-east of ‘Aqaba136. This place of el-Ḥiǧāz could be a holy place of tribes living in the oasis of Teima, from which it is separated by the Ḥarrat al-Uwairiḍ, but it hardly suits an Exodus of people wanting to go back to their homeland in the Negeb or in Transjordan. El-Ǧaw is very likely a pre-Islamic holy place, which has been saved from destruction, because it has been connected in Muḥammad’s time with a biblical tradition. As assumed by J. Pirenne137, the so-called “twelve steles” or “boulders” of the 135

See here above, p. 21. J. König, Lesitedeal-Jawdansl’ancienpaysdeMadian, Paris 1971. 137 J. Pirenne, Le site préislamique de al-Jaw, la Bible, le Coran et le Midrash, in RB 82 (1975), p. 34-69. 136

30

PROTO-HISTORY

site, known as al-Maḏbaḥ, “sacrificial table”, favoured their “midrashic” connection with the twelve sources of water that sprout out, according to the Qur’ān (Sura VII, 160), when Moses stroke the rock in Ḥoreb (Ex. 17, 6). To give the site a biblical flavour, it sufficed to identify the “boulders” with rocks miraculously sprouting water, what may have been done by Jews settled in this area from the first century B.C./A.D. on138 or by Jewish inhabitants of Ḫaybar, further south139. In other words, one should not look for Mount Sinai in this area. A pre-Israelite cult of Yahwe-Il existed thus in the second millennium B.C. in the mountainous “Se‘ir, the land of Shasu”. The much later integration of tribes worshipping Yhwh-’l into Israel explains the absence of Yahwistic personal names in the early history of Israel. Even the name of Joshua does not contain the theophorous element Yhw. According to Numb. 13, 8.16 and Deut. 32, 44, his first name was Hwš‘, while Yšw‘ (Neh. 8, 17) / Ιησους could preserve the original form of the name given him by Moses, as stated by the Priestly redactor in Numb. 13, 16. It was the imperfect of the Semitic verb św‘/šw‘, “He will do service”, accomplishing Moses’ unfinished task140. The name Yšw‘ was transformed later into a Yahwistic anthroponym, also in Numb. 13, 16. Authentic Yahwistic names appear in the 9th century B.C., when semi-nomadic worshippers of Yhwh-’l were integrated in the Israelite settled society since several generations. One can conclude this chapter by stressing that Egyptian sources attest the presence of a tribal population, called Israel, in the highland of Cisjordan in the Late Bronze Age. This large tribal unit was joined at various moments by Transjordanian and Negebite clans, inclusive of those escaping from Egypt in the 12th century B.C. and of the worshippers of the God revered on Mount Sinai, which should be looked for “between Egypt and Arabia”. Considering the location of a major Yahweh’s sanctuary on Mount Nebo141, one can surmise that it played an important role in transmitting Yahwistic traditions to the Cisjordanian Israel. This sanctuary is most likely the basis of the account in Josh. 22, rewritten later in agreement with the Deuteronomistic ideology142. A souvenir of this holy 138 S. Naja, TestimonianzeepigrafichediGiudeinell’Arabiasettentrionale, in BeO 21 (1979), p. 283-316. 139 This was an important community at the time of Muḥammad, what appears from Abū l-‘Alā’ (973-1058 A.D.), al-Fuṣūl 48; cf. P. Smoor, AFlashofUnderstandingtheBook al-Fuṣūl wa-l-ghāyāt fī tamjīd Allāh wa-l-mawā‘izbyAbūl-‘Alā’al-Ma‘arrî, in BiOr 71 (2014), col. 672710 (see col. 703). 140 A.F.L. Beeston et al., Sabaic Dictionary (n. 83), p. 135-136. A post-exilic influence of “Se‘irite” Yahwism in Jerusalem is a hypothesis independent from this question. See N. Amzallag, EsauinJerusalem.TheRiseofaSeiriteReligiousEliteinZionatthePersianPeriod (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 85), Paris 2015. 141 E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan (n. 8), p. 342-343 with a photograph of Khirbet el-Muḫayyaṭ. 142 Surprisingly enough, neither B.J. Alfrink, Josue (BOT 3), Roermond-Maaseik 1952, p. 105110, nor M. Noth, Das Buch Josua, 2nd ed. (HAT I/7), Tübingen 1953, p. 153-155, nor their followers noticed the obvious relation to the temple of Nebo, destroyed by Mesha.

THE HOLY MOUNTAIN OF YHW’L

31

place is still echoed in the account of II Macc. 2, 4-6, reporting that Jeremiah would have buried the Ark of the Covenant and other objects from the Holy of Holies in a cave of the mountain. In early Byzantine times, the tomb of Moses was “rediscovered” there by a shepherd143 and Christian memorial buildings were erected on the site144. HarNəbō is not related to the Babylonian theonym Nabû, but it might mean “Mount of Lamentation” like Akkadian nubû, “lamentation”, and allude to the death of Moses. This would be a post-exilic interpretation of the toponym, inspired by Neo-Babylonian nubû, because the Moabite spelling Nbh shows that the old name was Nabāh or Nibāh, as suggested by present-day Rās en-Nibā’ (835 m). In the Bible, the peak of Mount Nebo, where Moses stood and beheld the Promised Land, is called Pisgah. This name might designate a panoramic site, if the unique attestation of the verb psg in Ps. 48, 14 means “to survey, to pass in review”. Pisgah is generally identified with Rās Siyāġa, the twin-peak of Rās en-Nibā’. Summing up, several tribes forming the Kingdom of Israel in the first millennium B.C. are attested in Canaan since the beginning of the second millennium B.C., almost one thousand years earlier. Two groups should be distinguished. Semi-nomadic, stateless septs were active in the Cisjordanian highlands and in northern Transjordan; they belonged socially to the category of the socalled ‘apiru people. From the 14th century on Shechem seems to have been their main centre. Nomadic clans, named Shasu by Egyptians, were living instead in the Negeb, in northern areas of the Sinai Peninsula, in Midian, and in southern Transjordan. They later included fugitive groups of šꜢsw deported to Egypt by Ramesses III. They have managed to return to their ancestral regions towards the end of the 12th century B.C. and finished by integrating Israel with their Yahwistic cult of El, worshipped in Se‘ir and later on Mount Nebo. A kingdom of Israel was created among them ca. 1000 B.C. in the Cisjordanian highlands to oppose the Philistine expansion in a more consistent way.

143

R. Raabe (ed.), PetrusderIberer, Leipzig 1895, p. 88. The results of the excavations conducted in the ruins of the Christian monuments built at the site are given by P. Lemaire, Mosaïquesetinscriptionsd’el-Meḫayet, in RB 43 (1934), p. 385401, pl. XXIV-XXVII; S.J. Saller and B. Bagatti, TheTownofNebo(Khirbetel-Mekhayyat)with aBriefSurveyofOtherAncientChristianMonumentsinTransjordan (Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 7), Jerusalem 1949. See also the results of the excavations on Rās Siyāġa: S.J. Saller, The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo (Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 1), Jerusalem 1941. For the bibliography of more recent excavations, cf. E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 8), p. 342, n. 136. Add: M. Piccirillo, Campagnearchéologiquedans labasiliqueduMontNébo-Siyâgha, in RB 84 (1977), p. 246-253, pl. II-III. 144

CHAPTER II

FROM TRIBAL CONFEDERACY TO MONARCHY ISRAEL’S

SEDENTARIZATION

A slow process of integration of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists into urban and agricultural populations, often assumed for the later part of the second millennium B.C., cannot be observed on sound archaeological evidence, unless new towns or village settlements were built. Even shabby rebuilding of a flourishing town cannot be taken as proof of the presence of new settlers. If the population of a town was practically decimated during destruction, whatever its cause was, rebuilding may take more than one generation. Besides, there is no archaeological evidence of the penetration of a semi-nomadic folk into urban and agricultural Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. Instead, the Amarna tablets reveal the existence of large non-urban and non-sedentary groups next to the city-dwellers. This is best shown by the case of the “Land of Shechem” (EA 289, 23), examined by I. Finkelstein. Dealing with the Late Bronze Age, he concludes: “The Shechem entity included about 25 sedentary sites, most of them north of Shechem, and large areas inhabited primarily by pastoralists, mainly south of Shechem”1. Since Shechem, in the heart of Ephraim, appears as an exceptionally strong socio-political entity, one can assume that the area was also the centre of Israel recorded in Merneptah’s inscription. The Israelite tribe defeated by the Egyptians was probably Simeon, as suggested above (p. 7, 17); its main sedentary site was situated about 50 km north of Shechem, at the north-western extremity of tribal areas forming Israel, as known to Merneptah. However, as noticed by I. Finkelstein, “from the end of the 13th century through the 11th century B.C.E. a new wave of settlement spread through the hill country of Canaan. About 300 sites have been revealed in surveys so far2. The origins of most of these settlers, which later consolidated as the Israelite national entity, are to be sought in the pastoral groups of Late Bronze Age society; but sedentary Late Bronze elements were also incorporated into the newly emerging force. Archaeologically speaking, part of the hill country was now inhabited for the first time, but in northern Samaria there was significant demographic settlement continuity from the previous period.”3 1 I. Finkelstein, The Sociopolitical Organization of the Central Hill Country in the Second MilleniumB.C.E., inBiblicalArchaeologyToday, 1990. Pre-congressSymposium:Population, Production,Power, Jerusalem 1993, p. 110-131, quotation from p. 123. 2 I. Finkelstein, TheArchaeologyoftheIsraeliteSettlement, Jerusalem 1988. 3 I. Finkelstein, TheSociopoliticalOrganization (n. 1), p. 124.

34

FROM TRIBAL CONFEDERACY TO MONARCHY

In the 11th century B.C., the highlands of Cisjordan seem to have been completely in possession of the Israelite confederation, as we may infer from the part taken in the struggle against Sisera also by Benjamin, Issachar, Zabulon, and Naphtali. The latter tribes had gained a firm footing in Galilee, Zabulon having settled in the area occupied formerly by Simeon, while Naphtali expanded in the area to the north and north-west of the lake Ḥūleh. The legendary stories dealing with the conquest of Canaan by Joshua have partly an etiological character, explaining the origin of certain ruined sites. The written form of some of them may go back to the 8th-7th centuries, but their final redaction must be attributed to the Deuteronomistic historians, in the 6th/5th century B.C. The El-Amarna correspondence shows that wars were fought between the rulers of various cities, and towns were even captured and perhaps destroyed. Examples are provided by EA 280, 286, 287, etc. Destructions observed in archaeological excavations do not prove therefore that they have been caused by Israelites led by Joshua. Different explanations can be proposed, pending on the site and the archaeological findings, correctly examined. The historical role of Joshua himself cannot be easily evaluated considering the quite late date of the Deuteronomistic redactors. A much older composition, the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5), the original form of which may go back to the 11th century B.C.4, records one of the main Philistine campaigns against the Israelite confederacy, viz. Sisera’s attack, datable ca. 1100 B.C. Sisera was no “independent king living in ‘Harosheth of the Gentiles’”5, but a Philistine army-chief from Ḥādāšāh, “New Town”, probably the settlement of the Shephelah mentioned in Josh. 15, 37 and located in the Philistine area of south-western Canaan6. The fancy name Ḥršt, “potsherds”, results from a confusion d/r, while the connection of Sisera with Jabin, king of Hazor, most likely implies earlier confusions of Ḥadashah with Hazor-Hadatta (Josh. 15, 25) and then with Hazor in Naphtali. The Song of Deborah contains no allusion to Jabin and to Hazor: The battle was fought “at Ta‘anach, near the waters of Megiddo” (Judg. 5, 19). The Song of Deborah refers to ten tribes, their traditional number “twelve” not being yet fixed, while Gad was still regarded by Mesha in the 9th century B.C. as an independent tribal unit. The Song first mentions five tribes in central Cisjordan: Ephraim, Benjamin, Makir taking the place of Manasseh, Zabulon occupying the former area of Simeon7, and Issachar (Judg. 5, 14-15a). Makir was the main branch of Manasseh (Judg. 5, 14), but in later times the seats of 4

The original form of the Song is rightly dated to the 11th century B.C. by H.-D. Neef, DeboraerzählungundDeboralied.StudienzuJdc5,1-5,31, presented by W. Thiel in OLZ 99 (2004), col. 617-619. 5 O. Eissfeldt, TheHebrewKingdom, in CAH II/2, 3rd ed., Cambridge 1975, p. 554. 6 F.-M. Abel, GéographiedelaPalestine II, Paris 1938, p. 340. 7 Cf. here above, p. 7, 17.

ISRAEL’S SEDENTARIZATION

35

Detail of a Cairo Genizah manuscript with Palestinian vocalization, Josh. 19, 37-41: T-S AS 63.151 (photo: Genizah Research Unit)

Makir were in Gilead, in northern Transjordan. There are two Transjordanian tribes or tribal areas, Reuben and Gilead (Judg. 5, 15b-17a), and three tribes in the north of the country: Dan, Asher, and Naphtali (Judg. 5, 17b-18). The latter’s territory, described in Josh. 19, 33-39, included important fortified cities, like Hazor, what shows its situation at ancient frontiers of Israel. Besides, the Song mentions Meroz (Judg. 5, 23), which does not appear elsewhere and is supposed to be a town. The Song of Deborah also records several personal names, but Joshua does not appear among them and the enemy is the Philistine chief Sisera (Judg. 5, 26.30), not an urban Canaanite population. Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Asher are mentioned in the Song of Deborah, although they did not participate in the war against Sisera (Judg. 5, 15b-17), probably because they were more distant from the battle field and thought that they were not threatened directly by the Philistines. This was certainly the case of the Reubenites, living in central Transjordan. Also other reasons may have played a role. Serious disagreements between Gilead and Ephraim are recorded later in Judg. 12, 1-6, but their motivation is not clear. The story shows nevertheless that there were important dialectal differences in the spoken language of the population living east and west of the Jordan river. The shibbolet case (Judg. 12, 5-6) reveals at least that the interdentals were still articulated by the Gileadites, while people from Ephraim were no longer able to pronounce them. This is confirmed later by the Neo-Assyrian name Gal’az(a) of Gilead in

36

FROM TRIBAL CONFEDERACY TO MONARCHY

inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III8. This spelling reveals the Gileadite pronunciation of ḏ and is based on the Old Aramaic notations z for ḏ and s/š for ṯ. The reference to Dan (Judg. 5, 17) clearly shows that the Danites were living in the area of Abil al-Qamḥ, that appears in Iron Age I as a major city of the northern Jordan valley9. It should be considered therefore as the main centre of the tribe of Dan, whose alleged conquest of the site is recorded in Judg. 18, 1131. The account of Judg. 18 does not say that they have been forced out of their initial holdings, described later in Josh. 19, 40-46 (cf. Judg. 1, 34-35). They simply did not manage to settle in a rather densely populated area. However, the story is problematic, since an old source presents the Danites as descendants of pastoralist clans which migrated from the Golan or Bashan (Deut. 33, 22), the region north of the Yarmuk river and east of the northern Jordan valley, the lake Ḥūleh, and the Sea of Galilee. They probably owed their name to the spring and the pool at the western basis of Tell al-Qāḍi, which was called Dan(n), “Vat”10. Judg. 18, 27b-29 presents the occupation of Laish like a bloody event, but the contradiction between the description of its population as “quite and carefree” and its massacre in Judg. 18, 27b shows that v. 27b-28a are a later addition11, probably from the Persian period, as suggests the mention of Sidon, which was then the main Phoenician city. The original text of v. 27b-29 was probably read as follows: “They came to Laish, whose people were quite and carefree […]: it was in the vale that leads to Beth-Reḥob. They built up the town and settled there. They called the town Dan, after the name of their ancestor Dan who was born to Israel, whereas Laish was the name of the town previously.”

This view is apparently supported by the first results of the excavations at Abil al-Qamḥ, started in 2013. The archaeologists noted a “peaceful transition from the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age I with no gap”12. The discovery of a bullfigurine from Iron Age I and of contemporaneous traces of metallurgical activity 8 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria. Critical Edition with Introduction,Translation,andCommentary, Jerusalem 1994, p. 139, pl. XLIX and LI, line 6’. 9 N. Panitz-Cohen and R.A. Mullins, Aram-Maacah?AramaeansandIsraelitesontheBorder. ExcavationsatTellAbilel-Qameh(Abel-beth-maacah)inNorthernIsrael, in O. Sergi, M. Oeming, and I.J. de Hulster (eds.), InSearchforAramandIsrael (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 20), Tübingen 2016, p. 139-167 (see p. 164-165). 10 Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities I, 10, 1, §177, and E. Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 263-264. According to the Palestinian Talmud (Sabbath VI, 8c bot.), the Tosefta (Sabbath VII/VIII, 3), and the Babylonian Talmud (Sabbath 67b), Dan was also the name of the idol worshipped on the mound and recorded in the bilingual Graeco-Aramaic inscription found at the site: E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan, p. 247. 11 It is copied partially in Josh. 19, 47. 12 N. Panitz-Cohen and R.A. Mullins, Aram-Maacah? (n. 9), p. 162.

ISRAEL’S SEDENTARIZATION

37

Seasonal outburst of the Jordan source at Tell al-Qāḍi13

even suggests a relation with the “graved image” or “molten image”, mentioned several times in Judg. 1814. No distinct Danite district existed later in the Kingdom of Israel, although there were districts of Naphtali and of Asher15. The characterization of the Danites in Judg. 5, 17 as “fearing the boats” (w-Dnlmhygwr’nywt) alludes to seasonal inundations caused by the outburst of Jordan sources, when considerable parts of the Ḥūleh valley were covered by water bodies and required the use of boats. According to Judg. 5, 17, this was the excuse of the Danites not coming to help fighting against Sisera. Such inundations were visible also in modern times, mainly at Tell al-Qāḍi, which was called for this reason Abīl-mayim/n, “Meadow of water”, or A-bi-il mes-˹qi˺ in an Assyrian inscription of Tiglath-pileser III using the Old Aramaic word mšqy or the Hebrew mešqeh: “Meadow of the watering place”16. It is clear that these names cannot apply to Abil al-Qamḥ, all the more so as Abil al-Qamḥ was an insignificant settlement at the time of Tiglath-pileser III, while Tell al-Qāḍi had been rebuilt in the 9th century B.C. 13 14 15 16

Photo: F.-M. Abel, GéographiedelaPalestine I, Paris 1933, pl. XIV, 1. Judg. 18, 14.17.18.20.31. It connects this story of Judg. 18 with Judg. 17. Cf. here below, p. 75. E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 10), p. 244 with further references.

38

FROM TRIBAL CONFEDERACY TO MONARCHY

As for the Asherites, “they lived among the Canaanite inhabitants and did not drive them out” (Judg. 1, 32). In fact, the places attributed ca. 400 B.C. to the tribe of Asher in Josh. 19, 24-31 are located in the territory of the kingdom of Tyre17. BETH-MAAKAH A similar case concerns the Maakathites and the Geshurites. According to Josh. 13, 13, “the Israelites did not drive out the Geshurite and the Maakathite; so Geshur and Maakat live in the middle of Israel to this day”. This notice, written in the Persian period, should be based on a tradition concerning either the remote past of tribes settled in Transjordan or the reign of later Omrides, Joash or Jeroboam II, when Israel annexed some territories of the Golan. They remained Israelite until their occupation by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 B.C. This probably explains the notice of Josh. 13, 13. The western part of the Gilead was inhabited by the M-‘-k-Ꜣ-y, as they are called in the Execration Texts of the 18th century B.C., and they were divided in several clans, as suggested by the plural “chiefs” in their mention18. Some of them settled at the site of Sheikh Ḫaḍr (Tel Hadar). While Geshur first appears as a toponym of the southern Golan (II Sam. 3, 3; 13, 37-38), Maakah is a personal name attested from the 19th century B.C. on, used also in the name of a State called Beth-Maakah. The latter’s shortened forms also occur as gentilice Maakathite or as a place name Maakat/h. The Old Canaanite name Maakah occurs already in the Egyptian story of Sinuhe (B 213)19, dating from the times of the Middle Kingdom20. It is spelled M-‘-k-ἰ, where the “forearm” hieroglyph should not be taken as a phonetic complement of the preceding “owl”-sign m, but as a consonantal ‘ayin. The man in question was a prince of Qedem, a region believed to be situated east or southeast of Byblos. The same name, spelled M‘kh, is attested much later in the same area, where it is borne by men and women. In the Bible, Maakah is the name of one of the sons of Reumah, the concubine of Nahor (Gen. 22, 24). The name is borne in historical times by the daughter of Talmay who was David’s wife and mother of Absalom (II Sam. 3, 3). The latter’s daughter, wife of Rehoboam (II Chron. 11, 21-22) and mother of king Abiam (I Kings 15, 2; II Chron. 11, 22), 17 E. Lipiński, TheTerritoryofTyreandtheTribeofAsher, in E. Lipiński (ed.), Phoenicia andtheBible (Studia Phoenicia XI; OLA 44), Leuven 1991, p. 153-166. 18 See here below, p. 39. 19 W.K. Simpson, Sinuhe, in LÄg V, Wiesbaden 1984, col. 950-955. See, in particular, A.M. Blackman, MiddleEgyptianStories, Bruxelles 1932, p. 1-41, and the translation in ANET, p. 18-22, and M. Lichtheim, AncientEgyptianLiteratureI, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1973, p. 222235. 20 H. Ranke, DieägyptischenPersonennamen I, Glückstadt 1935, p. 166:13.

BETH-MAAKAH

39

was also called Maakah, like the mother of king Asa (I Kings 15, 10). This was even the name of the father of Achish (’Αχαιός), king of Gath (I Kings 2, 39). Thus the name reflects the memory of a distant Canaanite ancestry, as well as membership in the Davidic dynasty. It is not attested in Aramaic. The biblical references to Beth-Maakah and to a city called Abel BethMaakah, whose inhabitants are associated frequently to those of Geshur, indicate that Beth-Maakah was the name of a princedom, whose founder was a certain Maakah. This may go back to the early second millennium B.C., since the two mentions of M-‘-k-ἰ-y in the Execration Texts21 seem to record a Semitic gentilice plural -yū, followed by the determinative of foreign countries, thus “Maakathites”, a derivative of an abridged form of Beth-Maakah. The plural “chiefs of Maakathites” (E 62) shows that this was a larger group of clans or tribes. Another derivative with the feminine ending -atu appears as a place name in the topographical list of Tuthmosis III (ca. 1479-1425 B.C.)22: M-‘-q-Ꜣ-tꜢ, form occurring much later as M‘kt in Josh. 13, 13. This toponym is usually identified with Μακέδ in I Macc. 5, 36 and with the Maqadd of Arabic writers. It is then localized at Tell Miqdad, 11 km north of Sheikh Miskīn, east of the Sea of Galilee23. However, the spelling rather suggests a derivative of Maakah, being an abridged form of Beth-Maakah, possibly referring to its capital. If this is the case, and considering that M-‘-q-Ꜣ-tꜢ is mentioned just before Laish (R-w-sꜢ) and Hazor, one should refer here to the fortified Stratum VI of Tel Hadar (Sheikh Ḫaḍr/Ḫiḍr), the oldest one of this settlement on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. It dates precisely from the Late Bronze Age I, thus from the 16th-15th centuries B.C. Its defence wall is an unusual characteristic for this period in which very few new fortifications are attested. No remains from the later phases of the Late Bronze Age were found and it seems that the site was unoccupied until the Iron Age24, when Maakah reappears in the same area. The repeated biblical mentions of “the Geshurite and the Maakathite”25, as well as the fact that the daughter of the king of Geshur was called Maakah (II Sam. 3, 3), may indicate that Geshur was the royal residence of BethMaakah in the 10th-9th centuries B.C. The city is situated by a gloss “in Aram” (II Sam. 15, 8) and it may appear under the spelling Gtr’i and the materlectionisyōd. Such a reduction occurs already in the name ’db’l of Gen. 25, 13, the plain form of which was *Yindib-’Il, “God granted” or “God gratified”61. The meaning of the verb zbl is “to carry, to bear”, like in Gen. 30, 20; it corresponds to Akkadian zabālu62. It seems therefore that we deal with no intentional distortion of the Queen’s name, but the aim of its abbreviation might have been avoiding the theonym Baal. The spelling ’Ιεζαβελ of Jezebel’s name in the Septuagint implies a metathesis, possibly suggested by the frequency of anthroponyms starting with yōd. Its vocalization does not correspond to the ancient pronunciation of the name, but the spelling yzbl recalls the early Phoenician seal. We may assume that Jezebel was not the only wife of Ahab, but there can be no doubt that she was the first lady and the Queen of Israel. There are hints in the biblical text that she took an active part in the government and had her own court officials (I Kings 19, 2)63. The kingdom of Tyre was under the reign of Ittobaal I at the start of its colonial expansion, as reported by Menander of Ephesos, who compiled a history of Phoenicia from native records, which he translated into Greek. His work is lost, but Josephus Flavius quotes it extensively in his JewishAntiquities and 61 E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 10), p. 64. In Hebrew and in Jewish Aramaic, the verb means “to grant, gratify”; cf. M. Sokoloff, ADictionaryofJewishPalestinianAramaic, 3rd ed., Ramat Gan 2017, p. 378b: “to prompt, donate”. 62 AHw, p. 1500-1501; CAD 21, Z, Chicago 1961, p. 1-4. 63 J. Katzenstein, TheHistoryofTyre, Jerusalem 1973, p. 146-147. The real historical background is missing in P. Garuti, Le dossier Jézabel. L’imaginaire de la “femme royale” entre Biblehébraïque,cultureshelléniséesetmonderomain (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 90), Leuven 2017.

RELATIONS WITH PHOENICIA

79

in his work AgainstApion64. Menander was living in the 3rd/2nd century B.C. and the title of his lost work may have been “Actions which took place under each of the kings among both the Greeks and the barbarians”. Josephus quotes passages from the Tyrian history, that interested him because of the biblical references to Tyre and Sidon, but he has most likely recopied them from the History of Phoenicia compiled ca. 70-60 B.C. by Alexander Polyhistor, who had copied large passages from his predecessors’ writings. According to Josephus quoting Menander of Ephesos, Ittobaal I had founded Botrys and Auza in Libya65. Botrys is probably Batrun in Lebanon and Auza can be located in Libya at Marsa al-Awǧia, on the southern edge of the Greater Syrtis. This establishment was preparing the foundation of Carthage, what happened towards the end of the 9th century B.C., and it was lying half-way between the Levant and the Atlantic shore of the Iberian Peninsula. A voyage out and in was thus possible in the same season. Josephus mentions Ittobaal I also in his list of Tyrian kings, borrowed from Menander and inserted in AgainstApion I, 124. Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel implies close relations between the Royal Court of Samaria and the Phoenician kingdom to mutual advantages, also economic and commercial. Concrete proofs are provided by the excavations at Khirbet Rās ez-Zētun (Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit in Hebrew), about 1/1.5 km north of the actual village of Kābūl, about 15 km south-east of Akko/Acre. The site was excavated from 1982 to 1992 by Zvi Gal and Yardenna Alexandre66, and it was rightly identified as the centre of the “Land of Kābūl”, that Solomon would have sold to Hiram, king of Tyre, according to the account of I Kings 9, 10-14. The main structure of the site is a fortress consisting of a central building of Phoenician-like ashlars masonry, characterized by header and stretcher construction. The building was surrounded by a massive wall and its cellars were predominantly used for storage of various agricultural products, mostly cereals, olive-oil, and wine. An impressive quantity of 506 storage jars have been found at the site, some containing carbonized wheat, others sealed with clay stoppers. Alongside the storage jars, a rich assemblage of Phoenician and Cypriot vessels was found, including Black-on-Red wares, Cypriot White Painted, Phoenician Bichrome and Plain wares, and Red-slipped pottery. Comparing these ceramics with the pottery of other sites in North Israel, the excavators have dated the occupation of the building to the 10th-9th centuries B.C. and have concluded 64 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities VIII, 5, 3; 13, 2, §144-146, 324; IX, 14, 2; Against Apion I, 116, 127. 65 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities VIII, 13, 2, §324. 66 Z. Gal and Y. Alexandre, Horvat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 8), Jerusalem 2000. See also Z. Gal and R. Frankel, An OliveOilPressComplexatHurvatRoshZayitinLowerGalilee, in ZDPV 109 (1993), p. 128140.

80

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

that this was a Phoenician stronghold, built after king Hiram of Tyre had assumed control over this region, named by him “the Land of Kābūl”. Now, the dating of the concerned pottery is controversial. According to the opinion generally held in the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv, the strata of the archaeological sites in North Israel, like Megiddo VA-IVB, Joqneam XVXIV, Hazor X-IX, with comparable typical pottery should be dated to the late 10th century and the first half of the 9th century67, thus also to the time of kings Omri and Ahab, not to the reign of Solomon in the mid-10th century B.C., about 940-925 B.C. This is confirmed indirectly by Yardenna Alexandre, who dealt with the pottery of the site, especially with the characteristic ovoid and short-lived type of the so-called “Hippo” storage jars68. Since she could not date the destruction of the Storage Fort of Rās ez-Zētun to the 10th century B.C. because of the Black-on-Red pottery, which hardly appears in Phoenicia and in Cyprus before 875/850 B.C.69, she assumed that the jars from the site would represent the latest appearance of the “Hippo” jars, admitting a difference of some 30 years. This reasoning does not convince. In fact, the simultaneous presence of Red-on-Black wares, which do not occur in Phoenicia before 875 B.C., indicates that the foundation of the Storage Fort should be dated some fifty years after Solomon’s death, like the strata of all the other sites with “Hippo” jars70. Moreover, no “Hippo” jars have been found so far either at archaeological sites in Phoenicia proper or in the coastal plain of Akko, viz. at Akko, Tell Abu Hawam, or Tell Keisan. Instead, they are present at North-Israelite sites. This suggests that the Storage Fort in question had been built by Omri or Ahab at the border of their kingdom. It would have served as a centre for the exportation of agricultural products to Phoenicia, partly dependent on imports of foodstuffs. While Phoenicia thus offered to Israel an outlet for agricultural products, it provided Israel with various goods transiting through the Storage Fortress of Kābūl. Its destruction should be attributed to the Aramaean incursions under Hazael of Damascus, after 840 B.C. Since Rās ez-Zētun was reoccupied in the 8th century B.C. and then had a large complex of olive-oil presses, which appear to 67 See, in particular, O. Zimhoni, TheIronAgePotteryfromTelJezreel—AnInterimReport, in TelAviv 19 (1992), p. 57-70, especially p. 69; ead., CluesfromtheEnclosure-Fills:Pre-Omride SettlementatTelJezreel, in TelAviv 24 (1997), p. 83-109, especially p. 89-93. 68 Y. Alexandre, The‘Hippo’JarandOtherStorageJarsatHurvatRoshZayit, in TelAviv 22 (1995), p. 77-88. 69 At Phoenician and Cypriot sites, where biblical considerations do not influence the judgment of archaeologists, the appearance of the Red-on-Black pottery is dated towards the end of CyproGeometric II, i.e. ca.875/850 B.C. A state-of-the-art survey, being already twenty-five years old, is provided by F. de Cree, The Black-on-Red or Cypro-Phoenician Ware, in E. Lipiński (ed.), PhoeniciaandtheBible(Studia Phoenicia XI; OLA 44), Leuven 1991, p. 95-102. 70 This provides a strong argument in favour of the low chronology of Israelite strata of the 10th-9th centuries B.C.

RELATIONS WITH PHOENICIA

81

be technically Phoenician, this region may have been acquired by Tyre at that time, in circumstances which are unknown. The biblical text of I Kings 9, 12-13 contains a disparaging judgment about the area of Kābūl71, apparently expressed by a popular etymology of kābūl,attributed to Hiram. The latter is supposed to have manifested his displeasure by saying ’ereṣkābūl,“a land like a lump”, namely a shapeless mass of things thrown together. The noun būl,“lump”, belonged to the popular language and appeared later in Mishnaic Hebrew. The alleged displeasure of Hiram may contain an allusion to the ruined aspect of the area after its destruction in the second half of the 9th century B.C. and thus refers to a period of the 8th century B.C., when the area passed under Phoenician rule. Of course, “like a lump” cannot be a real etymology of the place name. The Septuagint translates it by ὅριον, “boundary”, identifying kābūl with gǝbūl, which not only means “boundary” but also “hill country”. The quite possible pronunciation of glike an unvoiced kin Canaanite dialects is amply echoed in Egyptian spellings of Canaanite names72, even as late as the Hellenistic period, when Migdolis spelt Mktlin Demotic script and later Miktolin Coptic. It appears from the preceding discussion that archaeological evidence, seen in the light of the lower chronology of Israelite sites, does not support the existence of a Storage Fort of Kābūl at the time of Solomon and thus undermines the Solomonic date of the episode in I Kings 9, 10-14. Solomon did not transfer parts of the Akko plain to Hiram of Tyre at the beginning of his reign73, because he never ruled over the coastal plain. The short account of I Kings 9, 10-14 may go back to the 8th century B.C., when that region was lying in ruins. As for the actual village of Kābūl,it seems to have been settled from the 4th century B.C. on and Josh. 19, 27 may refer to this place, since the writer is inclined to date the redaction of Josh. 19, 24-31 to the late Persian period. The opinion expressed by Zvi Gal that archaeological evidence from Rās ez-Zētun “may reflect the historical episode in the relations between Israel and Phoenicia described in I Kings 9, 11-13”74 is an offshoot of the “Myth of Solomon”. In such a way G. J. Wightman has characterized the conception of “Solomonic archaeology”75 developed over the last century, mainly from the time of the Megiddo excavations, initiated in 1925. Instead, the erection of the Storage Fort at the time of Omri or Ahab appears as a sign of economic and 71

Y. Alexandre, The‘Hippo’Jar(n. 68), p. 77-88. For example, the name of Byblos (Gbl)is written k-p-n,that of Geba (Gb‘),k-b-‘,that of Migdol (Mgdl),m-k-t-r,that of Gath (Gt),k-n-ṯ. 73 N. Na’aman, BordersandDistrictsinBiblicalHistoriography, Jerusalem 1956, p. 60-62. 74 Z. Gal, TheDiffusionofPhoenicianCulturalInfluenceinLightoftheExcavationsatHurvat RoshZayit, in TelAviv 22 (1995), p. 89-93 (see p. 89). Cf. also Z. Gal, RegionalSurveyProjects: Revealing the Settlement Map of Ancient Israel, in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Jerusalem 1993, p. 453-458, in particular p. 457. 75 G.J. Wightman, TheMythofSolomon, in BASOR277-278 (1990), p. 5-22. 72

82

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

commercial relations between Omri’s kingdom and Phoenicia. The relationship implied by the discoveries at Rās ez-Zētun is paralleled by diplomatic contacts, consolidated by the marriage of Ahab with Jezebel (I Kings 16, 31). The royal epithalamium of Ps. 45 could also be placed in the frame of the relations between the kingdoms of Israel and of Tyre, but nothing proves that it refers to the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel. A later occasion, perhaps at the time of Jeroboam II in the 8th century B.C., may also be taken into account, especially because of the mention of Ophir. Israel and Tyre were complementary countries from the economic point of view, Israel appearing as a continental, agricultural land, while Tyre was oriented towards seafaring and maritime trade. Considering that Byblos was Egypt’s traditional pied-à-terre in the Levant, an indirect evidence of relations between the kingdom of Israel and Byblos may be provided by a damaged alabaster vase, possibly a diplomatic gift, bearing the cartouches of Osorkon II and an indication of its capacity — 81 hin or about 40 liters76. This large presentation-vessel was found in the royal palace at Samaria. Dates proposed nowadays for Osorkon II favour its dating to the reign of Ahab. Fragments of other alabaster vases have been found at Samaria as well, but without any inscription. Phoenician was also, of course, the source of the carved ivory in the Phoenician style recovered from Samaria. Since fitter’s marks indicate that ivory was used to decorate luxurious furniture, one can assume that carved ivory was not only imported from Phoenicia, but that skilled Phoenician artisans were at work also in Samaria, in Ahab’s “ivory house” referred to below. THE REIGN OF AHAB The reign of Ahab, Omri’s son and successor, occupies a large space in the Books of Kings because of the cycle of Prophet Elijah, that belongs to that period (I Kings 16, 29 - 22, 40). However, the summary of the events of his reign in I Kings 16, 29-32 shows how negative was the attitude of the Deuteronomistic historians towards this very important king of Israel. Facts are misshaped and historical events known from old sources are misrepresented. The text reads: “Ahab, son of Omri, … did more that was wrong in the eyes of Yahweh than all his predecessors. As if it were not enough for him to follow the sinful ways of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, he contracted a marriage with Jezebel, daughter of Etbaal, king of the Sidonians, and went and worshipped Baal; he prostrated himself before him and erected an altar to him in the temple of Baal which he built in Samaria.” 76 P. Montet, LanécropoleroyaledeTanis I, Paris 1947, p. 39; I.E.S. Edwards, Egypt.From theTwenty-SecondtotheTwenty-FourthDynasty, in CAH, 2nd ed., vol. III/1, Cambridge 1982, p. 534-581 (see p. 558); K.A. Kitchen, TheThirdIntermediatePeriodinEgypt(1100-650B.C.), 3rd ed., Warminster 1995, p. 324-325, n. 450.

THE REIGN OF AHAB

83

Ahab reigned over Israel in Samaria, the capital built by Omri, from ca. 871 to 851 B.C., thus twenty-two years according to I Kings 16, 29, but twenty-one according to I Kings 22, 41 and 50, what seems to be the correct computation. However, his reign may have started one year before the death of Omri. The first and the last years of each king are counted as full regnal years in the biblical system of computation. Other chronologies can be found in modern publications that base their estimations on the account of I Kings 22, 29-38, where Ahab is said to have been killed at Ramoth Gilead in a battle against Aramaeans. This battle was fought ten years after the death of Ahab who was one of the most important allies of the Aramaeans in the wars conducted against the Assyrian armies of Shalmaneser III. The chapter of I Kings 22, 1-38 refers to Ahab77 a story that originally concerned his son Jehoram and his grandson Ahaziah, king of Judah for one year. The title “king of Judah” of the original account was then referring to Ahaziah, but it has been suppressed in several places of the textusreceptus, as shown by its presence in the Septuagint, in III Kings 22, 2.8.10.18.29.30. Instead, the name of Jehoshaphat has been added or has replaced ’ḥzyh in a few cases. A less likely hypothesis suppresses the title “king of Judah” in I Kings 22 and assumes that Jehoshaphat is either the father of Jehu or the son of Paruaḥ, prefect of one of the twelve districts of the kingdom (I Kings 4, 17). In fact, since the king of Israel addresses “his ministers” (‘bdyw, v. 3), a distinguished prefect might be the man in question, as suggested by the Targum of Jonathan to I Kings 22, 2.10.29, where “king of Judah” is translated by mlkšbṭ’d-byt Yhwdh, “tribal king of the House of Judah”78. The second sentence of the passage quoted above, in I Kings 16, 31b-32, records the building of an altar to Baal in Samaria for the purpose of allowing Jezebel and her retainers to continue the practice of their native religion on Israelite soil. This was no more than Solomon’s millo built for his Egyptian wife, daughter of a pharaoh79, probably Shoshenq I80. This altar was allegedly erected “in the House of Baal, which he (Ahab) built in Samaria” (I Kings 16, 32b). However, this second use of Baal does not refer to the Phoenician deity, but to the God of Israel, whom the Deuteronomistic historians call “Baal”, because they only accepted Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem. As a matter of fact, a Hebrew epigraph from Kuntillet ‘Aǧrud mentions “Yahweh of Samaria”, Yhwh.Šmrn81. 77 The name of Ahab appears only in I Kings 22, 20 and the title “king of Judah” only in the Hebrew text of I Kings 22, 2.10.29, more often in the Septuagint; see here below, p. 83. 78 A. Sperber, TheBibleinAramaic II, Leiden 1959, p. 288 and 290. 79 The question was examined recently by D. Shapira, Was Solomon’s Palace in Jerusalem ModelledonEgyptianPalaces?, in BiOr 73 (2016), col. 644-676, in particular col. 671-673. Her palace is called millo, what seems to be a transcription of Egyptian mꜢrw, name of a pleasant site where a deity was worshipped: R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 11), p. 320. 80 See here above, p. 60. 81 Z. Meshel (ed.), Kuntillet‘Ajrud(HorvatTeman).An8thCenturyBCEReligiousSiteonthe Judah-SinaiBorder, Jerusalem 2012, Pithos-inscription 3.1, line 2.

84

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

An additional reason justifying the appellation “Baal” is given in the next sentence: Ahab “also made a sacred grove (’ăšērāh). Indeed he did more to provoke the anger of Yahweh, the God of Israel, than all the kings of Israel before him” (I Kings 16, 33). The last sentence was probably added to stress the alleged Ahab’s apostasy from the God of Israel, while in reality he built a holy place for Yahweh in Samaria, what the priests in Jerusalem could not admit, and he gave Yahwistic names to his children: Ahaziah, Jehoram, Athaliah. Also his grandson Ahaziah bore a Yahwistic name, as well as his relative Jehoshaphat, father of Jehu82. These personal names are not attested in Israel before the time of Ahab, but they have presumably been given under the reign of Omri. The end of the cycle of Ahab stories in the Books of Kings nevertheless contains a sentence which alludes to the work accomplished by Ahab (I Kings 22, 39): “The other acts and events of Ahab’s reign, the ivory house and all the cities he built are recorded in the Annals of the kings of Israel”. Since we do not have these Annals, only archaeological findings and foreign sources may provide some information on the work accomplished by Ahab during his reign. Little survives from architectural fragments of Omri’s and Ahab’s period, but Ahab’s “ivory house” in Samaria, mentioned in I Kings 22, 29, may be one of the sources of ivory carvings recovered from the debris of the royal palace destroyed in Samaria by the Assyrians in 722 or 720 B.C. and found also at Kalḫu (Nimrud) and Khorsabad in a 8th-century context. There can be no doubt that these fragments come from decorated furniture. Fragmentary ivory carvings uncovered at Samaria by archaeologists may confirm this hypothesis. One can assume therefore that the palace was decorated very richly with scenes of winged goddesses, winged sphinxes, the child Horus seated on a lotus, palmetto and lotus patterns, animals. Fitters’ marks in the form of alphabetic characters on the back of some pieces, also on undecorated fragments, are written in a cursive style, comparable to the script of the fragmentary ivory plaque discovered in 1928 at Arslan Tash. It mentions Hazael, king of Damascus in the second half of the ninth century B.C., what shows that ivory carving for decorative purposes was already known in the ninth century B.C. It could certainly be found in a palace where a queen of Tyrian origin was living, namely Jezebel. As proposed by E.L. Sukenik, the shape of the letters engraved on the back of several Samaria ivories thus suggests a date in the reign of Ahab, in the second quarter of the 9th century B.C.83 Later walls have provided a number of reused capitals or 82

Cf. here above, p. 75. J.W. and Grace M. Crawfoot (eds.), EarlyIvoriesfromSamaria (Samaria-Sebaste II), London 1938, p. 6 ff. Doubts expressed by I. Winter are not substantiated: I. Winter, IsthereaSouth SyrianStyleofIvoryCarvingintheEarlyFirstMillenniumB.C.?, inIraq 43 (1981), p. 101-130 (see p. 123-127). Instead, the script of the considerable number of ostraca found at the site suggests the period of Joash and of Jeroboam II, in the first quarter of the 8th century B.C. Cf. A. Lemaire, InscriptionshébraïquesI (n. 15),p. 23-81, and here below, p. 107-108. 83

THE REIGN OF AHAB

85

Ivory carvings from Samaria (photo: Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem)84

pilasters in the Proto-Aeolic style. Instead, archaeologists have found no evidence either of the alleged Jezebel’s shrine or of the Yahwistic holy place which presumably contained “the calf of Samaria” (Hos. 8, 5-6), possibly supporting the symbol of the divine presence. Among other cities developed or built by Ahab (I Kings 22, 39), one can certainly mention those containing the large-scale public buildings which the excavators of Megiddo have called “Solomon’s stables”. The largest group of such buildings was discovered at Megiddo in Stratum IVA, dated by the excavators to the time of Solomon (I Kings 9, 19), but the opinion generally held today dates these Megiddo buildings to the reign of Ahab, in the second quarter of the 9th century B.C. The excavated Megiddo stables would have accommodated 450 horses85. Similar pillared constructions have been discovered at Hazor. To the important and extensive public buildings one should add the undertaking of water shafts, which provide direct access to the spring from the interior of the walled town. At Megiddo, during the reign of Baasha or of Omri (Stratum VA-IVB) a passage constructed of ashlars allowed access to the slope of the mound, where a path led down to the outside spring. Later, in the reign of Ahab (Stratum IVA), a vertical shaft 35 metres deep, with spiral stairs, sunk from the surface of the mound and led to a horizontal gallery 63 metres long which provided access to the spring86. Similar water supply systems were uncovered at Hazor, Joqneam, Gibeon, and elsewhere. Biblical Jezreel, the name of which was preserved by the village of Zer‘īn87, situated 14 km from Megiddo, is another military centre built by Omri or Ahab. 84

ANEP, n° 129. A. Mazar, ArchaeologyoftheLandoftheBible,10,000-586B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 476-478. 86 A. Mazar, ibid., p. 478-480. 87 F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine II (n. 37), p. 364-365. The biblical mentions of Jezreel were examined before the excavations by H.G.M. Williamson, Jezreel in the Biblical Texts, in TelAviv 18 (1991), p. 72-92. For the excavations see D. Ussishkin and J. Woodhead, ExcavationsatTelJezreel, in TelAviv 19 (1992), p. 3-56; Levant 26 (1994), p. 1-48; TelAviv 24 (1997), p . 6-72. 85

86

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

The tunnel from the shaft to the spring at Megiddo (photo: MegiddoWaterSystem, fig. 48)

It is dated now by archaeological evidence to the mid-9th century B.C. This dating is supported by the synchronism between the pottery of the destruction level at Jezreel and Stratum VA-IVB at Megiddo88. Its enclosure was built on a large scale and covered an area of ca. 4.5 ha. It was surrounded by a deep rock-cut moat. A gatehouse was uncovered in the southern side of the rampart, 88

O. Zimhoni, TheIronAgePotteryfromTelJezreel—AnInterimReport,inTelAviv 19 (1992), p. 57-70; ead., CluesfromtheEnclosureFills:Pre-OmrideSettlementatTelJezreel,in Tel Aviv 24 (1997), p. 83-109. This chronology was challenged by A. Ben-Tor, Hazor and the ChronologyofNorthernIsrael,inBASOR 317 (2000), p. 9-15 (see p. 12-13), but his arguments have been refuted by D. Ussishkin, The CredibilityoftheTelJezreelExcavations.ARejoinder toAmnonBen-Tor,in TelAviv 27 (2000), p. 248-256.

ANTI-ASSYRIAN ALLIANCE

87

but no other monumental buildings were discovered. Contrary to the picture suggested by II Kings 9, Jezreel was no royal residence, but a military base, destroyed probably by Hazael, king of Damascus, in the second half of the 9th century B.C.89, some years after Israel’s defeat at Ramoth Gilead, what happened probably in 841 B.C. The legends of I Kings 17-18 and 20, as well as those of II Kings 9-10, could be assigned to the 8th century B.C., when the memory of early Omrides was still vivid, while the ruins of Jezreel, settled by a few families, were suggesting stories referring to an imaginary past. ANTI-ASSYRIAN ALLIANCE Foreign sources mainly concern international relations at the time of Ahab’s reign, especially the great anti-Assyrian alliance, the main members of which were Urḫilina, king of Hamat, Hadadezer, king of Damascus, and Ahab, king of Israel. They are mentioned, together with eight other kings or tribal chiefs, in the annals of Shalmaneser III recording the battle of Qarqar on the Orontes, north of Hamat, in 853 B.C.90 Though Shalmaneser III boasted a smashing victory, it appears that he was checkmated and must have suffered heavy losses. His troops pulled back and he did not resume his campaigns in Syria until 849 B.C., when he affronted Urḫilina and Hadadezer, with whom he also clashed inconclusively in 848 and 845 B.C. The Assyrian Annals of 853 B.C. are particularly interesting from the Israelite point of view. They mention Ahab, king of Israel, and credit him with 2,000 chariots and 10,000 infantry, although he is listed in the third position, after Hadadezer with 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, and 10,000 infantry, and Urḫilina with 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, and 10,000 infantry. In the opinion of some authors, the figure of 2,000 for Ahab’s chariots appears disproportionally large91, but Hazael’s inscription from Tel Dan, written a few years later, also speaks of thousands of Israelite chariots and cavalry (lines 6’-7’), while archaeological excavations, especially at Megiddo, show how large were the royal stables of the Kingdom of Israel in the 9th century B.C.92 The notice of I Kings 9, 19, listing “the towns of chariots and horses” also dates from the reign of Omri or Ahab. The figures given by Assyrian scribes may nevertheless be exaggerated 89 N. Na’aman, HistoricalandLiteraryNotesontheExcavationonTelJezreel, in TelAviv 24 (1997), p. 122-128, especially p. 125-127; E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans.TheirAncientHistory, Culture,Religion (OLA 100), Leuven 2000, p. 381-383. 90 RIMA III, text A.0.102.2, p. 23, col. II, lines 89-95; cf. E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 89), p. 264-265. 91 So T.C. Mitchell, IsraelandJudahuntiltheRevoltofJehu(931-841B.C.), in CAH, 2nd ed., vol. III/1, Cambridge 1982, p. 442-487 (see p. 479). 92 A. Mazar, Archaeology (n. 85), p. 476-478.

88

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

and their playing with the figures is best shown by the number of enemies allegedly killed in the battle of Qarqar. The annals of 853 estimate their number at 14,000, but their following “editions” give for the same battle the figures of 25,000, then of 29,000, but they go down to 20,500 on the Black Obelisk dated in 828 B.C. or somewhat later93. At any rate, considering the figures given in the Annals, Ahab seems to have been the most powerful king of this SouthSyrian confederacy. In fact, while Hadadezer of Damascus was able to send only 1,200 chariots, Ahab furnished 2,000 chariots, though the campaign was conducted considerably far from Israel’s borders. It is highly surprising, therefore, that Ahab should be mentioned only in the “first edition” of the Annals of Shalmaneser III, which date back to 853 B.C. Only extracts of the “second edition” are known; they are engraved on the bronze gates of Balawat. We do not know whether the full text of that edition mentioned the king of Israel. However, it is a fact that the “third edition”, which dates back to 842, does not mention Ahab of Israel among the enemies of Shalmaneser III. The text lists only “Hadadezer of Damascus, Urḫilina of Hamat, and twelve kings from the seacoast”. A similar formula is found also in the later editions of the Annals. The number “twelve” is stereotypical and does not justify any speculation. More significant is the characterization of these enemies of Assyria as “kings from the seacoast”. Ahab of Israel could hardly have been considered as a “king from the seacoast”. His name, therefore, was simply omitted. This suppression of Ahab’s name from the “third edition” of the Annals might have a concrete, political reason, since, at Qarqar, he was the most powerful opponent of Shalmaneser III. Of course, this is not a statement of fact, but a work hypothesis. What could be that reason? In 842 B.C., when this new edition of the Annals was written, the king of Israel was no longer an enemy of Shalmaneser III. The throne of Israel was then occupied by Jehoram, son of Ahab (851-841 B.C.), while Hazael, who had murdered Hadadezer, reigned in Damascus. The violent death of Hadadezer and the seizure of the throne by Hazael seem to have broken up the alliance between Damascus, Hamat, and Israel94, although Israel’s relations with Damascus have worsened a few years earlier, still under the reign of Hadadezer95. These events already concern the reign of Jehoram, son of Ahab. Ahab died probably in 851 B.C.

93

Quantifications of troops of Hadadezer and his allies killed at Qarqar according to the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III are presented and discussed by S. Hafƥórsson, APassingPower (Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 54), Stockholm 2006, p. 127-129. 94 The same opinion is expressed by A. Malamat, The Aramaeans, in D.J. Wiseman (ed.), PeoplesofOldTestamentTimes, Oxford 1973, p. 134-155 (see p. 144-145). 95 Cf. here below, p. 91-92 and 97.

THE REIGN OF AHAZIAH

89

RELATIONS WITH JUDAH Ahab’s foreign policy concerned also the small Davidic State of Jerusalem and Judah. For the first time, peace was made between the two States (I Kings 22, 45) and it was sealed by the marriage of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, with Ahab’s daughter Athaliah96. She is sometimes called “Omri’s daughter” (II Kings 8, 26; II Chron. 22, 2), probably in the same sense as Jehu appears in Assyrian texts as “son of Omri”, who was very likely Jehu’s great-grandfather, but was known also as the founder of the dynasty. The confusion created by the erroneous distinction of two kings Jehoram/Joram, one being a son of Ahab, and the other, a son of Jehoshaphat97, led some authors to the hypothesis that Athaliah married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. Although this hypothesis is supported by II Chron. 22, 10, it can no longer be accepted, since the Tel Dan inscription shows that Jehoram, father of Ahaziah, king of the House of David, was no son of Jehoshaphat, but a king of Israel, son of Ahab98. Jehoshaphat had no son named Jehoram in spite of II Chron. 21, 1b.4. According to the Chronicler, peace was made between Israel and Judah “when Jehoshaphat had become very wealthy and famous” (II Chron. 18,1). It is unlikely that this happened in the early years of his reign, the more so since II Chron. 17, 1-2 even records that Jehoshaphat was determined to resist Israel by force and stationed garrisons in the cities of Ephraim which his father Asa had captured (II Chron. 15, 8). The mention of Ahab and of Jehoshaphat “king of Judah” in I Kings 22 results from redactional changes in a story dealing originally with Jehoram, king of Israel, and his son Ahaziah, “king of Judah”, or with Jehoshaphat, either Jehu’s father, or a prefect of a district in the kingdom of Israel99. No common enterprise of Israel and Judah is recorded under the reign of Omri. THE REIGN OF AHAZIAH Ahab died peacefully in Samaria, probably in 851 B.C., and his son by Jezebel, Ahaziah, became king, but he ruled for only two years (I Kings 22, 52). In biblical computation, this figure includes his first and his last regnal years, what means that his reign could have lasted only for a few months. According 96 II Chron 18, 1. This understanding of the text appears already in the SederOlamRabbah 17 (ed. B. Ratner), Wilna 1897, p. 70, and in the Tosefta, Sota XII, 3 (ed. M.S. Zuckermandel), new ed., Jerusalem 1970, p. 317: “Asa made a marriage-math between a daughter of Omri and his son Jehoshaphat”; cf. H.J. Katzenstein, TheHistoryofTyre (n. 56), p. 147, n. 93. 97 Cf. here below, p. 92-97. 98 Cf. here below, p. 94. 99 See here above, p. 66 and 76.

90

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

to II Kings 1, 2, “he fell through a latticed window in his roof-chamber in Samaria, injured himself” and died shortly. A passage of I Kings 22, 49-50 reports nevertheless that he was brought into a trading project by Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. The purpose was to build “ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold”, but the ships were wrecked at Ezion-Geber, on the Gulf of ‘Aqaba. The episodes of I Kings 22, 41-51 appear in the CodexVaticanus of the Septuagint at another place, after III Kings 16, 28, and the notice on the failed expedition to Ophir is reported in II Chron. 20, 35-37 in a different way, without mentioning either Ophir or the gold, but quoting a prophetic warning. The author of the notice in I Kings 22, 49-50 paid apparently no attention to Ahaziah’s health condition, and he did not know that the area around Ezion-Geber was under Edomite control in the 9th century B.C., contrary to I Kings 22, 48, and that Ophir had to be reached by the Mediterranean, as shown by the ostracon found near the anchorage of Tell Qasile, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. It reads “30 shekels of gold from Ophir”100. The notice of I Kings 22, 49-50 probably dates from the late Persian period and has no historical value. The accident of Ahaziah and his succession seem to have been embedded in some internal unrest, as suggested by the presence of some princes of Israel in Jerusalem, apparently refugees, and their execution by Jehoram (II Chron. 21, 4), probably in 845 B.C. These seemingly dynastic troubles prompted Mesha’s rebellion (II Kings 1, 1; 3, 5) and border attacks by Hadadezer, king of Damascus101. Besides, the story of Ahaziah, told in II Kings 1, 1-17, ends with a strange complex sentence involving a chronological contradiction: Ahaziah “died according to the word of Yahweh, which Elijah spoke, and Jehoram became king in his stead in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for he had no son” (II Kings. 1, 17). II Kings 3, 1 specifies instead that Jehoram’s father was Ahab and dates the accession to year 18 of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Moreover, II Kings 3, 2 adds a reference to Jehoram’s mother, certainly Jezebel: “He did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh, only not like his father and mother”. The words “in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah” (II Kings 1, 17b) are an obvious addition which breaks the logical sequence between “in his stead” and “for he had no son”. The reason why such a chronological discrepancy was introduced in the text is a matter for speculation. In any case, what is missing in these texts is a prophetic legitimation of Jehoram’s accession, since it was not evident that a king had to be succeeded by a determined 100 E. Lipiński, ItinerariaPhoenicia (Studia Phoenicia XVIII; OLA 127), Leuven 2004, p. 196197, with further bibliography. 101 II Sam. 8, 3-12; 10, 15-19a; I Chron. 19, 16-19a, misdated and misshaped in the textus receptus. Cf. here below, p. 91-92.

THE REIGN OF JEHORAM

91

own brother. One gets the impression that II Kings 1, 17b replaces a sentence of the Annals recording a situation that resulted from Ahaziah’s death. It was followed by v. 18, transferred in the Septuagint after v. 17a to obtain customary order. The assumed sentence of the source might have mentioned the lack of an agreement concerning the succession, “for he had no son”. This is suggested by far reaching consequences of a disagreement, which seem to appear later102. The original v. 17b might have used the same names and the same words as the textusreceptus. One can imagine, for instance, the following sentence: “and Jehoram will reign after him or Jehoshaphat, by two years younger than (qṭnmn) Jehoram, will be king, because he (Ahaziah) had no son”. This is sheer speculation and, at any rate, this Jehoshaphat should be certainly distinguished from the king of Judah. The writer would nevertheless abstain from identifying him with the father of Jehu or with the Jehoshaphat appearing in I Kings 4, 17103. THE REIGN OF JEHORAM A common enterprise of Israel and Judah dated from the time of Jehoram and of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, is recorded in II Kings 3, which deals with the partly unsuccessful campaign against Moab, initiated by Jehoram who became king of Israel in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat (II Kings 3, 1). With Judah’s cooperation, Jehoram marched into Moab around the southern end of the Dead Sea and apparently had some military success (II Kings 3, 24), but he failed to seize Mesha’s capital Qīr-ḥadāšat, “New Town” (II Kings 3, 25.27), and was unable to bring the Moabites to terms. Unsuccessful was also his later campaign against Edom, briefly mentioned in II Kings 8, 20-22. Contrary to the initial statement of this passage, it does not seem that Edom was depending from Judah in earlier times, before Jehoram’s accession to the throne in Jerusalem. Jehoram was perhaps more successful in his campaigns against Hadadezer, king of Damascus. An allusion to some border fights is found in the broken initial lines of Hazael’s inscription from Tel Dan104. The mention of Abil in its line 2’, possibly Abel Beth-Maakah at the southern entrance into the Lebanese Bēqa‘ or ancient Ṣoba, suggests a possible relation to the story of II Sam. 8, 3-12, where the names of Hadadezer, Joram, and Ṣoba appear in the actual text. However, ’Abīl is an old toponym of the whole region. It occurs already in the 102 103 104

See here below, p. 96-97. Cf. here above, p. 75-76. E. Lipiński, StudiesIV (n. 28), p. 6-7; id., Toponymes (n. 10), p. 143.

92

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

Egyptian Execration Texts, where it is spelled ’I-b-ἰb-w-Ꜣ-m105, and it is attested four times as ’I-w-b-ἰ-r in the topographical list of Tuthmosis III106. Hadadezer, king of Damascus107, intervenes also in II Sam. 10, 15-19a and in I Chron. 19, 16-19a. The biblical text connects these passages with David’s military actions, but the name of Hadadezer indicates that the original stories dealt with events at the time of Jehoram, king of Israel. Their reconstitution can be only hypothetical. The writer has discussed these texts recently108 and it is not necessary to repeat here his comments and suggestions. Supposing that these passages referred originally to Jehoram, the king of Israel would have been successful in campaigns conducted in the southern Bēqa‘ and in the border area of southern Syria. However, it is not evident that these successes have granted some stability to the northern frontiers of Israel, since it appears a few years later that Israel has lost Ramoth Gilead (I Kings 22, 3)109. The main problem concerning Jehoram is the biblical duplication of his person. Despite this situation, there seems to be no doubt that Jehoram, king of Israel, is the same person as Jehoram, king of Judah, as noticed already in 1975 by J. Strange, who reached this conclusion by analyzing the biblical texts110. This is confirmed by the Aramaic inscription found in 1993-1994 at Tel Dan (Tell al-Qāḍi), where one should read in lines 7’-9’: [qtlt.’yt.yhw]rm.br.[’ḥ’b.] mlk. yšr’l.wqtl[t.’ḥz]yhw.br[h.ml]k.byt.dwd, “[I killed Jeho]ram, son of [Ahab], king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iah, [his] son, [kin]g of the House of David”111. The reconstruction [.yhwrm.ml] with seven letters and two dots, proposed by the editors112 for the end of line 8’, is certainly too long. In the same space of line 7’, they restored four letters and one dot. A different restoration is proposed in lines 7’ and 8’ by E. Blum113, who reads Yrm instead of Yhwrm in both lines. However, the name of king Jehoram is never 105

E 47, cf. R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 11), p. 1302a. R. Hannig, Die Sprache der Pharaonen (n. 11), p. 1302a. Cf. List I, 15, 90, 92, 99, in J. Simons, HandbookfortheStudyofEgyptianTopographicalListsrelatingtoWesternAsia, Leiden 1937; Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 42), p. 147, n° 15; p. 150-151, n°s 90, 92, and 99. 107 References to Neo-Assyrian texts mentioning Hadadezer are given by D. Schwemer, AdduIdri1., in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 46b, with some bibliography. 108 E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 10), p. 143-147. 109 The site of Ramoth Gilead is Ramṯa, not Tell ar-Rumeiṯ; cf. E. Lipiński, OntheSkirts ofCanaan (n. 35), p. 276-278. See also I. Finkelstein, O. Lipschitz, and O. Sergi, Teller-Rumeith inNorthernJordan.SomeArchaeologicalandHistoricalObservations, in Semitica 55 (2013), p. 7-23. 110 J. Strange, Joram, KingofIsraelandJudah, in VetusTestamentum 25 (1975), p. 191201. 111 E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 89), p. 378-379; id., Studies IV (n. 28), p. 6-7. 112 A. Biran and J. Naveh, TheTelDanInscription.ANewFragment, in IEJ 45 (1995), p. 118. 113 E. Blum, TheRelationsbetweenAramandIsraelinthe9thand8thCenturiesBCE (p. 37-56), in O. Sergi, M. Oeming, and I.J. de Hulster (eds.), InSearchforAramandIsrael (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 20), Tübingen 2016, p. 37-56 (see p. 44, fig. 2). 106

THE REIGN OF JEHORAM

93

written Yrm114, while the use of the theophorous element yhw is clearly shown by the spelling of the name [’ḥz]yhw in line 8’ and by the preserved yhw on the fragment of the inscription from Tell Afis115, where the tiny trace of a following letter shows that one should read Yhw[rm]. Besides, Blum pays no attention to the larger letter mēm and restores in lines 7’ one letter less than in the identical space of line 8’. Now, at the end of line 8’, he restores five letters and two dots, despite the two larger letters mēm, while the restoration of line 7’ contains only four letters and one dot, although the available space is the same. The difference thus amounts to two letters. Such restorations obviously aim at avoiding a contradiction of biblical texts.

Inscription of Tell al-Qāḍi (photo: Israel Museum)

114 115

This spelling of the personal name occurs only once in I Chron. 26, 25. B. Sass, AramandIsrael (n. 22), p. 209, fig. 14.

94

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

1) “[… Not ob]serving the tr[eaties with the king of Aram] and having concluded [treaties] 2) [with the enemies of] my father, he went up [against him, when he] was fighting at A⌜b⌝[il], 3) but my father laid down: he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s]4) rael had entered afore into the land of my father, [but] Hadad made me king, 5) myself, and Hadad went in front of me, [and] I removed whomsoever was boycotting the l[abour]s 6) of my reign, and I killed [might]y kin[gs] who had harnessed thou[sands of cha-] 7) riots and thousands of horsemen. [Having killed Jeho]ram, son of [Ahab], 8) king of Israel, and having killed [Ahaz]iah, [his]son, 9) [ki]ng of the House of David, I led [siege to their strongholds and turned] 10) their land into [desolation. Having erected this stele and] 11) another one, and [lifted up my hands] to Had[ad, Hadad said to me:] 12) Go against Is[rael … And I led] 13) siege to […].” Hypothetical reconstruction of Hazael’s inscription from Tell al-Qāḍi (n. 28)

The death of both kings Jehoram and Ahaziah in the battle of Ramoth Gilead in 842 or rather in early 841 B.C. was reported in sources used by the Deuteronomistic historians of the Books of Kings, but their sources have been adapted to their presentation of the events. We find an account of Jehoram’s death at the battle of Ramoth Gilead in I Kings 22, 3-37. The final redactors of the Books of Kings, who were active

THE REIGN OF JEHORAM

95

three hundred years after the events, have connected this account with king Ahab. But according to the Annals of the kings of Israel, “Ahab rested with his forefathers” (I Kings 22, 40), an expression which could hardly refer to a violent death on the battlefield116. In fact, the name of Ahab appears only in I Kings 22, 20, where it has been added to the title “King of Israel”, which is still attested in the corresponding place of the Chronicles and of the Septuagint. This title is used throughout the account of I Kings 22, 3-37. Also the name of Jehoshaphat is most likely secondary in I Kings 22, whose original text spoke of “the King of Israel” and of “the King of Judah”, without repeatedly specifying their name. This appears better from a comparison of the Hebrew text of I Kings 22 with II Chronicles 18 and with the Greek version, where the expression “King of Judah” is regularly used (III Kings 22, 2.8.10.18.29.30). The primitive account referred to Ahaziah, king of Judah, and to Jehoram, king of Israel, whose death was reported in verses 34-37: “A man drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel where the breastplate joins the plates of the armour. So he said to his driver: ‘Wheel round and take me out of the line; I am wounded’. When the day’s fighting reached its height, the king was facing the Aramaeans propped up in his chariot, and the blood from his wound flowed down upon the floor of the chariot; and on the evening he died. At sunset the herald went through the ranks, crying: ‘Every man to his city! Every man to his country! The king is dead!’ And they entered Samaria and buried the king in Samaria”.

Reliable biblical information on the death of king Ahaziah at Ramoth Gilead is provided by the short notice based on the Annals of the kings of Judah, which we find in II Kings 8, 25 and 28: “The twelfth year of Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of Judah117, became king. Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem for one year118... He went with Jehoram, son of Ahab, to fight against Hazael, king of Aram, at Ramoth Gilead. But archers struck him”.

The original biblical reading of the last sentence is preserved in II Chron. 22, 5, that reads hrmym instead of h’rmym, what the Septuagint translates oἱ τοξόται, “the archers”. The root rmy, “to throw”, is well attested in Aramaic119, also in 116 The author of I Kings 21, 29 knew that Ahab was not killed on the battlefield: “I will not bring disaster upon his house in his own lifetime, but in his son’s”. Nevertheless, a redactor of the Books of Kings has seen in the story of I Kings 22 the realization of the prophecy formulated in I Kings 20, 42 and 21, 19. Therefore he inserted this chapter in the frame of the events concerning Ahab. 117 Jehoram, king of Israel, was also king of Judah for a few years. Cf. here below, p. 96. 118 The next sentence is a redactional addition. 119 DNWSI, p. 1077-1078; M. Sokoloff, ADictionaryofJewishPalestinianAramaic (n. 61), p. 603-604.

96

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

the sense of “shooting with a bow”120. The notice in the Annals of the kings of Judah was referring to Ahaziah and it ended most likely with wayyakkūhuramīm. In the final version, the pronominal suffix was changed in an article, while a direct object “Jehoram” was added as an anticipatory reference to Ahaziah’s visit to Jehoram. It is evident, however, that the original notice must have said something of Ahaziah’s fortune, while the hiphil of the verb nkhis frequently used in such a context with the meaning “to kill”. This understanding of the text is contradicted by v. 29, but this verse is a doublet of II Kings 9, 15. Its aim was to match this historical notice with the prophetic legend of Jehu’s election to kingship (II Kings 9). How can Jehoram’s curriculum vitae be summarized? After the accident and the death of his brother Ahaziah in 851/0 B.C., Jehoram becomes king of Israel (II Kings 3, 1), but the circumstances of his accession are unknown121. Four years later, in 847 B.C., being king of Israel he becomes also coregent of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, most likely thanks to the manœuvres of Athaliah, his sister and wife of the elderly and none-too-able king of Judah. This is stated explicitly in II Kings 8, 16: “In the fifth year of Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being king of Judah, Jehoram became king of Judah.” In spite of the explanation given in II Chron. 21, 2-3, the patronymic “son of Jehoshaphat” is a later addition. This hypothesis is confirmed in II Kings 8, 18 by the clear connection of Jehoram with the House of Ahab: “He followed the practices of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done”. This is followed by another erroneous addition: “for he had married Ahab’s daughter”, namely Athaliah. A further confirmation is found in II Chron. 21, 4-6, where Jehoram is said to have put to the sword all his “brothers”, sons of Jehoshaphat. Athaliah is supposed to have done the same according to II Kings 11, 1 and II Chron. 22, 10. These are two versions of the same event. Another confirmation of the identity of king Jehoram of Israel and of king Jehoram of Judah is provided by the compared chronology of II Kings 3, 1 and 8, 16. Jehoshaphat died two years after having associated Jehoram to the throne of Jerusalem, probably in 845 B.C., since year 851 was his eighteenth year as king (II Kings 3, 1), while he reigned twenty-five years (I Kings 22, 42). Jehoram then murdered Jehoshaphat’s sons (II Chron. 21, 4), becoming the sole king of Israel and Judah. The classical definition of the borders of Israel as “from Dan to Beersheba” may originate in those days of Jehoram. Important information, generally neglected, is added here in II Chron. 21, 4: Jehoram put to sword not only all the sons of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, but also “some of the princes of Israel”. The whole sentence comes from a source independent from the Books of Kings and may refer to princes of Ahab’s royal 120 121

Targum Neofiti to Gen. 21, 20, cf. v. 16. Cf. here above, p. 90-91.

THE REIGN OF JEHORAM

97

family, who took refuge in Jerusalem, when Jehoram succeeded to Ahaziah, seizing the power in spite of a possible opposition, headed eventually by the Queen-mother Jezebel. This hypothetical explanation may be supported by the similar massacre of Ahab’s and Jezebel’s family by Jehu in order to eliminate possible rivals, when he seized the power after the battle of Ramoth Gilead, where Jehoram and the latter’s son Ahaziah were killed by the Aramaeans. An additional reason for the appearance of an opposition at Samaria may have been Jehoram’s change of policy towards Assyria, followed by Jehu. In fact, Israel abandoned the anti-Assyrian alliance supported by Ahab and seemingly concluded an agreement with Shalmaneser III. This is probably recorded in the fragmentary lines 1’-2’ of the Tel Dan inscription and seems to be confirmed by the disappearance of Ahab and of Israel from the list of Shalmaneser’s enemies at the battle of Qarqar122. Jehoram reigned alone over Judah until 841 B.C., when he entrusted the government of Judah to his son Ahaziah (II Kings 8, 25-26). They went then to war against Hazael, king of Damascus. The text of I Kings 22, 3 clearly attributes the initiative of the war to the king of Israel: “The king of Israel said to his ministers (‘bdyw): ‘You know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us, and yet we do nothing to get it back from the king of Aram’”. Yet, Ramoth Gilead was in Aramaean hands for several years. This was therefore an excuse to start a military campaign against Hazael. Most likely, this act of war and the attack of Shalmaneser III had to concur. However, the Assyrian army needed a certain time to reach the territory of the kingdom of Damascus and the unfortunate death of king Jehoram on the battlefield put an end to the Israelite campaign. The distinction of two kings Jehoram was made by the Deuteronomistic historians on the basis of the parallel lists of the kings of Israel and of Judah, that they have used in the 6th/5th century without noticing that Jehoram was a single person. It was nevertheless known that Jehoram, despite being a “king of Judah”, was not buried in the burial-place of the kings (II Chron. 21, 20). The distinction of two kings Jehoram/Joram created a lot of confusion in dealing with the history of the mid-ninth century. This confusion was still increased by the introduction of stories where Jehu is said to have seized the power in Israel after the disaster of Ramoth Gilead. The prophetic legend of Jehu’s election and accession, in II Kings 9, gives a different picture of the events. It contains some historical elements, since it records that king Jehoram was killed by an arrow in his chariot (II Kings 9, 24) and that Jehu was a general commanding Jehoram’s troops at Ramoth Gilead (II Kings 9, 1-5), what confirms his close relation with Omri’s family and supports the constant Assyrian qualification of Jehu as “son of Omri”. However, he was no descendant of Ahab and of Jezebel, what explains the extermination of their entire family and Court. But II Kings 9 tendentiously deforms 122

Cf. here above, p. 88.

98

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

the historical facts, when presenting Jehu as the glorious killer of the king and Jehoram as a coward shot between his shoulders. The deformation of facts is even increased by the Chronicler: “Thus he (Jehu) searched out Ahaziah himself, and his men captured him in Samaria, where he had gone into hiding. They brought him to Jehu and he put him to death” (II Chron. 22, 9). THE

REIGN OF JEHU

Historical information about the reign of Jehu is provided by Assyrian sources and by the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab. In 841 B.C., Shalmaneser III was more successful than Jehoram, killed at Ramoth Gilead. Though he failed to conquer Damascus, he victoriously advanced in the southernmost district of Hazael’s kingdom, the mountainous region of the Hauran. It is here that he should probably have met the allied Israelite army. He crossed the Aramaean territory “destroying, tearing down and burning innumerable towns, carrying away from them booty that was beyond counting”. From the Hauran Shalmaneser marched to the Mediterranean Sea and encamped near the “Mountain of Ba‘li-rā’si”. This theophoric place name most likely designated a Baal’s sanctuary near the promontory of Rōš ha-Niqrā, “in front of Tyre”, šapu-utKURṢur-ri123. The Assyrian army obviously traversed Gilead and Galilee. Since the Annals of Shalmaneser mention neither fighting the Israelites, nor destroying their cities and carrying booty away from them, it is certain that this march was a peaceful crossing of an allied country. The allusion of Hos. 10, 14 to the tragic fate of BethArbel in Transjordan does not refer to an Israelite resistance to Shalmaneser III124, but probably to the destruction of that city by Shalāmān, king of Moab, in the days of the prophet Hosea. Jehu paid homage to Shalmaneser III in his camp of Rōš ha-Niqrā, where he appeared not as an equal, but as a tributary king, imploring the protection of the Assyrian monarch. The scene was later represented on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III (British Museum 11883)125. Its second row shows “Jehu, son of Omri”, paying tribute to the Assyrian king. In the first panel, Shalmaneser III, followed by two attendants, receives the homage of Jehu, who is represented upon his hands and feet, with his face to the ground. Two Assyrians stand behind Jehu. In the following panels, two Assyrians precede the procession of thirteen Israelite porters carrying the tribute which is not clearly identifiable. Listed are: 123

See E. Lipiński, Notedetopographiehistorique:Ba‘li-Ra’šietRa’šuQudšu, in RB 78 (1971), p. 84-92, and here below, p. 104. 124 This opinion was defended by M.C. Astour, 841 B.C.: The First Assyrian Invasion of Israel, in JAOS 91 (1971), p. 383-389. According to this author, the Israelites were fighting the Assyrians and not the Aramaeans. 125 ANEP, nos 351-355.

THE REIGN OF JEHU

99

First panel of the scene of Jehu’s homage to Shalmaneser III (ANEP, n° 355)

“silver, gold, a golden saplu-bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king, wooden b/pu-ru4-ḫa-ti”126. Although Jehu was recognized by Shalmaneser III as the legitimate successor of the Omrides, his situation was very difficult. He had killed the relatives of king Jehoram, who was most likely an ally of Shalmaneser III. Jehoram’s army had been defeated by the Aramaeans, and the loser is always wrong, also in the eyes of an Assyrian king. Besides, he was surrounded by enemies, while the Assyrian army was precisely about to leave Israel. The most powerful of these enemies was Hazael. The campaign of Shalmaneser III had not broken his power, as Damascus, the Aramaean capital, had held fast behind its fortifications. Moreover, the death of several Omrides and the Israelite defeat at Ramoth Gilead encouraged Mesha, king of Moab, to initiate the reconquest of territories occupied by Omri and Ahab. Some Mesha’s enterprises, most likely posterior to 841 B.C., were already mentioned127, but an important event, dated probably ca. 835-830, was the occupation of Mount Nebo, east of the Jordan river. In lines 14-18 of his inscription, Mesha writes: “Next said Chemosh to me: ‘Go, take Nebo from Israel!’ So I went by night and fought against it from the break of down until noon, and I took it and slew it all, seven thousand men and boys, women and girls, and pregnant females, for I devoted it to AshtarChemosh, and I took from there the rams of Yahweh and dragged them before Chemosh”.

126 127

Translation by A.L. Oppenheim, in ANET, p. 281. See here above, p. 70-71, 76-77.

100

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

Khirbet al-Muḫayyaṭ (Nebo town)

Mount Nebo is situated about 25 km south-east of the mouth of the Jordan river, as the crow flies. The town conquered by Mesha had belonged to the tribe of Reuben (Numb. 32, 38) and must have been close to Rās Siyāġa (alt. 710 m), generally identified with Pisgah, the peak where Moses stood and beheld the Promised Land before dying (Deut. 32, 49-50a; 34, 1-5), probably towards the end of the 12th century B.C.128 This town can be either Khirbet al-Muḫayyaṭ, 3 km south-east of Rās Siyāġa, or Khirbet ‘Uyūn Mūsā (“Springs of Moses”), 3 km north-east of Rās Siyāġa. Although Nelson Glueck found many potsherds from Iron Age I and II inside the fortified area of Khirbet al-Muḫayyaṭ, the excavations of a tomb and of a cave recovered no evidence of an occupation anterior to Iron Age II, i.e. the 10th-9th centuries B.C.129 Also Khirbet ‘Uyūn Mūsā yielded potsherds from Iron Age I-II, as well as from the Persian period, and it still shows some later architectural remains, like a large tower and traces of a wall closing an area of about 200 m by 80 m130. Nebo was undoubtedly the site of an important Yahwistic sanctuary in the 9th century and it could have been 128

See here above, p. 23-24, 31. References in E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 35), p. 342, n. 135 and 136. 130 W. Zwickel, EisenzeitlicheOrtslagenimOstjordanland (BTAVO B/81), Wiesbaden 1990, p. 164. 129

THE REIGN OF JEHU

101

Rās Siyāġa (alt. 710 m), peak of Mount Nebo with the Jordan Valley in the background (photo: R. Cleave)

so already in the 11th and 10th centuries B.C., as suggested by the potsherds recovered in both places. Since the Mesha inscription does not mention any temple, the sanctuary must have been a sacred area (’ăšērāh), possibly with the Tent of the Ark of the Covenant, with a large stone serving as altar (Josh. 22, 10-11), and perhaps with a stele symbolizing the divine presence. This sanctuary is most likely the basis of the account in Josh. 22, rewritten later in agreement with the Deuteronomistic ideology. The memory of this holy place persisted until the Hellenistic period, as shown by II Macc. 2, 5-8 reporting the story of Jeremiah burying the Ark of the Covenant and various objects from the Holy of Holies in the mountain. In Byzantine times, the tomb of Moses was “rediscovered” by a shepherd131 and a memorial church was erected on Rās Siyāġa. Mesha reports that he slew all the Israelite population, allegedly 7,000 people. This number is a literary figure132 and cannot be taken at its face value. The rams of Yahweh, kept near the sanctuary, were instead dragged before Chemosh, most likely to be sacrificed to the upper god of the Moabites (lines 14-18). In 131

R. Raabe (ed.), PetrusderIberer, Leipzig 1895, p. 88. I. Finkelstein and O. Lipschitz, Omride Architecture in Moab: Jahatz and Atharot, in ZDPV 126 (2010), p. 29-42; E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 35), p. 340. 132

102

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

the following lines, Mesha reports the capture of the fortified city of Jahaz (lines 18-21), well known from the Bible133, which should probably be identified with Khirbet al-Mudayyina, 16 km north-east of Dibon134: “Now, the king of Israel had built Jahaz, and he had dwelled there while he was fighting against me, but Chemosh drove him out before me. I took from Moab two hundred men, all its host, and I set it against Jahaz, and I took it in order to attach it to Dibon.”

Jahaz was a Levitical city (Josh. 21, 36; I Chron. 6, 63), what means that it was one of garrison towns of the Kingdom of Israel at its borders. This is very clear in the case of the Levitical cities in the “Reubenite” territory, Jahaz being one of them. They appear as military stations defending the border of the Omride kingdom against desert people135. In fact, Khirbet al-Mudayyina appears to have been heavily fortified. These fortifications should be dated earlier than the end of the 9th century B.C. and go back to the time of Omri or of Ahab, in the second quarter of the 9th century. The town has been protected by a casemate wall system. An exceptionally well preserved six-chambered gate, measuring 15.80 m by 16.35 m, has been exposed, but it was dated by radio-carbon 14C to the first half of the 8th century B.C.136 These fortifications explain why Jahaz, lying a good distance south of Nebo, managed apparently to resist longer, but it was captured at the time of Jehu. Since Mesha does not mention any massacre of the surviving defenders and inhabitants, it is possible that Israelite captives were employed as man-power for Mesha’s building activities, described in the following lines137. The weakness of Israel at the time of Jehu and of his successor appears not only in their incapacity of opposing the Moabites in Transjordan, but even of resisting Aramaic invasions of the country. Jehu was unable to defend Israel’s borders against the troops of Hazael, king of Damascus. Since Shalmaneser III did no longer turn his main attention to southern Syria after 848 B.C.138, Hazael had free hands to act against Israel. During the campaign of 848 B.C., the Assyrian army captured Malaḫa, “a royal city of Hazael”. Since Malaḫa is 133 Yhṣ: Numb. 21, 23; Deut. 2, 32; Josh. 13, 18; 21, 36; Judg. 11, 20; Isa. 15, 9; Jer. 48, 21.34; I Chron. 6, 63. 134 Y. Aharoni, TheLandoftheBible (n. 42), p. 137; R. Chadwick, P.M.M. Daviau, and M. Steiner, FourSeasonsofExcavationsatKhirbatal-MudaynainWadiath-Thamad,1996-1999, in ADAJ 44 (2000), p. 257-270 (see p. 260-261); B. MacDonald, EastoftheJordan:TerritoriesandSitesofthe HebrewScriptures, Boston 2000, p. 103-106; I. Finkelstein and O. Lipschitz, OmrideArchitecture inMoab (n. 132), p. 29-42; E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 35), p. 328-329, with discussion and further bibliography. 135 E. Lipiński, MiastaLewickiewZajordanii, inSBO 3 (2011), p. 19-29. 136 R. Chadwick etal., FourSeasonsofExcavations (n. 134), p. 258-267; cf. B. Routledge, MoabintheIronAge, Philadelphia 2004, p. 175-176. 137 E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 35), p. 329. 138 RIMA III, text A.0.102.14, p. 67, lines 102b-104a; text A.0. 102.16, p. 78-79, lines 154’-162’a.

THE REIGNS OF JEHOAHAZ AND JOASH

103

probably the Aramaic name of Hazor139, Hazor must be one of the cities of northern Israel that had fallen to Hazael before the battle of Ramoth Gilead in 841 B.C. This happened a few years earlier, for Ramoth Gilead was also lost to Israel before 841 (I Kings 22, 3). The expansion of Aram-Damascus in this area at the time of Hazael is corroborated by the stele of Tel Dan, a site controlled by Hazael, who extended his conquests west of the Jordan river as far as Philistia proper140. Probable traces of Hazael’s invasions of northern Israel and of his destructions, dating from the second part of the 9th century B.C., have been uncovered in several towns, like Tel Jezreel (Zer‘īn), Megiddo, Tel Joqne‘am (Tell Qēmūn), possibly Tell al-Ḥamma and Tel ‘Amal (Tell al-‘Aṣl). Of course, he did not destroy the cities which he easily occupied and was annexing to the kingdom of Damascus, as Abel Beth-Maakah (Tell al-Qāḍi) or possibly Hazor, in Aramaic Malaḥa141. In Transjordan, he had conquered the whole land of Gilead (II Kings 10, 32-33)142. THE REIGNS OF JEHOAHAZ AND JOASH Jehu was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz (II Kings 10, 35; 13, 1), who possibly assumed the effective government in the last years of his father: Jehu was already a high-ranking general in 841 B.C. (II Kings 9, 5) and he had a long reign (II Kings 10, 36). At the time of Jehoahaz, Israel was subject for some years to Hazael (II Kings 13, 3), who “oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (II Kings 13, 23). Also the Aramaean trading concessions in Samaria, mentioned in I Kings 20, 34, must date back to the years of Hazael, father of Bar-Hadad II, who is the protagonist of the events described in I Kings 20143. II Kings 13, 22 suggests that Jehoahaz and Hazael died about the same time. The death of Jehoahaz is assigned on basis of biblical chronology and of hypothetical co-regency with Jehu to some time between 805 and 798 B.C.144, while the date of Hazael’s death is unknown. However, Assyrian sources from the reign of Adad-nirari III (810-783 B.C.) may suggest a date ca. 803 B.C. In fact, this is the year of Adad-nirari III’s campaign against Damascus that led him also to Israel and to the Mediterranean coast. This campaign is known from a broken stone slab found at Kalḫu (Nimrud)145 and from two steles of Nergal-ereš, eponym 139

E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 89), p. 350-351. Ibid., p. 386-387. 141 Ibid., p. 350-351. 142 Ibid., p. 353-354. 143 Ibid., p. 397-399. 144 Ibid., p. 390, n. 230. 145 It was published by H.C. Rawlinson, TheCuneiformInscriptionsofWesternAsia I, London 1861, pl. 35, n° 1. A translation of the concerned passage is given by A.L. Oppenheim in ANET, p. 281-282. 140

104

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

in 803 B.C.146, the date of a campaign a-na uruBa-’-li according to the Eponym Chronicle147. The listing of the tribute paid by Damascus, then by Israel, Tyre and Sidon indicates that the Assyrian army followed approximately the same route as Shalmaneser III in 841 B.C. The name of the final destination a-na uru Ba-’-li must therefore be the abridged form of kurBa-’-li-ra-’-si, reached by Shalmaneser III148. The alternative use of URU and KUR occurs often in Assyrian, also in the Eponym Chronicle149. At any rate, the dating of the campaign in 796 B.C. anaManṣuate, in central Syria150, can be decidedly discarded, considering that Damascus, Israel, Tyre and Sidon were concerned. Since the inscription recording this campaign calls the ruler of Damascus m ma-ri-’, “lord”, the Aramaic title of the king, instead of mentioning his proper name, one gets the impression that the Assyrians did not know in 803 whether Hazael was still the king of Damascus or was already succeeded by his son BarHadad. This would suggest that Hazael died ca. 803 B.C. The king of Israel mentioned in these inscriptions was Joash of Samaria151, what means that Jehoahaz died in early 803 B.C. or before that date. The biblical story of II Kings 6, 24 - 7, 20 refers to the events of the same year 803 and the passage of II Kings 13, 5, without naming Adad-nirari III, refers to him as a saviour: “Yahweh gave Israel a saviour and they went out from under the hand of Aram”. Samaria was besieged by the Aramaean army, which had been called up by Bar-Hadad II (II Kings 6, 20). The siege lasted for a longer period, since it resulted in starvation, but it was lifted unexpectedly: “Yahweh had caused the Aramaean army to hear a sound like that of chariots and horses and of a great army, so that the word went around: ‘The king of Israel has hired the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt to attack us’. They had fled at once in the twilight, abandoning their tents, their horses and asses, and leaving the camp as it stood, while they fled for their lives” (II Kings 7, 6-7).

Another story referring very likely to the same siege of Samaria can be read in I Kings 20, 1-20, where the name of Ahab has mistakenly been added to the text (I Kings 20, 2.13.14), which ends with these words: “The Aramaeans fled and the Israelites pursued them, but Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, escaped on horseback with some of the cavalry. Then the king of Israel advanced and captured the horses and chariots, inflicting a heavy defeat on the Aramaeans” (I Kings 20, 20-21). 146

References ibid., p. 391, n°s 238 and 239. A.R. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 910-612 B.C. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 2), Helsinki 1994, p. 34. 148 E. Lipiński, Notedetopographie (n. 123), p. 88-91; id., TheAramaeans (n. 89), p. 390-396. 149 The examples given in RB 78 (1971), p. 90-91, can be easily multiplied when consulting A. Millard, TheEponyms (n. 147). 150 This dating is still proposed by B. Oded, Adad-nērari3., in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 31-34 (see p. 33a). 151 H.D. Baker, Iu’āsu(Joash),inPNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 500. 147

THE REIGNS OF JEHOAHAZ AND JOASH

105

Tribute paid from Israel to Shalmaneser III (ANEP, n° 353 II)

This text assumes that Bar-Hadad II was personally participating in the siege of Samaria in 803, albeit the stories must refer to the Assyrian campaign in 803, when Damascus was besieged. However, the siege of Samaria might have started earlier, even in 804 B.C. Joash paid tribute to Adad-nirari III in 803 B.C. and some units of the Assyrian army may indeed have reached Samaria, as suggested in II Kings 7, 6-7. One should also notice that the king of Israel is presented for the first time in Assyrian sources as the ruler of Samaria: mIu-’-su kurSa-me-ri-na-a-a152. However, Joash is not mentioned by name on the stone slab from Kalḫu. The long introduction to this inscription uses the appellation “Land of Omri”, Māt (KUR) Ḫu-um-ri-i153, instead of Samaria in the listing of countries conquered by the king: “From the banks of the Euphrates, the country of the Hittites, the Amurru-country in its full extent, Tyre, Sidon, the Land of Omri, Edom, Philistia, as far as the shore of the Great Sea of the Rising Sun”. The consequences of the Assyrian campaign in 803 B.C. were positive for Israel and they justify the mention of a saviour in II Kings 13, 5. If the interpretation of the background of both biblical accounts in I Kings 20, 1-20 and II Kings 6, 24 - 7, 20 is correct and if the chronological information “at the turn of the year” in I Kings 20, 22 is taken at its face value, the next 152 153

RIMA III, text A.0.104.7, p. 211, line 8. RIMA III, text A.0. 104.8, line 12.

106

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

episode of the war with Aram-Damascus, viz. the battle near Apheq narrated in I Kings 20, 23-34, has to be dated from the year 802 B.C. The same battle is referred to in the prophetic legend of II Kings 13, 14-19 (cf. v. 25), which clearly shows that the battle was fought and won by king Joash. The war was initiated again by Bar-Hadad II “who mustered the Aramaeans and advanced to Apheq to attack Israel”. He was hoping to take revenge for the unsuccessful siege of Samaria, and the circumstances were then favourable for him, since Adad-nirari III initiated in 802 a campaign in southern Babylonia, anamuḫḫitam-tim154, “au pays de la Mer”. However, the battle was won by the king of Israel. Apheq is usually localized at Fīq, 6 km east of the Sea of Galilee, near the road from Damascus to Beth-shean, but I Kings 20, 30 reports that Bar-Hadad II took refuge in the citadel of Apheq, which should then correspond to ‘Ein Gev (Khirbet al-‘Ašiq), a large fortified city of the 10th-8th centuries B.C. on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, only 6 km from Fīq155. It results from II Kings 13, 14-19, compared with I Kings 20, 32-34, that Joash made a parity treaty with Bar-Hadad II. Land taken from Jehoahaz by Hazael had nevertheless to be returned to Israel and commercial concessions were given to Joash, similar to those enjoyed by Aram in the city of Samaria. The leniency of Joash should be explained by the hostile attitude of Amaziah, king of Judah (II Kings 14, 8-15), who initiated a new war between Judah and Israel. The narrative in II Kings 14 leaves this new quarrel between Israel and Judah without motivation. Amaziah declared war on Joash in spite of the latter’s attempt to dissuade him (II Kings 14, 11-14). In a battle fought at Beth-Shemesh, west of Jerusalem, Judah was defeated and Amaziah himself taken prisoner. Joash then moved on “Jerusalem and dismantled the city wall from the Gate of Ephraim to the Corner Gate, a distance of four hundred cubits” (II Kings 14, 13), what corresponds to almost 200 metres. The Gate of Ephraim lay in the northern wall, and the Corner Gate should be looked for at the north-western angle. Joash looted the treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace, and retired with hostages. Amaziah was left on his throne, but before long a conspiracy was formed against him in Jerusalem. He fled to Lachish, but was put to death there (II Kings 14, 19). No reason is given for this plot, but his irresponsible policy may have been its main reason. Joash, king of Israel, appears instead as a wise politician: he had made a parity treaty with Bar-Hadad II, king of Damascus, and left Amaziah on the throne, although he could have incorporated Jerusalem and Judah in his realm.

154 155

A. Millard, TheEponyms (n. 147), p. 34. E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 89), p. 398-399, with further literature.

THE REIGN OF JEROBOAM II

107

THE REIGN OF JEROBOAM II The victories of Joash and his wise policy (ca. 804-789 B.C.) initiated a new period of stability and prosperity in the Kingdom of Israel. He was succeeded by his son Jeroboam II, whose long reign (789-748 B.C.) was certainly marked by some important political and historical events. However, we only know from II Kings 14, 25 that “he restored the border of Israel from the Entrance of Hamat unto the Sea of the Arabah”, which is the Dead Sea. Beside this sentence, we only find a confirmation of the return of the southern part of the Lebanese Bēqa‘ and of Transjordan to Israel in Am. 6, 14, where the land of Israel is said to extend “from the Entrance of Hamat unto the gorge of the Arabah”. The list of cities overrun by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 B.C. shows nevertheless that large Israelite lands had been recuperated by Jeroboam II during his reign: ‘Iyyōn, Abel Beth-Maaka, Janoaḥ, Qedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee, the land of Naphtali (II Kings 15, 29). Of these places, ‘Iyyōn, Abel Beth-Maaka, and “all the land of Naphtali” are listed along with Kinnereth in I Kings 15, 20 among the districts seized by Bar-Hadad I from Baasha; they had reverted to Israel under the Omrides, but some were lost again during the invasions of Hazael. ‘Iyyōn is most likely Merǧ ‘Ayūn, in the southern Bēqa‘ (Lebanon), and Abel Beth-Maakah is the actual Tel Dan156. Janoaḥ must be located in Galilee, and Qedesh is probably Qedesh of Naphtali, followed by Hazor. All these places had certainly reverted to Israel under Jeroboam II like the entire Gilead in Transjordan. The ostraca found at Samaria in 1910 give a glimpse of the administrative work done in the royal palace of Samaria during the reigns of Joash and of Jeroboam II157. These ostraca, which number over one hundred, are records of the delivery of “old wine” (ynyšn) and of “refined oil” (šmnrḥṣ) to generally named officials, who received the consignments on behalf of the palace. The senders are usually named, as well as the places from which the commodities were dispatched. Most places identified with a high degree of probability are situated in the traditional territory of Manasseh. No king’s names are mentioned, but all the ostraca preserving the initial portion of the text begin with one of three formulae: “In the year nine” (b-šth-tš‘r), “In the year ten” (b-šth-‘śrt), 156

E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 35), p. 242-251. The ostraca nos 1-63 were published by A. Reisner, C.S. Fischer, and D.G. Lyons, Harvard Excavations at Samaria, Cambridge Mass. 1924, vol. I. Text, p. 227-246; vol. II. Plans and Plates, pl. 55c, d, e. The nos 64-102, considered illegible by A. Reisner, were published in the dissertation of I.T. Kaufman, The Samaria Ostraca. A Study in Ancient Hebrew Palaeography, Harvard University 1966, p. 146-147. The ostraca were studied again by A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques I (n. 15), p. 21-81; J. Renz and W. Röllig, HandbuchderalthebräischenEpigraphik I, Darmstadt 1995, p. 79-110. Cf. also T.C. Mitchell, IsraelandJudah(n. 91),p. 507-508, and here above, p. 84, n. 83. 157

108

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

or “In the year 15” (b-št 10+5 or b-šth-10+5). The difference in expressing the numbers — years nine and ten in words and year fifteen in figures — is also reflected in the general formulation of the texts and in the names of individuals involved. These factors show that we deal with two separate groups of documents, the first consisting of documents dated in years nine and ten, and the second, of those dated in year fifteen. Palaeographically the ostraca can be dated in the earlier part of the 8th century B.C. If some of the recipients named in the group of the fifteenth year have been the sons of men named in the group of the ninth and tenth years, like l-ḤlṣGdyw (nos 30, 33, 34) compared to l-Gdyw (nos 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18), it seems likely that the ostraca of year fifteen are posterior to those of years nine and ten, but this does not yet imply that they belong to reigns of different kings. The differences in the personal names suggest nevertheless that the chronological distance between the two groups is bigger than five years. It is more likely therefore that the ostraca of the ninth and tenth years go back to the reign of Joash (i.e. 796 and 795 B.C.), while those of the fifteenth year date from the reign of Jeroboam II (i.e. 775 B.C.), just twenty years later, which is a plausible laps of time. The formulations of the two groups of ostraca indicate that some administrative changes have been instituted by Jeroboam II, but it is difficult to establish them with a certain degree of probability. The institutions hidden behind the ostraca may have been more sophisticated than generally assumed. According to H.M. Niemann158, these ostraca reveal somewhat complicated relations between the royal palace and the clan elites of the countryside. The royal administration would have attempted to influence and to control tribal elites. Instead, the ostraca do not provide any information about the foreign policy of the State. The ethnic composition of the population is reflected to some degree in the ostraca. The personal names mentioned in the texts do not contain a single pagan theophorous element. The abridged form Yw of Yahweh occurs eleven times, while the common Semitic noun b‘l, “lord, owner”, appears eight times. It does not prove that a Canaanite deity was hidden behind this honorific title, since it may designate the head of the family, i.e. the husband, the venerated ancestor of the clan or tribal settlement, like ‘am(m), or the “citizen” with full rights. The question must be raised in each case. One should not forget besides that theonyms or alleged theonyms of the Bible were subject to intentional changes, often directed against the kings of Israel or against the Samaritans. A few names in the Samarian ostraca are perhaps Egyptian, possibly ‘nmš (n° 24) or Qdbš (n° 1, 5), if this reading is correct. 158 H.M. Niemann, ANewLookattheSamariaOstraca:TheKing-ClanRelationship, in Tel Aviv 35 (2008), p. 249-266.

THE REIGN OF JEROBOAM II

109

Seal of Shema‘, servant of Jeroboam II (photo: A. Reifenberg)

The prosperity of Jeroboam II’s period is illustrated, for instance, by the jasper seal carved with the figure of a roaring lion and the inscription lšm‘‘bdyrb‘m, “Belonging to Shema‘, servant of Jeroboam”. The seal was found at Megiddo159. The negative opinion expressed by some writers about the alleged social disintegration of the Kingdom of Israel at the time of Jeroboam II is based on the editorial superscriptions of Hos. 1, 1 and Am. 1, 1, dating these prophets from the reign of Jeroboam II. In reality, the main part of Hosea’s words do not belong to the prosperous reign of Jeroboam II, but to the turbulent days after the fall of the Omrides in 749 B.C. The Book of Amos, whose activity dates from their last years, still seems to reflect the materially prosperous conditions of the Kingdom of Israel at the time of Jeroboam II, but it also reveals glimpses of social unrest160. Most critical comments witness the Judaean redaction of the Book. Towards the end of Jeroboam II’s reign, the kingdom of Israel entered in a period of decay. The biblical text may give the impression that this situation went hand in hand with religious disintegration, but one should remember that the Deuteronomistic historians of the Books of Kings and the later Chronicler were writing in a clearly anti-Israelite mood. The shrines of Israel were very active and lavishly supported (Am. 4, 4-5; 5, 21-24), and Yahwism was maintained in pure form, although its ritual aspects were to some extent different from the exclusive liturgy of the temple of Jerusalem, and they most likely preserved older practices of the Yahwistic sanctuary of Nebo161. The personal names of the Samaria ostraca compounded with B‘l, “lord”, do not refer to a Canaanite divinity, but use a honorific title or are merely calling “Lord” the God they were worshipping, as shown in Hos. 2, 16. Many Yahwistic names are recorded at the time of Ahab, while the Former Prophets bore names with the theophorous element El, not Yahweh or its abbreviated form. 159 160 161

ANEP, n° 276. J.-L. Vesco, AmosdeTerqa,défenseurdel’homme, inRB 87 (1980), p. 481-513. Cf. here above, p. 9, 30-31, 99-101.

110

THE DYNASTY OF OMRI

The death of Jeroboam II was followed by unrest and civil war (II Kings 15, 8 ff.), and Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II, reigned no longer than six months. He was murdered in the conspiracy of a certain Shallum (II Kings 15, 10), who only managed to keep the power for a full month (II Kings 15, 14). Zechariah’s reign terminated the dynasty of Omri, which has counted nine kings, if one accepts the trustworthy information of the Assyrian sources, distinguishing legitimate royal heirs from “sons of nobody”.

CHAPTER IV

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

With the death of Jeroboam II the history of the Kingdom of Israel becomes a chain of internal unrests, uproars of various factions, and foreign threats. EVENTS OF THE

YEARS

743-723 B.C.

Zechariah succeeded to the throne after Jeroboam II’s death in 743 B.C., but he was assassinated six months later by Shallum of Jabesh in Gilead, who seized the throne for about one month (II Kings 15, 8-13). The reasons of this assassination are unknown, but authors assume the influence of an external political force, possibly Aramaean. The throne was then seized by Menaḥem, son of Gadi (II Kings 15, 14), who apparently had the support of the ancient capital Tirzah (I Kings 15, 14.16), but encountered a stiff resistance in the area of Tipsaḥ (II Kings 15, 16), possibly Khirbet Ṭafsa, 10 km to the north-west of Yāsūf, at the traditional border of Ephraim and Manasseh1. This would imply an opposition of pastoralists from the heart of the Joseph tribes, possibly justified by the heavy tax imposed by Menaḥem to pay tribute to Tiglath-pileser III in 738 B.C.2 The last years of Jeroboam II have coincided with the beginning of a new period in Assyrian history, initiated by Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 B.C.), who turned to the subjugation of the West already in 743 B.C.3 At the first, he defeated Arpad in 743 and began in 742 the siege of the city which continued until its fall in 740. In 738, he annexed Unqi and Ḫatarikka, in northern Syria, and received tribute from Raṣiyān (Rṣyn), king of Damascus, and of Menaḥem, king of Israel4. II Kings 15, 19-20 records this tribute, designating Tiglath-pileser III by the name Pūl, assumed by him when he ascended the distinct throne of Babylon in 739 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III’s campaigns differed from those of his predecessors in that they were not only tribute gathering expeditions, but aimed at permanent conquests, when there was resistance. This policy was not wholly novel, but had not been applied by earlier Assyrian kings with such consistency. Both its aspects appear in the case of Israel. 1

F.-M. Abel, GéographiedelaPalestine II, Paris 1938, p. 484; cf. here above, p. 4-5. II Kings 15, 19-20. Cf. A. Fuchs, Menaḫēme1., in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 748a. 3 H.D. Baker, Tukulti-apil-Ešarra3., in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1329b-1331b (see p. 1330). 4 ANET, p. 283; J. Briend and M.-J. Seux, TextesduProche-Orientancienethistoired’Israël, Paris 1977, p. 98. 2

112

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

“Pūl, king of Assyria, came against the land and Menaḥem gave to Pūl a thousand talents of silver that his hands might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menaḥem exacted the silver against Israel, against all the magnates of wealth — to give to the king of Assyria — fifty shekels of silver per person; and the king of Assyria turned back and stayed not there in the land.”5

The opposition to Menaḥem in the area of Tipsaḥ would then date from Menaḥem’s fourth or fifth year, not from the year of his seizure of the throne. The king’s reaction was very cruel. II Kings 15, 16 states: “At that time Menaḥem, starting out from Tirzah, sacked Tipsaḥ and all who were in it and its territory, because it had not open [its hand/treasure to …], and he ripped open all the pregnant women”. This passage is an incomplete quotation from a written source. One can surmise that the last sentence was similar to lines 16-17 of the Mesha inscription: “I slew it all, seven thousand men and boys, women and girls, and pregnant women”. Apparently the Assyrian recognition of Menaḥem as the vassal king of Israel should have strengthened his position and helped him to stabilize his regime, but 738 was his last regnal year and his son and successor Peqaḥiah reigned only for two incomplete years (732-731 B.C.) (I Kings 15, 23). “Peqaḥ, son of Remaliah, his lieutenant, formed a conspiracy against him and, with the help of fifty Gileadites, attacked him in Samaria in the citadel of the royal house …, killed him and reigned in his stead” (II Kings 15, 25). In view of the biblical chronological data with regard to Menaḥem and to Peqaḥ, it seems that the twenty years of Peqaḥ’s reign include the entire period from the end of the Omri dynasty, when Peqaḥ was governing Gilead, considered as a lieutenant of the kings ruling in Samaria. Having usurped the throne, he joined the anti-Assyrian coalition formed by Raṣiyān, king of Damascus. The coalition also included king Hiram II of Tyre6. The inscriptions of Tiglathpileser III dealing with his campaign against Israel in 732 B.C. and mentioning Peqaḥ call the country “House of Omri”7, while Menaḥem was regarded as king of Samaria8. Peqaḥ probably presented himself in his correspondence as a successor of the Omri dynasty. The anti-Assyrian coalition naturally desired Judah to join them, but Judah, assessing the realities of the situation, refused. Raṣiyān and Peqaḥ, unwilling to have a neutral power in their rear, decided therefore to depose Ahaz of Judah 5 Translation of J.A. Montgomery and H.S. Gehman, TheBooksofKings, Edinburgh 1951, p. 450. 6 E. Lipiński, ItinerariaPhoenicia (Studia Phoenicia XVIII; OLA 127), Leuven 2004, p. 47; A. Fuchs, Ḫi-rūmu(Ḫiram), in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 474b; id., Raḫiānu2., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1028b. 7 A. Fuchs, Paqaḫa1., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 987b; M. Cogan, Paqaha, in RLA X, Berlin 2003-05, p. 332a, with references; A. Berlejung, Samerina, in RLA XI, Berlin 2006-08, p. 623-624 (see p. 623a, with references). 8 A. Fuchs, Menaḫēme1. (n. 2), p. 748a.

EVENTS OF THE YEARS 743-723 B.C.

113

Tiglath-pileser III on a colossal relief from Kalḫu (British Museum 118900)

and to replace him on the throne by “the son of Ṭāb’ēl” (Isa. 7, 6), supposed to be favourable to an anti-Assyrian policy. In face of their attack on Jerusalem, traditionally called “Syro-Ephraimite war” (II Kings 16, 5; Isa. 7, 1), Ahaz appealed to Assyria, accompanying his request with a large tribute, paid probably in 734 B.C.9 Tiglath-pileser III responded quickly and marched on Damascus in 733. The siege lasted for fourty-five days and the surroundings of the Aramaean capital were devastated. No Assyrian sources are available for the final siege of Damascus in 732 B.C., when the city was captured10. Raṣiyān was killed (II Kings 16, 9) and his former kingdom was annexed to the Assyrian Empire. As for Peqaḥ, he has been murdered by the followers of Hoshea (II Kings 15, 30), when Tiglath-pileser III attacked Israel in 733 or 732 B.C., and seized several cities of northern Israel. He thus applied his policy of annexing conquered lands, incorporating them as provinces to the Assyrian Empire, and deporting the elite of its population. This is stated in II Kings 15, 29: 9 II Kings 16, 7-8; H. Tadmor, TheInscriptionsofTiglath-pileserIII,KingofAssyria.CriticalEditionwithIntroduction,Translation,andCommentary, Jerusalem 1994, p. 170, line 11’; D. Schwemer, Iaū-ḫazi(Aḫaz), in PNA II/1, Heslinki 2000, p. 407a. 10 E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans,TheirAncientHistory,Culture,Religion (OLA 100), Leuven 2000, p. 404-407.

114

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

“In the days of Peqaḥ, king of Israel, Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, came and seized ‘Iyyōn, Abel Beth-Maakah, Janoaḥ, Qedesh, Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, even all the land of Naphtali, and deported them to Assyria”.

The name of ‘Iyyōn survives in the modern Lebanese town of Merǧ ‘Ayūn, just north of the Israelite frontier settlement of Metullah. The ancient settlement is probably to be located at Tell Dibbīn at a strong spring just south of the modern town. Instead, a few kilometres to the north lay the possible border settlement of B‘lwt, today Belaṭ, a centre of an Omride district of the Kingdom of Israel11. Abel Beth-Maakah is the mount of Tell al-Qāḍi, today Tel Dan, called A-bi-ilmes-⌜qi ⌝ in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III12, at the end of a fragmentary list of annexed towns, “which are at the border of the House of Omri”. It is not evident from this formulation that all these places belonged then to the Kingdom of Israel. The site of et-Tell, at the north-eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, may have been mentioned there. The stages of its destruction by the Assyrians have been carefully described by R. Arav, basing his analysis on the results of the excavations which yielded much evidence thanks to the excellent state of preservation of the Iron Age II city, called Bethsaida by Arav, but possibly identical with Geshur13. Janoaḥ is often identified with modern Yānūḥ, 10 km north-east of Tyre14, but this location hardly fits the sequence of the toponyms. Qedesh should be distinguished from the city appearing in the list of defeated Canaanite kings (Josh. 12, 22), but it might be mentioned among the cities of refuge (Josh. 20, 7), the Levitical cities (Josh. 21, 32; I Chron. 6, 61), and the fortified cities of Naphtali (Josh. 19, 37; 20, 7; 21, 32). In any case, it should be identified with Tell Qadis, a large mound overlooking the fertile plateau to the north-west of the Ḥūleh lake and conserving traces of the ancient settlement. This is confirmed by the following mention of Hazor, whose stronger defences (Stratum VA) did not manage to withstand the Assyrian siege. Following this attack and devastation, only poor squatters occupied Hazor (Stratum IV). Gilead is probably no abbreviation of its capital city Ramoth Gilead, but a global designation of northern Transjordan. In Assyrian Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions, its name is written Gal’az[a], what records the Gileadite pronunciation of the interdentals15. The following Galilee and “all the land of Naphtali” summarizes 11

Cf. here above, p. 75. See here above, p. 37. 13 R. Arav, AChronicleofaPre-knownDestruction.AnalysisoftheStagesoftheConquest andDestructionoftheCityofBethsaidabyTiglath-pileserIII(734-732BCE) (in Hebrew), in EphraimSternVolume (Eretz-Israel 29), Jerusalem 2009, p. 328-338, with English summary on p. 292*-293*. 14 F.-M. Abel, GéographiedelaPalestine II (n. 1), p. 354; St. Wild, LibanesischeOrtsnamen (Beiruter Texte und Studien 9), Beirut 1973, p. 269-270. 15 Cf. here above, p. 35-36. This toponym should not be confused with uruGíl-za-ú in RIMA III, text A.0.102.2, col. II, 97, which should be corrected in Di-il-zi-a-ú, the variant attested in P. Hulin, 12

EVENTS OF THE YEARS 743-723 B.C.

115

Deportation of the population of Ashtaroth, Syria: relief from the palace of Tiglath-pileser III (British Museum)16

an eventual listening of other place names and indicates that a large part of Israel was annexed by Tiglath-pileser III and that the kingdom was almost reduced to Samaria and the surrounding highlands of Cisjordan. The next verse of II Kings 15, 30 explains why Tiglath-pileser III did not annex then the entire Kingdom of Israel: “And Hoshea, the son of Elah, conspired against Peqaḥ, the son of Remaliah, and defeated him, and killed him, and became king in his place”. Tiglath-pileser III would undoubtedly have destroyed Israel, had not Peqaḥ been murdered by the men of Hoshea. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, received formally the throne from Tiglath-pileser III, who declares: “Paqaḫa, their king, they deposed, and I placed mA-ú-se-’ (Hoshea) over them as king”17. A heavy tribute was nevertheless imposed on Israel18, while the occupied territories were transformed in provinces19 and a large portion of their population was deported (I Chron. 5, 26). The territory of the Kingdom of Israel was reduced to Ephraim and western Manasseh, since some lands of Benjamin seem to have been annexed to Judah, while Shalāmān, king of Moab, TheInscriptionsoftheCarvedThrone-BaseofShalmaneserIII,inIraq 25 (1963), p. 48-69 (see p. 54, line 32). Cf. E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 10), p. 265-266, who identifies this place with the village Dellōze, 22 km east-south-east of Tell Qarqūr. 16 For the history of the reliefs from the palace of Tiglath-pileser III and the decipherment of their inscriptions, see H. Tadmor, IntroductoryRemarkstoaNewEditionoftheAnnalsofTiglathpileserIII (The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Proceedings II, 9), Jerusalem 1967. 17 S. Cole, Awsēa’, in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 238b. 18 II Kings 15, 30; H. Tadmor, TheInscriptionsofTiglath-pileserIII (n. 9), p. 140, lines 17’-18’; p. 188, line 10; p. 202, line 18’. Cf. J. Briend and M.-J. Seux, TextesduProche-Orient (n. 4), p. 102, 104. 19 A. Alt, KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsrael II, München 1959, p. 188-205.

116

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

razed Beth-Arbel, as recorded in Hos. 10, 14. Since this city is believed to be Irbid in Gilead20, Shalāmān’s attack must have coincided with Tiglath-pileser III’s campaign and capture of Damascus in 733/2 B.C. The king of Moab became then a vassal of Assyria21 and he intervened in the war against Aram-Damascus like king Panamuwa II of Śam’al, who perished then while fighting for Tiglathpileser III22 . Tiglath-pileser III died in 727 B.C. and was succeeded by his son Shalmaneser V (726-722 B.C.). Troubles in Assyria and abroad were possibly seen by Hoshea as a chance to recover Israel’s independence, to withhold tribute and to ask for Egyptian support. He took part in a rebellious coalition of the western Assyrian provinces and “sent invoice to Sais, the city of the king of Egypt”23. Tefnakht (728-721 B.C.), prince of Sais from the XXIV Dynasty, seems indeed to have tried to assert himself, at least by intrigue, in Egypt’s Asiatic sphere of influence, but he could hardly oppose the Assyrian power. Shalmaneser V has obviously been informed about Hoshea’s contacts with Egypt and managed to imprison him: “And the king of Assyria put him under arrest and shut him up in prison” (II Kings 17, 4b). This means that Hoshea’s rule ended in 724 B.C. and that his reign should be dated in 732-724 B.C. There is no reason therefore to lengthen his reign and to lower the date of the fall of Samaria to 721-719/8, as proposed by M.C. Terley24. THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA Samaria managed nevertheless to resist for almost three years (II Kings 17, 5), because of internal Assyrian problems, preceding the obscure circumstances under which Sargon II seized the throne in 722 B.C.25 However, it is certain that Samaria was captured under the reign of Shalmaneser V, whose main achievement was precisely its capture. This is implied by the biblical texts (II Kings 17, 6; 20 F.-M. Abel, GéographiedelaPalestineII (n. 1), p. 249, 267-268. The change ’rbl>’rbd is due to the alternation l/d. 21 H. Tadmor, TheInscriptionsofTiglath-pileserIII (n. 9), p. 170, Summ. 7, rev., line 10’. The denial of the identity of the Assyrian vassal with the Shalāmān of Hos. 10, 14 lacks any concrete basis. Cf. K. Radner, Salāmānu6., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1069a. 22 KAI 215, 16-19; TSSI II, 14, 16-19. 23 II Kings 17, 3-4a. Cf. E. Lipiński, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire (OLA 267), Leuven 2018, p. 156-157. 24 M.C. Terley, TheDateofSamaria’sFallasaReasonforRejectingtheHypothesisofTwo Conquests, in TheCatholicBiblicalQuarterly 64 (2002), p. 59-77. These hypotheses are not even taken into consideration by A. Berlejung, Samerina (n. 7), p. 623-624. 25 H.D. Baker, Salmānu-ašarēd5., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1077; A. Fuchs, Šarru-kēnu2., in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1239a-1247b (see p. 1243b). Cf. A.K. Grayson, ShalmaneserV (726-722B.C.), in CAH, 2nd ed., vol. III/2, Cambridge 1991, p. 85-86, with references to previous literature.

THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA

117

18, 10), but the question has been under discussion since the early days of Assyriology, because of Sargon’s account in the annals, that Samaria fell in his first regnal year. The Babylonian Chronicle, an independent source, leaves nevertheless no doubt in the matter. The passage in question reads as follows: “On the 25th of Ṭebet Shalmaneser ascended the throne in Assyria. He destroyed Samaria” (col. I, 27-28). This is confirmed by the “Assur Charter” (K 1349), whose historical reliability is superior to all other Sargon’s annalystic sources; this earliest inscription of Sargon II does not mention the fall of Samaria at all26. The references to the conquest of Samaria in Sargon II’s inscriptions refer to 720 B.C. and to the following years, when the new province was organized, some population deported, and Arabian tribes settled in Samaria. The concerned passage reads as follows in the Kalḫu (Nimrud) Prism: “I fought with them and 27.280 people, who lived therein, with their chariots and their gods of their trust, I counted as spoil. 50 chariots for my royal bodyguard I mustered from among them, and the rest of them I settled in the midst of Assyria. The city of Samaria I resettled and made it greater than before. People of the lands conquered by my own hand I brought there. My courtier I placed over them as a governor and I counted them with Assyrians.27”

How can we reconstitute the events of the years 724-722 B.C.? When Samaria fell sometime in the late summer or in early autumn 722 B.C., Hoshea had already been deported to Assyria, as stated in II Kings 17, 4-5. Since it is unlikely that an unnamed king ruled in Samaria from 724 to 720 B.C., the final date of an anti-Assyrian rebellion in Syro-Phoenicia, we must assume that the besieged city was governed by the generals of the army or by the city elders, who finally decided to surrender the town. However, when the news of Shalmaneser’s death and Sargon’s accession in the winter of 722/1 reached Samaria, the deportation of its population had hardly been started and the bulk of the Assyrian army most likely hurried home. The latter’s hastily departure and the news of domestic strife in Assyria have certainly been the main causes of the rebellion in Syria, joined by the inhabitants of Samaria, However, it was not before the late spring of 720 B.C. that Sargon could send an army to Syria. It quelled the rebellion and even rooted an Egyptian army. The land of Hamat, ruled by a man called Iaū-bi’di or Ilu-bi’di28, was the centre of the rebellion, but Arpad, Ṣimirra, 26 W.F. Saggs, HistoricalTextsandFragmentsofSargonIIofAssyriaI.The‘AššurCharter’, in Iraq37 (1975), p. 11-20. Cf. H. Tadmor, TheCampaignsofSargonIIofAssur:AChronologicalHistoricalStudy, in JCS 12 (1958), p. 22-40 and 77-100 (see p. 39-40); A. Fuchs, Šarru-kēnu2. (n. 25), p. 1243b; J. Briend and M.-J. Seux,TextesduProche-Orient (n. 4), p. 106-107, 109110. 27 Nimrud Prism, fragment D, col. IV, 30-41, translation by H. Tadmor, The Campaigns of SargonII (n. 26), p. 34. 28 A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, Iaū-bi’di, in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 497a; A. Fuchs, Ilu-bi’di, in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 526. His Yahwistic name raises various questions.

118

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

Sargon II on an alabaster relief from Dūr-Šarrukīn (Turin Museum)

Damascus, Samaria were also involved. Further to the south, Hanunu of Gaza29, an Assyrian vassal since the time of Tiglath-pileser III, allied himself with an Egyptian ruler30. In 720, the Assyrian troops sent by Sargon II defeated the Syrian rebels at Qarqar and occupied their cities, inclusive Samaria, what was followed by deportations. The Egyptian army was routed at Raphia and Hanunu was captured31. These events are summarized in Sargon’s Annals and Display Inscriptions32. 29 30 31 32

A. Fuchs, Ḫanūnu4., in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 457b. E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 23), p. 104-105. A. Fuchs, Šarru-kēnu (n. 24), p. 1243b. ANET, p. 285.

SAMARIAN DEPORTEES

119

SAMARIAN DEPORTEES The deportation of Samarian population, which started in 720 B.C., is recorded in II Kings 17, 6; 18, 11: “He deported its people to Assyria and settled them in Ḥalah and on the Habur, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of Media”. Ḥalah is considered as the name of Ḫalaḫḫa, a city and a province to the north-east of Nineveh, probably near to the site of Dūr-Šarrukīn. The district was still named in the Neo-Assyrian period33, when land has been leased to several persons, possibly deportees34. This information is confirmed by various Assyrian sources, which list Samarians, possibly received already in 738 B.C. by Tiglath-pileser III as tribute of Menaḥem and mentioned in wine lists from Kalḫu. The Samarians appear among various recipients of wine rations35. The date of one of these tablets (n° 8) can be restored [lim]mu [m.dAššūr-šal-li]m-a-ni, what would give the year 735 B.C.36 In the opinion of J.V. Kinnier Wilson, “their very presence was probably a necessary part of the exoticism in an Oriental court and the vanity of kings. In the second place they will have provided a force of skilled labour for royal building projects”37 . Two horse lists from Kalḫu, dated between 710 and 708 B.C., mention thirteen team commanders of a Samarian unit under the authority of Nabû-bēlu-ka’’in38. Only one man bears a Yahwistic name, mIa-u-ga-a, “Yahweh healed”39, but none of his colleagues bears a name with a Canaanite or foreign theophorous element. This unit may have been formed from the fifty chariot teams taken by Sargon at Samaria and added to his royal corps as specified in Sargon’s Annals (line 15)40. Reference to these teams may also appear in a contract from Nineveh, dated in 709 B.C.41 Among the witnesses of this document, one finds mNa-adbi-Ia-a-ú, “chariot driver”42, who acts under the reign of Sargon II as witness for the royal charioteer Šumma-ilāni. The name Nadbi-Yāhu is certainly Israelite, 33

J.N. Postgate, Ḫalaḫḫa, in RLA IV, Berlin 1972-75, p. 58b. F.M. Fales and J.N. Postgate, ImperialAdministrativeRecords.PartII (SAA XI), Helsinki 1995, n° 224. 35 J.V. Kinnier Wilson, The Nimrud Wine Lists (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud I), Oxford 1972, nos 1, IV, 7; 4, rev. 15’; 8, rev. 15. 36 K. Fabritius, Aššūr-šallimanni1., in PNA 1/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 217b. 37 J.V. Kinnier Wilson, TheNimrudWineLists (n. 35), p. 91. 38 St. Dalley and J.N. Postgate, TheTabletsfromFortShalmaneser (Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud III), Oxford 1984, nos 99, col. II, 16-23; 108, col. III, 34-41. Cf. R. Mattila, Nabû- bēlu-ka’’in1., in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 815b-817a. 39 D. Schwemer, Iaū-gâ, in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 497a. The explanation of the name should be corrected. The verb ghh means “to heal”. 40 St. Dalley and J.N. Postgate, TheTablets (n. 38), p. 177. 41 Th. Kwasman and S. Parpola, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh. Part I (SAA VI), Helsinki 1991, n° 34, rev. 8-9. 42 K. Åkerman, Nadbi-Iāu, in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 915a. 34

120

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

while the date of the contract and the function of the man again record the fifty chariots seized by Sargon II at Samaria for the royal force43. The name is translated in PNA “Impelled by Yahweh”44, but Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic ndb means “to donate”45, hence the name means “Yahweh donated me”. The abridged form mNa-ad-bi-ia of the same name occurs at Kalḫu under the reign of Tiglathpileser III or Sargon II and it is borne by a military official46. His patronymic is unfortunately broken and his title is lost, but three other individuals of the list are qualified as pētḫallu, “cavalryman”. The man might also be an Israelite deportee from the Samarian military force. In the contract of Nineveh, dated in 709 B.C., Nadbi-Yāhu is preceded by mPaqa-ḫa, “village manager”, who also acts as witness for Šumma-ilāni47. His name recalls the Israelite royal names of Peqaḥiah and Peqaḥ. One wonders therefore whether this man is no Samarian official, deported by Sargon II and placed at the head of a new village of deportees. Since Paqaḫa is no Assyrian name, the same question may be raised concerning one or two military officials active in Nineveh and in Kalḫu under the reign of Sargon II and called mPa-qi-ḫi48. According to a fragment of an administrative document of Nineveh, he was in charge of a number of horse trainers. This again suggests an Israelite deportee who belonged in Samaria to royal units of chariotry or cavalry. The vocalization of the name may reflect Neo-Assyrian vowel harmony, the basic form being close to Peqaḫiah or Φακϊας, possibly “Open-eyed”. Concerning the Israelites deported to Gozan / Guzana (Tell Ḫalaf), one finds some complicated information in a long letter sent to Esarhaddon by an anonymous informant, certainly a high-ranking official at Gozan49. The letter is a denunciation that deals, among others, with deportees of the second generation, who exercised important functions in the local administration: mNi-ri-Ia-u (lines 4, 28) was the chief of accounts50, mPal-ṭi-Iá-u (lines 4, 27) was his deputy51. NēriYāhu and Palṭi-Yāhu are two of seven people of Gozan who are denounced in the letter for various mischiefs. Besides, an official, specifically named as a man from Samaria, is referred to by the informant as source of his information. The man’s name is given by the editors as [m]Ḫal-bi-šú uruSa-mir-i-na-a-a (rev., 43

Cf. here above, p. 117. With reference to R. Zadok, ThePre-HellenisticIsraeliteAnthroponomyandProsopography (OLA 28), Leuven 1988, p. 29, where the name is not translated. 45 M. Sokoloff, ADictionaryofJewishPalestinianAramaic, 3rd ed., Ramat Gan 2017, p. 378b. 46 K. Åkerman, Nadbi, in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 915a. 47 A. Fuchs, Paqaḫa6., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 988a. 48 Ibid., 4.-5., p. 988a. 49 M. Luukko and G. Van Buylaere, ThePoliticalCorrespondenceofEsarhaddon (SAA XVI), Helsinki 2002, n° 63. Samarian presence at Gozan could be viewed as an additional appendix of the study of W. Orthmann, Diearamäisch-assyrischeStadtGuzana(Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 15), Saarbrücken 2002. 50 H.D. Baker and R. Zadok, Nēri-Iāu, in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 959a. 51 D. Schwemer, Palṭī-Iaū2., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 982b. 44

SAMARIAN DEPORTEES

121

line 9), but the name is apparently lost in the beginning of the line and one should read further [lú]ḫal-pí-šú uruSa-mir-i-na-a-a, “his (the governor’s) substitute, a Samarian”. An Israelite deportee to Gozan occurs also among people from Gozan acting as witnesses in a contract found at Assur and dated in 700 B.C.52 The reading of his name is corrected by R. Zadok in mPal-liṭ-Ia-ú ú-ba-ru, “Palṭi-Yāhu, visitor”53. The man is listed together with two fellows, visitors to Assur, who probably were Israelites as well: mMi-zi-ia or mMi-ṣí-ia (rev. 16) and mŠEŠ-a-bi (rev. 17), probably Ma‘azyāh or Maḥṣēyāh54 with Neo-Assyrian vocalic assimilation a>i, and ’Aḥ’āb. Two names are Yahwistic: Palṭī-Yāhu, “My deliverance is Yahu”, Ma‘azyah, “My refuge is Yahu”, Maḥṣēyāh, “My shelter is Yahu”. Such names seem to imply a dangerous situation, even the deportation, but the fact that these men were “visitors” at Assur apparently shows a certain liberty of action and movement. Yahwistic names occur also in the inscriptions from Ma‘lānā (Tell Belouna), 28 km south-east of Gozan55 as the crow flies. mBarak-Ia-u acts as witness in a deed from 665 B.C.56 and the name mAz-ri-ia-úis borne in 645 B.C. by a man from Qaštu (ša URU.BAN), near Ma‘lānā57, and a witness called Yṭyhw, “Yahweh bent down”, is mentioned in a document dated ca. 700 B.C.58 The name Šm‘’yh of a tablet dating probably from the first third of the 7th century59 is interpreted in PNA as “Yahweh has heard”60, but the spelling ’yh of the theophorous element suggests interpreting this name as Iš-me-dA-a61. A patronymic mSa-me-’-Iá-a-u occurs at Dūr-Katlimmu at the end of the 7th century62 and could be related to Assyrian deportations of Samarians. Royal inscriptions hardly mention deportations to precise locations, but NeoAssyrian letters, administrative and legal documents contain a wealth of detail throwing light on the mass deportations and the life conditions of the deportees63. A letter sent to Sargon II by a high-rang official of the royal residence of 52 V. Donbaz and S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul (Studien zu den AssurTexten 2), Saarbrücken 2001, n° 52, rev. 15. 53 R. Zadok, ThePre-HellenisticIsraeliteAnthroponomy(n. 44), p. 32, n. 22; D. Schwemer, Palṭī-Iaū1., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 982b. 54 R. Zadok, ThePre-HellenisticIsraeliteAnthroponomy(n. 44), p. 51. 55 See the maps in OLA 200, p. 7, and OLA 250, p. 28. 56 K. Fabritius, Barak-Iāu, in PNA I/2, Helsinki 1999, p. 269a. 57 O. 3690, line 4. Cf. E. Lipiński, StudiesinAramaicInscriptionsandOnomastics III (OLA 200), Leuven 2010, p. 37. 58 Ibid., p. 28-29: O. 3714, line 6. 59 Ibid., p. 88-89: O. 3654, line 2. 60 H.D. Baker, Same-Iāu2., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1083a. 61 E. Lipiński, StudiesIII (n. 57), p. 92. Cf. S. Parpola in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. XXVXXVII. 62 H.D. Baker, Same’-Iāu1., in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1083a. 63 B. Oded, MassDeportationsandDeporteesintheNeo-AssyrianEmpire, Wiesbaden 1979, p. 8-11.

122

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

Dūr-Šarrukīn quotes a king’s instruction concerning Samarian deportees, used as working-force. The king had written: “[Provi]de [all] the [Sam]arians [in] your charge (with work) in Dūr-Šarrukīn”64. The official answered, informing the king that the sheikhs responsible for the Samarians in question refused to send them to work for him: “I subsequently [sent word] to the sheikhs, [say]ing: ‘Collect [all] the carpenters and potters; let them come and [direct] the deportees [who are in D]ūr-Šarrukīn’, but they did not agree to send them”65. The letter deals further with this question, but the most interesting information provided by this correspondence is the fact that specialized craftsmen, like carpenters and potters, were deported from Samaria to Assyria in order to work at Sargon’s buildings and in his factories. Similar complaints about the idleness of local officials are found in the letter sent by Ariḫu, an official in Laqê66, to Nabû-dūru-uṣur67, responsible for this province under the reign of Sargon II. The letter concerns the crop tax of Samarians, obviously deported at the time of Sargon II to this region below the confluence of the Habur and of the Euphrates. Ariḫu thus writes: “As to the crop tax of the Samarians, my lord should send a notice whether it exists or not, and let us be content with that. The officials are passive, they keep where they are, they don’t go to do their work, nor can we give them orders.” This letter shows that also tillers were deported and we may assume that their passive officials were Samarians as well. A letter sent to Sargon II informs the king that 40,000 bricks have been given to Samaria and that 40,000 additional bricks have been sent to Megiddo, two capitals of Assyrian provinces created by Sargon II in the core of conquered Samaria. These bricks are said to have been taken “from the king’s entourage”68. Nothing indicates however that these bricks were made in royal factories by deportees or war prisoners. II Kings 17, 6 and 18, 11 record a deportation of Samarians by Sargon II also “to cities of Media”. Following the policy initiated by Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II annexed several Median districts, deported their population69, and resettled deportees from Ḫatti, i.e. Syro-Phoenicia, and from Samaria in Ḫarḫar, renamed Kār-Šarrukēn, “Fort of Sargon”. The Naǧafehābād stele, probably 64

Translation of A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, TheCorrespondenceofSargonII.PartIII (SAA XV), Helsinki 2000, n° 280, lines 2’-4’. 65 Ibid., lines 4’-10’. 66 Ph. Talon, Ariḫu1., in PNA I/1, Helsinki 1998, p. 131a. Transliteration and translation of the letter: S. Parpola, TheCorrespondenceofSargonII.Part I (SAA I), Helsinki 1987, n° 220, lines 4-rev. 3. However, nusāḫu is a “crop tax”. 67 E. Cancik, Nabû-dūru-uṣur1., in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 823b-824a. 68 G.B. Lanfranchi and S. Parpola, TheCorrespondenceofSargonII.PartII (SAA V), Helsinki 1990, n° 291. 69 For a deportation to the Brook of Egypt, see N. Na’aman and R. Zadok, SargonII’sDeportationstoIsraelandPhilistia(716-708B.C.), in JCS 40 (1988), p. 36-46.

RESETTLEMENT OF SAMARIA

123

identical with the Kišesim (Kār-Ninurta) stele, shows that Sargon II campaigned intensively in Media in 716 B.C.70 Ḫarḫar, the main Assyrian centre in Media, was located in the central western Zagros, in the vicinity of present-day Bisitun. No concrete information about these exiled people is available, but the souvenir of this deportation “to the cities of Media” was still vivid at the time of the Book of Tobit, since the knot of the story is played in Media. Tobit, its hero, was one of these deportees: he lived in Nineveh, but had compatriots in Media and the book itself has possibly been compiled there, and not in Cisjordan. Its incipit mentions Shalmaneser V instead of Sargon II and the tribe of Naphtali instead of Samaria (Tobit 1, 1-2), but the whole story turns around descendants of the ten tribes supposed to have been deported by the Assyrians. The original language of the book was most likely Aramaic, since several Aramaic fragments were found among the Qumran fragmentary papyri and parchments of Cave IV, as well as fragments of a Hebrew manuscript on parchment.

RESETTLEMENT OF SAMARIA The deported Israelites were replaced in Samaria by resettled colonists from various countries. II Kings 17, 24 states that “the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, from Kutha, from ‘Awwah, from Hamat, and from Sprwym, and he settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the Israelites, and they possessed Samaria and dwelled in its cities”. This text is not based on an official document, but summarizes information transmitted orally. Therefore, we do not know when these resettlements took place. II Kings 17, 24 served for a long time as basis of the opinion that the Samaritans stemmed from the deportees brought by the Assyrians from Mesopotamia or Media. An alternative view, held by some biblical scholars, considered the Samaritan community in Shechem as originated from a split in the Jerusalemite priesthood, a view going back to Josephus Flavius. According to Jewish Antiquities XI, 8, 2, §306-312, Manasseh, son of the high priest in Jerusalem, was expelled from the priesthood, and he accepted the invitation of Sanballat to settle in Samaria. An innovative study of these questions was recently published by G.N. Knoppers, whose views are based on a fresh reading of biblical sources, especially II Kings 17, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah, and on 70 L. Levine, TwoNeo-AssyrianStelaefromIran (Royal Ontario Museum. Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 23), Toronto 1972; N. Na’aman and R. Zadok, SargonII’sDeportations (n. 69), p. 38-40; A. Fuchs, SargonII, in RLA XII, Berlin 2009-11, p. 51-61 (see p. 56b); id., Šarru-kēnu2., in PNA III/2, Helsinki 2011, p. 1239-1247 (see p. 1244b, V, 2); St.C. Brown, Medien, in RLA VII, Berlin 1987-90, p. 619-623 (see p. 620a).

124

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

archaeological data relating to the temple on Mount Gerizim71. The main point of his study is that there existed good relations between the elites in Judah and in Samaria. Although leading Samarians had been deported by Assyrians, many other were left and constituted the bulk of the Israelite population of Samaria in the Persian and early Hellenistic eras. The installation of foreigners from Babylon and Kutha in Samaria in Sargon’s first year (721 B.C.) is stated mistakenly in some biblical commentaries, for Sargon II was not even able to react in 721 B.C., when Babylonia was lost to Merodach-baladan (721-710 B.C.)72. The reconquest of Babylon took place in 710 B.C., but the Assyrian army first subdued the Aramaean tribes east of the Tigris and cut off Elam from the theatre of war in Babylonia. These operations are perhaps related to the deportation of the ‘Awwa people, recorded in II Kings 17, 24. In fact, the mention of ‘Awwah may refer to the town uruA-ma-te on the bank of the Uqnū river. Sargon II attached it ca. 710 B.C., with other subjugated cities of the region, to the province of the governor of the Gambūlu land, in south-eastern Babylonia73. The village ‘Awwīm (Josh. 18, 23) on the territory of the tribe of Benjamin most likely preserves the name of the foreign population transferred from ‘Awwah to southern Samaria. In 720 B.C., the Assyrian army had subdued the rebellion in Syria, headed by the king of Hamat. Samaria had participated in this revolt. Although the context of the Assyrian sources is broken, it appears that “only the people from Samaria, and not other areas, took part in the rebellion. Thus, the political stand of the elders of Samaria seems to have differed from the views held by the traditional leadership elsewhere. In their association with a rebel hostile to Assyria, the ‘city elders’ of Samaria demonstrated that they still firmly held the reins of power”74. According to Sargon’s Display Inscriptions, 200 chariots and 600 men on horseback from among the inhabitants of Hamat were added to Sargon’s royal corps, but there is no question of a deportation of its people to Samaria, as stated in II Kings 17, 24. As for Sprwym, it is the misspelled name of the land of Shupriya in northern Mesopotamia, conquered by Esarhaddon in 673/2 B.C.; it is possible that some of its population was deported to Samaria75. In fact, Samarians still recorded at the end of the 6th century that a resettlement of foreigners in Samaria has been done at the time of Esarhaddon (Esd. 4, 2).

71 G.N. Knoppers, JewsandSamaritans.TheOriginsandHistoryofTheirEarlyRelations, Oxford 2013. 72 A. Fuchs, Šarru-kēnu2. (n. 25), p. 1240-1241. 73 A. Fuchs, DieInschriftenSargonsII.ausKhorsabad, Göttingen 1994, p. 149-150 and 330, Ann. 292-294. 74 H. Reviv, TheEldersinAncientIsrael, Jerusalem 1989, p. 135. Cf. ANET, p. 285. 75 E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 23), p. 203-206.

RESETTLEMENT OF SAMARIA

125

Thamudic graffiti (photo: Suleiman al-Theeb)

An explicit Assyrian reference to a resettlement of foreigners in Samaria occurs in Sargon’s Annals for his seventh year (715 B.C.), when some Arab tribes were forced to settle in Samaria: “I crushed the tribes of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsimanu, and Haiapa, the Arabs who live far away, in the desert (and) who know neither overseers nor official(s) and who had not (yet) brought their tribute to any king. I deported their survivors and settled (them) in Samaria”76. This passage of Sargon II’s Annals is the earliest text mentioning the Thamudaeans, who were living in the deserts of north-western Arabia, especially in the area of the Teima oasis and south of it77. No confirmation of the presence of Thamudaeans or related deportees in Samaria has been found so far in ancient sources. Instead, the study of personal names occurring in inscriptions from Philistia reveal Neo-Assyrian resettlement of populations deported from other countries. The ostraca from Tell Ğemmeh, dating from the 7th century B.C., contain at least three apparently Cassite names, implying the resettlement of populations native of the Zagros mountains78. However, the ostraca of Tell Ğemmeh witness a situation in southern Philistia and cannot be related automatically to Sargon II’s deportations to Samaria. 76 Translation of A.L. Oppenheim, in ANET, p. 286a. Cf. A. Fuchs, DieInschriftenSargonsII. (n. 73), Ann. 120-123. 77 K. Lämmerhirt, Tamūd, in RLA XIII, Berlin 2011-13, p. 440. 78 N. Na’aman and R. Zadok, SargonII’sDeportations(n. 69), p. 38-42.

126

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS According to the estimation of M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, the population of the Kingdom of Israel in the mid-8th century B.C., on both sides of the Jordan, reached about 350,00079. It we take at its face value the 27,290 inhabitants deported from Samaria according to the Assyrian census, this represents a modest figure of less than 8% of the kingdom’s population. True, the Assyrian census does not concern the entire country, but the Assyrian tendency of exaggerating the figures is well known, while iconography does not show real mass deportations. In 1925, W.F. Albright estimated that the deported Israelites could not have been, at the extreme, more than 5% of the population80. This was a too low estimation. The mass emigration of Israelites to Jerusalem and Judah after 722 B.C. may have been more important demographically than the deportations. In fact, the expansion of Jerusalem ca. 700 B.C. cannot be explained by mere demography. Authors generally agree that the growth of the population is due in the first place to a mass emigration of the population of Israel, flying the Assyrian invasion and seeking refuge in independent Judah81. The site of the town grew from 4 hectares in the 8th century into 24-32 hectares in the 7th century82. Besides, a great number of new settlements were founded in Judah during the seventh century B.C.83 Of course, the invasion of Sennacherib and its consequences caused a second mass emigration in Judah, and this movement started certainly with the invasion of Tiglath-pileser III in 734 B.C. However, the expansion of Jerusalem had a lasting cause which was the Assyrian annexation of the Kingdom of Israel. The Assyrian conquests caused a tremendous change in the demographic structure of the country. This appears very well from I. Finkelstein’s survey of the land of Ephraim in 1980-1987. This area constituted the core of the Kingdom of Israel and its situation had an impact on the entire country. Now, I. Finkelstein noted that the number of settled inhabitants of the land of Ephraim in the 5th century B.C. represented only 25% of its settled population in the 8th century B.C. If we assume that settlement had been in a process of steady recovery around the 6th century, the situation was still worse in the seventh century B.C. According to I Finkelstein, this severe decline was certainly caused by the destruction of the 79 M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II, in BASOR 287 (1992), p. 47-60; M. Broshi, ThePopulationofIronAgePalestine, in BiblicalArchaeologyToday 1990.Pre-congressSymposium.Supplement, Jerusalem 1993, p. 14-18 (see p. 17). 80 W. Albright, TheAdministrativeDivisionsofIsraelandJudah, in JPOS 5 (1925), p. 17-54 (see p. 20 ff.). 81 This opinion was already expressed by M. Broshi, TheExpansionofJerusalemintheReigns ofHezekiahandManasseh, in IEJ 24 (1974), p. 21-29, in particular p. 23-25; id., Lapopulation del’ancienneJerusalem, in RB 82 (1975), p. 5-14, in particular p. 4-5. 82 M. Broshi, ThePopulation (n. 79), p. 16. 83 Ibid., p. 17.

FROM THE END OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE TO THE PERSIAN PERIOD

127

Kingdom of Israel and the exile of large elements of its population84. However, the tremendous demographic decline of the settled population resulted not only from deportations and emigrations, but also from a shift of settlements to the west in the Persian period, also noticed in the survey. These data also show that the resettlement of foreign populations in Samaria was not important, contrary to the impression given by II Kings 17, 24-4185. Despite the demographic decline, the Kingdom of Israel was divided in several Assyrian districts. The capitals of the central provinces were established at Megiddo and at Samaria, and several districts were created in northern Transjordan. Only two governors are known as eponyms. Nabû-kēnu-uṣur, governor of Samaria was eponym in 690 B.C.86, Itti-Adad-anēnu, governor of Megiddo, was eponym in 679 B.C.87 FROM

THE END OF THE

ASSYRIAN EMPIRE

TO THE

PERSIAN PERIOD

The gradual dissolution of the Assyrian Empire in the years 620-610 B.C. showed that Assyria could no longer threaten Egypt. Psammetichus I (664-610 B.C.) thus attempted to preserve an Assyrian State as a buffer between Egypt and the Medo-Chaldaean axis menacing its existence and he took military steps to regain Egypt’s ancient sphere of influence in Philistia and Syro-Phoenicia. An EgyptoAssyrian alliance came into existence between 622 and 617 B.C., as implied by the Babylonian Nabopolassar’s chronicle88. Megiddo became again an Egyptian basis and Josiah, king of Judah who dared annexing some territories of the Assyrian province of Samaria, was hence regarded as a vassal of Egypt. In 610/609 B.C. Neco II (609-593 B.C.), who had succeeded to his father Psammetichus I, marched with a large force to Carchemish to assist Ashur-uballiṭ II (611-609 B.C.), the last king of Assyria. The Egyptian army had stopped at Megiddo, where king Josiah, regarded as an unfaithful vassal, was executed89. Neco failed saving Assyria and 84 I. Finkelstein, TheLandofEphraim.Survey1980-1987.PreliminaryReport, in TelAviv 15-16 (1988-89), p. 117-183 (see p. 154-155). 85 The problematic character of this passage is shown by E. Lipiński, ForeignCultsin7thCenturySamaria,in ThePolishJournalofBiblicalResearch 15/1 (2016), p. 25-33; see also here below, p. 149-157. One should also stress the anti-Samaritan nature of II Kings 17, 34-41. 86 A.R. Millard, TheEponymsoftheAssyrianEmpire, 910-612B.C. (State Archives of Assyria Studies 2), Helsinki 1994, p. 50; H.D. Baker, Nabû-kēnu-uṣur 3., in PNA II/2, Helsinki 2001, p. 840a. 87 A.R. Millard, TheEponyms (n. 86), p. 51; P.D. Gesche and F. Schwemer, Itti-Adad-anēnu1., in PNA II/1, Helsinki 2000, p. 588b. 88 A. Malamat, History of Biblical Israel (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 7), Leiden 2001, p. 290; E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaanintheIronAge (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 155-158. 89 II Kings 23, 29-30. II Chron. 35, 20-24, followed by I Ezra 1, 23-31 and Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities X, 5, 1, §174, records a battle, in which Josiah would have been

128

ISRAEL’S DOWNFALL AND THE ASSYRIAN CONQUEST

the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar II occupied Syro-Phoenicia in 605604 B.C., but did not manage to penetrate in Egypt, despite furious battles in 601/ 600 B.C. Jerusalem was first captured in 598/7 B.C.90 The final capture and destruction of Jerusalem took place in 587 B.C. Among the deportees there were possibly some former refugees from the Kingdom of Israel, but this cannot be regarded as historical basis for some features of the Samaritan account of the exile and of the return from exile. They are due to excerpts from biblical texts. Original details of the Samaritan account seem to refer to Harran91, which was briefly under Babylonian rule. The fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire came quickly and with astounding ease. Babylon was taken in 539 B.C. without fight and Cyrus, the first Persian king of Babylon (538-530 B.C.), entered the city in triumph. When and how he had gained SyroPhoenicia is uncertain. Cyrus’ cylinder only mentions kings of the West who brought him tribute to Babylon92.

killed. II Kings 23, 29-30 rather suggests that Josiah was seized and executed, because he was most likely opposed to a policy aiming at saving Assyria. 90 E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaan (n. 88), p. 157-162. 91 Cf. here below, p. 132-133, 168. 92 ANET, p. 316.

CHAPTER V

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

The question of the religion of Israel goes to the heart of Israelite selfunderstanding, but it should be distinguished from the study of God’s worship under the name of Yahweh, which is a shortened form of the theonym Yhw-’l, that can be translated “El created (everything)”. EL’S

WORSHIP

Gen. 33, 20 states clearly that El is the God of Israel. The earliest confirmation of this statement is provided by the theophorous element of tribal and personal names. The Execration Texts may already refer to Joseph-Il, who certainly occurs in the topographical list of Tuthmosis III, probably copied by Ramesses II and Ramesses III. It mentions Y-šꜢ-p-ἰ-r or Y-šꜢ-p-ἰ-Ꜣ-r, i.e. Ysp-’Il, and Y-‘-q-b-ἰ-Ꜣ-r or Y-‘Ꜣ-q-Ꜣ-bꜢ-bꜢ-rw, i.e. Ya‘qub-’Il1. The region of a Shasu clan or tribe, recorded in the 14th century B.C., is called Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ, i.e. Yhw-’Il2, and Y-s-ἰ-r-ἰ-Ꜣ-r3 or Yśr-’Il in Merneptah’s stele is Israel. God changed the name of Jacob into Israel at Penuel (Gen. 32, 29), present-day Deir ‘Alla, whose ancient name “Face of El” and its Aramaic adaptation Tr‘-’lh, “Gate of God”, show that this was the site of the important sanctuary of the Late Bronze Age, destroyed in the early 12th century B.C. by an earthquake4. The toponym shows that the shrine was no polytheistic cult centre. The site was rebuilt by Jeroboam I in the last quarter of the 10th century B.C. (I Kings 12, 25). The partly excavated round tower, joined by an east-west wall, seems to belong to this period, but the excavators of Deir ‘Alla did not relate it to Jeroboam I for the simple reason that they did not identify the site with Penuel, while the 14C data put these levels at a somewhat too high date. The theophorous element ’Il or ’El reappears in the names of the Former Prophets Samuel, Elijah, Elisha. Besides, Samuel was a protégé of the old priest 1 R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen. GrossesHandwörterbuchÄgyptisch-Deutsch (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64), 2nd ed., Mainz a/R 1997, p. 1312b, 1313a, and 1299a. Cf. here above, p. 4 and 7-8. 2 See here above, p. 13. 3 R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 1), p. 1312b. 4 E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaanintheIronAge (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 290-292, with former literature.

130

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

Eli at the shrine of Shiloh (I Sam. 1, 9 - 3, 3). Samuel’s father was called El-qanah and his great-grandfather was Elihu (I Sam. 1, 1.4.8; 2, 11). The priest Phinehas was son of Eleazar (Josh. 22, 13.30-34) and grandson of Aaron (Numb. 25, 7-13; Judg. 20, 28). Othniel was the first “judge” of Israel (Judg. 3, 9-11). Moreover, the shrine of Shechem is called “House of El-Berith” in Judg. 9, 46. The Samaria ostraca, dating from the end of the 9th century B.C. and the early 8th century B.C., still provide a few personal names with the theophorous element ’El5: Ela (n° 38, 3), Eliba (n° 1, 6), Elyasha‘ (n° 1, 4.7), Śari’el (nos 42, 1; 48, 1). The Wadi Daliyeh papyri from Samaria still mention Beyad’el (n° 1, [2].5) and Delah’el (n° 5, [2].6.8), while Abdel was the name of a Samarian high priest according to the New Samaritan Chronicle. The theophorous element ’Elappears also in connection with the earliest Israelite shrines in Cisjordan, the one of Shechem or that of Shiloh, both in the territory of Ephraim. SHECHEM Shechem was the place where Abimelek, son of Jerubbaal, was “made king by the terebinth of the pillar (mṣb) that was in Shechem”. This happened in the period of the “judges”, probably in the 11th century B.C., after Abimelek has been supplied with silver from the “House of the Lord of the Covenant” (Judg. 9, 4-6). This was very likely the sanctuary of the God heading the tribal federation of Israel, and he is named ’El-Berith in Judg. 9, 46. Despite this use of the theonym El, the title “Lord of the Covenant” was probably misinterpreted by the Deuteronomistic redactors, who apparently thought that this was a Canaanite Baal. Abimelek ruled only three years (Judg. 9, 22). The “terebinth of the pillar” refers to a sacred tree near the maṣṣebāh of a shrine, possibly called later “House of Yahweh” (Josh. 24, 26) and perhaps distinct from the “House of the Lord of the Covenant” or “El of the Covenant” .This terebinth is likely the place sanctified by Abraham allegedly arriving in Canaan: he built an altar there at “the terebinth of Moreh” (Gen. 12, 6). The same site is presumably referred to in Gen. 35, 4, where Jacob is said to have buried the foreign gods and the earrings of his family “under the terebinth near Shechem”. This burial of idolatrous emblems under the sacred tree had some traditional meaning and expressed condemnation of the cult practiced on that place. Hos. 4, 13 records it, addressing Israel: “Your men sacrifice on mountain-tops and burn offerings on the hills, under oak and poplar and the terebinth’s pleasant shade”. 5 A. Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques I. Les ostraca (LAPO 9), Paris 1977, p. 23-81, with former literature.

SHECHEM

131

This reference to the terebinth and the mountain-tops implies an allusion to Mount Ebal and to Mount Gerizim, as well as to Shechem, situated between the two mountains, 2 km east of modern Nablus. Also the oracle of Ez. 6, 13 seems to allude to Israelite worshippers whose “slain will fall among the idols round their altars, on every high hill, on all mountains, under every spreading tree, under every leafy terebinth, wherever they have brought offerings of soothing odour”. Ez. 16, 46-52 refers to the sins of Samaria, but it also alludes to the cult practiced at the terebinth of Shechem and very likely on Mount Gerizim. However, according to Gen. 33, 20, Jacob had set up an altar at Shechem and called it “El, God of Israel”, what implies an old tradition of El’s worship at Shechem. Besides, Deut. 11, 29 and 27, 12-13 regards Mount Gerizim as a hill-top blessed by God (cf. Josh. 8, 32-35). The “House of Yahweh” at Shechem, recorded in Josh. 24, 26, was presumably destroyed by Josiah, king of Judah. Following the gradual dissolution of the Assyrian Empire in the years 620-610 B.C., Josiah dared to annex to his small kingdom Assyrian provinces of Cisjordan and applied to their holy places the religious reforms which he had initiated in Judah. The Deuteronomistic redactor regarded them as idolatrous and describes Josiah’s action as follows: “The altar which was in Bethel, the ‘high place’ made by Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, he demolished and smashed up the stones thereof, beating them to dust, and he burned the sacred grove (‘ăšērāh)… Moreover, all the shrines of the ‘high places’ which were in Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made, provoking Yahweh to anger, Josiah abolished, and he treated them according to all that he had done at Bethel. And he slew all the priests of the ‘high places’ which were there by the altars and burned human bones upon them and returned to Jerusalem” (II Kings 23, 15.1920).

The shrines of Yahweh at Samaria, Shechem, and other places have been destroyed and the Yahwistic holy places seem to have been rebuilt only in the Persian period. Several events had happened in the maintime: Neco II’s intervention in 610/609 B.C. and the killing of Josiah, the Babylonian occupation of Syro-Phoenicia and Cisjordan in 605 B.C., and the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.

Proto-Aeolic capitals from the 9th/8th century B.C., found on Mount Gerizim

132

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

The proto-Aeolic limestone capitals discovered during the recent excavations on Mount Gerizim and dating most likely from the 9th or 8th century B.C. belonged presumably to the few remains of Yahweh’s shrine of Shechem. They were apparently reused in the mid-5th century B.C. by the Samarians building their sanctuary on Mount Gerizim6. According to the New Samaritan Chronicle, based on earlier sources, they had returned from exile in the early Persian period under the leading of the high priest Abdel (‘bd’lbn‘zryh) and of the civil leader Sanballat from the tribe of Levi 7. This connection of Sanballat has no relation whatsoever to the Levites of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. It goes back to the original function of the Levites, who were members of garrisons keeping watch over border towns of the Kingdom of Israel, as confirmed by etymology. The noun lēwī derives from the Semitic root lwy, “to turn around”, like the Hebrew word liwyā, “wreath”. It first designated guardians of the city-walls. They were later regarded as members of a tribe. Some of them have been deported by the Assyrians, possibly also to the area of Harran, where Sanballat seems to have stayed in the final years of the exile. The account of the Chronicle goes obviously back to oral traditions, mixed with scribal reminiscences, and it does not provide solid chronological data. The return of the exiled Samarians was preceded by some difficulties. According to the Chronicle, Abdel found himself in dispute with the Judaean leader Zerubbabel, but the Persian king Swrdy, obviously Smerdis of the Hellenistic historiography and Bardiya of the Behistun inscription, favoured the Samarians, when he was staying in Harran on the Balīḫ. The story of their return seems to be partly inspired by the biblical accounts, and Sanballat should most likely be identified with Sanballat h-Ḥrny of Nehemiah’s “memoirs”, where h-Ḥrny must be understood “the Harranite”8. In any case, Sanballat of the early Persian period should be distinguished from his homonym and presumably grandson, mentioned in the Elephantine papyri. These documents reveal that a governor of Samaria, named Sanballat (Sn’blṭ), had been succeeded ca. 407 B.C. by his son Delaiah9. This might show that various members of this family were involved with the government of the Samarian province during the Persian period. Although no ancient source proves a Samarian return from exile after 525 B.C., comparable to the Judaean one, the name of Sanballat, 6 E. Stern and Y. Magen, ArchaeologicalEvidencefortheFirstStageoftheSamaritanTemple onMountGerizim, in IEJ 52 (2002), p. 49-57. 7 E.N. Adler and M. Seligsohn, Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine, in Revue des études juives 44 (1902), p. 188-222; 45 (1902), p. 70-98, 160, 223-254; 46 (1903), p. 123-146 (see 44 [1902], p. 218-220). The correct vocalization of Snblṭ or Sn’blṭ is Sīn-uballiṭ. For the original meaning of lēwī, cf. E. Lipiński, MiastalewickiewZajordanii, in SBO 3 (2011), p. 19-29, in particular p. 20-21. 8 This reading was already proposed by K. Galling, AssyrischeundpersischePräfekteninGezer, in Palästinajahrbuch 31 (1935), p. 75-93 (see p. 87). The Septuagint reads Αρωνι: II Ezra 12, 10.19. 9 TAD I, A4.7, 29; A4.8, 28; A4.9, 1.

SHECHEM

133

Sīn-uballiṭ, “Sīn has given life”10, refers to Harran, the holy city of the Moongod Sīn, and seems to imply a longer presence of Samarian deportees in this city, presumably going back to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The probable reuse of the proto-Aeolic capitals of the temple of Yahweh at Shechem in the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim reveals the desire of drawing a connection between the temple on Mount Gerizim and the temple in Shechem. There is no reason why Samarian or Samaritan priests would have intended connecting their shrine with Jerusalem, as stated by Josephus Flavius11. Almost four hundred inscriptions in Palaeo-Hebrew, Jewish-Aramaic, Greek, and Samaritan script were discovered during the recent excavations on Mount Gerizim12. They frequently mention the word “sacrifice”, along with the names of priests bearing clearly biblical names. Hundreds of thousands of bones of sacrificed sheep, goats, pigeons, and oxen were uncovered. The word Yhwh occurs several times, also the expression “before the Lord in the temple”, lpny’dnybmqdš13. The foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim and its increasing importance are apparently echoed by the polemic attitude towards the kings of Israel, expressed in II Chron. 13, 4-12 and Zech. 11, 1414. The Samaritan chronicle, known as BookofJoshua and written in Arabic in 1362/3 A.D. (chs. 1-46) and 1513/4 A.D. (chs. 47 ff.), reports that Sanballat restored the temple of Mount Gerizim, built by Joshua but destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar15. The only records behind this story must be Joshua’s execution of the command given by Moses in Deut. 27, 4-7 (cf. Josh. 8, 30-31) and the assumption that the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim was destroyed by the Babylonians like the Temple of Jerusalem. According to the Samaritan Pentateuch, probably preserving the original version, one reads in Deut. 27, 4-716: 10 K.L. Tallqvist, NeubabylonischesNamenbuch, Helsinki 1905, p. 276b; C. Saporetti, Onomasticamedio-assira (Studia Pohl 6), Roma 1970, vol. I, p. 407-408; H.D. Baker, Sīn-uballiṭ, in PNA III/1, Helsinki 2002, p. 1150. 11 Josephus Flavius, TheJewishWar I, 2, 6, §63; JewishAntiquities XI, 8, 2, §310; XIII, 9, 1, §256. 12 Y. Magen, H. Misgav, and L. Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavationsI.TheAramaic,Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions, Jerusalem 2004. The Aramaic inscriptions follow the Achaemenid spelling practice and chancellery idiom. 13 Y. Magen, L. Tsfania, and H. Misgav, TheHebrewandAramaicInscriptionsfromMt.Gerizim, in Qadmoniot 38/2 (2000), p. 125-132, pl. 1 (in Hebrew). Cf. also here above, n. 12. 14 M. Delcor, HinweiseaufdassamaritanischeSchismaimAltenTestament, in ZAW 74 (1962), p. 281-291. See also R. Tournay, Quelquesrelecturesbibliquesantisamaritaines, in RB 71 (1964), p. 506-536. 15 The BookofJoshua is a record of events from the death of Moses until the 4th century A.D. This work seems to have been compiled from traditional material at some time in the 13th century. Its oldest manuscript, housed in the Leiden Library, was sold to J. Scaliger in 1584 by the Samaritan community in Cairo. It was published by T.W.J. Juynboll, Chronicon Samaritanum, arabice conscriptum,cuititulusestLiberJosue, Leiden 1848. 16 Cf. M. Noth, DasBuchJosua, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1953, p. 52. Despite the hesitations of M. Noth, “Mount Gerizim” in Deut. 27, 4 is rightly regarded as the primary reading by G.N. Knoppers,

134

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

“When you have crossed the Jordan you shall set up these stones (with the Decalogue) on Mount Gerizim, as I command you this day, and cover them with plaster. You shall build an altar there to Yahweh, your God: it shall be an altar of stones on which you shall use no tool of iron. You shall build the altar of Yahweh, your God, with blocks of undressed stone, and you shall offer whole-offerings upon it to Yahweh, your God. You shall slaughter shared-offerings and eat them there, and rejoice before Yahweh, your God.”

The temple has been built by Sanballat h-Ḥrny in the mid-5th century B.C. and neither a governor Sanballat nor the last Persian king were involved in the second phase of the temple on Mount Gerizim, the so-called “Temple City” built in the early 2nd century B.C.17, presumably in the reign of Antiochus III the Great (223-187 B.C.) and of his successors. Josephus’ accounts18 involve confusions of governors called Sanballat and of the Achaemenid kings Darius I and III. According to the excavators, the first inhabitants of the Temple City “were priests and Levites, some of whom perhaps had fled from Samaria after its destruction by Alexander”19. However, one can raise the question of the origin of the Samarian priesthood. The answer is very likely provided by the Samaritan tradition. According to the New Samaritan Chronicle, quoted above, the high priest Abdel was leading the Samarians and their descendants returning from exile in the early Persian period. He and his priestly family should probably be related to the temple of Mount Gerizim, first to the shrine built in the mid 5th century B.C., and later to the so-called “Temple City”. BETHEL The main cult centre of El was initially established at Bethel, “House of El”, 17 km north of Jerusalem, in the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18, 22) or at the southern border of Ephraim (Josh. 16, 1-2; 18, 13; I Chron. 7, 28). The site is situated next to the present-day Muslim village of Beitīn. Excavations have been conducted at Bethel by W.F. Albright and J.L. Kelso in 1927 and 1934, and they were resumed by Kelso in 1954, 1957, and 196020. The site was occupied since the Early Bronze Age and it was fortified in the Middle Bronze Age II. Canaanite Bethel continued to flourish in the Late Bronze Age, when it had commercial relations with Cyprus, indicated by the pottery finds. The toponym JewsandSamaritans.TheOriginsandHistoryofTheirEarlyRelations, Oxford 2013, p. 203 and 207, in line with other scholars. 17 This appellation of the city built around the temple on Mount Gerizim constitutes the subtitle of the second volume of the excavations reports, published by Y. Magen (ed.), MountGerizim ExcavationsII.ATempleCity (Judaea and Samaria Publications 8), Jerusalem 2008. 18 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities XI, 8, 2.3.4, §310-312, 315, 323-324; XIII, 9, 1, §255. 19 Y. Magen, H. Misgav, and L. Tsfania, MountGerizimExcavationsI (n. 12), p. 3. 20 J.L. Kelso et al., The Excavations of Bethel, 1934-1960 (AASOR 39), Cambridge Mass. 1968; R. de Vaux, rev. in RB 77 (1970), p. 441-443; EAEHL I, Jerusalem 1975, p. 190-193.

BETHEL

135

Restored basalt stele from Tell Aḥmar (Aleppo National Museum)

is possibly mentioned in an Egyptian text as B-bꜢ-ṯꜢ-r21. A burnt layer indicates that Bethel was captured and burned down toward the end of the Late Bronze Age; it was rebuilt in Iron Age I, probably as an Israelite town, which shows a decline in the standard of living. A recovery is noticeable in the Omride period, in the 9th century B.C. The cult of El at Bethel goes obviously back to the Bronze Age and to Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ of the Shasu pastoralists, and the God of Jacob is explicitly identified with “El of Bethel” (Gen. 31, 13; 35, 7). Saul concentrated his troops on the mound of Bethel (I Sam. 13, 2) to gain God’s support in his war with the Philistines, and Jeroboam I did not establish a new cult at Bethel, contrary to the anti-Israelite accounts of I Kings 12, 26-13, 41, but manifested his support to the traditional pilgrimages to the shrine of Bethel, recorded in Gen. 28, 10-22; 35, 1-15. The 21

R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 1), p. 1334b.

136

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

Stelae from et-Tell (left) and Tell Aš‘ari (right)22

allegedly ancient name Lūz of Bethel (Gen. 28, 19; 35, 6) derives from the same root lwḏ as Arabic lāḏa, “to seek refuge”, and means “asylum, refuge”, especially in a shrine, like Arabic malāḏ 23. It is possible that an Israelite tent-shrine with an altar was established east of the town (Gen. 12, 8) for pilgrims from nomadic or semi-nomadic clans coming to the holy place. The presence of the invisible divinity was symbolized by a “golden calf” (I Kings 12, 28; Hos. 13, 2), which did not represent or support a divine figure, contrary to Aramaean figurations of the deity, either standing on the back of a bull or represented as an anthropomorphized bull. The Decalogue, “You shall make no idol” (Ex. 20, 4a; Deut. 5, 8a), was thus respected. The sanctuary could thus contain a standing stone, symbolizing the deity, or a bronze bull figurine, which was considered in Israelite religion as the pedestal of the God of Israel, comparable to some extent with Canaanite or Aramaean representations of the deity. Such a bull figurine, dated from Iron Age I, was found at a cult site in the northern Samarian hills, in the heart of the Israelite settlement region24. 22

S. Hafƥórsson, APassingPower, Stockholm 2006, p. 217. E. Lipiński, Toponymesetgentilicesbibliquesfaceàl’histoire (OLA 267), Leuven 2018, p. 1-2. One wonders whether the name of the Nahr al-Leḏḏān, flowing from the pool at the western base of Tell al-Qāḍi, is not a derivative of the same root lwḏ or of its variant lḏḏ. In fact, there was a shrine serving as asylum on the summit of the tell, above the pool, which was called Dan(n). The steps leading to its altar seem to show that this was no Yahwistic shrine, since they contradict the rules established in Ex. 20, 26; 27, 1-8. 24 A. Mazar, The“BullSite”—AnIronAgeIOpenCultPlace, in BASOR 247 (1982), p. 27-42; id., ArchaeologyoftheLandoftheBible,10,000-586B.C.E., New York 1990, p. 350-352. 23

SHILOH

137

Bronze bull figurine from a Samarian hill, length 18 cm (photo: Z. Radovan)

The anti-Israelite attitude towards the sanctuary of Bethel, very close to Jerusalem, appears in the deformation of the toponym into Beth-‘Awen, “House of Wrongdoing” (Am. 5, 5b; Hos. 4, 15; 5, 8; 10, 5), and led to its destruction by Josiah, king of Judah, and the massacre of its priests (II Kings 23, 15-18)25. This action was not related to the use of the word Byt’l as theonym from the 7th century B.C. on, apparently also in Jer. 48, 13. Instead, there is a genetic connection between the story of the Golden Calf in Ex. 32-34 and that of the two golden calves set up by Jeroboam I in Bethel and Dan26. Since the Jeroboam narrative in I Kings 12, 28-30 evidently expresses the view of the Jerusalemite orthodoxy, not attested in Israelite literature before Hos. 8, 5-6; 13, 2, it may be inferred that the polemic against the “calves” of Bethel and Dan cannot be earlier than the later monarchic period in Judah. SHILOH Shiloh is often regarded as the earliest Israelite sanctuary in which the Tabernacle with the Ark of the Covenant was kept. The site is generally identified with Khirbet Sēlūn, 22 km south of Shechem and 4 km east of the way from Jerusalem to Nablus. This location corresponds quite well to the situation of 25

Cf. here above, p. 131. Cf. especially Ex. 32, 4b.8b; I Kings 12, 28b, as noticed by M. Greenberg, Exodus. The Bookof, in EncyclopaediaJudaica 6, Jerusalem 1971, col. 1050-1067, in particular col. 1064. 26

138

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

Shiloh according to Judg. 21, 19: “the place lies to the north of Bethel, on the east side of the road from Bethel to Shechem and to the south of Lebonah”. Archaeological excavations were undertaken there by Danish expeditions in 1926, 1929, 1932, 196327, followed by complementary researches conducted in 1981-1984 by I. Finkelstein, Z. Lederman, and S. Bunimovitz28. The earliest remains of a fortified city go back to the Middle Bronze Age IIB. After an occupational gap, a new settlement appears in the 13th century B.C., but it seems to have been abandoned for a short period. A new city with important buildings was built at the site towards the end of the 12th century B.C. It was destroyed in the second half of the 11th century, supposedly by the Philistines, but it was reoccupied in Iron Age II on its oriental side. No traces of an Israelite shrine have been discovered. The central part of the site, where the sanctuary possibly stood, has been thoroughly destroyed by erosion and by Byzantine building activities. The attempts at conciliating biblical data with archaeological findings29 are unsubstantiated and one wonders whether a sacral building had ever been built there. In fact, the shrine may have been no building, but a “Tent of Meeting” (’ohelmō‘ēd) with a great altar, like at Nebo, where probably the first tentshrine of desert origin was dressed by the Shasu pastoral clans of Y-h-wꜢ-Ꜣ to house the symbol of Yhw-’Il30. The Shiloh shrine, whose God was regularly called Yahweh, may have been established by Reubenite clans which have crossed the Jordan, what later inspired the original narrative of Josh. 3-4, several times rewritten31. Problematic are the figures of Hophni and Phinehas, sons of Eli and “priests of Yahweh” at Shiloh (I Sam. 1, 3). Both bear Egyptian names, viz. ḫpn, “fat”, and pꜢ-nḥsἰ, “the dark-skinned one”. Do these names go back to the time of the Exodus, like the Tent of the Ark? At the time of the battle between the Philistines and Israel at Apheq (I Sam. 4), the Ark was taken from Shiloh by Eli’s sons in the belief that its presence on the battlefield would insure victory. 27

M. Kjaer, TheDanishExcavationofShiloh.PreliminaryReport, in PEFQS 59 (1957), p. 202213; id., TheExcavationofShiloh,1929.PreliminaryReport, in JPOS 10 (1930), p. 87-174; id.,ASummaryReportoftheSecondDanishExpedition,1929, inPEFQS 63 (1931), p. 71-88; M.L. Buhl and S. Holm-Nielsen,Shiloh.TheDanishExcavationsatTellSailun,Palestine,in1926, 1929,1932and1963.ThePre-HellenisticRemains, Copenhagen 1969. 28 I. Finkelstein, Z. Lederman, and S. Bunimovitz, ExcavationatShiloh,1981-1983, in Qadmoniot 17/1 (1984), p. 15-25; īd., Seilûn:Silo(1981-1982), in RB 91 (1984), p. 260-267, 404406; īd., ExcavationsatShiloh1981-1984.PreliminaryReport, in TelAviv 12 (1985), p. 123-177, in particular p. 169-174; I. Finkelstein, ShilohyieldsSome,butnotallofItsSecrets, in Biblical ArchaeologyReview 12/1 (1986), p. 22-41. 29 See, for instance, D.C. Schley, Shiloh.ABiblicalCityinTraditionandHistory, Sheffield 1989. 30 Cf. here above, p. 75, 101, and below, p. 148. See also M. Haran, ShilohandJerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch, in JBL 81 (1962), p. 14-24; id., The PriestlyImageoftheTabernacle, in HUCA 36 (1965), p. 191-226. 31 Compare M. Noth, DasBuchJosua (n. 16), p. 31-39.

ĂŠĒRĀH

139

Instead, Israel’s army was defeated. Hofni and Phinehas were killed, and the Ark was captured by the Philistines. When the news reached Eli (I Sam. 4, 1418), he too died. These events probably explain the negative opinion expressed in the Bible about Hophni and Phinehas (I Sam. 2, 12-17.22-25.27-36; 3, 11-18). Although Ahijah, priest of the house of Eli (I Sam. 14, 3), was still supposed to come with the Ark of the God (not “of Yahweh”) under the reign of Saul (I Sam. 14, 18), the shrine of Shiloh is not mentioned in later accounts. Only the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite still intervenes to announce to Jeroboam I his forthcoming accession to the throne of Israel (I Kings 11, 29-31). He possibly expected Jeroboam to restore the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh, but Jeroboam chose Shechem as his seat, and Shiloh plays no role in the later history of Israel. ’ĂŠĒRĀH Biblical texts mention two kinds of open cult places, the so-called “high places”, bāmōt32, and ’ăšērāh, which is often misinterpreted. One should first distinguish the noun ’ăšērāh < ’aṯīrat, etymologically “stamped on”, “trodden on”, from Ugaritic ἀṯrt, vocalized ašratu or ašartu in personal names33, showing that the basic form was ’āširtu, “stamping”. This is confirmed by the full name Rbt ἀṯrt ym of the Ugaritian goddess: “Lady stamping on the sea”34. The verbal root of both words is ’ṯr, in Ugaritic “to go, to walk”. The theonym ἀṯrt derives from the active participle qātil, whose short vowel i can disappear. Instead, ’ăšērāh is based on the passive participle qatīl, whose long vowel ī is indicated sometimes by a materlectionis, thus ’šyrh: Deut. 7, 5; II Kings 17, 16; Mich. 5, 13, followed by the Targums Onqelos and Jonathan. In the north-west Semitic realm, a holy site called ’ăšērāh was generally connected with the presence of trees. Deut. 16, 21 prohibits to “plant an ’ăšērāh of any kind of tree”, while Judg. 6, 25 orders Gideon to “cut down the ’ăšērāh”, which consisted of several trees. The text speaks explicitly of “the trees of the ’ăšērāh”, which had to provide fuel for the sacrifice of a bullock, and Gideon needed ten servants to have cut them down (Judg. 6, 26-27). The ’ăšērāh could thus be a grove of quite a considerable size, and not a simple pole. Besides, the ’ăšērāh could be “planted” (Deut. 16, 21; Temple Scroll LI, 20), “hacked 32

E. Lipiński, Haut-lieu, in DEB, Turnhout 1987, p. 564-565, with former bibliography. Cf. the index of O. Weber in J.A. Knudtzon, DieEl-AmarnaTafeln (VAB 2), Leipzig 1915, p. 1555; F. Gröndahl, DiePersonennamenderTexteausUgarit (Studia Pohl 1), Rom 1967, p. 316, and later publications, like RS 17.66, line 20. 34 KTU 1.3, V, 40-41; 1.4, II, 31; IV, 3-4. She is the equivalent of the Sea Peoples’ goddess Pelagia, who is called Petagia in the royal inscription of the Philistine sanctuary at Ekron, what shows the phonetic alternation l/d/t like in the name of Odysseus / Ulysses. Cf. E. Lipiński, PeuplesdelaMer,Phéniciens,Puniques (OLA 237), Leuven 2015, p. 8-12. Most articles dealing with this question disregard comparative phonetics. 33

140

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

The outside of the Phoenician ostracon from Akko (lines 1-4)

down” (Deut. 7, 5; II Chron. 14, 2; 31, 1), and “burned with fire” (Deut. 12, 3; II Kings 23, 15). However, it could eventually include a small construction, be “built” (I Kings 14, 23), “made” (I Kings 14, 15; 16, 33; II King 21, 7), “set up” (II Kings 17, 10), “restored” (II Chron. 33, 19), also “demolished” (II Chron. 34, 7), “broken” (II Chron. 34, 4). From a survey of all the passages in which the word ’ăšērāh is used it appears that it was a “shrine”, either a holy grove or a spreading sacred tree, next to which an altar was built, or a chapel erected with a divine symbol, most often a hewn stone. “Shrine” perfectly corresponds to the meaning of the word, also in Assyro-Babylonian, Phoenician, Aramaic, even Egyptian. Holy places called ’I-š-r-rw occur in Egypt, at least in three different sites35. There was a shrine of the goddess Wadjet, protectress of the Delta, near Bilifya, then a holy place near Bubastis, in the eastern Delta, and a shrine of the goddess Mut at Karnak. The toponym is written without the feminine ending -t, form on which the ancient Hebrew plural ’ăšērīm is based. In Assyro-Babylonian, aširtu /ešertu designates a shrine or a part of a sanctuary, whose specific function can hardly be determined. It is often evident that the word refers to a building, while it does not appear that a sacred grove is intended in some passages36. In Phoenician inscriptions, ’šrt designates a sanctuary, a shrine. The Akko inscription, dated ca. the 5th century B.C., mentions “the overseer of the shrine”, ’š‘l’šrt (line 2)37. 35

R. Hannig, DieSprachederPharaonen (n. 1), p. 1313b. AHw I, Wiesbaden 1965, p. 80b, 253b-254a; CAD, A/2, Chicago 1968, p. 436-439. 37 M. Dothan, A Phoenician Inscription from ‘Akko, in IEJ 35 (1985), p. 81-94, pl. 13A-B, and in NahmanAvigadVolume(Eretz-Israel 18), Jerusalem 1985, p. 116-123 (in Hebrew), pl. 23, 1-2, p. 69* (English summary); E. Lipiński, WaresorderedfromBen-ḤarashatAcco, in Ephraim SternVolume (Eretz-Israel 29), Jerusalem 2009, p. 105*-110*. 36

ĂŠĒRĀH

141

In the Phoenician dedication on the portal of the Umm el-Amed sanctuary, dating from the Hellenistic period, the latter is referred to as ’šrt’lḤmn, “shrine of the god of Ḥammōn” (line 4), the ancient name of the site38. The Phoenician spelling ’šrt is found also in two jar inscriptions from the Ekron sanctuary, called ’šrt. One inscription reads l’šrt, “for the shrine”, the second one specifies qdš l’šrt, “sacred (oil?) for the shrine”39. In Punic one should refer to the bilingual inscription of Pyrgi, dated ca. 500 B.C., where ’šr qdš designates the “holy place” of Astarte40. The masculine form ’šr of the word corresponds to the ancient Hebrew plural ’ăšērīm and to the Egyptian ’I-š-r-rw. The feminine form ’šrt seems to appear also in the Old Aramaic inscription of Sefire I B, 11, where one should read [b]ytGšw-‘mh‘m’šrthm, “the house of Gūš and his people with their shrines”41. The later form ’trt occurs certainly in the Aramaic inscription from Sardis with the meaning “shrine”, that designates a funerary monument with its area42. This text is important, because it refers explicitly to “the tree of the shrine”, drḥt’trt (lines 2-3), like do several Hebrew texts of the Bible. The Sardis inscription is dated most likely from Year 10 of Artaxerxes III Ochos, i.e. 348 B.C. Later Jewish Aramaic texts use ’trhqdyšh to designate a synagogue43. The masculine form ’tr occurs as well with the meaning “shrine”44, for instance in an inscription from Palmyra, where ’tr is used next to the word ḥmn, “incense altar”45. The text records the erection of a statue in honour of a certain Aqyah who, at Vologesias near Ctesiphon, had offered “the whole incense altar, itself and its shrine”, ḥmnklhhww-’trh. In Hebrew, ’ăšērāh designates not only alleged Baal’s shrines, condemned by the Deuteronomistic redactors, but also Yahwistic holy places. The inscriptions from Khirbet el-Qōm46 and Kuntillet ‘Aǧrud47, dating from the 8th century B.C., prove it in an evident way. In fact, the blessing formula mentions “Yahweh and His shrine”, Yhwhw-’šrth. Since no additional information is provided, we do not know whether these sanctuaries implied the presence of a chapel, of a dressed stone or of another symbol of the divinity. 38

E. Lipiński, PeuplesdelaMer(n. 34), p. 166-170, with former literature. S. Gittin, SeventhCenturyB.C.E.CulticElementsatEkron, in BiblicalArchaeologyToday 1990, Jerusalem 1995, p. 248-258 (see p. 250-251). 40 TSSI III, 42, 1. 41 E. Lipiński, StudiesinAramaicInscriptionsandOnomastics I (OLA 1), Leuven 1975, p. 34. 42 Ibid., p. 155. 43 J.A. Fitzmyer and D. Harrington, AManualofPalestinianAramaicTexts (Biblica et Orientalia 34), Rome 1978, A3, 2; A5, 3-4.7; A7, 4; A8, [3]; A13, 2-3; A30, 2; A35, 1, p. 254-259 and 264-267. 44 DNWSI, p. 126-127. 45 CIS II, 3917, 3. Cf. DNWSI, p. 382. 46 A. Lemaire, LesinscriptionsdeKhirbetel-Qômetl’ashérahdeYHWH, in RB 84 (1977), p. 595-608, pl. XXXI, with former literature; J. Naveh, GraffitiandDedications, in BASOR 235 (1979), p. 27-30. 47 Z. Meshel (ed.), Kuntillet‘Ajrud(ḤorvatTeman).AnIronAgeIIReligiousSiteontheJudahSinaiBorder, Jerusalem 2012, Pithos A, line 2; Pithos B, line 2. 39

142

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

Pithos A from Kuntilled ‘Aǧrud with the inscription “Yahweh and His shrine” (line 2; according to Z. Meshel’s and P. Beck’s drawing)

The extra-biblical attestations of ’ăšērāh or its masculine equivalent confirm the correctness of the biblical phraseology, which occurs also in the Temple Scroll LI, 20 written in the mid-second century B.C. It repeats the biblical prohibition of “planting ’ăšērōt” and “erecting standing stones”, what is an obvious allusion to sacred groves with symbols of the deity. The text uses the more recent plural ’ăšērōt instead of ’ăšērīm. It is not surprising that the Greek version of the Bible, made in Alexandria in the third and second centuries B.C., offers a basically correct translation of ’ăšērāh by ἄλσος, “sacred grove”, or by δένδρα, “trees”. Similarly, the Latin Vulgate version uses the terms lucus or nemus, both with the same meaning. The only texts where ’ăšērāh seems to designate a goddess or her emblems are Judg. 3, 7 and I Kings 18, 19. In Judg. 3, 7, the Israelites are accused of having served “the Baals and the ’ăšērōt”. But the parallel passages of Judg. 2, 13; 10, 6; I Sam. 7, 4; 12, 10 mention “the Baals and the ‘Aštārōt”. Moreover, two Hebrew manuscripts and the Vulgate have also in Judg. 3, 7 ‘Aštārōt instead of ’ăšērōt, a reading which must be considered as a scribal error from a later period, as shown by the use of the plural ’ăšērōt. In I Kings 18, 19, the words “the four hundred prophets of the ’ăšērāh” appear as an intrusion, since these words were asterized in the Hexapla and since the prophets of the ’ăšērāh are not

ĂŠĒRĀH

143

mentioned in the subsequent story. In any case, the word ’ăšērāhdoes not need to be understood in strict parallelism to Baal: the whole expression nǝbī’ē hā-’ăšērāh designates rather “the prophets of the shrine”, where the Baal was worshipped. The use of the article with ’ăšērāh shows that no proper name of a goddess was intended. The ’ăšērāh may be a sacred grove or a limited area covered by a spreading tree, but it should be distinguished from a sacred tree, despite the confusion appearing later in the Mishnah. According to Gen. 21, 33, Abraham planted a tree at Beersheba and invoked “the everlasting God”. Arriving in Canaan, he had settled already by the oak or the terebinth of Mamre, 3 km north of Hebron, at the site of Ramath al-Halil, where he built an altar to Yahweh (Gen. 13, 18; 14, 13; 18, 1). The biblical texts do not call this site ’ăšērāh, although it obviously became a sacred grove of Yahweh. However, the singular “the tree” occurs in Gen. 18, 4.8, while the Septuagint and the Peshitta mention “the terebinth” or “the oak” where the textusreceptus reads the plural. This plural thus seems to be a correction aimed at avoiding the idea that a sacred tree was intended. This tiqqūn soferīm must be quite late, since the sacred oak or terebinth of Mamre was famous in the time of Josephus Flavius who mentions it twice48. As the fifth-century Church historian Sozomen writes, the site was visited not only by Jewish and Christian pilgrims, but also by worshippers of “angels” haunting the sacred tree49. Constantine the Great was thus obliged to put down the heathenish cult. This tree corresponds to the meaning of ’ăšērāh in the Mishnah and in the Tosefta50, where Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, active in the second century A.D., mentions three other ’ăšērōt in Cisjordan: the evergreen carob of Kfar Qasem, the carob of Kfar Pigsha, and the likewise evergreen sycamore, growing among the pine-trees on Mount Carmel. The ’ăšērāh of Kfar Qasem, probably located on the south-western rim of the Samarian hills, was apparently famous for oracles, as the name qasem, “divination”, suggests51. Already Gen. 12, 6 mentions the “terebinth of the teacher” at Shechem, evidently an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and Judg. 9, 37 refers to the “terebinth of the diviners”, most likely the same sacred tree. Instead, it is not evident that it is identical with the “tree of the standing stone” in Judg. 9, 6. This symbol of the divinity was placed under or next to the tree, thus manifesting the sacred character of the site, which was apparently an ’ăšērāh.

48

Josephus Flavius, TheJewishWar IV, 9, 7, §533; JewishAntiquities I, 10, 4, §186. E. Lipiński, Sozomène et le site de Ramat al-Halil, in Palamedes. A Journal of Ancient History 1 (2006), p. 55-66. 50 Tosefta, Abodazara VI, 8. 51 M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 3rd ed., Ramat Gan 2017, p. 570. 49

144

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

The ’ăšērāh was defined later in the Mishnah as “any (tree) under which there is a foreign cult”, klš-yštḥtyh‘bwdhzrh52. This definition does not refer explicitly to an idol, but specifies that any heathenish presence characterizes the ’ăšērāh of the rabbinic period. It can be a standing stone symbolizing a foreign deity or an altar used for pagan cult. Such a definition of the ’ăšērāh restricts the meaning of the word to foreign cult places, while its older use could apply also to Yahwistic sacred sites, as shown by the formula “Yahwe and His ’ăšērāh”53. The distinction of Yahwistic and heathenish cult practices was not always drawn in a clear way and this led to the erroneous exclusion of the word ’ăšērāh and of cult practices accomplished in ’ăšērīm from the Israelite religion. This exclusion started apparently at the time of King Josiah of Judah, in the last quarter of the 7th century B.C. (II Kings 22, 1-23, 30; II Chron. 34-35), but old traditions subsisted in various regions, mainly in the countryside. They were condemned in the Second Temple period, especially by the Deuteronomistic historians dealing with older sources. Summing up, the Hebrew word ’ăšērāh designates a holy site, a shrine, especially one marked by the presence of a sacred grove or a spreading green tree. It has no relation whatsoever to the Ugaritic goddess Athirat. There is a quite consistent and uninterrupted tradition, from biblical to mishnaic times and the Middle Ages, in the understanding of the Hebrew word. However, there is a difference between the ancient use of ’ăšērāh, which could designate a Yahwistic shrine, and its usual meaning in the Persian period and in later times, when the use of the word was limited to heathenish sacred trees or cult places. Therefore Maimonides writes in the Sefer ha-Maddā‘ of his Mishneh Tōrah: “A tree that was planted, from the outset, for the purpose of being worshipped, is forbidden to be used. This is the ’ăšērāh, mentioned in the Torah”54. FORMER PROPHETS The main difference between the Former Prophets and the Later Prophets, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, concerns the transmission of their message. While the oracles of the Later Prophets are preserved in writings either by themselves, their disciples or their scribes (e.g. Jer. 36, 4.18), the primary remains of the Former Prophets’ message are stories and accounts of their lives transmitted at first orally by their followers and later written down by scribes. Besides, each of them is referred to as “seer”, ḥozeh, ro’eh, or as “man of 52 Mishnah, Abodazara III, 7. Cf. M. Hadas-Lebel, LepaganismeàtraverslessourcesrabbiniquesdesIIeetIIIesiècles, in ANRW II, 19/2, Berlin 1979, p. 397-485 (see p. 409-412). 53 Cf. here above, p. 141. 54 M. Hyamson (ed.), Mishneh Torah. The Book of Knowledge by Maimonides, new ed., Jerusalem-New York 1981, p. 75b: 2-3. Maimonides bypasses here historical distinctions.

FORMER PROPHETS

145

God”, ’īšha-’Elohīm, thus Samuel called ro’eh (I Chron. 9, 22; 26, 28; 29, 29) and ’īšha-’Elohīm (I Sam. 9, 6). The title nābi’, “prophet”, is also applied to them, like to Samuel in a chronological note: “He who now is called nābi’ was formerly called ro’eh” (I Sam. 9, 9). The best known Former Prophets, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, are all attested in the 10th-9th centuries B.C. Samuel was instrumental in the transition from a loose confederacy of Israelite tribes to a monarchical system. The record of his career in I Sam. 1-16 is interwoven with that of Saul, the first king, while preparing the Davidic kingship. He was the Lord’s spokesman in guiding Israel in critical days and was regarded by the tradition as Israel’s greatest leader since Moses. His personal name stresses his instrumental role of a “man of God”, since it means “the name of El”, i.e. “El’s progeny”. The prophet Elijah, active in the first half of the 9th century B.C., bears in Hebrew the name ’lyhw, “El is Yahweh” or “My El is Yahweh”. His name states the identity of El, the God of Israel (Gen. 33, 20), with Yahweh worshipped in Gilead, on Mount Nebo. The prophet’s designation in I Kings 17, 1 as “Tishbite of the inhabitants of Gilead” stresses his origin in an unusual way and presumably implies an allusion to this Yahwistic shrine in Transjordan. The parable of Elijah’s confrontation on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18) explains his name and his teaching in a popular way, showing that Yahweh is the God. The story does not prove that the Lord of Mount Carmel was originally a Canaanite or a Phoenician deity. The original meaning of Mount Carmel was Karm-’El, “Vineyard of El”, what was no longer understood in biblical times and led to a distinction of the mountain from the deity, called “Lord of the Carmel”, and to the interpretation of b‘l as the name of a Canaanite deity. In fact, the words ’Il or ’El and Ba‘al were used in an ambivalent way, as shown also by the name of the god worshipped in the Tyrian shrine of Umm el-Amed, ancient Ḥammōn, near Israel’s frontiers. He was called ’ElḤmn “the god of Ḥammōn”55. One can assume that Elijah’s message led to the wide introduction of the theophorous element Yhw in personal names56 and to the creation of a sanctuary of Yahweh at Samaria57. Popular accounts involving Elijah show nevertheless that his monolatrous teaching was not understood properly and the stories about Elijah have been related to Jezebel’s cult of her Tyrian deity. Instead, the story of Elijah’s travel to Mount Ḥoreb (I Kings 19) connected his teaching with a place where according to a tradition the Lord had revealed himself to Moses58. Elijah’s anointing 55

E. Lipiński, PeuplesdelaMer (n. 34), p. 166-170, line 4. Cf. here above, p. 141. Cf. here above, p. 75, 84. The original name of Joshua (Yšw‘) does not contain the theophorous element Yhw. It is the prefixed form yśw‘/yšw‘ of the verb św‘/šw‘. Cf. here above, p. 30, and Greek ’Ιησοῦς. 57 Cf. here above, p. 75, 84. 58 Cf. here above, p. 28-29. 56

146

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

Ostracon with the name of Elisha, found at Reḥob

of the prophet Elisha and his miraculous translation to heaven in “a chariot of fire” drawn by “horses of fire” were preparing future events. These popular and wondrous legends are unfortunately mixed with alleged prophecies against Ahab’s house, which reveal the influence of hostile attitudes in priestly circles of Jerusalem. Orally transmitted by Israelite refugees flying the Assyrian occupation, they have been adapted first to the pre-Deuteronomistic view of the history of Israel, while the final redaction of Elijah stories dates from the Persian period, four centuries after the time when Elijah was active. Elisha, presented in the Bible as a disciple of Elijah, was active in the second part of the 9th century B.C.59 His name, meaning “El is salvation”, preserves the theophorous element ’El. Elisha’s hometown was Abel Meḥolah (I Kings 19, 16), identified with Tell Abu Ṣuṣ, ca. 10 km south-east of Reḥob, where Elisha presence is revealed by an ostracon written in red ink. It was found in a building that preserves traces of religious activities60 and of some relations with the Nimshi family, to which Jehu belonged61. Elisha is described as a man of God, a thaumaturge, and a personage involved in public affairs. He played an important role in the anointment of Jehu (II Kings 9, 1-6), appeared at the royal court of Damascus (II Kings 8, 7-15), and announced future victories of Joash (II Kings 13, 14-19). It is difficult to see whether these stories preserve kernels of historical truth. The personalities mentioned in the accounts go back to the second half of the 9th century, but their mutual relations are sometimes presented incorrectly, especially in the case of Jehu, who becomes a murderer of kings of Israel and Judah62. 59

I Kings 19, 19-21; II Kings 2, 1-9, 10; 13, 14-21. A. Mazar, Culture,IdentityandPoliticsrelatingtoTelRehovinthe10th-9thCenturiesBCE, in O. Sergi, M. Oeming, and I.J. de Hulster (eds.), InSearchforAramandIsrael (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 20), Tübingen 2016, p. 89-119 (see p. 112-113). 61 Cf. here above, p. 68. 62 Cf. here above, p. 94-98. 60

PRIESTLY TEACHING

147

Such an incorrect addition to the original account of Jehu’s anointment occurs in II Kings 9, 7-9, except the last short sentence. Similar misleading presentations of events show a later reworking of ancient sources.

PRIESTLY TEACHING Cultic-religious admonitions and commands, presumably redacted by priests of a sanctuary, occur in Ex. 23, 10-19 and 34, 14-26, usually regarded as an Elohistic and a Yahwistic texts. Both reflect a tribal society of villagers living on the soil and of pastoralists with no allusion to a royal judicial system. These texts thus seem to belong to the pre-monarchic period, but must be ranged in postsettlement times. One could relate their origin to Yahweh’s shrine at Nebo, mentioned in the 9th century B.C. by the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, and referred to in Josh. 22. Such priestly teachings addressed to lay people are an important source for the knowledge and understanding of theological and moral principles. Ex. 23, 10-19 and Ex. 34, 14-26 are very similar and their relation can be explained in different ways. They go most likely back to a common original version, composed in a Yahwistic shrine of Transjordan, presumably that of Nebo, which can date from the 11th-10th centuries B.C. We shall follow here the version of Ex. 34, 14-26, leaving aside Ex. 34, 11, that must belong to a late redaction, and Ex. 34, 12-13, that duplicates Ex. 34, 14. Besides, we omit in Ex. 34, 23 “the God of Israel”, that overloads the sentence and is not paralleled in Ex. 23, 17. The text reads then as follows: “14 You shall not prostrate yourself before any other god, for Yahweh’s name is Jealous (Qannā’), and a jealous god he is. 15 Do not conclude a bond with a native of the land: they fornicate with their gods and sacrifice to their gods! He might invite you and you would eat from his sacrifice, 16 you could take his daughters for your sons, his daughters could fornicate with their gods and lead your sons to fornicate with their gods. 17 You shall not make yourselves gods of cast metal. 18 You shall observe the feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days, as I have commanded you; you shall eat unleavened bread at the appointed time in the month of Abib, because in the month of Abib you went out from Egypt. 19 Every first birth of the womb belongs to Me and every firstborn male of your herd, both cattle and sheep. 20 You may buy back by a sheep the firstborn of an ass. If you do not buy it back you must break its neck. You shall buy back every firstborn of your sons and no one shall come into my presence empty-handed. 21 For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall cease work; even at ploughing time and harvest you shall cease work. 22 You shall observe the feast of Weeks, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

148

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL 23

Three times a year all your males shall come into the presence of Yahweh, the Lord, 24 for I shall drive out the nations before you and extend your frontier: no one shall coved your land, when you will go up three times a year to come into the presence of Yahweh, your God. 25 You shall not offer on leavened bread my bloody sacrifice nor shall the sacrifice of the feast of Passover remain overnight till morning. 26 You shall bring the choicest firstfruits of your soil to the House of Yahweh, your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”

The house of Yahweh, mentioned in the last verse, has very likely a large meaning and does not imply the existence of a building. These words should express the same idea as coming “into the presence of Yahweh, your God” (v. 24). The description of the tent-shrine in the Priestly source of the Pentateuch, in Ex. 25-31 and 35-40, is still widely regarded as a projection of the Second Temple into the distant past. However, this description must basically rest on traditions of nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists, whose tent-shrine of the desert became a permanent sanctuary at Nebo, in Reuben’s territory. Its souvenir appears first in Josh. 22, but its most important mention occurs in the Moabite inscription of king Mesha. The feeling that Yhw-’Il’s dwelling was properly a tent persisted as late as II Sam. 7, 6-7: “This is the word of Yahweh: Are you the man to build me a house to dwell in? Down to this day I have never dwelt in a house since I brought Israel from Egypt. I made my journey in a tent and a shelter. Wherever I journeyed with Israel, did I ever ask any of the vanquishers63 whom I appointed shepherds of my people Israel why they had not built me a house of cedar?”

The two stones with the engraved text of the Decalogue, placed in the Ark of the Covenant, confirm that the tent-shrine originates from the desert. Standing stones or maṣṣebot occur in the Negeb and the Sinai either singly or in groups, pairs being quite frequent64. They are often regarded as symbols of divinities, especially when they are grouped in pairs, one stone being higher and presumably symbolizing a male deity. This possible significance of pairs of standing stones does no longer fit the two stones with the text of the Decalogue, but these stones confirm the religious and geographical origin of the Covenant with “the One of Sinai” (Judg. 5, 4-5; Ps. 68, 8; cf. Deut. 33, 2).

63 The root šbṭ, attested in Sabaic, means “to defeat (the enemy)”. This is the unique biblical use of this word. 64 U. Avner, MazzebotSitesintheNegevandSinaiandTheirSignificance, in BiblicalArchaeologyToday1990, Jerusalem 1993, p. 166-181.

FOREIGN CULTS

Two pairs of standing stones from Rağağil in the north of Saudi Arabia65

149

A pair of Nabataean standing stones from ‘Uvda Valley66

FOREIGN CULTS IN 7TH-CENTURY SAMARIA The Deuteronomistic account of the repopulation of Samaria with deportees from countries conquered by Assyrian kings67 (II Kings 17, 24-33) lists gods worshipped by them according to their own traditions. The list seems to be based on authentic information from the 7th century B.C., but some foreign theonyms were misspelled or intentionally changed by Deuteronomistic or later scribes. The concerned passage is very short: II Kings 17, 30-31. The textus receptus repeatedly uses the verb ‘āśā, “to make”, instead of ‘ābad, “to worship”, in order to stress that the cult of these deities was addressed to images “made” by men, not to real gods. However, ‘św may have replaced or translated an original Aramaic ‘bdw, which is found in Targum Jonathan68 and may preserve the initial text, still read in some old manuscripts, today lost, for II Kings is represented at Qumran by only six small fragments of 6Q4, a papyrus written in the 2nd century B.C.69 The actual text of the Septuagint nevertheless reads “they made”, according to the Hebrew textusreceptus.

65

Ibid., p. 169, fig. 3. Ibid., p. 172, fig. 20. 67 K. Lawson Younger, Jr., TheRepopulationofSamaria(2Kings17:24,27-31)inLightof RecentStudy, in J.K. Hoffmeier and A. Millard (eds.), TheFutureofBiblicalArchaeology.ReassessingMethodologiesandAssumptions, Grand Rapids 2004, p. 254-280. For Assyrian deportations in general, see B. Oded, MassDeportationsandDeporteesintheNeo-AssyrianEmpire, Wiesbaden 1979. 68 A. Sperber, TheBibleinAramaic II, Leiden 1959, p. 310. 69 M. Baillet, in DiscoveriesintheJudaeanDesert III, Oxford 1962, p. 107-112, pl. XX-XXII. 66

150

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

In this section, the writer indicates variant Aramaic translations preserved in the marginal notes of the Codex Reuchlinianus of the Prophets, which was written in 1105/6 A.D. These translations taken from the lost TargumYerushalmi show a rabbinic approach to foreign theonyms occurring in the Bible, as do the tiqqunē soferīm70. The Codex Reuchlinianus was acquired by the German humanist and Hebraist Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) and it is kept now in the BadischeLandesbibliothek at Karlsruhe71. Babylon The first sentence refers to deportees from Babylon: “The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth”. Since no such deity is attested, it is obvious that the original theonym was misspelled and later changed into a phrase which could designate a goddess surnamed “Governess Creatress”. Šakittu, in Aramaic or Hebrew transcription *Sakīt, designated a high rank governess in Assyria, while the participle Bānītu was used as a divine title in the sense “Creatress”. Since we deal with Babylon, these epithets could refer to Zarpānītu, Marduk’s consort, congenial to Babylonians. In both words, the wāw must be corrected in yōd. The confusion of the two graphs in later Aramaic script was quite common. However, one can doubt that these epithets formed the original theonym of the sentence, which should name a Babylonian deity. Marduk is not mentioned, but his name appears in v. 31. According to the marginal note of the CodexReuchlinianus with a gloss of Targum Yerushalmi to II Kings 17, 30, skwtbnwt should be translated ywnt’ w’prḥwh’, “the dove and her brood”. This is undoubtedly a reference to the antiSamaritan account about the dove worshipped by the Samaritans. According to the treatise Ḥullīn 6a of the Babylonian Talmud, “the effigy of a dove (ywnh) was found on Mount Gerizim, which they worshipped”. A similar account, referring to the Samaritans, is found in the treatise Abodazara V, 44d (bottom) of the Talmud of Jerusalem: “They have an image resembling a cock-pigeon (ywn) to which they offer libations”. These accounts record the golden image described by Lucian of Samosata in DedeaSyria 33. Its summit was crowned by a golden dove, a symbol of Semiramis of Babylon. In the Greek legend, she was the daughter of the Syrian goddess Derceto, i.e. Atargatis. Exposed at birth, she was tended by doves till found by shepherds. She was renowned as builder of Babylon and, at death, she was changed into a dove, which was held sacred according to Diodorus Siculus II, 4-20. The Samaritans were thus supposed to 70 Several cases are presented by E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 22), p. 78, 111, 167-168, 175, 180, 232. 71 It was edited by A. Sperber, ThePre-MassoreticBible I, CodexReuchlinianus, Copenhagen 1956.

FOREIGN CULTS

151

worship her, following the men of Babylon deported to Samaria. This development goes certainly beyond the Deuteronomistic idea. Kutha The second sentence, “and the men of Kutha made Nergal”, is perfectly preserved, except ‘św which may have replaced ‘bdw. Kutha is a city in Northern Babylonia, ca. 25 km north of Kish. Its identification with the modern site of Tell Ibrāhīm is very likely, though not definitely proven72. Kutha was the holy city of Nergal, the god of battle and of the netherworld73. The marginal note of the CodexReuchlinianus replaces Nrgl by ryglwy, “feet”, and reads: “They worshipped the feet of Jacob and the feet of Joseph, on which they dressed the image of a cock”. In Jewish tradition, the Samaritans are styled Kuthaeans, the implication being that they are not genuine Israelites but simply descendants of the foreign colonists from Kutha, imported into Samaria by the Assyrian conqueror when the Kingdom of Israel fell in 722-720 B.C. (II Kings 17, 24). The personal names of the Samaria papyri from Wadi Daliyeh, going back to the 4th century B.C., preserve no trace of the alleged Kuthaeans74. Hamat The next sentence, “and the men of Hamat made Ashima”, does not refer to an imaginary tribe or town near the Babylonian-Elamite border75, but to the well-known town of Central Syria, captured by Sargon II in 720 B.C. The Assyrian king then assumed the title of “destroyer of Hamat”76. Ashima was no deity of Hamat. The theonym seems to be South Arabian and it is attested at Teima. It is obvious that Teima played a paramount role in the long-distance caravan traffic of the 8th century. It is certainly referred to in a cuneiform inscription of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur, governor of Suḫu and Mari, datable around 770 or 760 B.C. The governor was extremely proud of having plundered a very 72

D.O. Edzard and M. Gallery, Kutha, in RLA VI, Berlin 1980-83, p. 384-387. F.A.M. Wiggermann, Nergal, in RLA IX, Berlin 1998-2001, p. 215-226. 74 Cf. here below, p. 159 ff. 75 Opinion expressed repeatedly by N. Na’aman and R. Zadok, Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.), in JCS 40 (1988), p. 37-46 (see p. 44); N. Na’aman, PopulationChangesinPalestinefollowingAssyrianDeportations, in TelAviv 20 (1993), p. 104122 (see p. 110); id. and R. Zadok, Assyrian Deportations to the Province of Samerina in the LightofTwoCuneiformTabletsfromTelHadid, in TelAviv 27 (2000), p. 159-188 (see p. 177). 76 D.O. Edzard, Hamath, in RLA IV, Berlin 1972-75, p. 67-71, in particular p. 69; E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans.TheirAncientHistory,Culture,Religion (OLA 100), Leuven 2000, p. 316-317. See also E. Frahm, ASculptedSlabwithanInscriptionofSargonIImentioningtheRebellionof Yau-bi’diofHamath, in AltorientalischeForschungen 40 (2013), p. 42-54. 73

152

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

large caravan of lúTe-ma-’-a-a lúŠa-ba-’-a-a near Hindanu77, i.e. Ġiḏḏān, the ‘dn of Ez. 27, 23. The association of the Sabaeans to the Teimanites implies some stable relations between Saba and Teima, even the probable existence of a Sabaean settlement or caravanserai in the oasis. The cult of Ashima, recorded on two Teimanite steles from the 5th century B.C., should be linked to the presence of these South Arabian settlers. A similar situation may have existed at Hamat, where some graffiti in South Arabian script, dated around 770 B.C., have been found during Danish excavations and were published by B. Otzen78. The present writer had suggested in 1987 to identify Ashima with the AssyroBabylonian god Isimu79, but he later renounced to this idea and considered the Teimanite ’šym’ as a “broken” plural ’aśyimā’ of śaym, built on the pattern ’af‘ilā’u80, used in Classical Arabic for the pluralispaucitatis. It is unlikely in fact that yod was a simple vowel letter, inscribed in the middle of a word. It is possible nowadays to go a step further and to reach a conclusion about the origin, etymology, and meaning of the theonym. The great stele of Teima, discovered first by Charles Montagu Doughty during his travels to North Arabia in 1876-187881, was rediscovered in 1880 by Charles Huber and acquired by him for the Louvre. Ashima is mentioned twice in the inscription, in lines 3 and 16, after the gods Ṣlm and Šngl’, “Sîn of the Palace”, all three qualified ’lhytym’, “gods of Teima”. The letter m of the theonym was badly damaged in both lines and has been restored as r 82, resulting in the name ’šyr’ of an assumed Canaanite goddess invented in the Bible by modern mythographers, who confused the Semitic word “shrine” — aširtu/ešertu in Akkadian, ’šrtin Phoenician, ’šrt/’trt in Aramaic, ’šrh/’šyrh in Hebrew — with Ashtoreth and the Ugaritian goddess Rabbatu ’Āṯratuyamma, “the Lady who treads upon the Sea”83. Fortunately, the name ’šym’ is fully preserved in line 7 of another stele, discovered at Teima by members of the General Department of Antiquities 77 A. Cavigneaux and B.Kh. Ismail, Die StatthaltervonSuḫuundMariim8.Jh.v.Chr., in BaghdaderMitteilungen 21 (1990), p. 321-456 and pl. 35-38 (see p. 346-347 and 417, n° 2, col. IV, 26-38; RIMB II, text S.0.1002.2, p. 300, col. IV, 26-38); cf. A. Livingstone, NewLightontheAncient Town of Taimā’, in M.J. Geller, J.C. Greenfield, and M.P. Weitzman (eds.), Studia Aramaica. NewSourcesandNewApproaches (Journal of Semitic Studies. Supplement 4), Oxford 1995, p. 133-143 (see p. 137-139). E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 22), p. 138-139. 78 E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans(n. 76), p. 278, with further literature. 79 E. Lipiński, Ashima, in DEB, Turnhout 1987, p. 152-153. For Isimu, see W.G. Lambert and R.M. Boehmer, Isimu,inRLA V, Berlin 1976-80, p. 179-181. 80 W. Fischer, GrammatikdesklassischenArabisch, Wiesbaden 1972, p. 58, §100; A.F.L. Beeston, SabaicGrammar, Manchester 1984, p. 26, §10:6, probably ’f‘lw. Cf. E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 76), p. 607. 81 Ch.M. Doughty, TravelsinArabiaDeserta I, Cambridge 1888, p. 531. 82 CIS II, 113; KAI 228; TSSI II, 30. 83 For the distinction between ’āṯ(i)ratand ’aṯīrat, see E. Lipiński, Athirat,inEncyclopaedia ofReligion, new ed., Detroit 2005, vol. I, p. 589-592, and here above, p. 132-144.

FOREIGN CULTS

153

and Museums of Saudi Arabia. The theonym is mentioned there in a similar list of the three “gods of Teima”: Ṣlm, Šngl’, ’šym’. A photograph of the stele first appeared in Aṭlāl 3 (1979), pl. 49, and the inscription was published a few years later by Alasdair Livingstone in the same journal84. Śaym occurs frequently in South Arabian inscriptions, designating the patron deity of a sedentary tribe or group of communities85. Major gods are often qualified s2ym, thus ’lmqh s2ymhmw, “’Almaqah, their patron”86, the Sabaean Moongod, s2ymhmw t’lbrym, “their patron, Ta’alab of Riyyām”, an important Sabaean god, ’nby s2ymn, “’Anbāy the patron”, a major Qatabanian deity, s2ymhmw‘ttr, “their patron ‘Attar”, the main South Arabian god87. The word śym is a derivative of the Semitic root śym meaning “to set up”, but its usual Arabic sense is rather “to be on the lookout, to guard”, and the connotation “to give assurance” occurs in Sabaic. It probably provides the basic meaning of śym, “patron, guardian”, while its “broken” plural is likely to designate a group of divine “patrons” watching the various clans represented at Teima. The word ’šym’ occurs thus in II Kings 17, 30, a passage belonging to the Deuteronomistic section of II Kings 17, 24-41, often recognized as reflecting a 5th or 4th-century anti-Samaritan discourse88. The distinction of II Kings 17, 24.27-31, dealing with the repopulation of Samaria, from the remaining part of the chapter89 does not change the basic data. Even if II Kings 17, 24 derives from an annalistic notice, the verses 27-31 might imply that the Samaritans of those times not only were no descendants of ancient Israelites, but that they — for the worse — worshipped foreign gods at the very sites of former Israelite sanctuaries. This passage could then allude to the building of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in the early Persian period90. This interpretation of the text has no bearing on the sense of Ashima. 84 A. Livingstone, B. Spaie, M. Ibrahim, M. Kamel, and S. Taimani, Taima:RecentSoundingandNewInscribedMaterial,inAṭlāl 7 (1983), p. 102-116 and pls. 87-97 (see p. 108-111 and pl. 96); K. Beyer and A. Livingstone, DieneuestenaramäischenInschriftenausTaima,in ZDMG 137 (1987), p. 285-296 (see p. 286-288 and 293); A. Livingstone, NewLight (n. 77), p. 140-141. 85 A.F.L. Beeston, M.A. Ghul, W.W. Müller, and J. Ryckmans, SabaicDictionary/Dictionnaire sabéen, Louvain-la-Neuve – Beyrouth 1982, p. 136, s.v. S2YM, cf. p. 130, s.v. S2‘B. 86 CIS IV, 73, 3; 408, 3. 87 All listed by M.A. Ghūl, EarlySouthernArabianLanguagesandClassicalArabicSources, Irbid 1993, p. 65. Cf. also M.A. Ghūl, NewQatabāniInscriptions,inBSOAS 22 (1959), p. 1-22 (see p. 13 ff.); M. Höfner, Südarabien, in H.W. Haussig (ed.), GötterundMythenimVorderen Orient, Stuttgart 1965, p. 483-552, pl. I-IV (see p. 533). 88 See, for instance, R.J. Coggins, SamaritansandJews.TheOriginsofSamaritanismReconsidered, Oxford 1975; M. Cogan, WelikeyouworshipyourGod,inVetusTestamentum 38 (1988), p. 286-292. 89 K. Lawson Younger, Jr., TheRepopulationofSamaria(n. 67). 90 Bibliography collected by E. Lipiński, GovernorsandHighPriestsofSamariaandJerusalem inthePersianPeriod, in StudiaJudaica 13 (2010), p. 185-219 (see p. 193, n. 49).

154

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

The mention of ’šym’ with a remarkably correct spelling seems to imply the existence of a cult place for the South Arabian merchants settled at Hamat and deported by the Assyrians to the Samaria province. Instead, according to the marginal note of the CodexReuchlinianus, “the men of Hamat worshipped a she-cat and were offering her a ram of atonement”. As for ’šmt in Am. 8, 14, its consonantal spelling does not support an identification with Ashima and no parallel foreign theonym favours a correction. The “guilt (’ašmat) of Samaria” is a veiled reference to the cult practiced in Samaria and regarded as unauthorized. The name of the deity is not mentioned, because it was probably Yhwh. ‘Awwā/Amat The next sentence, “and the Awwites made Nibhaz and Tartaq”, refers to the Gambūlaean town of uruA-ma-te, situated on the bank of the Uqnū river, the Karḫe or more likely the Kārūn, at the Elamite-Babylonian border91. The identification of ‘Awwā (II Kings 17, 24) with Amat is almost certain, considering the general loss of final -t and the Babylonian change m > w. Sargon II’s army defeated the rulers of the small cities established in this area and attached the conquered towns to the province of the governor of the Gambūlu land92 The location of ‘Awwā at the Elamite border is confirmed by the cult of Nbḥz, a tiqqūnsoferīm of the Elamite theonym Ibnaḥaz, found in a list of Elamite deities equated with the Babylonian god Ea93. This explanation of the theonym has been proposed a century ago by Fritz Hommel94. The tiqqūnsoferīm consisted in the inversion of the consonants bn, possibly preceded by an ’aleph indicating a prosthetic vowel, as suggested by the Septuagint Εβλαζερ, where ΕΒΛΑ- must correspond to ’bn- with a phonetic change n/l or a scribal error N/Λ. The tiqqūn soferīm, aiming at misforming a heathen theonym, seems therefore to be posterior to the Greek translation. It was followed by another change, viz. nibḥan, what the marginal note of the CodexReuchlinianus explains by kalbānabḥā, “barking dog”, followed by ḥmr’ nhq’, “the braying ass”, supposed to be the deity called Trtq in the textusreceptus. 91

G. Frahm, Uqnû, in RLAXIV, Berlin 2014-16, p. 334-335. E. Lipiński, TheAramaeans (n. 76), p. 469-470, with further bibliography. 93 L.W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets (, etc.), in the British Museum 25, London 1909, pl. 24. 94 F. Hommel, DieGötterNibhazundTartak.2Kön.17,31, in OLZ 15 (1912), col. 118; id., DieelamitischeGötter-SiebenheitinCT25,24, in PaulHauptAnniversaryVolume, BaltimoreLeipzig 1926, p. 159-168. Hommel was followed recently by A.R. Millard, Nibhaz, in DDD, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids 1999, p. 613; E. Lipiński, Utajone tikkune soferim idomniemane atbasz, in Studia Judaica 13 (2010), p. 1-25 (see p. 17-21). 92

FOREIGN CULTS

155

F. Hommel related the theonym Tartaq to the name of the Elamite deity dDakdadra, following Ibnaḫaz in the same list. However, the difference between the two words is great and an apparently shorter form of the Elamite theonym resulted to be a completely different divine name, viz. dSiašum95. Considering the syllabic spelling of Marduk’s name as Ma-ru-tu-uk or Ma-ru-tu-uq96, one should regard Trtq as a tiqqūnsoferīm changing Mrtq into Trtq, just as Mrdk was changed into Nmrd in Gen. 10, 8-9; Mich. 5, 5, and I Chron. 1, 1097. Cuneiform hesitations in the qualification of the dental consonant and the Aramaic spelling Mrdg of the theophorous element in personal names98 support the restitution of the original theonym Mrtq, “Marduk”, in II Kings 17, 31. The original sentence concerning the Awwites should thus be read: “and the Awwites made Ebnaḥaz and Martuq”. One should remember that the textusreceptus contains tiqqunēsoferīm, which may go back to early Hellenistic times. Modern exegesis generally ignores this fact, forgetting the 19th-century debates between Julius Wellhausen and Abraham Geiger, who lived twenty-five years in Wrocław (1838-1863), where he wrote some of his most important works. Modern textual criticism generally follows Wellhausen’s opinion about the defective nature of the preserved biblical texts as the prime cause for textual variety. For Abraham Geiger, instead, there were deliberate changes in the Holy Scriptures which reflect socio-religious approaches to the text. Therefore, exegesis requires a study of text history, redaction history, study of exegetical rewriting, new interpretation or actualization, etc. Of course, this does not exclude accidental errors. From a theological viewpoint, Geiger’s views should lead to a different conception of divine inspiration and authenticity of the Scriptures and to a different approach to biblical hermeneutics. However, Geiger’s writings are apparently unknown nowadays. Geiger discussed this problem several times, beginning with his UrschriftundÜbersetzungenderBibelinihrerAbhängigkeitvonder innernEntwicklungdesJudenthums, first published in 1857. There was a second edition, issued by Nachum Czortkowski (Frankfurt a/M 1928) with additions based on later publications of Geiger, who correlates the history of the biblical text with the differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. No doubt, this is a matter for study and research.

95

Cf. M. Cogan, Tartak, in DDD, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids 1999, p. 836-837. W. Sommerfeld, Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausendsv.Chr. (AOAT 213), Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, p. 7-8. 97 E. Lipiński, NimrodetAššur, in RB 73 (1966), p. 77-93; id., Utajone tikkune soferim (n. 94), p. 9-16. 98 W. Röllig, DiearamäischenTexteausTallŠēḫḤamad/Dūr-Katlimmu/Magdalu (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu [BATSH] 17, Texte 5), Wiesbaden 2014, index, p. 275b. 96

156

THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

Shupria The following sentence reads: “and the Sepharwites were burning their children in the fire to Adrammelek and Anammelek, the god of the Sepharaim”. Since Neo-Assyrian š usually corresponds to Aramaic and Hebrew s, while w and y happen to be interchanged, the Sprwym are no doubt Spryym, the Shuprians or Shubrians of the small State existing in the first millennium B.C. to the north of Upper Tigris and to the southwest of Lake Van99. Their name is spelled correctly Spryym in both passages of the Qumran Scroll 1QIsaa where they are mentioned, viz. in Isa. 36, 19 and 37, 13. Deportations of the Hurrian or Urartian speaking population of this area are reported only at the time of Esarhaddon100. People deported from this area can probably be found among the new settlers of Tell Ğemmeh, in Philistia, listed on ostraca from the 7th century B.C., published by J. Naveh101. A large number of these names end in -š, which is a characteristic suffix added also to Urartian anthroponyms, as shown by the names Menua, Išpuini, Sarduri, Argišti, written hMe-nu-a-še, hIš-pu-ú-i-ni-še, h.dSar5-du-ri-še, h Ar-giš-ti-še in Urartian inscriptions. The deportees from Shupria are not said to “have made” a deity, but they are accused of offering the molk-sacrifice to Adad, whose name should certainly be read here instead of ’dr. It was followed originally by the qualification “god of the Shuprians”, while mlk and ‘nmlk were interlinear glosses inserted in the text. They mean “molk-sacrifice” and “sin (‘ôn) of molk-sacrifice”, specifying the nature of the cultic act. Adad / Hadad is the Akkadian and Aramaic theonym corresponding to Urartian Ḫaldi, as appears from the inscription found at Tepe Qalaichi, the Mannaean capital city Za‘ter / Izirtu102. The religion of these small States seems to have been close to the Urartian one and nothing indicates so far that these populations were sacrificing their children. The Deuteronomistic text rather records a condemned Semitic practice, possibly followed in Samaria by the deportees from Shupria. However, the historicity of this information is doubtful and the passage should rather be understood as an indirect attack against the Samaritans, although the marginal note of the CodexReuchlinianus states that the Shuprians were “burning their children on pyres that they have built”, mwqdynytbnyhwn‘l’ygwryy’d-bnw. No deities Adrammelek and Anammelek have ever existed, despite “Adrammelek’s image of a mule and Anammelek’s image of a horse, both going astray”, as we read in the marginal note of the CodexReuchlinianus. 99

K. Kessler, Šubria, in RLA XIII, Berlin 2011-13, p. 239-241. Ibid., p. 240; E. Lipiński, Toponymes (n. 22), p. 203-206. 101 J. Naveh, WritingandScriptsinSeventh-CenturyB.C.E.Philistia:NewEvidencefromTell Jemme, in IEJ35 (1985), p. 8-21 and pl. 2-4. 102 A. Lemaire, Uneinscriptionaraméennedu8es.av.J.-C.trouvéeàBukân(Azerbaïdjan iranien), in StudiaIranica27 (1998), p. 15-30, with earlier literature. 100

FOREIGN CULTS

157

The passage of II Kings 17, 30-31 may contain some historical information, but the text has been changed several times and the attempts aiming at interpreting inexistent theonyms only complicate the situation. The double mention of the molk-sacrifice should be added to the corpus of biblical and extra-biblical texts referring to this kind of holocaust103, which is never recorded in relation to Samaria or to the Kingdom of Israel. The firstborn son had to be bought back (Ex. 34, 20), as shown by the parable of Gen. 22, 1-14.

103 E. Lipiński, ‘ShallIOfferMyEldestSon?’(Mi.6:7), in BibAn 5/1 (2015), p. 95-109. — An earlier version of the last section of this chapter was published in ThePolishJournalofBiblicalResearch 15/1 (2016), p. 25-33.

CHAPTER VI

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE

We cannot close our history of the Kingdom of Israel without giving some sketch, albeit a summary one, of the situation in the core of the former Kingdom after the obscure sixth and fifth centuries B.C. This can be done thanks to the papyri from Samaria discovered in 1962 by Bedouin of the Taamire tribe in the Muġārat Abū Šinǧā, a cave of the Wadi Daliyeh, 14 km north-west of Jericho. The cave was cleared in 1963 and 1964 by P.W. Lapp. Beside the fragments of thirty-seven Aramaic legal documents, dated between 375/365 and 335/332 B.C., the finds included over 100 skeletons, jewellery, coins, and seals of documents. The people of the cave have hidden there during the Samarian revolt against Alexander the Great and have perished in a Macedonian attack. The editioprinceps of the Aramaic papyri, quoted as WDSP, an abbreviation of “Wadi Daliyeh Samaria Papyri”, was published in 2001 by D.M. Gropp1. It was followed in 2007 by a minute analysis of all the manuscripts, of the legends of seal impressions and coins, and by a study of their historical background. This first complete edition is due to Jan Dušek2. He succeeded in improving the general presentation of the epigraphic material, as well as the reading and interpretation of some passages. Twelve documents can be used for juridical studies. The rest consists in small fragments. Having presented the progress of the research from 1962 onwards, with special attention to onomastics3, to the seal impressions4 1 D.M. Gropp, WadiDaliyehII.TheSamariaPapyrifromWadiDaliyeh (DJD XXVIII), Oxford 2001, p. 1-116, pl. I-XXXIX. Gropp’s edition of nine papyri is based on his doctoral dissertation: D.M. Gropp, The Samaria Papyri from Wādi ed-Dāliyeh: The Slave Sales, Harvard University 1986. Papyri 1 and 2 were published previously by F.M. Cross, SamariaPapyrus1:AnAramaic SlaveConveyanceof335B.C.E.foundintheWadied-Dāliyeh, in NahmanAvigadVolume (EretzIsrael 18), Jerusalem 1985, p. 7*-17* and pl. II; id., A Report on Samaria Papyri, in Congress Volume.Jerusalem1986 (Vetus Testamentum. Supplements 40), Leiden 1988, p. 17-26. 2 J. Dušek, LesmanuscritsaraméensduWadiDaliyehetlaSamarievers450-332av.J.-C. (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 30), Leiden 2007. The book is divided in three main parts, respectively presenting the progress of the research (p. 5-62), a careful study of all the papyri (p. 65-437), and a reconstruction of their historical context (p. 441-607). It closes with a glossary (p. 611-618), where the legends of the coins are unfortunately missing, with a palaeographic table for WDSP 1, 2, 3, and 10 (p. 620-621), a bibliography (p. 623-638), an index of ancient sources (p. 639648) and modern authors (p. 647-649), a general index of subjects (p. 650-657), and photographic plates (p. 661-700). 3 Ibid., p. 27-33. 4 Ibid., p. 39-56. The seal impressions have been published by M.J.W. Leith, WadiDaliyehI. TheWadiDaliyehSealImpressions (DJD XXIV), Oxford 1997. Abbreviation: WD.

160

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE

Samaria Papyrus 1 before unrolling, with its seven sealings in place

and the coins5, Dušek examines the structure of the deeds6, analyzed one by one in the following pages7. The opinions expressed by various scholars are carefully reported, parallels from other sources, especially the Aramaic texts from Egypt8, are duly pointed out, and Dušek’s final judgment is expressed when he has a personal idea about the matter concerned. Before proceeding to the examination of some historical questions, in particular the chronological sequence of the governors of Samaria in the period ca. 490331 B.C., the writer proposes, as example, a translation of the first WDSP, as restored by the editors. This will be followed by a discussion of some readings and interpretations proposed by J. Dušek. ARAMAIC DOCUMENTS FROM WADI DALIYEH The papyri found in the cache of Wadi Daliyeh belonged to wealthy slaveholders of Samaria, who had fled the city in 331 B.C. from Alexander’s Macedonian troops and had hidden themselves in a cave, taking with them precious objects and their private archives, among them title-deeds proving the acquisition of slaves or landed property. These finds owe their preservation to the massacre of their owners. Among the thirty-seven private deeds recovered in the cave, there are several fairly readable conveyances. WDSP1, though the best preserved one, consists in less than one-half of the original inscribed surface, the right side of the papyrus alone remaining. The text of the slave conveyances can nevertheless be reasonably well reconstructed, because the same formulary is used in fairly readable documents and their language is practically identical to the one reflected in the private deeds from Elephantine, although the legal framework belongs to sale acts or title-deeds. Since the onomasticon of the Wadi Daliyeh papyri contains a good deal of Yahwistic names9, it shows that these contracts had been drafted for members of the local population of Samaria, continuing the Israelite tradition of the late Iron Age. Yahwistic names occur also in the following WDSP 1, given as example. It was written on 19 March 335 B.C. 5

J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens (n. 2), p. 57-62. Ibid., p. 67-114. 7 Ibid., p. 115-437. 8 B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Egypt I-IV, JerusalemWinona Lake 1986-99. Abbreviation: TAD. 9 F.M. Cross, PersonalNamesintheSamariaPapyri, in BASOR 244 (2006), p. 45-90. 6

ARAMAIC DOCUMENTS FROM WADI DALIYEH

161

Samaria Papyrus 1 (photo: Tsila Sagiv) “1On the twentieth of Adar, the second year (of Arses), the accession year of king Darius (III), in [the citadel] of Samar[ia, which is in the province of Samaria, 2 Ḥananyah, son of Beyadel, sold] Yehoḥanan by name, son of Še’ilah, this slave of his without defect, [to Yehonur, son of Laneri, for 35 sheqels of silver,] 3the full stipulated price. This sum of 35 sheqels Ḥananyah [has received from Yehonur. And Yehonur took possession of the said Yehoḥanan. He will be a slave] 4to him and to his sons after him in perpetuity. Yehonur has authority over [the said] Yeh[oḥanan in perpetuity. And they were mutually satisfied with the bond between them. And this bond] 5they concluded between them: If I, Ḥananyah, son of Beyadel, [enter into litigation with you, Yehonur, or if someone else enters into litigation with you], 6 Yehonur, or with your sons after you, I, Ḥananyah, and my sons after me [will clear it and give (him) back to you. And if I renege on this bond, which is concluded]

162

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE 7

in these terms with you, you, Yehonur, [and sa]y to you, you, Yehonur, [as follows: ‘Yehoḥanan, this slave, I did not sell you, and the sum of 35 sheqels] 8I did not receive from you’, then, the sum of 35 sheqels, which [you, Yehonur], gave [me, I, Ḥananyah, will return to you, you, Yehonur.] 9And afterwards, I, Ḥananyah, being (still) liable, I will pay you, you, Yehonur, [and your sons after you, 7 minas of silver, as stipulated in this bond, and you may take possession of (these)] 107 minas of silver without litigation and without liabilities. Over this Yehoḥanan [I Ḥananyah] have no (longer) [authority, but you, Yehonur, you have authority and your sons] 11 after you, as stipulated in this bond, which they concluded between them be[fore… The witnesses, who] 12will affix their seals, are trustworthy […].”

WDSP 1 shows that Yahwistic names were borne also by slaves. In fact, as much as nine preserved Yahwistic names seem to occur among the nine names of slaves and their three patronymics: YhwḥnnbrŠ’ylh, “Yehoḥanan, son of Še’ilah” (WDSP 1)10, Nḥmyh, “Neḥemyah” (WDSP 4), brYhwšbh,‘nnyh, “son of Yehošubah, ‘Ananyah” (WDSP 5), Mkyhw, “Mikayahu” (WDSP 8), Yh[w…] (WDSP 9), Yhw‘nnyšmhbr‘zryhw, “Yeho‘anani by name, son of ‘Azaryahu” (WDSP 3). Ḥnn, “Ḥanan” (WDSP 8) is probably a Hebrew name as well, but Qwsdkr, “Qaus-dakkūr” (WDSP 9) is an Edomite or Idumaean name, while ’blḥy, “’Abiluḥay” (WDSP 6) is probably North-Arabian11. It seems therefore that Samarian Israelites did not respect the biblical rule prohibiting enslavement of compatriots12. They were no foreigners, since even their patronymics are Hebrew as well. The writer will focus in the next pages on the new insights developed by J. Dušek and on some controvertible interpretations. His analyses and interpretations have already been discussed in reviews, in particular by H. Gzella13. Some additional observations and comments will be presented in the next pages before discussing historical questions. The preserved part of WDSP 2 is regarded by the J. Dušek as the left side of the sheet, not its right side, as assumed in the editioprinceps. In consequence, Dušek’s lines 1-12 correspond to Gropp’s lines 2-13. A lengthy discussion of the participle mq[bl] in WDSP 2, 2 (3) offers an alternative explanation14 to Gropp’s grammatical analysis. Dušek regards mqbl as an active participle pa‘el with the meaning of a present tense: “Qaus-nahar is receiving”. The present would express the decisive moment of the conclusion of the agreement. Dušek’s interpretation is confirmed by a similar use of mqbl in Aramaic sale contracts from Naḥal 10

Še’ilah seems to be a feminine name. G.L. Harding, AnIndexandConcordanceofPre-IslamicArabianNamesandInscriptions (Near and Middle East Series 8), Toronto 1971, p. 512: LḤY. 12 Ex. 21, 16; Lev. 25, 46; Deut. 24, 7; II Chron. 28, 8-15. 13 H. Gzella, rev. in BiOr 69 (2012), col. 605-613. See also M. Marciak, J.Dušek’sPromotionsarbeitanGeschichteSamariaszurPerserzeit, in ThePolishJournalofBiblicalResearch 8 (2009), p. 61-68. 14 J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens (n. 2), p. 135-139. 11

ARAMAIC DOCUMENTS FROM WADI DALIYEH

163

Ḥever: w’nhmqblksp’ 15, wksp’’nhmqbl, etc.16, “and I am receiving the silver”. These short sentences make the lengthy discussion superfluous. The participle mqbl occurs also in WDSP 1, 8; 2, 6 (7); 3, 8; 21, 1; 25, 2; 28, frg. 7; 34, frg. 7, where the same interpretation is proposed. The verb šnh in WDSP 2, 5 (6) created some problem to D.M. Gropp and to J. Dušek17, because it is not used with a direct object like in Biblical Hebrew. However, the basic stem pe‘al of šnh is regularly employed in Aramaic with the intransitive meaning “to be different”, “to change”, and M. Jastrow already recorded the intransitive connotation “to act strangely”18 of the pa‘el, which obviously occurs in WDSP [1, 6]; 2, 5 (6); [3, 7]; [4, 9]; [5, 9]; [6, 7]; 7, 11; [9, 9]; 15, 13; 19, 4; 25,1: “(if) he fails in this engagement”, hwyšnhb’sr’ znh. The same verb šnh/ šn’ is used without direct object in the penalty clauses of Aramaic contracts found in Naḥal Ḥever: whn ... ’šn’mndnh19, “and if ... I deviate from this”, whn ... nšn’ mn dnh20, “and if ... we deviate from this”. These documents date respectively from A.D. 97/98 (Pap. Yadin 2 and 3) and 122 (Pap. Yadin 8). Jastrowrefers, of course, to later attestations of the verb in Aramaic, but the last thirty-five years have shown that there is a renewed appreciation among linguistic researchers of the importance of the diachronic study of languages, especially in lexical work. Therefore, it is useless to assume, as Dušek does, that a phrase like “what is written” is implied by the formula in WDSP 2, 5 (6) and parallel texts. In line 7 (8) of the same deed WDSP 2, Dušek21 accepts the hypothesis of Gropp, who considered tšbqn to be a mistake for tštbqn, “you are quit”, 2nd pers. fem. sing. In sound methodology, a grammatical form cannot be regarded as erroneous when it is not paralleled by a “correct” one, used in a similar context. This condition is not fulfilled in WDSP 2, 7 (8); 6, 8-9; 9, 10-11, the verb being unfortunately lost in WDSP 6 and 9. The Aramaic verb šbq has various connotations, one of them being “to discharge a debt”, “to clear”. It is used with this meaning at Saqqara, in TAD II, B4.7, 5: wḥwb’yšbq, “and he will have discharged the obligation”. The same phrase occurs at Wadi Daliyeh: [ḥwb]’ tšbqnqdmy ḥyb’nh, “you will have discharged the obligation towards me, I am 15 Pap. Yadin 47, 8-9: Y. Yadin, J.C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. Levine, TheDocuments from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri, Jerusalem 2002, p. 162. 16 J.T. Milik, P. Benoit, and R. de Vaux, LesGrottesdeMurabba‘ât(DJD II), Oxford 1961, p. 138 (n° 25, I, 5); p. 150 (n° 32, 2); p. 151 (n° 33, 2). 17 J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens (n. 2), p. 144. 18 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the MidrashicLiterature II, New York 1903, p. 1606a. 19 Pap. Yadin 8, 8 and 2, 14.38-39: Y. Yadin, J.C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. Levine, The Documents (n. 15), p.113, 208, 212. 20 Pap. Yadin 3, 17.44: Y. Yadin, J.C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. Levine, TheDocuments (n. 15), p. 236, 240. 21 J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens (n. 2), p. 85, 145-146.

164

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE

liable” (WDSP 2, 7 [8]); [ḥwb’ tšbqn q]dmy ḥyb ’[nh] (WDSP 6, 8-9); [ḥwb’ tšbqwn]qdmyn ḥ[ybn’nḥnh], “you will have discharged the obligation toward us, we are liable” (WDSP 9, 10-11). This penalty clause has the same function in Aramaic deeds as the Assyrian and Babylonian clauses fixing penalties for litigation. In WDSP 2, 10 (11), also in WDSP 3, 10; 10, 10, Dušek22 rightly corrects Gropp’s interpretation of wh(w)dtdyn’ and reads “Vahudāta, the judge”. He is apparently not aware that the Old Persian name Vahudāta, “Well-born”, is attested on Persepolis tablets23. In WDSP 3, Dušek proposes a new reading and interpretation of the final clause in line 324. Instead of ’ṭyr [mk]yr, he reads ’ṭyr [mn]yd, referring to WDSP 25, 2, where the reading mqbl’nhmnyd, “I am receiving from the hand of ...”25, is indeed to be preferred to mkyr. Gropp’s phonological explanation of Aramaic mkyr by Babylonian maḫir, “is received”, is nevertheless correct and supported by similar cases26, but the Late Babylonian prototype of the formula reads maḫir eṭer, “is received, is paid”, while Gropp’s reading of WDSP 3, 3 inverts the order of the statives. Dušek’s interpretation is thus preferable and it corresponds to Late Babylonian eṭer ina ŠUII, “is paid by the hands of”. Epigraphically both restorations can be defended in WDSP 3, 3, but mnyd seems to be the correct reading in WDSP 25, 2. According to H. Gzella27, the reading mkyr should not be accepted in either case, since the post-vocalic spirantization of k allegedly occurs only in the period between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D.28 However, the change k>ḫ is attested in Aramaic names already in Neo-Assyrian spellings29. The patronymic Škwy of a witness in WDSP 3, 11 is a rather rare Aramaic personal name. It occurs also as patronymic on a seal discovered at Makmish30, in Job. 38, 36 (Śkwy); I Chr. 8, 10 (Śkyh), and in a deed from Dūr-Katlimmu31, 22

J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens (n. 2), p. 147-149, 168-169, 247. R.T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets (OIP 92), Chicago 1969, p. 728a; cf. E. Benveniste, Titresetnomspropreseniranienancien, Paris 1966, p. 87; M. Mayrhofer, OnomasticaPersepolitana, Wien 1973, p. 195, §8.1029; W. Hinz, NeueWegeimAltpersischen, Wiesbaden 1973, p. 55; J. Tavernier, IranicaintheAchaemenidPeriod(ca.550-330B.C.).Lexiconof Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords attested in Non-Iranian Texts (OLA 158), Leuven 2007, p. 342, §4.2.1835. 24 J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens (n. 2), p. 157-159, 164-165. 25 Ibid., p. 368-369. 26 E. Lipiński, Sale,Transfer,andDeliveryinAncientSemiticTerminology, in H. Klengel (ed.), Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 15), Berlin 1982, p. 173-185 (see p. 184). 27 H. Gzella, rev. in BiOr 69 (2012), col. 608b. 28 K. Beyer, DiearamäischenTextevomTotenMeer I, Göttingen 1984, p. 125-128. 29 R. Zadok, OnWestSemitesinBabyloniaduringtheChaldeanandAchaemenianPeriods. AnOnomasticStudy, 2nd ed., Jerusalem 1978, p. 259. 30 N. Avigad and B. Sass, CorpusofWestSemiticStampSeals, Jerusalem 1997, p. 99-100, n° 162. 31 J.N. Postgate, TheFour‘Neo-Assyrian’TabletsfromŠeḫḤamad, in SAAB 7 (1993), p. 109124 (see 111, n° 1, line 30); the deed is dated in 603 B.C. Cf. F.M. Fales, WestSemiticNames intheŠeḫḤamadTexts, in SAAB 7 (1993), p. 139-150 (see p. 147-148). 23

ARAMAIC DOCUMENTS FROM WADI DALIYEH

165

where it is spelled mSa-ku-u-a /Śakkūwa/. The name derives from śkw, “to beg for”, “to long”, and must mean “The begged for”, “The desired one”, with the hypocoristic ending -ya or -ā. Line 13 of WDSP 11 obv. ends with the word qwdn, which is left by Dušek without translation. It is no personal name, since it is not followed by a patronymic or a professional name. It must be a title used in apposition to Ḥnnsgn’. It should then be an Idumaean or North-Arabian noun, derived from the same root as Arabic qawd, “to lead”, “leadership”32, either with the afformative -ān (*qawdān) or rather with the Old Arabian nunation (*qāwidun). This is the original form of Classical Arabic qā’id, “leader”. Its use is not surprising, considering the presence of Idumaean and North-Arabian army units, stationed in Palestine. One should refer in particular to the dedication made “to ‘Aštarum who is in the Sharon (plain)”33. The apposition of *qawdān or *qāwidun to sgn’ might imply a military connotation for both terms. At any rate, its place at the end of the line confirms D.M. Gropp’s opinion that the mention of sgn’ in the Wadi Daliyeh papyri always closes the list of witnesses34. Papyrus WDSP 11 rev., lines 3 and 4, mentions qštyhw’b. Dušek’s translation “bow land of Jehoab” is not based on a personal investigation of Aramaic sources, but on the interpretation of Babylonian qaštu in CAD, Q, p. 153-154, that does not distinguish two homonyms. The deverbative noun qšt, used in WDSP 11 rev., derives from qśś / qšš, “to collect”, “to gather up”35, and should mean “gathering”, “group”, hence “community”. It occurs as a loanword in Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and mainly Late Babylonian texts36. The “community” is often specified by the name of its head, like in WDSP 11 rev., where Jehoab appears as its chief and ‘Aqība as one of its members. The latter cannot be the subject of the verb ’ḥd in line 4. This must be Jehoiadin (line 5), accused of having “seized” something that was possessed by or entrusted to “‘Aqība, son of Šallum, of the community of Jehoab”, [... ‘qy]b’brŠlwmzyqštYhw’b(lines 4a/4). When commenting the seal impression WD 22 — also in other contexts — Dušek translates pḥw’ by “governor”37. This widely used translation is still accepted without comments by some authors in the issue of TelAviv 34/1 (2007) 32 H. Wehr and J.M. Cowan, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Wiesbaden 1961, p. 795-796. During the latter part of the Umayyad reign and under the early Abbasides (7th8th centuries A.D.), the professional commanders of the Caliph’s armies were called qawwād, plural of qā’id nb, is attested in a Nabataean inscription from Petra112. As rightly seen by M. Lidzbarski, Mnbgyt’ is used there as an epithet of ’tr‘t’, “Atargatis”, whose name is written with an initial ’aleph instead of ‘ayin113. The divine name means therefore “Atargatis, the one of Mabbog”, and Mnbgyt’ exactly parallels the Mbgy of the coin legend. The treatise ‘Abōdāhzārāh 11b of the Babylonian Talmud expresses the notion of “Atargatis, the one of Mabbog”, by Tr‘t’š-bMpg, the b of the toponym being replaced in Hebrew by p114. Since Mbgy is not attested in the 4th century B.C. as a personal name, this epithet must qualify the deity and be applied to the God worshipped in Samaria. It would provide another reference to the Samarian shrine, while avoiding any Semitic theonym next to the divine figure. Since this coin bears no Greek legend, it was probably minted 107

Qadmoniot33 (2000), pl. 4, next to p. 89, above, right, and here, p. 174. Cf. Y. Magen, TheTempleofYHWH(n. 62), p. 291. 108 Damascius, Vita Isidori, quoting Marinus of Neapolis: J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca CIII, col. 1283. 109 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 25, 92, no 47. 110 A. Lemaire, MBGY/Menbigi,monétairedeTranseuphratèneavantAlexandre?, in M. Amandry and S. Hurter (eds.), TravauxdenumismatiquegrecqueoffertsàGeorgesLeRider, London 1999, p. 215-219, pl. 18; id., rev. in Transeuphratène 24 (2002), p. 152-153. 111 These names have been collected by G. Goossens, HiérapolisdeSyrie, Louvain 1943, p. 8-9 with references to the editions. Instead of Μαμβογαίου, one could read Μανβογαίου in CIG 5057; cf. Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Recueild’archéologieorientale V, Paris 1903, p. 86-88; M. Lidzbarski, EphemerisfürsemitischeEpigraphik II, Giessen 1908, p. 86: 25-27. 112 CIS II, 422, interpreted by Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, Recueil d’archéologie orientale IV, Paris 1901, p. 101. 113 M. Lidzbarski, EphemerisfürsemitischeEpigraphik I, Giessen 1902, p. 195-196. 114 However, the spelling Mbwg occurs in the Babylonian Talmud, Zebaḥīm 9b.

176

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE

before the end of the Persian rule in Palestine. Mbgy would have been a Syrian interpretation of Yhwh. A comparable enthroned figure appears further on two coins with the legend Bryḥ-Bl115, occurring also on three other coins, all different116. Bryḥ-Bl is the phonetic spelling of etymological Barīk-Bēl, “Blessed by Bēl”, quite a common name in Late Babylonian texts117. The shift k>ḫ is already indicated in NeoAssyrian times by the alphabetic spelling Nsḥ of the theonym Nusku118 and it occurs in the Late Babylonian cuneiform notations Ba-ru-ḫa-’ and Bé-ru-ḫa-’ of the probably Jewish name Brwk’, “The blessed one”119. The official in question, whose name was possibly abbreviated as Bl on another Samarian coin120, may have been a satrap, a governor or a commander of mercenary troops, possibly like Baga-pāta, mentioned here below. His name does not suggest that he was the high priest of a Samarian shrine, but the possibility of a foreign shrine cannot be excluded because of the image of an enthroned deity. Śhrw is regarded by Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar as a possible governor of Samaria121, but the name must be North-Arabian and the identification of its bearer with a king of Liḥyān in the 4th century B.C. is the most likely explanation122. It is possibly supported by the legend Wny occurring on another coin 115 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, The Coinage of Samaria (n. 98), p. 15-16; Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 21, 85, nos 13 and 14. The less likely alternative reading Brwḥbl, proposed by J. Naveh, Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria, in IEJ 48 (1998), p. 91-100 (see p. 92, n. 9), with the translation “in the spirit of Bel”, does not fit any onomastic pattern. 116 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 21-22, 85-86, nos 15-17. 117 See, for instance, M.D. Coogan, WestSemiticPersonalNamesintheMurašûDocuments (HSM 7), Missoula 1976, p. 17-18. 118 P. Bordreuil, Unetablettearaméenneinéditede635av.J.-C., in Semitica 23 (1973), p. 95-102 and pl. I-V, see lines 3 and 6: Nsḥnghy. 119 A.T. Clay, BusinessDocumentsofMurashûSonsofNippurDatedintheReignofDariusII (424-404B.C.) (BE 10), Philadelphia 1904, n° 119, 16; M.W. Stolper, ManagmentandPoliticsin LaterAchaemenidBabylonia, Ann Arbor 1974, p. 413, CBS 12969, 5.9.11.14.15. Cf., in general, E.E. Knudsen, SpirantizationofVelarsinAkkadian, in M. Dietrich and W. Röllig (eds.), Lišān mitḫurti.FestschriftfürW.FreiherrnvonSoden (AOAT 1), Kevelaer-Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, p. 147-155. 120 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 86, n° 19. However, see here above, p. 171 with n. 82. 121 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, Samarian Coinage (n. 68), p. 27-28, 94, n° 60. The reading Śhrn proposed by A. Lemaire, rev. in Transeuphratène24 (2002), p. 153, is theoretically possible, but it is not supported by any onomastic or historical information. Instead, Šhr(w) is a widespread North-Arabian name: A. Negev, PersonalNamesintheNabateanRealm (Qedem 32), Jerusalem 1991, p. 62, no 1112 with further literature. 122 M.A. Rizack, A Coin with the Aramaic Legend ŠHRW, a King-Governor of Lihyân, in AmericanNumismaticSocietyMuseumNotes 29 (1984), p. 25-28; F.M. Cross, ANewAramaicStele fromTaymā’, in TheCatholicBiblicalQuarterly48 (1986), p. 387-394 (see p. 391). At least seven kings of Liḥyān in the 4th-early 2nd centuries B.C. are identified by S. Farès-Drappeau, Dédanet Liḥyān.HistoiredesArabesauxconfinsdespouvoirsperseethellénistique(IVe-IIes.avantl’ère chrétienne) (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 42), Lyon-Paris 2005. One can recall here to mind that several new Dedanite/Liḥyanite inscriptions have been published twenty years ago by

GOVERNORS OF SAMARIA

177

from the Samarian corpus123. Also this name may be a Liḥyānite *Wannay124, but it is attested also on contemporaneous Idumaean ostraca from Maqqedah125, it appears elsewhere in the same period126, and later in Ṣafaitic127. Wny occurs in the 1st century B.C. as patronymic on an ossuary from the Kidron Valley128 and in a burial inscription at ‘Illar, about 10 km. north-east of Ṭūl-Karem, where it is engraved in the Jewish script of the Herodian period129. The Samarian coins could witness a commercial traffic between Samaria and El-‘Ula, while patronymics from ‘Illar and the Kidron Valley may indicate that some Idumaeans or North-Arabians had settled in Samaria or at Jerusalem towards the end of the Persian period, in Hellenistic or Herodian times130. The abbreviation Bt of the Samarian coinage131 has rightly been interpreted by Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar as the first and last consonant letters of the name of ΒΑΓΑΒΑΤΑΣ, occurring on one of the coins132. According to H. Eshel, this Old Persian name, certainly Baga-pāta, “Protected by God”133, would designate the high priest of the temple of Samaria134. Although it could be seen as a translation of “Eliezer”, a Hebrew name would suit a high priest better and Baga-pāta A. Sima, DielihyanischenInschriftenvonal-‘Ubayd(Saudi-Arabien), Rahden/Westf. 1999. Most of them seem to have a ritual character according to C.J. Robin, rev. in BiOr 60 (2003), col. 773778. 123 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 26, 96, n° 71. The unlikely alternative reading Dny can be safely dismissed. 124 A. Jaussen and R. Savignac, MissionarchéologiqueenArabie(mars-mai1907) II, Paris 1914, n° 81, 2; F.V. Winnett and W.L. Reed, AncientRecordsfromNorthArabia (Near and Middle East Series 6), Toronto 1971, p. 124, no 7, 2; p. 129, no 16, 1. 125 A. Lemaire, Nouvellesinscriptionsaraméennesd’IduméeauMuséed’Israël (Transeuphratène. Suppl. 3), Paris 1996, n° 11, 4; I. Eph‘al and J. Naveh, AramaicOstracaoftheFourthCenturyBC fromIdumaea, Jerusalem 1996, n° 82, 2. 126 One should refer to Wny in TAD IV, D9.10, 3, and to Wnyh in Ezra 10, 36 and TAD III, C4.2, 202. Four writing exercises listing personal names in alphabetical order mention Wny as the one beginning with wāw: J. Naveh, MiscellaneaOnomasticaHebraica, in Semitica 39 (1990), p. 59-62 (see p. 61). 127 G.L. Harding, AnIndexandConcordance (n. 11), p. 651; F.V. Winnett and G.L. Harding, Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns (Near and Middle East Series 9), Toronto 1978, p. 623b. 128 E.L. Sukenik, AJewishBurialCaveontheNorthernSlopeoftheKidronValley,nearthe SiloamVillage, in S.KraussJubileeVolume, Jerusalem 1937, p. 90-91, with the reading corrected by J. Naveh, Miscellanea (n. 126), p. 62. 129 B. Mazar, AHebrewInscriptionfrom‘Illar, in BulletinoftheIsraelExplorationSociety 18 (1954), p. 154-157 (in Hebrew); J. Naveh, ScriptsandInscriptions(n. 115), p.94. 130 The individual shaft graves from the Hasmonaean or Herodian periods, found at Jerusalem, East Talpiyot, and Beit Safafa (A. Kloner and B. Zissu, TheNecropolisofJerusalemintheSecond TemplePeriod, Leuven 2007, figs. 233 and 248-249), suggest that they belonged to such a population group, as rightly noticed by J. Młynarczyk, rev. in Palamedes 3 (2008), p. 251-252. Similar shaft graves occur near Qumran, at Ein el-Ghuweir, and mainly at Khirbet Qazone, south-east of the Dead Sea, thus in a Nabataean area. 131 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 20, 83-84, nos 3, 4, 6. 132 Ibid., p. 29, 83-84, no 4. 133 J. Tavernier, IranicaintheAchaemenidPeriod (n. 23),p. 137-138, §4.2.275. 134 H. Eshel, TheRulersofSamaria (n. 70), p. 11.

178

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE

Pseudo-Athenian coin with the legend Mnpt (photo: Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums)

might rather be a high-ranking Persian official, like Pharnabazos, satrap of Daskyleion, whose name appears in Greek on two Samarian coins135, or Mazday / Mazaeus, indicated there by Mz136. The latter was appointed satrap of AbarNahara shortly after the end of the Phoenician revolt, ca. 345 B.C., and he held this post until the satrapy was conquered in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great. The coins issued by him bear the Aramaic inscription Mzdyzy ‘l‘brnhr’ w-Ḥlk, “Mazday, who is over the country Beyond the River and Cilicia”137. The presence of some coinage of these satraps in Samaria may be related to Persian campaigns in Egypt and to the necessity of paying foreign mercenaries. One coin bears the name of a mint, viz. Mnpt138, “Memphite”, to be compared to the legend Mnp of an Egyptian pseudo-Athenian tetradrachm from the time of the Persian occupation of Egypt139. The last Persian governor of Samaria, Sanballat III, was appointed by Darius III (336-331 B.C.). Josephus Flavius stresses that the latter was the last Persian monarch140 and that Sanballat with his men joined Alexander the Great at Tyre141. No serious reason undermines Josephus’ statement and one can hardly understand why J. Dušek assumes that the historiographer confused Darius III with Darius II (424-405 B.C.)142. 135 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 28-29, 83, nos 1-2. Both coins also bear the name of the Samaria province (Šmrn, Šmr). 136 Ibid., p. 25-26, 97, 99, 101, 102, nos 74, 84, 90, 100. 137 G.A. Cooke, AText-bookofNorth-SemiticInscriptions, Oxford 1903, p. 346. Cf. L. Mildenberg, NotesontheCoinIssuesofMazday, in IsraelNumismaticJournal 11 (1990-91), p. 9-23; id., ÜberdasMünzwesen(n. 99),p. 60 and pl. 11, 96; Fr. de Callataÿ, MonnayagesdePamphylieetde Cilicieàl’époqueperse, in Anatolie (Dossiers d’archéologie 276), Dijon 2002, p. 64-71 (see p. 70). 138 Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar, SamarianCoinage(n. 68), p. 26, 92, n° 48. 139 Cf. E. Lipiński, Egyptian Aramaic Coins from the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., in S. Scheers (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster oblata I. Numismatica antiqua (OLA 12), Leuven 1982, p. 23-33 (see p. 28, 30, and 33, fig. 6). 140 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities XI, 7, 2, §302. 141 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities XI, 8, 4, §321. 142 J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens(n. 2), p. 545-548.

GOVERNORS OF SAMARIA

179

Josephus probably used the compilation of Alexander Polyhistor143 for his account of the second half of the 4th century B.C., but he confused the governor Sanballat III, appointed by Darius III, with Sanballat I h-Ḥrny of the 5th century B.C. and connected him with the story of Neh. 13, 28144. His information for the earlier period was based on the biblical Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, with addition of the Book of Esther, which is a novel. He followed, of course, the order of the Bible, thus placing the activity of Nehemiah after the mission of Ezra. When dealing with Nehemiah, he identified Artaxerxes I with Xerxes145, regarded Artaxerxes II as the first king bearing this name, and identified him with Assuerus of the Book of Esther. Instead, the biblical ’ḥšwrwš is the misspelled name Xšayaršā146 of Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.), who is named several times by Josephus147, but is always identified with an Artaxerxes of his biblical source. No other source was apparently available to Josephus for the period ca. 500-350, since the passage of JewishAntiquities XI, 4, 9, §114-119, not corresponding to any episode of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, is Josephus’ own development of JewishAntiquities XI, 4, 6, §97-98, based on Ezra 6. A similar confusion in the chronology of that period occurs in the Seder ‘ÔlāmRabbāh, attributed to R. Yose b. Halafta, a tanna from the mid-2nd century A.D. Like other rabbinic scholars, he believed that Zerubbabel, Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah were all contemporaries. The study of the Samaritans in the light of Josephus’ writings by Rita Egger148 lacks a real historical perspective149 and is outdated by the results of the excavations on Mount Gerizim and by the studies of the Wadi Daliyeh papyri, dating from the 4th century B.C. Considering the available sources, analyzed and discussed here above, the following approximate chronology can be proposed for the governors of Samaria between the early 5th century B.C. and the end of Persian rule in Cisjordan. The list is most likely incomplete, especially for the period 370-335 B.C. Attributing ca. fifty or about forty-five years to the tenure of a governor, as done for 143 Alexander Polyhistor, native from Miletus, compiled extracts from several Hellenistic historiographers ca. 70-60 B.C. Preserved fragments of his work are collected in F. Jacoby (ed.), FragmentedergriechischenHistoriker IIIA, Berlin-Leiden 1940, p. 96-121, with a commentary ibid., vol. IIIa, Berlin-Leiden 1943, p. 248-313. The most complete study of Polyhistor’s work is due to J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischerGeschichtswerke, Breslau 1875. 144 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities XI, 7, 2, §302; 8, 2, §306-312. 145 Josephus Flavius, JewishAntiquities XI, 5, 6.7.8, §159, 168, 179. 146 An initial prosthetic ’aleph before a consonantal cluster is required in classical Semitic languages, but the first wāwmust go back to a misread yōd,whilewš may result from a metathesis. 147 For instance in JewishAntiquities XI, 5, 1, §120 ff. 148 R. Egger, JosephusFlaviusunddieSamaritaner.EineterminologischeUntersuchungzur IdentitätsklärungderSamaritaner (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 4), Freiburg-Göttingen 1986. 149 Review by E. Nodet in RB 95 (1988), p. 288-296.

180

SAMARIA UNDER ACHAEMENID RULE

Sanballat I, seems to be a risky hypothesis, but our sources do not suggest a different chronology, while the sixty-seven years of the reign of Ramesses II (1279-1212 B.C.) show that long tenure periods were possible in those times. J. Dušek even attributes an average period of almost forty years to the tenure of a governor and of thirty years to the position of a high priest150.

GovernorsofSamaria Sanballat I h-Ḥrny ? Sanballat II, grandson of Sanballat I h-Ḥrny(?) Delaiah, son of Sanballat II Shelemiah, brother of Delaiah Ḥananiah Jeroboam Jaddua Sanballat III Jeho‘anah

150

ca. 490-440 B.C. ca. 440-430 B.C. ca. 430-407 B.C. ca. 407-380 B.C. ca. 380-370 B.C. ca. 370-350 B.C. ca. 350-345 B.C. ca. 345-335 B.C. ca. 335-332 B.C. ca. 332-331 B.C.

J. Dušek, Lesmanuscritsaraméens(n. 2), p. 549, 588.

EPILOGUE

The history of the Kingdom of Israel, traced in this book, is undoubtedly very different from a biblical history of Israel. The difference results not only from the sources used and from the primary importance attributed to information going back to the Bronze and Iron Ages, but also from a clear and systematic distinction of the Kingdom of Israel from the city-state of Jerusalem and of the State of Judah, first recorded around 800 B.C. It is important to understand that the ancient history of the people of Israel cannot be based on the sole textusreceptus of the Bible. Extra-biblical sources, written or archaeological, provide precious information which cannot be neglected, even if it contradicts the biblical accounts. We have traced the history of the Kingdom of Israel from its proto-history in the early second millennium B.C. to the Hellenistic period. The reader has certainly noticed that this presentation is very different from John Bright’s AHistoryofIsrael1, whose editions had a dominant influence in biblical scholarship for many years2. The writer’s approach to the proto-history of Israel also differs radically from the methodological working hypothesis of Z. Kallai, who identified its proto-history with the Patriarchal Age3. Despite correct observations and comments, these authors follow the biblical history as it is presented traditionally, even in recent publications4, and was serving as guide in teaching religion in the school of Piramowicz street at Lodz, where the writer was taught the accounts of the Book of Judges in 1938-1939. This was year 3 of the primary school level, the Books of Samuel and Kings being probably exposed in higher school’s stages. One could raise here the question why Israel’s proto-history is traced from the initial centuries of the Middle Bronze Age II and does not go back to the Chalcolithic period and to the Early Bronze Age I, since it is very likely that the tribes attested by Egyptian inscriptions dated to the time of the late Twelfth Dynasty and the Thirteenth Dynasty were already present in Canaan in earlier times. A. Zertal’s The Manasseh Hill Country Survey concerned in fact the 1

J. Bright, AHistoryofIsrael, London 1960. Its basic principles were carefully analyzed by N.K. Gottwald, JohnBright’sNewRevision ofAHistoryofIsrael, in BiblicalArchaeologyReview 8/4 (1982), p. 56-61. 3 Z. Kallai, TheBeginningsofIsrael:AMethodologicalWorkingHypothesis, in IEJ 59 (2009), p. 194-203. 4 A. Piwowar, HistoriaIzraelaczasówStaregoTestamentu.OdPatriarchówdopodbojuRzymian (Materiały pomocnicze do wykładów z biblistyki 12), Lublin 2013; cf. the review by Ł. NiesiołowskiSpanò in SBO 6 (2014 [2015]), p. 151-154. 2

182

EPILOGUE

central area of Cisjordan5, where Joseph tribes appear in the second millennium B.C. The survey consisted of over thirty-nine field seasons and its results served as the main basis of S. Bar’s study of the settlement patterns in the lower Jordan Valley and in the desert fringes of Samaria during the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age I6. However, the lack of explicit relations to some tribal names or toponyms linked to later known Israelite tribes would probably undermine the value of a study based on exclusively archaeological data. It would have been a very risky enterprise. The Execration Texts witness instead a concrete knowledge of determined settlements and tribes in Canaan, although they do not reveal the real extent of the Egyptian Empire and do not prove that the situation in the 19th-18th centuries B.C. was troubled to the point that the Egyptian government had recourse to magic, being unable to settle the problems by force. The practice of Execration Texts was a routine matter, which nevertheless reveals the identity of Levantine populations having contacts with Egypt. The finds of Tell eḍ-Ḍab‘a provide additional dimensions to the relations between Egypt and Canaan in Middle Bronze IIA, showing the presence of Canaanite soldiers, metal-smiths and other artisans in Egypt at that time. The mention of Israel in Merneptah’s inscription seems to indicate that a confederacy of Israelite tribes existed already in the 13th century B.C. Its name suggests that it was formed to face an external menace, most likely an Egyptian attempt to extend and strengthen the grip of Canaan, inclusive the highlands. We do not know whether the system of “judges” existed already at that time or was established only later, when the new Philistine danger appeared on the coast of Canaan. The Philistines were no numerous people, but rather groups of Graeco-Aegean fighters who saw in the collapse of Egypt’s control of Canaan in the late 12th century B.C. their chance to inherit the hegemony over Cisjordan7. They were a menace to Israelite tribes such as they had never been called on to face before. A victory was nevertheless won at the time of Deborah, but Israel’s loose organization could not cope with the Philistines. This was the reason why a king has been elected. The first one was Saul, while David first became an ally of the Philistine ruler of Gath. Even the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem was organized with the latter’s help, and Solomon’s enthronement was celebrated under the protection of Philistine mercenaries (I Kings 1, 38). About thirty years separate the revolt of Sheba against David from the accession of Jeroboam I, whose reign was marked by the invasion of Shoshenq I and 5

A. Zertal and S. Bar, TheManassehHillCountrySurvey I-IV (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 21/1-4), Leiden 2004-2017. 6 S. Bar, The Dawn of the Bronze Age (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 72), Leiden 2014. 7 E. Lipiński, OntheSkirtsofCanaanintheIronAge (OLA 153), Leuven 2006, p. 36-45; id., PeuplesdelaMer,Phéniciens,Puniques(OLA 237), Leuven 2015, p. 1-61.

EPILOGUE

183

followed by a turbulent period. The situation changed with the Omrides, whose reign represents the top period of the history of the Kingdom of Israel, despite a half century of weakness, from 841 to 803 B.C. Extra-biblical sources allow to rectify the chronology of the events and to correct the misleading reports of the biblical texts. The tragic end of the Omrid dynasty was followed by a new turbulent period, which ended in the Assyrian annexation of the Kingdom, divided in Assyrian provinces. Some part of the population was deported, while many people fled to Jerusalem and Judah. The Assyrians substituted for them a new body of settlers from other conquered areas, but the papyri from Wadi Daliyeh prove that the bulk of the Samarian population remained Israelite and their religion was Yahwistic, as shown by personal names. Since monotheism goes to the heart of Israelite self-understanding, a history of Israel must also deal with the theophorous element El of Israel’s name and of the names of Israel’s Former Prophets. A special chapter thus deals with the religious situation in the Kingdom of Israel. We have seen there, how its religion, yet holding fast to its monotheistic structure, developed from the faith of nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes in El to their characteristic belief in Yahweh-El, “El caused (everything) to be”. The Priestly redactor of the Pentateuch was conscious of this change based on a fundamental continuity, as shown by the words attributed to God in Ex. 6, 3: “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but I did not let myself be known to them by my name Yahweh”. Studies of YHWH worship are simply misleading if they do not explain the verbal form yhwh as a distinctive qualification of El, first attested in the northern Sinai, among Shasu tribes recorded in Egyptian inscriptions of the second millennium B.C. The earliest certain mention of YHWH without its subject El seems to occur in the Mesha inscription of the 9th century B.C. and it refers to its shrine on Mount Nebo, in Transjordan. This is so far the oldest known sanctuary of Yahweh, distinct from the Holy Mountain(s) symbolizing the divine presence. The religion and ethnic identity of Israel, as presented in sources of the first millennium B.C., connects traditions of semi-nomadic tribes of the Cisjordanian highland with conceptions and practices of some clans of pastroralists living in Transjordan, Midian, Negeb, and Sinai, known as Shasu in Egyptian texts. Other clans of these regions created instead the lands of Edom, Moab, Ammon, or concentrated in the Beersheba Valley, around Hebron, or in the Judaean highland. Large areas remained nevertheless nomad’s country until the present days. The coastal region, the plains and large valleys of Cisjordan were occupied by settled population with Phoenician, Philistine, and Canaanite inhabitants and city-states. Most Canaanite towns have been included later in the Kingdom of Israel, while Jerusalem became the capital of the small kingdom of Judah. Its political and cultural importance increased in the late 8th century B.C. as a consequence of the afflux of refugees from the Kingdom of Israel, occupied by the Assyrians.

184

EPILOGUE

The history of Israel does not begin with the Revelation on the Sinai and it does not end with the appearance of the Graeco-Roman civilization. The religion and culture of the Kingdom of Israel survived through centuries in Judaism and in the Samaritan tradition, followed today by some 500 believers, and they continue to develop to their fourth and the starting now fifth millennium, despite historical events and the Shoah.

INDEXES PERSONAL NAMES Personal names occurring in quoted inscriptions are not listed below, unless they may have a historical or chronological relevance.

A Aaron 130 Abdel, high priest 130, 132, 171 ‘Abdu-Joseph-’I(l) 4 Abiam, Abiah 38, 61 Abimelek 11, 41, 130 Abinadab, son of Iddo 75 ben Abinadab 73 Abishag 53 Abner 51, 53 f. Abram, Abraham 10-12, 130, 143, 183 Absalom 38, 53 f. Achish, king of Gath 39 Adad-nirari III 103-106 Adoniah 53 Ahab 65 f., 68-72, 75-77, 79-85, 87-89, 94-97, 102, 109, 146 Ahaz, king of Judah 20, 112 f. Ahaziah, son of Ahab 66, 70, 75, 84, 89-91, 97 Ahaziah, son of Jehoram XII, 66, 71, 83 f., 89, 92, 94-96, 98 Ahijah, priest 139 Ahijah, prophet 139 Aḥimaaṣ 75 Akhenaten 1 Alexander the Great 134, 159 f., 173 f., 178 Amasa 52 Amaziah 106 Amenophis III 9 Amenophis IV 20 Amos, prophet 109 Andromachus 173 Antiochus III the Great 134 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 174 ‘Aqība, son of Šallum 165 Aqyah 141 Ariḫu 122 Arses 161, 172 Artaxerxes I 168, 179

Artaxerxes II 168, 179 Artaxerxes III 141, 172 Asa 39, 61 Asenath 4 Ashur-uballiṭ II 127 Assuerus 179 Athaliah 66, 75, 84, 89, 96 Azzimilk, king of Sidon 167 B Baana, son of Ahilud 73 f. Baana, son of Hushai 75 Baasha 56, 61-63, 107 Baga-pāta 171, 177 f. Bardiya 132 Bar-Hadad I 40, 60-62, 107 Bar-Hadad II 102, 104, 106 Batsheba / Bat-Teshub 54 Belesis, satrap 171 Biraššena 20 Burna-Buriyaš 6 C Chemoshyatt 70 f. Cyrus 128 D Darius I 134, 168 Darius II 178 Darius III 134, 161, 168, 171, 178 f. David XII, 38, 47-55, 63, 89, 92, 94, 182 Deborah XI, 7, 9, 15, 34 f., 40 f., 76, 182 Delaiah 132, 160, 180 ben Deqer 73 E Ehud 40 Elah, son of Baasha 56, 62 f. Elah, father of king Hoshea 115 Eleazar 130 Eli, priest 130, 139

186

INDEXES

Elihu 130 Elijah, prophet 82, 90, 129, 145 f. Elisha, prophet 68, 70, 129, 145 f. El-qanah, father of Samuel 130 Esarhaddon 120, 124 Esau 12 Ezechiel 144 Ezra 179 G Geber, son of Uri 76 ben Geber 74 f. Gideon 41, 139 H Hadadezer 71, 87 f., 91 f. Hadrian 175 Ḥanan, prefect 170 Ḥananiah, governor 170, 180 Hanunu, ruler of Gaza 118 Haremsaf 58 Hazael 40, 57, 70 f., 80, 84, 87 f., 91, 97-99, 102-104, 106 f. ben Ḥesed 73 Hiram II, king of Tyre 79, 81, 112 Ḥiyam, governor(?) 172 Hophni, son of Eli 138 f. Hosea, prophet 109 Hoshea, king of Judah 113, 115 f. ben Ḥūr 72 f. Ḫu-sebek 2 Ḫutiya, Ḥutiya 48, 53 f., 67 I Iaū-bi’di 117 Ia-u-ga-a 119 ’Ibwrhnἰ 6 Ilu-bi’di 117 Isaac 182 Isaiah 144 Išba‘al b.Bd‘ 47 Ishbaal, son of Saul XII, 49, 51, 53 f., 62 f. Išme-Aya 121 Itti-Adad-anēnu, eponym 127 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, scribe 167 Ittobaal I, Etbaal 77, 82 J Jabin 34 Jacob 8, 130, 182 Jaddua, governor(?) 171 f., 180

Jair, judge 41 Jehoab 165 Jehoahaz 66, 102, 106 Jeho‘anah, governor 171, 173 f., 180 Jehoiadin 165 Jehoram XII, 66, 70 f., 75, 77, 84, 89-97 Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi 66, 71, 75, 83 f., 89 Jehoshaphat, king of Judah 89-91, 96 Jehoshaphat, son of Paruaḥ 76, 83, 89 Jehu XII, 66, 68, 71, 75, 83, 97-99, 102 f., 146 f. Jephthah, judge 41 Jeremiah, prophet 101, 144 Jeroboam I 20, 55-61, 63, 137, 139, 182 Jeroboam II 38, 40, 57, 66, 84, 107-111 Jeroboam, governor 170, 180 Jerubbaal 130 Jezebel 77-79, 82-84, 90, 97, 145 Joab 51 f. Joash 38, 40, 57, 66, 84, 104-108, 146 Joshua 20, 24, 30, 34, 133, 145 Josiah, king of Judah 127, 131, 144 L Lab’ayu 20 Levi 7 M Maakah 38-40 Ma‘azyāh 121 Maḥṣēyāh 121 Malachi, prophet 179 Manasseh 123 Mazday, Mazaeus 178 Menaḥem 111 f., 119 Merneptah 7, 15-17 Merodah-Baladan, king of Babylon 124 Mesha 9, 24, 34, 50, 70 f., 74-77, 90 f., 98 f., 101 f., 112, 148 Michal 54 Moses XII, 15, 21-24, 27, 29-31, 101, 133, 145 Murašū 176 N Nabonidus 166 Nabopolassar 127 Nabû-aḫḫē-iddina, scribe 167 Nabû-bēlu-ka’’in, high official 119 Nabû-dūru-uṣur, governor 122

PERSONAL NAMES

Nabû-kēnu-uṣur, eponym 127 Nadab 61 f. Nadbi-Yāhu, charioteer 119 f. Nahor 38 Nebuchadnezzar II 128, 133 Neco II 127 Nehemiah 168, 179 Nergal-ereš, eponym in 803 B.C. 103 Nēri-Yāhu, accountant 120 Nimshi 66, 68-71, 146 Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur 151 O Odysseus 139 Omri XII, 56, 62, 65-72, 75-77, 80-85, 89, 97 f., 102, 105, 110, 112, 114 Osorkon I 60 Osorkon II 82 Othniel, juge 40, 130 P Palṭi-Yāhu, accountant 120 f. Panamuwa II 116 Paqaḫa, village manager 120 Peqaḥ 112-115, 120 Peqaḥiah 112, 120 Pharnabazos 178 Phinehas, son of Eli 138 f. Phinehas, priest 130 Potiphar 4 Psammetichus I 127 R Ramesses II 7 f. Ramesses III XI, 7 f., 21, 23, 28 Ramesses V 23, 26 Ramesses VI 23 Ramesses X 72 Raṣ´iyān, Reṣīn 9, 111-113 Rehoboam 38, 47, 53, 55 f., 60 f. Reumah 38 Remaliah 112, 115 S Šamar-Hār 3, 13 Šame’-Yāhu 121 Samson 41 Šamu-Adda 6 f. Samuel, prophet 41, 43, 129, 145 Sanballat I h-Ḥrny 123, 132, 134, 168, 179 f.

187

Sanballat II 167-170, 180 Sanballat III 172 f., 178-180 Sargon II 116-127, 151 Saul XII, 41, 43, 48-53, 61-63, 182 Seti I 17 f. Shalāmān, king of Moab 115 f. Shallum of Jabesh 110 f. Shalmaneser III 83, 87 f., 97-99, 102, 104 Shalmaneser V 116 f., 123 Shamgar, Šimegar 40 f., 67 Sheba ben Bikri 52 f., 182 Shelemiah, governor 169, 180 Shemer 66, 70 Shimei, son of Elah 76 Shoshenq I 10, 15, 55, 57-61, 67, 72, 182 Šhrw, Śhrw 171, 176 Sīn-uballiṭ, see Sanballat Sinuhe 2, 38 Sisera 9, 34 f., 37 Smerdis 132 Solomon XII, 20, 47, 53-55, 62 f., 65, 72, 79-81, 85, 182 Šukri 20 Šumma-ilāni, charioteer 119 f. T ben Ṭāb’ēl 113 Talmay 38, 40, 67 Tefnakht 116 Tennes (Tabnit II) 170 Tibni 62 f. Tiglath-pileser III 12, 37 f., 107, 111-115, 118-120, 122, 126 Tobit 123 Tola, judge 41 Tuthmosis III 4, 6-9, 16, 39, 92 U Ulysses 139 Urḫilina 87 f. Uriah 53 Uriel 76 f. V Vahudāta, Persian judge 164 W Wannay 171, 176 f. X Xerxes I 179

188

INDEXES

Z Zechariah 66, 110 f. Zerubbabel 41, 132, 179

Zimri 56, 62 f. Zimri-Hār 3

DIVINE AND MYTHOLOGICAL NAMES A Adad 156 Adrammelek 156 Almaqah 153 Amon 22 Anammelek 156 Anath 40 ’Anbāy 153 Ashima 151-154 Ashtart 141 f. Aššur 14 ‘Aštarum, ‘Aṯtar 153, 165 Atargatis 150, 175 Athirat, Ashirtu 139, 144 B Baal 65, 77 f., 83, 98, 142 Baal Ḥamon 14 Baal of Tarsus 173 Bethel 137 C Chemosh 70 f., 76, 102 D Dan 36 Derceto 150 Dusares 28 E Ea 154 El, ’Il 15 f., 20, 24, 31, 77, 129-131, 134 f., 143, 145 f., 183 Elohim 13, 145 H Hadad 156, 175 Ḫaldi 156 Hār 13 f. Horus 22, 72 I Ibnaḫaz 154 f. Isimu 152

K Ka 21 Kaamou 28 M (The One) of Mabbog 175 Marduk 150, 155 Milkom 28 Mut 140 N Nergal 151 Nibhaz 154 Nimrud 155 Nusku 176 P Ptah 22 Pelagia/Petagia 139 R Re, Sun-god 22 Re-Aton 20 S Ṣaphon 14 Śaym 153 Šimeg, Sun-god 40 Sīn 133 Ṣlm 152 f. Šngl’ 152 f. Succoth-benoth 150 Šuwala 9, 14 Š‘yrm 28 T Ta’alab of Riyyām 153 Tartaq 155 Thoth 21 Turmasgada 14 W Wadjet 140

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES

Y Yahweh 13, 26, 30, 50, 74 f., 129-134, 138 f., 141-145, 147 f., 170, 175, 183 Yahwe-El XII, 12 f., 15, 24, 28, 30, 84 f., 104, 109, 121, 183

189

Z Zarpānītu 150 Zeus 173 f. Zeus Hellenios 174 Zeus Hypsistos 175 Zeus Xenios 174

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES The general toponyms Canaan, Egypt, Israel, Kingdom of Israel, Mesopotamia, Urartu, and their derivatives are not listed in the index

A Abar-Nahara 19, 171, 178 Abel Beth-Maakah 39, 52, 61 f., 91, 103, 107, 114 Abel Meḥolah 68, 73 f., 146 Abil, Abīl-mayim/n 37, 52, see also Tel Dan and Tell al-Qāḍi Abīl-mesqi 37 Abil al-Qamḥ 36 f., 61 f., 75 Abu Simbel 22 Adama 60 Acre, Akko 6, 18, 79 f., 140 Alexandria 141 ’Āl-Ḥatt 12 Amalek, Amalekites 50 Amanus, Mount 14 ‘Amāra West (Sudan) 9, 12 ‘Ammān 8, 71 Ammon, Ammonites 14, 41, 53-55 Amurru 105 Apheq 106, 138 ‘Apiru, 18-20, 31 ‘Aqaba 25 f., 28, 90 ‘Aqabat Arīḥā 8 Arabah 25 f., 107 Arabia, Arabs 2, 14, 25, 27-30, 54, 125, 152-154, 165 Aram, Aramaeans 39-41, 62, 83, 106, 124 Aram-Maakah 40 Argob 74 Arnon, river 9 Arpad (Syria) 111, 117 ‘Arrabā 73 Arslan Tash 84 Aruboth 73 Asher 35, 37, 72, 75 Ashkelon 16

Ashtaroth (Syria) 115 Assur, Assyrians XII, 14, 40, 84, 87 f., 97-99, 103-105, 113 f., 116-127, 146, 183 Ataroth 76 f. Auza 79 Avaris 21 ‘Awwah 123 f., 154 f. ‘Awwīm 124 ‘Ayn Qedeis 25 ‘Ayn el-Qudeirat 25 ‘Ayn Samiya II ‘Ayn et-Tuffaḥ 4 Ayyalōn 73 B Babylon, Babylonia 6 f., 106, 124, 128, 131, 150 f., 154 el-Badr, mountain 29 Balawat 88 Balīḫ, river 132 Ba‘li-rā’si, mountain 98, 104 Bashan 36, 74 Batrun 79 Bealoth 75, 114 Beersheba 10 f., 25 Behistun 132 Beitīn 134 Belaṭ (Lebanon) 75, 114 Benjamin, tribe XII, 6, 34, 43, 48, 52, 61, 72, 76, 115, 124 Bēqa‘ (Lebanon) 9, 13, 72, 91 f., 107 Beth-‘Anan 73 Beth-Anath (Galilee) 40 Beth-Arbel 98, 116 Bethel 61, 134-138 Beth-Ḥanan 73

190

INDEXES

Bethlehem 51 Beth-Maakah 38-40, 52, 62, see also Abel Beth-Maakah Beth-Reḥob 36 Bethsaida 62, 114, see also et-Tell Beth-shean 18 f., 60, 68, 73 f., 106 Beth-Shemesh 19, 73 Bilifya (Egypt) 140 Bīr es-Seba‘ 11 Bīr eṯ-Ṯamad 26 Bisitun (Media) 123 Bitter Lakes 23, 59 Botrys 79 Bubastis (Egypt) 140 Bubastite Portal (Karnak) 10, 57-59 Byblos 72 C Carchemish 127 Carmel, Mount 143, 145 Carthage 79 Casius, Mount 14 Cassites 125 Chaldaeans 127 Cilicia 173, 178 Cisjordan XI f., 15, 20, 25, 30 f., 34, 53, 58, 60, 68, 73, 115, 131, 143, 179, 182 f. Ctesiphon (Iraq) 141 Cyprus 90, 134 D Dakhleh (Egypt) 57 Damascus 40, 54, 60-62, 70 f., 74, 80, 84, 87 f., 91 f., 97-99, 103 f., 106, 112 f., 116-118 Dan, Danites 35-37, 61 f., 137 Daskyleion 178 Dead Sea 9, 25f., 91, 107 Deir ‘Alla 8, 56, 129 Dellōze 115 Delta of the Nile 21, 59, 140 Dibon 76 Dor 73 f. Dothan 66 Dūr-Katlimmu 121, 164 Dūr-Šarrukīn (Assyria) 118 f., 122 E Ebal, Mount 20, 131 ‘EbarNahara 19, 178

Eben ha-Ezer 41 Ebla 15, 20 Edom 14, 26, 41, 54, 91, 105 Ein-Gev 70, 106 Ekron 139, 141 Elam 124, 154 El-Amarna (letters) 9, 15, 19, 33 f. Elat 26 Elephantine 132, 160, 167-169 El-‘Ula 177 Emeq ha-Elah 43 Entrance of Hamat 107 Ephraim, tribe 4, 6 f., 33-35, 41, 43, 54, 61, 66, 72, 89, 111, 115, 126 Euphrates 6, 105, 122 Eylōn 73 Ezion-Geber 90 F Far‘ata 20 Feinan 25 Fīq 106 G Gaba, Geba 6 Gad, tribe XI f., 15, 34, 50, 72, 76 f. Galilee 6, 34, 36, 40, 61, 98, 107, 114 Gambūlu (Babylonia) 124, 154 Gath 39, 49 f., 53 el-Ğaw 29 Gaza 118, 173 Ğebel Banāt 27 Ğebel Ḥarb 28 f. Ğebel Moneiǧah 27 Ğebel Mūsa 25 Ğebel eš-Ša‘īra XI, 26-28 Ğebel eš-Šara’ 28 Gebel es-Silsila (Egypt) 57 f. Ğebel Sirbāl 27 Gerizim, Mount 20, 124, 131-134, 153, 168, 173 f., 179 Geshur, Geshurites 38-40, 62, 114 Geter 39, f., see also Geshur Gezer 16, 60 el-Ğib 51, see also Gibeon Gibeah of Benjamin 43, 48 Gibeon, Gibeonites 40, 51 f., 60, 85 Ġiḏḏān 152 Gihon, spring 54 Gilboa, Mount 51 f.

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES

Gilead 25, 35 f., 41, 74-76, 98, 103, 107, 112, 114, 116, 145 Golan 36, 38 Gozan, Guzana 119-121 Greater Syrtis 89 Gulf of Suez 23 H Habur, river 119, 122 Haiapa, Arab tribe 125 Haifa 74 Ḥalah, Ḫalaḫḫa 119 Hamat 72, 87 f., 107, 123 f., 151 f., 154 Ḥammōn (Lebanon) 141, 145 Ḫarḫar (Media) 122 f. Harosheth of the Gentiles 34 Harran 128, 132 Ḥarrat al-Uwairiḍ 29 Ḥăṣar 7 Ḫatarikka (Syria) 111 Ḥatt(i), Ḥēt, tribe 12 Hatti 16, 122 Hauran 98 Ḫaybar (Saudi Arabia) 30 Hazor 16, 34 f., 39, 65, 80, 85, 103, 107, 114 Hazor-Hadatta 34 Ḫazzi, Mount 14 Hebron 48, 51 f., 60, 72, 143 Hepher 73 Ḥeṣron, Reubenite clan 9 Hierapolis 175 Ḥiǧāz 28 Hindanu 152 Hittites 104 f. Hor (Lebanon) 13 f. Ḥoreb, Mount 24 f., 28-30, 145 Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit 79 Ḥūleh, lake 17, 34, 36 f., 114 Hurrians, Hurru 16, 41, 53 Hyksos 1, 21 I Ibadid, Arab tribe 125 Iberian Peninsula 79 Idumaea, Idumaeans 165 ‘Illar 177 Irbid (Jordan) 116 Issachar 4, 34, 72, 76 ‘Iyyōn 61 f., 107, 114

191

Izirtu 156 J Jabboq 60 Jacob-El/Il, tribe XI, 2, 7 f., 129 Jahaz 102 Jair’s villages 74 Janoah 107, 114 Jericho 8, 159 Jerusalem 16, 20, 25, 30, 47 f., 51-56, 60 f., 72 f., 76, 96, 106, 109, 123, 126, 128, 132, 137, 168, 181-183 Jezreel 51, 60, 66, 73 f., 85-87, 103 Joqmeam 73 f. Joqneam 74, 80, 85, 103 Jordan, river/valley 8, 35 f., 52, 56, 60, 74, 103, 134, 182 Joseph-El/Il, tribe XI, 2-6, 111, 129 Judah 9, 50 f., 54, 60 f., 71 f. 75 f., 83, 89-93, 95-97, 106, 112, 126, 137, 144, 181, 183 K Kābūl 79-81 Kadesh-barnea 25, 28 Kafr-Sīb 5 Kalḫu (Assyria) 84, 103, 105, 117, 119 f. Karḫe, river 154 Karmi, Reubenite clan 9 Karnak (Egypt) 11, 15 f., 18, 57-59, 140 Kār-Ninurta (Media) 123 Kār-Šarrukēn (Media) 122 Kārūn, river 154 Kem-wer (Egypt) 159 Kerak 71 Kfar Pigsha 143 Kfar Qasem 143 Khirbet al-‘Ašiq 70, 106 Khirbet ‘Aṭārūz 76 Khirbet el-Ġubeihāt 8 Khirbet el-Mšāš 10 Khirbet al-Mudayyina 102 Khirbet al-Muḫayyat 24, 100 Khirbet Qeiyafa XII, 43-49 Khirbet el-Qōm 141 Khirbet Sammūniyah 6, 17 Khirbet Sēlūn 137, see also Shiloh Khirbet Ṭafsa 111 Khirbet ‘Uyūn Mūsā 24, 100 Khirbet Yarmouk 19

192

INDEXES

Kinnereth 61 f., 107 Khorsabad (Assyria) 84 Kidron Valley 177 Kišesim (Media) 123 Kish 151 Kuntillet ‘Aǧrud 83, 141 f. Kutha (Babylonia) 123 f., 151 L Lachish 16 Laish 36, 39 Laqê 122 Lebona 9, 138 Levi, fictitious tribe 132 Libya, Libyans 16, 23, 79 Liḥyān 176 f. Lūz 136 M Maakah, Maakathites, see (Abel) BethMaakah Mabbog (Hierapolis) 175 Macedonians 159 f., 173 Machaerus, al-Mukāwer 76 Madaba (Jordan) 71 Maḥanaim XII, 54, 60, 75 Maharoth 76 Makir 6, 34 f. Makmish 164 Malaḫa, Malaḥa 103 Ma‘lānā 121 Mamre 143 Manasseh 4, 6 f., 34, 43, 73 f., 107, 111, 115 Mannaeans (Iran) 156 Manṣuate 104 Maqadd 39 Maqaṣ 73 Maqqedah 177 Mari (Syrie) 6, 151 Marsa al-Awğia (Libya) 79 Marsimanu, Arab tribe 125 Media 119, 122 f., 127 Mediterranean Sea 90, 98 Megiddo 16, 23, 57, 60, 65 f., 72 f., 80, 85-87, 103, 109, 122, 177 Memphis 178 Merğ ‘Ayūn 61, 75, 107, 114 Meroz 35 Metullah (Israel) 114

Midian XI, 1, 25-27, 31, 41, 183 Migdol 81 Mirgissa 2 Mittanni 20 Moab 2, 8, 14, 24 f., 40 f., 50, 54, 70, 76 f., 91, 99-102, 115 f., 147 Moreh 130 Muǧārat Abū Šinǧa, cave 159 Myšl 4 N Nabataeans 25, 27 f., 175, 177 Nablus 20, 131, 137 Naǧafehābād 122 Naḥal Ḥever 162 f. Naphōt, see Dor Naphtali 34 f., 37, 61, 72, 75, 107, 114 Nazareth 6 Nebo, Mount 9, 24, 30 f., 74 f., 99-102, 109, 138, 145, 147 f., 183 Negeb XI, 1, 9 f., 14 f., 26, 30 f., 58 f., 183 Nimrud, see Kalḫu New Town 71, 91, see also Kerak Nineveh (Assyria) 119 f., 123 Nubia 2 O Ophir 82, 90 Ophra-of-Abi-ha-‘Ezri 13 Orontes, river 87 P PꜢḥ-q-r’I-b-r-m10 Palmyra 141 Penuel (Jordan) XI, 8, 15, 56, 60, 129 Per-Ramesses 22 Petra 25, 28, 175 Philistia, Philistines 31, 34 f., 40 f., 43, 48-51, 53 f., 103, 105, 125, 127, 138, 156, 182 Phoenicia, Phoenicians 75, 77, 80, 82 Pisgah, Mount (Jordan) 24, 31, 100 Pyrgi (Italy) 141 Q Qarqar on the Orontes 87 f., 97, 118 Qaštu (Syria) 121, 165 Qataban 153 Qedem 38 Qedesh in Naphtali 107, 114

GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNICAL NAMES

Qerioth 76 Qumran 149, 156 R Raǧaǧil 149 Ramah 43, 61 Ramath al-Halil 143 Ramoth Gilead XII, 71, 74, 83, 87, 92, 94 f., 97-99, 103, 114 Ramṯa 92, see Ramoth Gilead Raphia 118 Rās en-Nibā’, mount 31 Rās ez-Zētun 79-82 Rās Siyāġa (Jordan) 24, 31, 100 f. Red Sea 23, 25 Reḥob (Tell eṣ-Ṣārem) 60, 67-69, 74, 146 Retenu 16 Reuben, tribe XI f., 8 f., 35, 100, 138, 148 Riyyām 153 Rōš ha-Niqrā 98 S Saba 152 Sais (Egypt) 116 es-Salṭ 8 Śam’al 116 Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans XII, 4, 66, 72 f., 75, 79, 82-84, 97, 103-107, 112, 116-127, 130-134, 149, 151, 153 f., 156 f., 159, 162, 167-179, 182 f. Šamḫuna 6 Ṣaphon, Mount 14 Saqqara (Egypt) 163 Sardis (Turkey) 141 Ṣaretan 73 f. Saudi Arabia 25, 28, 149 Sea of Galilee 17, 36, 39, 52, 61 f., 106, 114 Sefire (Syria) 141 Seil el-Mōǧib, river 73 f. Se‘ir, Śe‘īr XI, 21, 28, 30 f. Serabit el-Khadem (Sinai) 23 Shaalbim 73 Sharon 73 Shasu, šꜢsw XI f., 9, 12, 14 f., 18, 21, 24, 26-28, 30 f., 135, 138, 183 Shechem 4, 20, 25, 31, 33, 56, 60, 66, 123, 130-132, 138 Sheikh Ḫaḍr/Ḫiḍr 39, 62 Sheikh Miskīn 39

193

Sheikh al-Rīḥāb 68 Shephelah 34, 73 Shiloh 137-139 Shupriya 156 f. Shuweikeh 73 Sidon 36, 77, 79, 104 f., 170 Silsila, see Gebel es-Silsila Simeon XI, 6 f., 15, 17, 19, 33 f. Ṣimirra 117 Sinai XI, 1, 18, 23-31, 50, 148, 183 Ṣo‘ar 25 Ṣoba 91 Sokoh 73 Soleb (Sudan) 12 Succoth 60 Suḫu 151 Syria 41, 87, 92, 111, 117, 124 Syro-Phoenicia 117, 122, 127, 131 T Taamire, tribe 159 Ta‘anach 34, 68, 73 Tamud, Tamudaeans 125 Tappuaḥ 5 Tarshish 90 Tehenu 16 Teima 28 f., 125, 151-153 Tel ‘Amal 68 f., 103 Tel Dan, 52, 62, 71, 87, 92, 103, 107, 114, see also Tell al-Qāḍi Tel Hadar 39, 62 Tel Masos 10 Tel Reḥob, see Reḥob Tel Shimron 6 Tel Yarmuth 19 et-Tell 62, see also Bethsaida Tell el-‘Abeidiyeh 18 Tell Abu Hawam 80 Tell Abu-Ṣuṣ 68, 146 Tell Afis 93 Tell el-Aǧǧūl 13 Tell el-‘Aqaba 8 Tell al-‘Aṣl 68 f., 103 Tell Belouna, see Ma‘lānā Tell eḍ-Ḍab‘a 21 Tell Dibbīn (Lebanon) 61, 114 Tell al-Far‘ah (North) 56 f. Tell el-Far‘ah South 172 Tell el-Fūl 43, 48

194

INDEXES

Tell Ǧemmeh 125, 156 Tell al-Ḥamma 103 Tell el-Ḫeleifeh 28 Tell Ḫalaf, see Gozan Tell Keisan 80 Tell Miqdad 39 Tell en-Na‘am 17 f. Tell al-Qāḍi 36 f., 61, 71, 92 f., 103, 114 see also Tel Dan Tell Qadis 114 Tell Qarqūr 115 Tell Qasile 90 Tell Qēmūn 74, 103 Tell ar-Rumeiṯ 92 Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi 49, see also Gath Tell eṣ-Ṣārem 68, see also Reḥob Tell es-Seba‘ 10 f. Tell Sheikh Abu Zarad 4 Tepe Qalaichi (Iran) 156 Tharros (Sardinia) 77 Thebes (Egypt) 23, 58 Tigris, river 124, 156 Timsāh, lake 23 Timna 26 Tipsaḥ 111 f. Tirzah 56, 60, 62, 66, 111 f. Transjordan XI f., 1, 8 f., 14 f., 30 f., 35, 41, 43, 54, 58, 60, 74 f., 103, 107, 114, 145, 147, 183 Ṭūl Karem 5, 73, 177 Turmasgada (Anatolia) 14 Tyre 72, 77-82, 98, 104 f., 112, 114, 178 U Ugarit 14 f., 40, 73 Umm el-Amed (Lebanon) 141, 145

Unqi (Syria) 111 Uqnū, river 124, 154 ‘Uvda Valley 149 V Valley of the Terebinth 43 Van, lake 156 Vologesias (Iraq) 141 W Wadi Daliyeh (papyri) XII, 130, 159-167, 169, 171, 179, 183 Wadi Feǧǧās 17 Wadi Halfa (Sudan) 2 Wadi Huwara 26 Wadi Nablus 20 Wadi eš-Ša‘īr 20 Wadi es-Sanṭ 43 Wadi Tumīlāt 23 Y Yahwe-El, mount XI, 12, 24, 28 Yanoam 16-18 Yānūḥ 114 Yarmuk river 36 Yarmut, Mount 19 f. Yāsūf 4-6 Yāshūb 4 Z Zabulon 34 Zagros 123, 125 Za‘ter 156 Zer‘īn 85, 103 Ziklag 51

OTHER SUBJECTS Adoption 2 causative of hwy 13 confusions d/r 34, 71, 76, 156 y/w 150, 156, 171, 179 Egyptian r/l used for l/d 3 emigration 126 f. final l 4, 13 Former Prophets 144-147 integration in a tribe 1-2, 8, 12, 15, 24

Liḥyanite names 176 f. metathesis 78 name changing 1-2, 8, 15, 30 papponymy 77, 168 phonetic changes b>w 9 g>k 81 ḏ>z 35 f., 114 k>ḫ/ḥ 164, 176

INDEX OF AUTHORS

195

mšqh,mšqy 37 ndb 78, 120 npwt 73 f. ‘mlq 50, 67 ‘mr 66 f. ‘pr 18-20 ġmr 66 f. pḥw 165 f. plty 52 qwdn 165 šbq 162 f. św‘,šw‘ 30, 145 śym,s2ym 152-154 śry 15 shibbolet 35 sibilants 3 f., 22, 36 tiqqūn soferīm 6 f., 143, 150, 154 f., see also confusions Urartian names ending in š 156

l>d/t or l/d,l/t 116, 139 ṯ>š/s 36 yi>’i 77 f. ā>ō 22 i>e 22 phonotactic a/’aleph 9, 172 roots and words discussed ’wry 53 ’wrnh 53 ’ṯr 139 bdw 46 b‘l 108 f. dwd 50, 76 dn 36 dqr 73 ysd45 f. kbwl 81 krty 52 lwḏ135 f. lwy 132

INDEX OF AUTHORS A Ababi, I. 48 Abel, F.-M. 4, 6, 34, 37, 39, 74, 85, 111, 114, 116 Abū l-‘Alā 30 Ackroyd, P.R. 66, 168 Adler, E.N. 132, 171 Aharoni, Y. 4, 6-8, 10, 18 f., 39, 74, 92, 102 Aḥituv, S. 39 Åkerman, K. 119 f. Albright, W.F. 3, 5, 126, 134 Alexander Polyhistor 79, 179 Alexandre, Y. 79-81 Alfrink, B.J. 30 Alt, A. 41, 73, 115 Amzallag, N. 30 Anati, E. 26 Anbar, M. 6, 9 Andree, R. 2 Arav, R. 114 Arieh, E. 53, 62 Astour, M.C. 9, 98 Avigad, N. 77, 164, 170, 172 Avi-Yonah, M. 7 Avner, U. 148

B Bagatti, B. 31 Baillet, M. 149 Baker, H.D. 71, 104, 111, 116, 120 f., 127, 133 Bar, S. 182 Barkay, G. 16 Bauer, Th. 13 Bearman, G. 44 Beck, P. 142 Beeston, A.F.L. 18, 30, 152 f. Bénédite, G. 27 Bennett, Chr. 57 Benoit, P. 163 Ben-Tor, A. 19, 86 Benveniste, E. 164 Berlejung, A. 112, 116, 172 Bernick-Greenberg, H. 25 Beyer, K. 153, 164 Bieńkowski, P. 14 Biger, B. 43 Bietak, M. 21 Biran, A. 52, 92 Birot, M. 13 Blackman, A.M. 38 Blum, E. 92 f.

196 Boehmer, R.M. 152 Bordreuil, P. 176 Bourdon, C. 23 Briend, J. 111, 115, 117 Bright, J. 181 Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 77 Broekman, G.P.F. 57 f. Broshi, M. 126 Brown, St.C. 123 Buhl, M.L. 138 Bunimovitz, S. 138 C Caminos, R. 23, 58 Cancik, E. 122 Cavigneaux, A. 152 Cazelles, H. 23 Černý, J. 22 f. Chadwick, R. 102 Christen-Barry, W.A. 44 Clay, A.T. 176 Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. 175 Cogan, M. 24, 112, 153, 155 Coggins, R.J. 153 Cohen, N. 27 Cohen, R. 25 Cole, S. 115 Coogan, M.D. 176 Cooke, G.A. 178 Couroyer, B. 1, 22 Cowan, J.M. 165 Crawfoot, Grace M. 84 Crawfoot, J.W. 84 Cross, F.M. 5, 159 f., 166 f., 176 Crown, A.D. 170 Czortkowski, N. 155 D Dalley, St. 119 Damascius 175 Dandamayev, M.A. 167 Daviau, P.M.M. 102 de Callataÿ, Fr. 178 de Cree, F. 80 de Landberg, C. 18 Delcor, M. 133 de Miroschedji, P. 19 Deutsch, R. 165 de Vaux, R. 3 f., 21, 56 f., 134, 163 Dever, W.G. 19 Dietrich, M. VIII

INDEXES

Dijkstra, N. 67 Diodorus Siculus 150, 171 Donbaz, V. 121 Donner, H. VIII Dossin, G. 7 Dothan, M. 140 Doughty, Ch.M. 152 Dušek, J. 159 f., 162-167, 169, 172 f., 178, 180 Dussaud, R. 9, 75 E Eddé, A.-M. 8 Edel, H. 12 Edelstein, G. 68 Edwards, I.E.S. 59, 82 Edzard, D.O. 151 Egger, R. 179 Eichmann, R. 28 Eissfeldt, O. 34, 40 f. Eph‘al, I. 12, 177 Epiphanius, St. 28 Erichsen, W. 21 Eshel, H. 167, 169, 177 Eusebius of Caesarea 19, 173 F Fabritius, K. 119, 121 Fairman, H.W. 8, 12, 26 Fales, F.M. 119, 164 Fantalkin, A. 45, 49 Farès-Drappeau, S. 176 Février, J. 172 Finkelstein, I. 15, 25, 33, 45, 49, 58, 68, 72, 92, 101 f., 126 f., 138 Fischer, C.S. 107 Fischer, W. 152 Fitzmyer, J.A. 141 Fleming, D.E. 19, 26 Foraboschi, D. 22 Frahm, E. 151, 154 Frame, G. VIII Frankel, R. 79 Freudenthal, J. 179 Friedrich, J. 77 Fuchs, A. 71, 111 f., 116-118, 120, 122125 G Gal, Z. 79, 81 Gallery, M. 151

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Galling, K. 132 Ganor, S. 45, 47 Garfinkel, Y. 45, 47, 73 Gardiner, A.H. 6, 9, 22 Garuti, P. 78 Gaster, M. 171 Gehman, H.S. 55 f., 112 Geiger, A. 155 Gelb, I.J. 9, 13 Ghūl, M.A. 18, 153 Gibson, J.C.L. IX Gitler, H. 171 Gittin, S. 141 Giveon, R. 8, 12, 14 Golub, M.R. 45, 47 Gooding, D.W. 56 Goossens, G. 175 Gottwald, N.K. 181 Grandet, P. 21, 23 Granqvist, H. 1 Grayson, A.K. VIII, 116 Grdseloff, B. 19 Greenberg, M. 24, 137 Greenfield, J.C. 163 Gressmann, H. 2 Griffiths, J.G. 21 Gröndahl, F. 40, 68, 73, 139 Grossman, D. 43 Gropp, D.M. 159, 163-166 Gunkel, H. 2 Gzella, H. 162, 164 H Hadas-Lebel, M. 144 Hafþórsson, S. 88, 136 Hallock, R.T. 164 Hannig, R. 2, 6-8, 10, 13, 16, 19, 28, 39 f., 57, 68, 83, 92, 129, 135, 140 Haran, M. 138 Harding, G.L. 8, 12, 22, 28, 67, 162, 170, 177 Harrington, D. 141 Hasel, M.G. 45, 73 Heltzer, M. 165 Herzog, Z. 10 f., 15 Hill, G.F. 171 Hinz, W. 164 Höfner, M. 153 Hoftijzer, J. VII Holm-Nielsen, S. 138 Hommel, F. 154 f.,

197

Horowitz, W. 10 Hrozný, F. 10 Hudson, G. 18 Huffmon, H.B. 13 Hulin, P. 114 Hunt, N. 14 Hyamson, M. 144 I Ibrahim, M. 153 Ismail, B.Kh. 152 J Jacoby, F. 179 Jalabert, L. VIII Jasmin, M. 19 Jastrow, M. 44 f., 163 Jaussen, A. 1 f., 177 Jenni, E. 4 Jerome, St. 19 Jongeling, K. VII Josephus Flavius 6, 22, 25-28, 36, 49 f., 62, 78 f., 123, 127, 133 f., 143, 168, 170, 173 f., 178 f. Juynboll, T.W.J. 133 K Kallai, Z. 181 Kamel, M. 153 Katzenstein, (H.) J. 78, 89 Kaufman, I.T. 107 Kelle, B.E. 1 Kelso, J.L. 134 Kempinski, A. 8 Kennett, R.H. 6 Kenyon, K.M. 66 Kessler, K. 156 Kevers, P. 2, 7 King, L.W. 154 Kinnier Wilson, J.V. 119 Kitchen, K.A. 21, 58, 82 Kjaer, M. 138 Klein, S. 4 Klengel, H. 16 Kloner, A. 177 Knoppers, G.N. 124, 133 Knudsen, E.E. 176 Knudtzon, J.A. VIII, 139 Kochavi, M. 39 Koenig, Y. 2 Kołakowska-Przybyłek, Z. 14

198

INDEXES

König, J. 29 Kornfeld, W. 3 Krauss, R. 57 Kutscher, E.Y. 166 Kwasman, Th. 119 L Lambert, W.G. 14, 152 Lämmerhirt, K. 125 Lamon, R.S. 60 Lanfranchi, G.B. 122 Langlamet, F. 50 Laroche, E. 53 Lawson Younger, E. 149, 153 Leclant, J. 12 Lederman, Z. 138 Legrain, G. 59 Lehming, S. 7 Leith, M.J.W. 159 Lemaire, A. 68, 73, 75, 84, 107, 130, 141, 156, 169 f., 172, 175-177 Lemaire, P. 31 Lemański, J. 1, 14 Levine, B.A. 163 Levine, L. 123 Levy, S. 68 Lichtheim, M. 38 Lidzbarski, M. 175 Lipiński, E. 3, 7-13, 15 f., 19-25, 28, 30 f., 36-38, 40, 46-48, 50, 53 f., 56, 58 f., 61 f., 67, 71-73, 75, 78, 87, 90-92, 98, 100-104, 106 f., 112 f., 115 f., 118, 121, 124, 127-129, 132, 136, 139-141, 143, 145, 150-157, 164-166, 172, 178, 182 Lipschitz, O. 92, 101 f. Livingstone, A. 152 f. Loretz, O. VIII Lucian of Samosata 150 Luukko, M. 120 Lyons, D.G. 107 M MacDonald, B. 102 Magen, Y. 132-134, 168, 173, 175 Maimonides 144 Maisler (Mazar), B. 5 Malamat, A. 88, 127 Mander, P. 15 Manetho 21, 57

Marciak, M. 162, 169, 173 Marinus of Neapolis 175 Mattila, R. 72, 119 Mayrhofer, M. 164 Mazar, A. 10, 68, 70, 85, 87, 136, 146 Mazar, B. 5, 70, 177, see also Maisler, B. Menander of Ephesos 78 f. Meshel, Z. 83, 141 f. Meshorer, Y. 169-173, 175-178 Micheau, Fr. 8 Migne, J.-P. 173, 175 Mildenberg, L. 171, 173, 178 Milik, J.T. 163 Millard, A. 104, 106, 127, 154 Misgav, H. 45-47, 133 f., 173 Mitchell, T.C. 87, 107 Młynarczyk, J. 177 Montet, P. 82 Montgomery, J.A. 55 f., 112 Moore, M.B. 1 Moran, W.L. VIII Moscati, S. 5 Mouterde, R. VIII Muhly, J.D. 26 Müller, W.W. 18, 153 Mullins, P.A. 36 Münnich, M. 45 f. Myers, J.M. 67 N Na’aman, N. 9, 81, 87, 122 f., 125, 151 Naja, S. 30 Nataf, K.Ch. 16 Naveh, J. 92, 141, 156, 166, 176 f. Neef, H.-D. 34 Negev, A. 27, 176 Niehr, H. 14 Niemann, H.M. 108 Niesiołowski-Spanò, Ł. 181 Nodet, E. 179 North, E. 1 Noth, M. 4, 30, 133, 138 Nougayrol, J. 40 Nowogórski, P. 46 O Oded, B. 104, 121, 149 Olmstead, A.T. 56 Oppenheim, A.L. 99, 103, 125 Orthmann, W. 120

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Oshima, T. 10 P Palmer, E.H. 27 Panitz-Cohen, N. 11, 36 Parpola, S. 117, 119, 121 f. Paul, St. 25, 27 Pearce, L.E. 169 Petit, T. 166 Petrie, W.M.F. 13 Pettinato, G. 15 Philo 22 Piasetzky, E. 25, 58 Piccirillo, M. 31 Pirenne, J. 29 Piwowar, A. 181 Porten, B. IX, 160, 168 Posener, G. VII, 2, 6 Postgate, J.N. 119, 164 Pritchard, J.B. VII Pruzsinszky, R. 54 Puech, É. 14, 45 f. Q Qedar, S. 169-173, 175-178 Quintus Curtius 174 R Raabe, R. 31, 101 Radner, K. 116, 172 Rainey, A.F. VIII, 68 Ranke, H. 38 Ratner, B. 89 Rawlinson, H.C. 103 Reed, W.N. 177 Reisner, A. 107 Renz, J. 107 Reuchlin, J. 150 Reviv, H. 43, 124 Rizack, M.A. 176 Robichon, C. 12 Robin, C.J. 177 Robinson, E. 25 Röllig, W. VIII, 77, 107, 155 Rollston, C.A. 77 Rothenberg, B. 26 Routledge, B.E. 14, 102 Rowe, A. 18 Rowley, H.H. 168 Ryckmans, J. 18, 153

199

S Saggs, W.F. 117 Saller, S.J. 31 Sanmartín, J. VIII Saporetti, C. 133 Sass, B. 13, 70, 77, 93, 164, 170, 172 Savignac, R. 177 Schiff Giorgini, M. 12 Schipper, B.U. 15 Schley, D.C. 138 Schmitt, H.Chr. 23 Schwemer, D. 66, 92, 113, 119-121 Scullard, H.H. 23 Seebass, H. 2, 56 Seligsohn, M. 132, 171 Sellin, E. 10 Sergi, O. 74, 92 Sethe, K. VII, 2, 16 Seux, M.-J. 111, 115, 117 Shaffer, A. 9 Shapira, D. 83 Shipton, G.M. 60 Sima, A. 177 Simons, J. 4, 7, 92 Simpson, W.K. 38 Singer-Avitz, L. 25 Smoor, P. 30 Sokoloff, M. 78, 95, 120, 143 Somaglino, C. 28 Sommerfeld, W. 155 Sourdel, D. 28 Sozomen 143 Spaer, A. 170 f. Spaie, B. 153 Spaer, L.I. 26, 170 Sperber, A. 83, 149 f. Sperverslage, G. 28 Steiner, M. 102 Stern, E. 132, 173 Stolper, M.W. 176 Strange, J. 92 Strassmaier, J.N. 166 Sukenik, E.L. 34, 177 T Tadmor, H. 12, 36, 113, 115-117 Taimani, S. 153 Tall, O. 171 Tallet, P. 28 Tallqvist, K.L. 133

200 Talon, Ph. 122 Tappy, R.A. 66 Tavernier, J. 164, 177 Tebes, J.M. 26 Terley, M.C. 116 Thiel, W. 34 Thomas, T.W. 67 Timm, S. 65 Torrey, C.C. 168 Tournay, R. 133 Tsfania, L. 133 f., 173 U Ussishkin, D. 85 f. V Van Buylaere, G. 120 Vandersleyen, C. 73 Vervenne, M. 23 Vesco, J.-L. 109 von Soden, W. VII von Wissmann, H. 29 W Weber, O. 139 Wehr, H. 165 Weidner, E.F. 169

INDEXES

Weippert, H. 1 Weippert, M. 12, 17 Weiss, S. 73 Wellhausen, J. 28, 155 Wiggermann, F.A.M. 151 Wightman, G.J. 81 Wild, St. 114 Williamson, H.G.M. 85, 166 Wilson, J.A. 16, 21 Winnett, F.V. 177 Winter, I. 84 Woodhead, J. 85 Wunsch, C. 169 Y Yadin, Y. 163 Yardeni, A. IX, 46, 160, 163 Yose b. Halafta 179 Z Zadok, R. 66, 68, 120-123, 125, 151, 164 Zertal, A. 181 f. Zimhoni, O. 80, 86 Zissu, B. 177 Zuckermandel, M.S. 89 Zwickel, W. 100

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA 1. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I. 2. J. QUAEGEBEUR, Le dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique. 3. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia. 4. W.M. CALLEWAERT, The Sarvangī of the Dadupanthī Rajab. 5. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I. 6. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. 7. M.-C. DE GRAEVE, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000-500 B.C.). 8. W.M. CALLEWAERT (ed.), Early Hindī Devotional Literature in Current Research. 9. F.L. DAMEN, Crisis and Religious Renewal in the Brahmo Samaj Movement (1860-1884). 10. R.Y. EBIED, A. VAN ROEY, L.R. WICKHAM, Peter of Callinicum, Anti-Tritheist Dossier. 11. A. RAMMANT-PEETERS, Les pyramidions égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. 12. S. SCHEERS (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua. 13. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II. Orientalia Antiqua. 14. E. PLATTI, Yahya ibn ῾Adī, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe. 15. E. GUBEL, E. LIPIŃSKI, B. SERVAIS-SOYEZ (eds.), Studia Phoenicia I-II. 16. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Middle Iranian Studies. 17. M. VAN MOL, Handboek Modern Arabisch. 18. C. LAGA, J.A. MUNITIZ, L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. 19. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. 20. S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. 21. K. VAN LERBERGHE, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. 22. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. 23. M. HELTZER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 B.C.). 24. M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: a Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-Ilišu. 25. G. POLLET (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture before A.D. 650. 26. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Carthago. 27. E. VERREET, Modi Ugaritici. Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. 28. R. ZADOK, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. 29. W. CALLEWAERT, M. LATH, The Hindī Songs of Namdev. 30. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy. 31. N. BAUM, Arbres et arbustes de l’Égypte ancienne. 32. J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXIe-XXIIIe dynasties) et autres textes relatifs à l’initation des prêtres d’Amon. 33. H. DEVIJVER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Punic Wars. 34. E. VASSILIKA, Ptolemaic Philae. 35. A. GHAITH, La Pensée Religieuse chez Gubrân Halil Gubrân et Mihâ᾿îl Nu῾ayma. 36. N. BEAUX, Le Cabinet de curiosités de Thoutmosis III. 37. G. POLLET, P. EGGERMONT, G. VAN DAMME, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae. Part II: Archaeological Sites. 38. S.-A. NAGUIB, Le Clergé féminin d’Amon thébain à la 21e dynastie. 39. U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten. Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. 40. A.R. GEORGE, Babylonian Topographical Texts. 41. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qohelet. Part I: Grammatical Features.

42. G. REININK, H.E.J. VAN STIPHOUT (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. 43. C. TRAUNECKER, Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb. 44. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible. 45. L. ISEBAERT (ed.), Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea Memoriae A.J. Van Windekens dicata. 46. F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. 47. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, A Hebrew Alexander Romance according to MS London, Jews’ College no. 145. 48. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Medioiranica. 49. L. LAUWERS, Igor’-Severjanin, His Life and Work — The Formal Aspects of His Poetry. 50. R.L. VOS, The Apis Embalming Ritual. P. Vindob. 3873. 51. Fr. LABRIQUE, Stylistique et Théologie à Edfou. Le rituel de l’offrande de la campagne: étude de la composition. 52. F. DE JONG (ed.), Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica. 53. G. BREYER, Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluß des spezifisch onomastischen Bereiches. 54. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaign in Southern Punjab. 55. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. 56. A. VAN ROEY, P. ALLEN, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. 57. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. 58. F.R. HERBIN, Le livre de parcourir l’éternité. 59. K. GEUS, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager. 60. A. SCHOORS, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii. 61. M. KRAUSE, S. GIVERSEN, P. NAGEL (eds.), Coptology. Past, Present and Future. Studies in Honour of R. Kasser. 62. C. LEITZ, Altägyptische Sternuhren. 63. J.J. CLÈRE, Les Chauves d’Hathor. 64. E. LIPIŃSKI, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. 65. K. VAN LERBERGHE, A. SCHOORS (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. 66. G. POLLET (ed.), Indian Epic Values. Ramayana and its impact. 67. D. DE SMET, La quiétude de l’Intellect. Néoplatonisme et gnose ismaélienne dans l’œuvre de Hamîd ad-Dîn al-Kirmânî (Xe-XIe s.). 68. M.L. FOLMER, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period. A Study in Linguistic Variation. 69. S. IKRAM, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. 70. H. WILLEMS, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom. 71. C. EDER, Die Ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr. 72. J. THIRY, Le Sahara libyen dans l’Afrique du Nord médiévale. 73. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras I. 74. P. ARÈNES, La déesse sGrol-Ma (Tara). Recherches sur la nature et le statut d’une divinité du bouddhisme tibétain. 75. K. CIGGAAR, A. DAVIDS, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations I. 76. M. BROZE, Mythe et Roman en Égypte ancienne. Les Aventures d’Horus et Seth dans le papyrus Chester Beatty I. 77. L. DEPUYDT, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. 78. P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu.

79. A. HASNAWI, A. ELAMRANI, M. JAMAL, M. AOUAD (eds.), Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. 80. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 81. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara I. Traduction. 82. C. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. 83. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II. 84-85. W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. 86. U. VERMEULEN, J.M. VAN REETH (eds.), Law, Christianity and Modernism in Islamic Society. 87. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Philosophy and Arts in the Islamic World. 88. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara II. Traduction. 89. G.J. REININK, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers. 90. C.R. KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. 91. M. TAHTAH, Entre pragmatisme, réformisme et modernisme. Le rôle politicoreligieux des Khattabi dans le Rif (Maroc) jusqu’à 1926. 92. K. CIGGAAR, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations II. 93. A.C.J. VERHEIJ, Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim. A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations in the Hebrew Bible. 94. W.M. CALLEWAERT, D. TAILLIEU, F. LALEMAN, A Descriptive Bibliography of Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). 95. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara III. Traduction. 96. K. VAN LERBERGHE, G. VOET (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. 97. A. CABROL, Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes. 98. J. PATRICH (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present. Monastic Life, Liturgy, Theology, Literature, Art, Archaeology. 99. U.VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift. 100. E. LIPIŃSKI, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. 101. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara IV. Traduction. 102. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III. 103. H. WILLEMS (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. 104. K. GEUS, K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. 105. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les fêtes d’Hathor. 106. R. PREYS, Les complexes de la demeure du sistre et du trône de Rê. Théologie et décoration dans le temple d’Hathor à Dendera. 107. A. BLASIUS, B.U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten. 108. S. LEDER (ed.), Studies in Arabic and Islam. 109. A. GODDEERIS, Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). 110. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band I. 111. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band II. 112. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band III. 113. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band IV. 114. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band V. 115. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VI. 116. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VII. 117. M. VAN MOL, Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio News Broadcasts.

118. M.F.J. BAASTEN, W.Th VAN PEURSEN (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 119. O.E. KAPER, The Egyptian God Tutu. A Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. 120. E. WARDINI, Lebanese Place-Names (Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon). 121. J. VAN DER VLIET, Catalogue of the Coptic Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Copt.). 122. A. ŁAJTAR, Catalogue of the Greek Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Greek). 123. H. NIEHR, Ba῾alšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. 124. H. WILLEMS, F. COPPENS, M. DE MEYER, P. DILS, The Temple of Shanhûr. Volume I: The Sanctuary, The Wabet, and the Gates of the Central Hall and the Great Vestibule (1-98). 125. K. CIGGAAR, H.G.B. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations III. 126. T. SOLDATJENKOVA, E. WAEGEMANS (eds.), For East is East. Liber Amicorum Wojciech Skalmowski. 127. E. LIPIŃSKI, Itineraria Phoenicia. 128. D. BUDDE, S. SANDRI, U. VERHOEVEN (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechischrömischen Zeit. Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des Interkulturellen Kontakts. 129. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VIII. 130. E.J. VAN DER STEEN, Tribes and Territories in Transition. 131. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Traduction. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 132. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Index phraséologique. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 133. M. IMMERZEEL, J. VAN DER VLIET, M. KERSTEN, C. VAN ZOEST (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, August 27 - September 2, 2000. 134. J.J. VAN GINKEL, H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, T.M. VAN LINT (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. 135. J. MONTGOMERY (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6-10 July 2002. 136. T. BOIY, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. 137. B. JANSSENS, B. ROOSEN, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 138. S. HENDRICKX, R.F. FRIEDMAN, K.M. CIAŁOWICZ, M. CHŁODNICKI (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. 139. R. ARNZEN, J. THIELMANN (eds.), Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Studies on the Sources, Contents and Influences of Islamic Civilization and Arabic Philosophy and Science. 140. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IV. 141. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-􀆴irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-􀆴arh Qasīd Abī 􀆴aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu 􀆴aduf Expounded”). Volume I: Arabic text. 142. P. VAN NUFFELEN, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène. 143. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part II: Vocabulary. 144. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 1. 145. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 2.

146. M. CACOUROS, M.-H. CONGOURDEAU (eds.), Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission. 147. K. CIGGAAR, M. METCALF (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean I. 148. B. MICHALAK-PIKULSKA, A. PIKULSKI (eds.), Authority, Privacy and Public Order in Islam. 149. E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. 150. J.-Cl. GOYON, C. CARDIN (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. Actes du neuvième congrès international des Égyptologues. Grenoble, 6-12 septembre 2004. 151. S. SANDRI, Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates). Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. 152. J.E. MONTGOMERY (ed.), Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank. 153. E. LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches. 154. M. MINAS-NERPEL, Der Gott Chepri. Untersuchungen zu Schriftzeugnissen und ikonographischen Quellen vom Alten Reich bis in griechisch-römische Zeit. 155. H. WILLEMS, Dayr al-Barsha Volume I. The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3). With an Essay on the History and Nature of Nomarchal Rule in the Early Middle Kingdom. 156. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean. 157. A. CAMPLANI, G. FILORAMO (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late Antique Monasticism. 158. J. TAVERNIER, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Namesand Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. 159. P. KOUSOULIS, K. MAGLIVERAS (eds.), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean. 160. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. 161. B. LURSON, Osiris, Ramsès, Thot et le Nil. Les chapelles secondaires des temples de Derr et Ouadi es-Seboua. 162. G. DEL OLMO LETE (ed.), Mythologie et Religion des Sémites occidentaux. 163. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS (eds.), Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin - 3 juillet 2004. 164. A. BERLEJUNG, P. VAN HECKE (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context. Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. 165. A.G.C. SAVVIDES, Byzantino-Normannica. The Norman Capture of Italy and the First Two Invasions in Byzantium. 166. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-􀆴irbīnī’s Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu 􀆴aduf Expounded (Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-􀆴arh Qasīd Abī 􀆴aduf). Volume II: English translation, introduction and notes. 167. S. ARGUILLÈRE, Profusion de la vaste sphère. Klong-chen rab-’byams (Tibet, 1308-1364). Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine. 168. D. DE SMET, Les Épîtres sacrées des Druzes. Rasa᾿il al-Hikma.Volumes 1 et 2. 169. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V. 170. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, J.W. DRIJVERS, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. 171. K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam. Studies in Honour of Professor Urbain Vermeulen. 172. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2.

173. J.H.F. DIJKSTRA, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298-642 CE). 174. I. UYTTERHOEVEN, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum Village. 175. P. KOUSOULIS (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Demonology. Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. 176. A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence and Immanence. The Theological Background of the Iconography and Aesthetics of the Chora Church. 177. J. NAWAS (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies II. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Leuven, 28 June - 1 July 2004. 178. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume I: Traduction. 179. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume II: Analyse à la lumière du temple d’Hathor. 180. M. ZITMAN, The Necropolis of Assiut. 181. E. LIPIŃSKI, Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity. 182. C. KARLSHAUSEN, L’iconographie de la barque processionnelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire. 183. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VI. 184. M. IMMERZEEL, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. 185. D. MAGEE, J. BOURRIAU, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Sitting Beside Lepsius. Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute. 186. A. STEVENSON, The Predynastic Egyptian Cemetery of el-Gerzeh. 187. D. BUMAZHNOV, E. GRYPEOU, T.B. SAILORS, A. TOEPEL (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag. 188. J. ELAYI, A.G. ELAYI, The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th-4th Century BCE). 189. F. HAGEN, J. JOHNSTON, W. MONKHOUSE, K. PIQUETTE, J. TAIT, M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Literary and Linguistic Approaches. 190. V. VAN DER STEDE, Les pratiques de stockage au Proche-Orient ancien du Natoufien à la première moitié du troisième millénaire avant notre ère. 191. W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. 192. M. MARÉE (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects. 193. I. JACOBS, Aesthetic Maintenance of Civic Space. The ‘Classical’ City from the 4th to the 7th c. AD. 194. H. KNUF, C. LEITZ, D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen. 195. I. REGULSKI, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. 196. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIII. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Façade et colonnes. 197. M. KUHN, Koptische liturgische Melodien. Die Relation zwischen Text und Musik in der koptischen Psalmodia. 198. B. SNELDERS, Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. 199. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean II. 200. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics III. 201. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Parois intérieures. 202. K. DUISTERMAAT, I. REGULSKI (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. 203. F.S. JONES, Pseudoclementina Elchasaiticaque inter Judaeochristiana. Collected Studies.

204. D. ASTON, B. BADER, C. GALLORINI, P. NICHOLSON, S. BUCKINGHAM (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. 205. R.F. FRIEDMAN, P.N. FISKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. 206. S. DORPMUELLER (ed.), Fictionalizing the Past: Historical Characters in Arabic Popular Epic. 207. G. CONTU (ed.), Centre and Periphery within the Borders of Islam. 208. B. MAHIEU, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition. 209. M.M. BAR-ASHER, A. KOFSKY, Kitab al-Ma῾arif by Abu Sa῾īd Maymun b. Qasim al-Tabaranī. Critical Edition with an Introduction. 210. M. DE MEYER, Dayr al-Barsha Volume II. First Intermediate Period Restoration of Old Kingdom Tombs. 211. R. EL-SAYED, Afrikanischstämmiger Lehnwortschatz im älteren Ägyptisch. 212. P. VAN DEUN, C. MACÉ (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? 213. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Plafond et parois extérieures. 214. L. EVANS (ed.), Ancient Memphis, “Enduring is the Perfection”. 215. V. KLEMM, N. AL-SHA῾AR (eds.), Sources and Approaches across Disciplines in Near Eastern Studies. 216. A.M. BAGG, Die Assyrer und das Westland. Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1. Jt. v.u. Z. 217. B. BADER, M.F. OWNBY (eds.), Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. 218. F. HAGEN, An Ancient Egyptian Literary Text in Context: The Instruction of Ptahhotep. 219. I. REGULSKI, K. DUISTERMAAT, P. VERKINDEREN (eds.), Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East. Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. 220. T. BOIY, J. BRETSCHNEIDER, A. GODDEERIS, H. HAMEEUW, G. JANS, J. TAVERNIER (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe. 221. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor : Analyse de la décoration. 222. N. TACKE, Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. 223. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VII. 224. J. YOYOTTE, Histoire, géographie et religion de l’Égypte ancienne. Opera selecta. Textes édités et indexés par Ivan Guermeur. 225. H. DAVIES, Yusuf al-􀆴irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-􀆴arh Qasīd Abī 􀆴aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu 􀆴aduf Expounded”). Volume III: A Lexicon of 17th-century Egyptian Arabic. 226. A. CILARDO (ed.), Islam and Globalisation. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 227. S. BROCK, L. VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). 228. G. POLLET, G. VAN DAMME, F. DEPUYDT, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae III: Indian Toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts. 229. M. DEPAUW, S. COUSSEMENT (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World. 230. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Linguistics in Historical Perspective. 231. M. DEPAUW, Y. BROUX (eds.), Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies. 232. S.H. AUFRÈRE, P.S. ALEXANDER, Z. PLEŠE (eds.), On the Fringe of Commentary. Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures. 233. C. WAERZEGGERS, Marduk-rēmanni. Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia. 234. M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. 235. M. SOKOLOFF, Texts of Various Contents in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

236. R.A. FAZZINI, J. VAN DIJK (eds.), The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak: Architecture, Decoration, Inscriptions. 237. E. LIPIŃSKI, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. 238. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Harsomtous. 239. A.S. LA LOGGIA, Engineering and Construction in Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period. 240. A.H. PRIES (ed.), Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaption im Alten Ägypten. 241. P. KOUSOULIS, N. LAZARIDIS (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22-29 May 2008. 242. P. COLLOMBERT, D. LEFÈVRE, S. POLIS, J. WINAND (eds.), Aere perennius. Mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus. 243. A. BINGGELI, A. BOUD’HORS, M. CASSIN (eds.), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin. 244. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VIII. 245. B. BADER, C.M. KNOBLAUCH, E.C. KÖHLER (eds.), Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. 246. J. VAN DIJK (ed.), Another Mouthful of Dust. Egyptological Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Thorndike Martin. 247. P. BUZI, A. CAMPLANI, F. CONTARDI (eds.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. 248. M. REINKOWSKI, M. WINET (eds.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Europe and Beyond. Études arabes et islamiques en Europe et au-delà. 249. E. AMATO, A. CORCELLA, D. LAURITZEN (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive. 250. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics IV. 251. V. SOMERS, P. YANNOPOULOS (eds.), Philokappadox. In memoriam Justin Mossay. 252. M.D. ADAMS, B. MIDANT-REYNES, E.M. RYAN, Y. TRISTANT (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 4. 253. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 3. 254. J. HÄMEEN-ANTTILA, P. KOSKIKALLIO, I. LINDSTEDT (eds.), Contacts and Interaction. 255. J. STAUDER-PORCHET, Les autobiographies de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. 256. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS, S. AUFRÈRE (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy. 257. S. BICKEL, L. DÍAZ-IGLESIAS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Literature. 258. L. MUEHLETHALER, G. SCHWARB, S. SCHMIDTKE (eds.), Theological Rationalism in Medieval Islam. 259. M. IMMERZEEL, The Narrow Way to Heaven. Identity and Identities in the Art of Middle Eastern Christianity. 260. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, E.M. RYAN (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 5. 261. D. KNIPP, The Mosaics of the Norman Stanza in Palermo. A Study of Byzantine and Medieval Islamic Palace Decoration. 262. G. MINIACI, M. BETRÒ, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1500 BC). 263. D. BRAKKE, S.J. DAVIS, S. EMMEL (eds.), From Gnostics to Monastics. Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton. 264. R. DEKKER, Episcopal Networks and Authority in Late Antique Egypt. Bishops of the Theban Region at Work. 265. C. JURMAN, B. BADER, D. ASTON (eds.), A True Scribe of Abydos. Essays on First Millennium Egypt in Honour of Anthony Leahy. 266. M. WISSA (ed.), Scribal Practices and the Social Construction of Knowledge in Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Medieval Islam. 267. E. LIPIŃSKI, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire.

268. A. BATMAZ, G. BEDIANASHVILI, A. MICHALEWICZ, A. ROBINSON (eds.), Context and Connection. Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. 269. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean III. 270. K. LEVRIE, Jean Pédiasimos, Essaisurlesdouzetravauxd’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 271. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, ScrittiOmerici. 272. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706